do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Recommendation on the need for an early settlement of the dispute on the future of Kosovo
Date: 1996-02-29
Institutions: Committee on Foreign Affairs, European Parliament
Subjects: settlement of disputes













EUR-Lex - 51996IP0054 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51996IP0054

Recommendation on the need for an early settlement of the dispute on the future of Kosovo  


Official Journal C 078 , 18/03/1996 P. 0015 





A4-0054/96Recommendation on the need for an early settlement of the dispute on the future of KosovoThe European Parliament,- having regard to the second paragraph of Article J.7 of the Treaty on European Union,- having regard to Resolution 777 (1992) adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 19 September 1992,- having regard to its resolution of 14 December 1995 on the former Yugoslavia, especially paragraphs 3 and 8(a) thereof ((Minutes of that Sitting, Part II, Item 1(b).)),- having regard to Rule 92 of its Rules of Procedure,- having regard to the proposal for a recommendation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy (A4-0054/96),A. alarmed that the persecution of the majority ethnic Albanian population of Kosovo by the Government of the new Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) might unfortunately lead to an armed struggle in Kosovo in which people in neighbouring countries could become involved,B. believing that a peaceful settlement of the dispute in Kosovo is still possible if Mr Milosevic is willing to enter into negotiations without preconditions with Mr Rugova and other elected representatives of the people of Kosovo,C. recognizing that Mr Milosevic is at present unwilling to make any concessions to the people of Kosovo or to start negotiations with their elected representatives,D. having regard to the situation in Vojvodina, where recently the minorities have been subjected to increasing pressure under a policy of altering the ethnic structure through Serb settlement,E. aware of the desire of the governments of Serbia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for full diplomatic recognition and for the ending of all sanctions imposed on them by the United Nations,F. having regard to the decision of the Government of the USA to open an office in Kosovo,1. Requests the Council to resolve, as a joint action under Article J.3 of the Treaty on European Union, that full diplomatic recognition of, and the lifting of any remaining sanctions on, the new Federal Republic of Yugoslavia will only be granted if a full and satisfactory settlement is reached between Mr Milosevic and the elected representatives of the people of Kosovo;2. Requests the Council to instruct the Commission to open an office in Kosovo;3. Instructs its President to forward this recommendation to the Council and, for information, to the Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 461/96 by Frode KRISTOFFERSEN to the Commission. Member States' right to restrict reception under Article 2a of the amended proposal for a directive on 'television without frontiers' (COM(95) 86)
Date: 1996-02-29
Institutions: European Parliament, KRISTOFFERSEN
Subjects: advertising, application of EU law, child protection, free movement of programmes, proposal (EU), television, trade restriction













EUR-Lex - 91996E0461 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0461

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 461/96 by Frode KRISTOFFERSEN to the Commission. Member States' right to restrict reception under Article 2a of the amended proposal for a directive on 'television without frontiers' (COM(95) 86)  


Official Journal C 280 , 25/09/1996 P. 0032 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0461/96 by Frode Kristoffersen (PPE) to the Commission (29 February 1996)Subject: Member States' right to restrict reception under Article 2a of the amended proposal for a directive on 'television without frontiers' (COM(95) 86)Under Article 2a of the Commission's proposal amending the directive on 'television without frontiers' (COM(95)0086) ((OJ C 185, 19.7.1995, p. 4. )) the Member States must in principle ensure freedom of reception and may not therefore restrict the reception/transmission of broadcasts from other Member States unless they infringe Article 22 and/or Article 22a of the directive which concern the protection of minors. The public debate has shown however that there is some disagreement as to what protection of minors should consist of. At least one Member State for instance has introduced a general ban on TV commercials for toys while others have found no grounds for doing so.Does the Commission think that the Member State in question should, under its own national rules on the subject, continue to be able to restrict viewers' ability to receive channels from other Member States that allow commercials for toys to be broadcast?Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (2 May 1996)The Commission would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that the rules on advertising and sponsorship are already coordinated by Chapter IV of Directive 89/552/EEC ('television without frontiers'). ((OJ L 298, 17.10.1989. )) Article 16 specifically provides for a series of measures designed to protect children from abuse of any kind. There are no other restrictions on advertising for children.Under Article 3 of the Directive, a Member State is free to adopt stricter measures, but these may apply only to broadcasters under its jurisdiction and must not undermine the principle of the freedom to receive and transmit broadcasts, laid down in Article 2(2) of the Directive.Member States may not therefore rely on the provisions of the Directive to prohibit the reception and retransmission of television programmes from other Member States merely on the grounds that they contain advertising aimed at children.
Resolution on the communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the integrated management of coastal zones (COM(95)0511 -C4-0593/95)
Date: 1996-02-29
Institutions: Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety, European Parliament
Subjects: coastal protection, coastal region, integrated development













EUR-Lex - 51996IP0039 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51996IP0039

Resolution on the communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the integrated management of coastal zones (COM(95)0511 -C4-0593/95)  


Official Journal C 078 , 18/03/1996 P. 0016 





A4-0039/96Resolution on the communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the integrated management of coastal zones (COM(95)0511 - C4-0593/95)The European Parliament,- having regard to the communication of the Commission (COM(95)0511 - C4-0593/95),- having regard to its opinion of 17 November 1992 ((OJ C 337, 21.12.1992, p. 34.)) on the proposal of the Commission to the Council for a resolution on a Community Programme of Policy and Action in the field of the Environment and Sustainable Development,- having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection (A4-0039/96),A. whereas the steady deterioration of European coastal zones means that urgent measures must be taken to save what can still be saved,B. whereas the protection of coastal zones has been declared a priority for Community action, notably in the fifth Community programme of policy and action in relation to the environment and sustainable development ((OJ C 138, 17.5.1993, p. 1.)),C. whereas the Council, in its resolutions of 25 February 1992 ((OJ C 59, 6.3.1992, p. 1.)) and 6 May 1994 ((OJ C 135, 18.5.1994, p. 2.)), called on the Commission to draw up a Community strategy for the integrated management of coastal zones,D. whereas on 18 December 1995 the Council, while approving the communication, called on the Commission to pursue its initiatives and actions to attain the objectives provided for in paragraph 1, i.e. the drawing up of a Community strategy, at the earliest opportunity,E. whereas the fifth Community programme of policy and action in relation to the environment and sustainable development specifically provides, in item 5.6, for the drawing-up of a Community strategy, and even establishes a timetable and the means for attaining this objective,F. whereas the Commission in its communication has itself recognized that, unless appropriate measures are taken, European coastal zones will continue seriously to deteriorate,1. Welcomes the Commission's efforts at coordination aimed at bringing into play existing Community instruments;2. Regrets the Commission's decision to restrict itself to a non-binding demonstration programme;3. Calls on the Commission to draw up at the earliest opportunity a proposal aimed at establishing a Community strategy for the integrated management of coastal zones;4. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the Council and the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 458/96 by Gianni TAMINO to the Council. Excessively long court cases in Italy
Date: 1996-02-29
Institutions: European Parliament, TAMINO
Subjects: Italy, civil law, civil procedure, competence of the Member States, court of civil jurisdiction, higher court, inheritance, legal hearing, transfer of property













EUR-Lex - 91996E0458 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0458

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 458/96 by Gianni TAMINO to the Council. Excessively long court cases in Italy  


Official Journal C 185 , 25/06/1996 P. 0063 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0458/96 by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Council (29 February 1996)Subject: Excessively long court cases in ItalyMr Guerrino Friso, who was born in Padua on 14 April 1913, has been waiting for more than 15 years to be granted his lawful share of the estate of his brother who died in Trento on 6 September 1980. An initial dispute with his brother's wife, Mrs Iris Friso-Sandroni, over the possessions which constituted the estate prompted Mr Friso to ask for a ruling from the Trento Court, which handed down two judgments in his favour on 18 November 1982 and 22 November 1988.Mrs Friso-Sandroni appealed against them on 28 November 1989, and on 29 December 1993 the Trento Court of Appeal handed down a judgment more favourable to her with a separate order governing the subsequent course of the case, which is still pending (the last hearing was on 29 September 1995).The European Court of Justice has repeatedly rebuked Italy for its excessively long court cases.Does the Council think that there are proper grounds for it to intervene vis-à-vis the Italian legal authorities to bring this case to a rapid conclusion? Two people have been waiting for a decision for more than 15 years, and Mr Friso is now 83 years old.Does the Council consider that in general it should intervene when cases drag on indefinitely in the Member States?Reply (20 May 1996)The Council has no powers in this area.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 418/96 by Yannos KRANIDIOTIS to the Council. Seizure of Greek Cypriot property in the occupied sector of Cyprus
Date: 1996-02-29
Institutions: European Parliament, KRANIDIOTIS
Subjects: Cyprus, Greece, Türkiye, crime against property, democracy, human rights, real property













EUR-Lex - 91996E0418 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0418

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 418/96 by Yannos KRANIDIOTIS to the Council. Seizure of Greek Cypriot property in the occupied sector of Cyprus  


Official Journal C 305 , 15/10/1996 P. 0007 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0418/96 by Yannos Kranidiotis (PSE) to the Council (29 February 1996)Subject: Seizure of Greek Cypriot property in the occupied sector of CyprusDuring the 1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus, the occupying troops forced out the Greek Cypriots living in the occupied territories and seized their homes and property. Many of those homes were subsequently illegally occupied by foreigners invited in by the occupying forces. An example of this is the case of Dudley Smith, British MP and member of the British delegation to the Council of Europe. This British MP is in unlawful possession of a house belonging to the Greek Cypriot, Evangelos Hatziyorgios, who was driven out by force and now lives in a refugee camp in the free sector of Cyprus.Dudley Smith is trying to sell this house, mindless of the fact that he is in breach of property rights and is colluding in the continued violation of human rights by the Turkish occupying forces.What representations has the Council made to the Turkish authorities to protect the human rights of the population of Cyprus and what measures has it taken to persuade the British MP to act within the law?Reply (18 July 1996)The particular situation described by the Honourable Member has never been brought to the Council's attention.As regards his question concerning the protection of human rights in Cyprus, the Council would point out that it attaches the greatest importance to respect for human rights and democratic principles in all third countries with which it maintains cooperation or association links.
Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 7/96 of 29 February 1996 amending Annex XI (Telecommunication services) to the EEA Agreement
Date: 1996-02-29
Institutions: EEA Joint Committee
Subjects: European Economic Area, agreement (EU), data protection, information technology, telecommunications








L_1996102EN.01005001.xml










25.4.1996   


EN


Official Journal of the European Communities


L 102/50





DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE
No 7/96
of 29 February 1996
amending Annex XI (Telecommunication services) to the EEA Agreement
THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,
Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as adjusted by the Protocol Adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,
Whereas Annex XI to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 26/95 (1);
Whereas Council recommendation 95/144/EC of 7 April 1995 on common information technology security evaluation criteria (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The following point shall be inserted after point 28 (Council resolution 94/C 181/01) of Annex XI to the Agreement:







‘29.



395 X 0144: Council recommendation 95/144/EC of 7 April 1995 on common information technology security evaluation criteria (OJ No L 93, 26. 4. 1995, p. 27).’





Article 2
The texts of recommendation 95/144/EC in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, annexed to the respective language versions of this Decision, are authentic.
Article 3
This Decision shall enter into force on 1 March 1996, provided that all the notifications pursuant to Article 103 (1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee.
Article 4
This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Done at Brussels, 29 February 1996.


For the EEA Joint Committee


The President

P. BENAVIDES




(1)  OJ No L 273, 16. 11. 1995, p. 47.

(2)  OJ No L 93, 26. 4. 1995, p. 27.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 438/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. SMU
Date: 1996-02-29
Institutions: AMADEO, European Parliament
Subjects: EU aid, aid to undertakings, competitiveness, economic growth, economic recession, employment policy, fight against unemployment, handicrafts, unemployment













EUR-Lex - 91996E0438 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0438

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 438/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. SMU  


Official Journal C 185 , 25/06/1996 P. 0058 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0438/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (29 February 1996)Subject: SMUIn the light of the grave economic and employment problems affecting all Member States of the European Community without exception, the only feasible way of achieving an upturn in the economic and social situation is to give special emphasis to the needs of small and medium-sized undertakings. With this in view, will the Commission say whether it intends to take the following measures in the context of the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference:1. Including policy on SMU and craft industries in Article B of the Treaty (objectives of the EU);2. Extending Article 130 of the Treaty in order to bring together all references to SMU;3. Strengthening the right of SMU and craft industries to express their views and take part in the EU's decision-making process?Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (15 March 1996)The Commission has noted with great interest the suggestions made by the Honourable Member regarding amendments to the Treaty with regard to small and medium-sized enterprises.Some of the suggestions set out by the Commission in its notice on the organisation of the Intergovernmental Conference, particularly those regarding simplification of the decision-making system, will certainly have a beneficial effect on small and medium-sized enterprises.In addition, the Commission has also come out in favour of interested parties being more involved in the activities of the Commission and has stressed the important role to be played by enterprises in combatting unemployment. It has, moreover, confirmed its continued commitment to the strategy proposed in its White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment ((COM(93)700. )), the success of which depends very much upon the contribution made by small and medium-sized enterprises.
Legislative resolution embodying Parliament' s opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision approving amendments to the Statutes of the Joint European Torus (JET), Joint Undertaking (COM(95)0234 - C4-0266/95 - 95/0136(CNS)) (Consultation procedure)
Date: 1996-02-29
Institutions: Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, European Parliament
Subjects: Joint European Torus, joint venture, legal status













EUR-Lex - 51995AP0330 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51995AP0330

Legislative resolution embodying Parliament' s opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision approving amendments to the Statutes of the Joint European Torus (JET), Joint Undertaking (COM(95)0234 - C4-0266/95 - 95/0136(CNS)) (Consultation procedure)  


Official Journal C 078 , 18/03/1996 P. 0033 





A4-0330/95Proposal for a Council Decision approving amendments to the Statutes of the Joint European Torus (JET), Joint Undertaking (COM(95)0234 - C4-0266/95 - 95/0136(CNS))The proposal was approved.Legislative resolution embodying Parliament's opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision approving amendments to the Statutes of the Joint European Torus (JET), Joint Undertaking (COM(95)0234 - C4-0266/95 - 95/0136(CNS))(Consultation procedure)The European Parliament,- having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council, COM(95)0234 - 95/0136(CNS),- having been consulted by the Council pursuant to Article 50 of the Euratom Treaty (C4-0266/95),- having regard to the statement made by the Commission on 29 February 1996 ((Part I, Item 4 of these Minutes.)),- having regard to Rule 58 of its Rules of Procedure,- having regard to the report of the Committee on Research, Technological Development and Energy and the opinion of the Committee on Budgets (A4- 0330/95),1. Approves the Commission proposal;2. Calls on the Council to notify Parliament should it intend to depart from the text approved by Parliament;3. Asks to be consulted again should the Council intend to make substantial modifications to the Commission proposal;4. Instructs its President to forward this opinion to the Council and Commission.
Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 6/96 of 29 February 1996 amending Annex XI (Telecommunication services) to the EEA Agreement
Date: 1996-02-29
Institutions: EEA Joint Committee
Subjects: European Economic Area, agreement (EU), telecommunications








L_1996102EN.01004901.xml










25.4.1996   


EN


Official Journal of the European Communities


L 102/49





DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE
No 6/96
of 29 February 1996
amending Annex XI (Telecommunication services) to the EEA Agreement
THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,
Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as adjusted by the Protocol Adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,
Whereas Annex XI to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 26/95 (1);
Whereas Council resolution 95/C 258/01 of 18 September 1995 on the implementation of the future regulatory framework for telecommunications (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The following point shall be inserted after point 26c (Council resolution 95/C 188/02) in Annex XI to the Agreement:







‘26d.



395 Y 1003(01): Council resolution 95/C 258/01 of 18 September 1995 on the implementation of the future regulatory framework for telecommunications (OJ No C 258, 3. 10. 1995, p. 1).’





Article 2
The texts of resolution 95/C 258/01 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, annexed to the respective language versions of this Decision, are authentic.
Article 3
This Decision shall enter into force on 1 March 1996, provided that all the notifications pursuant to Article 103 (1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee.
Article 4
This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Done at Brussels, 29 February 1996.


For the EEA Joint Committee


The President

P. BENAVIDES




(1)  OJ No L 273, 16. 11. 1995, p. 47.

(2)  OJ No C 258, 3. 10. 1995, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 414/96 by Anita POLLACK to the Commission. Eye tests for driving licences
Date: 1996-02-29
Institutions: European Parliament, POLLACK
Subjects: Council of the European Union, EC Directive, EU Member State, United Kingdom, driving licence













EUR-Lex - 91996E0414 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0414

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 414/96 by Anita POLLACK to the Commission. Eye tests for driving licences  


Official Journal C 217 , 26/07/1996 P. 0036 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0414/96 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (29 February 1996)Subject: Eye tests for driving licencesIs the Commission aware that in the UK it is only necessary to have an eye test when taking a driving test and not on a regular basis, and that many people are likely to be driving cars without sufficient vision? What is the requirement for eye tests for driving in each of the Member States, and does the Commission have any plans to improve the present situation?Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (12 April 1996)Council Directive 91/439/EEC ((OJ L 237, 24.8.1991. )), which has to be implemented at the latest by 1 July 1996, lays down minimum standards for sight for both drivers of group 1 (drivers of vehicles of categories A, B and B + E) and group 2 (drivers of vehicles of categories C, C + E, D, D + E and of subcategories C1, C1 + E, D1 and D1 + E).These standards are contained in Annex III of the Directive, in particular at points 6.1. and 6.2. for group 1, and at point 6.3. for group 2. Thus applicants for a driving licence or for the renewal of a licence must have visual acuity as defined by the annex (the examination takes place before the issue or renewal of the licence). In addition, where there is reason to doubt that an applicant's vision is adequate, he must be examined by a competent medical authority.More generally, the directive requires group 2 applicants to undergo a medical examination (during which the visual acuity may be checked) before a licence is first issued to them, and thereafter periodic examinations as may be prescribed by national legislation. Group 1 applicants on the other hand are required to undergo a medical examination prior to obtaining a licence, if it becomes apparent that they have one or more of the medical disabilities mentioned in the annex, and they are not obliged to undergo periodic examinations. However some Member States impose periodic examinations for group 1 drivers, but the directive lays down only minimum rules.