do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 13/96 of 1 March 1996 amending Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement
Date: 1996-03-01
Institutions: EEA Joint Committee
Subjects: European Economic Area, agreement (EU), air quality, industrial pollution, pollution control, pollution control measures








L_1996124EN.01001501.xml










23.5.1996   


EN


Official Journal of the European Communities


L 124/15





DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE
No 13/96
of 1 March 1996
amending Annex XX (Environment) 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 XX to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 75/95 (1);
Whereas Council Directive 94/66/EC of 15 December 1994 amending Directive 88/609/EEC on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The following indent shall be added in point 19 (Council Directive 88/609/EEC) in Annex XX to the Agreement:
‘as amended by






—



394 L 0066: Council Directive 94/66/EC of 15 December 1994 (OJ No L 337, 24. 12. 1994, p. 83).’




Article 2
The texts of Council Directive 94/66/EC in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, which are annexed to the respective language versions of this Decision, are authentic.
Article 3
This Decision shall enter into force on 1 April 1996, provided that all the notifications under 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 in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Done at Brussels, 1 March 1996.


For the EEA Joint Committee


The President

P. BENAVIDES




(1)  OJ No L 57, 7. 3. 1996, p. 41.

(2)  OJ No L 337, 24. 12. 1994, p. 83.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 480/96 by Per GAHRTON to the Commission. Implications of the Bosman case for international football
Date: 1996-03-01
Institutions: European Parliament, GAHRTON
Subjects: Sweden, free movement of workers, judgment of the Court (EU), professional sport













EUR-Lex - 91996E0480 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0480

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 480/96 by Per GAHRTON to the Commission. Implications of the Bosman case for international football  


Official Journal C 297 , 08/10/1996 P. 0006 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0480/96 by Per Gahrton (V) to the Commission (1 March 1996)Subject: Implications of the Bosman case for international footballAccording to a newspaper article written by the chairman of the Swedish Football Association, Lars Åke Lagrell (Dagens Nyheter, 11 February 1996), while the Court of Justice's ruling in the Bosman case will benefit only commercial interests and a small number of superstars among the players, it represents a serious threat to football as a whole as a popular phenomenon, both to the finances of smaller clubs and to what many regard as the peak of footballing entertainment and tension, international matches. Lagrell maintains that the Bosman judgment is only part of a general campaign by the Commission to play down national identities and in consequence to replace international matches with club matches, the European and World Cup Championship competitions between national teams by the European Champions' League and other international club championships.What steps does the Commission intend to take to remedy the negative impact of the Bosman judgment on both football as a popular phenomenon and on international matches?Can the Commission give assurances that it is not seeking and will not seek to replace Member States' national identities in sport with some kind of European Union identity using the EU symbols etc.?Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (10 April 1996)The Commission does not share the opinions expressed by the Honourable Member in his question.Firstly, the Court of Justice's ruling in the Bosman case does not pose a threat to the popularity of football. Secondly, the Commission is not conducting a general campaign in connection with that ruling aimed at playing down national identities and interfering in the organization of national or international football competitions.The free movement of workers is one of the fundamental principles of the Community. The Bosman ruling is the logical consequence of applying that principle to footballers, who are workers within the meaning of Article 48 of the EC Treaty.The Commission can reassure the Honourable Member that it does not intend to replace national identities in sport with some kind of European Union identity. The Bosman ruling does not pursue such an objective either. Each club remains free to sign as many national or non-national players as it wishes. Accordingly, it is for each club individually to pursue the best player-recruitment policy for maintaining the popularity of its team within the national context.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 482/96 by Peter CRAMPTON to the Commission. Cosmetic testing
Date: 1996-03-01
Institutions: CRAMPTON, European Parliament
Subjects: animal experimentation, biotechnology, consumer protection, cosmetic product, product safety, report, research method, research programme, scientific research













EUR-Lex - 91996E0482 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0482

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 482/96 by Peter CRAMPTON to the Commission. Cosmetic testing  


Official Journal C 185 , 25/06/1996 P. 0065 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0482/96 by Peter Crampton (PSE) to the Commission (1 March 1996)Subject: Cosmetic testingIn accordance with the Commission's obligations in Directives 93/35/EEC ((OJ L 151, 23.6.1993, p. 32. )) and 86/609/EEC ((OJ L 358, 18.12.1986, p. 1. )), and in view of its inability to provide a detailed analysis of the tests currently used in the EU, exactly what action, if any, does the Commission intend to take, and precisely when, to ensure that experimental methods which do not use live animals are developed and legally validated as satisfactory alternatives prior to 1998?Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (25 April 1996)Council Directive 93/35/EEC, amending for the sixth time the cosmetics Directive, provides that Member States shall prohibit the marketing of cosmetic products containing 'ingredients or combinations of ingredients tested on animals after 1 January 1998 in order to meet the requirements of the directive'. The directive also prescribes that 'the Commission shall present an annual report to the Parliament and the Council on progress in the development, validation and legal acceptance of alternative methods to those involving experiments on animals'.On 16 December 1994, the Commission transmitted to the Parliament and to the Council its annual report for 1994. One of the conclusions is that one can reasonably hope that in vitro alternative methods providing a level of consumer protection equivalent to animal tests will be available in the near future in a number of specific fields. Moreover, the report shows that it will shortly be possible to have finished products tested exclusively in vitro thanks to the existing knowledge on the toxicity of ingredients.The Commission is now preparing its 1995 report, which should shortly be adopted and transmitted to the Parliament and to the Council. This report will supply the details which the Commission has been able to collect from the Member States as well as information on the progress achieved until now and the future prospects.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 481/96 by Nikitas KAKLAMANIS to the Commission. Commission statement on the Greek-Turkish crisis
Date: 1996-03-01
Institutions: European Parliament, KAKLAMANIS
Subjects: EU relations, European Commission, European political cooperation, Greece, Türkiye, international conflict, linguistic discrimination, press agency, press release













EUR-Lex - 91996E0481 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0481

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 481/96 by Nikitas KAKLAMANIS to the Commission. Commission statement on the Greek-Turkish crisis  


Official Journal C 185 , 25/06/1996 P. 0064 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0481/96 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (1 March 1996)Subject: Commission statement on the Greek-Turkish crisisThe distinguished Brussels correspondent of a major Athens daily newspaper, Mr Daratos, reports that:The statement issued by the Commission last Wednesday (7 February 1996) expressing its 'total solidarity with Greece' was distributed in French only.The manner in which the Commission's press service dealt with the same matter is also of interest in that it published the Spanish agency EFE's comments on the Commission's statement in its internal bulletin of European news agency reports but not those made by the Athens News Agency (APE).1. Why was the statement not distributed the same day in English and German as normal?2. Why was the APE's report, which was published in English and French, not included in one of the three or four summaries of Community news bulletins that the Commission issues every day?3. What does this strange omission signify in political terms?Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (3 April 1996)1. The statement to which the Honourable Member refers was sent in French to the press agencies as soon as it was adopted on the evening of 7 February 1996. It was forwarded the same day in Greek to correspondents of the Greek press in Brussels. The other language versions were available the following day from the Spokesman's Service of the Commission.2. The Telexpress collection of dispatches is distributed four times a day exclusively for internal Commission information. The dispatches included are selected from the press agencies directly linked to the Spokesman's Service and available on line. The Commission's subscription to the APA does not include on line service.3. From the above it is clear that there was no omission on the part of the Commission regarding the distribution of the statement in question.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 479/96 by Per GAHRTON to the Commission. Rules on importing alcoholic beverages into Sweden
Date: 1996-03-01
Institutions: European Parliament, GAHRTON
Subjects: Sweden, alcoholic beverage, import, import tax, quantitative restriction, transitional period (EU)













EUR-Lex - 91996E0479 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0479

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 479/96 by Per GAHRTON to the Commission. Rules on importing alcoholic beverages into Sweden  


Official Journal C 217 , 26/07/1996 P. 0053 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0479/96 by Per Gahrton (V) to the Commission (1 March 1996)Subject: Rules on importing alcoholic beverages into SwedenAccording to newspaper reports (Sydsvenska Dagbladet of 3 February 1996) the Commission considers that Sweden's derogation regarding the quantities of alcohol which may be imported from other EU Member States should cease as early as 31 December 1996. This would mean that 10 litres of spirits, 90 litres of wine and 119 litres of beer could be freely imported, as against the present limits of 1 litre of spirits, 5 litres of wine and 15 litres of beer. According to the Swedish authorities there was no time-limit to the Swedish derogation, which was on the grounds of public health.Is it true that the Commission intends to require Sweden to remove its restrictions on alcohol imports with effect from 31 December 1996? If so, on what provision of Community law is this decision based, and how is it possible thus to set aside the derogation referred to by the Swedish authorities? Is there or is there not a legally valid derogation granted to Sweden in this respect?Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (3 May 1996)A temporary derogation in the Treaty of Accession permits Sweden to tax alcoholic drinks (exceeding the 1 litre, 5 litre and 15 litre limits cited by the Honourable Member) and tobacco products ((OJ C 241, 29.8.1994. )) although they are imported by private citizens for their own purposes.The derogation was granted 'on the conditions stipulated in Article 26 of Council Directive 92/12/EEC' (which granted a similar derogation to Denmark) ((OJ L 76, 23.3.1992. )). That Article permits Denmark to tax private imports by travellers 'until 31 December 1996 and subject to a review mechanism similar to that laid down in Article 28(1) of Directive 77/388/EEC ((OJ L 145, 13.6.1977. )).'The Commission is, however, aware that the Swedish government is concerned that difficulties would be caused by the abrupt ending of the derogation while rates of excise duty on these products continue to vary widely from Member State to Member State. It is therefore currently examining the situation.
Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 10/96 of 1 March 1996 amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement
Date: 1996-03-01
Institutions: EEA Joint Committee
Subjects: European Economic Area, agreement (EU), analytical chemistry, approximation of laws, fertiliser, trace element








L_1996124EN.01001101.xml










23.5.1996   


EN


Official Journal of the European Communities


L 124/11





DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE
No 10/96
of 1 March 1996
amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement
THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,
Having regard to the Agreement on the European Aconomic 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 II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 7/94 of 21 March 1994 amending Protocol 47 and certain Annexes to the EEA Agreement (1);
Whereas Commission Directive 95/8/EC of 10 April 1995 amending Directive 77/535/EEC on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to methods of sampling and analysis for fertilizers (Methods of analysis for trace elements at a concentration greater than 10 %) (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The following indent shall be added in point 2 (Commission Directive 77/535/EEC) in Chapter XIV of Annex II to the Agreement:






‘—



395 L 0008: Commission Directive 95/8/EC of 10 April 1995 (OJ No L 86, 20. 4. 1995, p. 41).’




Article 2
The texts of Directive 95/8/EC in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, which are annexed to the respective language versions of this Decision, are authentic.
Article 3
This Decision shall enter into force on 1 April 1996, provided that all the notifications under Article 103 (1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee.
Article 4
This Decision shall be bublished in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Done at Brussels, 1 March 1996.


For the EEA Joint Committee


The President

P. BENAVIDES




(1)  OJ No L 160, 28. 6. 1994, p. 1.

(2)  OJ No L 86, 20. 4. 1995, p. 41.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 492/96 by Undine-Uta BLOCH von BLOTTNITZ to the Commission. Highly enriched uranium from Russia for German research reactor
Date: 1996-03-01
Institutions: BLOCH VON BLOTTNITZ, European Parliament
Subjects: EAEC Treaty, Euratom Supply Agency, Germany, nuclear fuel, nuclear reactor, uranium













EUR-Lex - 91996E0492 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0492

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 492/96 by Undine-Uta BLOCH von BLOTTNITZ to the Commission. Highly enriched uranium from Russia for German research reactor  


Official Journal C 217 , 26/07/1996 P. 0055 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0492/96 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission (1 March 1996)Subject: Highly enriched uranium from Russia for German research reactorIn its answer to my Question 2919/95 ((OJ C 51, 21.2.1996, p. 58. )) on possible uranium supplies from the former Soviet Union to the Community (in particular to Germany for the Garching research reactor) the Commission said literally: 'The operators negotiate their own supply contracts and submit them before conclusion to the Agency.' Under Article 52 of the Euratom Treaty the Supply Agency has the exclusive right to conclude contracts relating to the supply of fissile materials. The Commission went on to state: 'The Agency has not made an offer of supplies to the Garching reactor.'Inquiries by the 'New Scientist' magazine have now revealed, however, that uranium from scrapped Russian rockets is to be processed into fuel rods in British and French installations and then used in the Garching research reactor. The negotiations for this deal were conducted by the Euratom agency.1. Has the Euratom agency - contrary to the answer to my question - in fact negotiated with the Russian authorities over the supply of nuclear material?2. Precisely what materials are involved in this deal and by whom are they to be supplied, when and to whom?3. Is the Commission aware that the Garching reactor could simply be operated with low-enriched uranium? If so, why is it still pushing the purchase of bomb material and what arrangements has it made in this connection with the American authorities?Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (15 April 1996)1-2. The Commission is in the process of preparing contacts with the Russian authorities with a view to establishing a framework for the supply of highly enriched uranium to research reactors in the Community in compliance with the Euratom Treaty. The Commission will keep the Honourable Member informed of any further developments. Any supply contracts will, as usual, be negotiated directly by the owners of the reactors and the relevant Russian authorities. They will then be submitted to the Commission, which will check for compliance with the Euratom Treaty, secondary legislation and any other regulations which may apply.3. The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that the Commission has no power to stipulate how a reactor should be run or to force it to use, or not to use, a particular type of fuel.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 475/96 by Magda AELVOET , Nel van DIJK to the Commission. Impact on health of kerosene emissions around airports
Date: 1996-03-01
Institutions: AELVOET, European Parliament, VAN DIJK
Subjects: airport, aviation fuel, combustion gases, epidemiology, public health, quality of the environment













EUR-Lex - 91996E0475 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0475

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 475/96 by Magda AELVOET , Nel van DIJK to the Commission. Impact on health of kerosene emissions around airports  


Official Journal C 217 , 26/07/1996 P. 0052 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0475/96 by Magda Aelvoet (V) and Nel van Dijk (V) to the Commission (1 March 1996)Subject: Impact on health of kerosene emissions around airportsDid a team of scientists at the University of Ghent headed by Professor Vuylsteke, on behalf of the Commission, study the impact on public health of kerosene emissions around Ostend airport between 1985 and 1990? ((De Volkskrant, 10 February 1996; De Morgen, 12 February 1996 ))Have the results of this study been kept secret for the past five years? If so, why?Do the study's findings indicate that people living near airports face an increased risk of contracting leukaemia?Will the Commission publish the results of Professor Vuylsteke's study?Is the Commission funding similar studies in the vicinity of other airports?Have these studies already yielded at least provisional conclusions? If so, what?Will the framework directive on ambient air quality assessment and management, which is shortly to be put before the European Parliament at second reading, take adequate account of these conclusions and of the precautionary principle, or does the Commission consider it necessary to adopt separate legislation on kerosene emissions and the siting of airports?Does the Commission agree with Professor Allaert of the University of Ghent that it is irresponsible to continue to build airports near residential areas?If so, ought this not to mean that appropriations should no longer be provided from the ERDF, the Cohesion Fund and other European funds for the construction or expansion of airports near residential areas?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (22 May 1996)The Commission did not support an epidemiogical study with the references described in the question. Professor Vuylsteke has on several occasions confirmed that he has not conducted a study of this type.As to the framework directive on ambient air quality assessment and management ((OJ No C 216, 6.8.1994; amended proposal OJ C 238, 13.9.1995. )) which is shortly to be presented to Parliament for a second reading, this instrument will lay down standards to regulate the concentration of pollutants in the air, but contains no rules governing emissions.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 497/96 by Gianni TAMINO to the Commission. Safety on Italian motorways
Date: 1996-03-01
Institutions: European Parliament, TAMINO
Subjects: European standard, Italy, approximation of laws, motorway, road network, road safety, technical specification













EUR-Lex - 91996E0497 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0497

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 497/96 by Gianni TAMINO to the Commission. Safety on Italian motorways  


Official Journal C 217 , 26/07/1996 P. 0057 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0497/96 by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission (1 March 1996)Subject: Safety on Italian motorwaysOn the morning of 12 February 1996, a series of serious accidents involving hundreds of vehicles on the Milan-Venice A4 motorway (the 'Serenissima') resulted in eleven deaths and dozens of casualties. As I was travelling on the motorway myself at the time I can testify that vehicles not involved in the pile-up had to pay the toll in the normal way on exiting, thus making it impossible to clear the road quickly to allow emergency vehicles through. An experimental fog warning system funded by the EC was in operation on the stretch in question (Brescia -Padua), and Adriano Franchini, an executive of the company operating the motorway with responsibility for traffic control, was quoted in the 'Il Giorno' newspaper of 14 February 1996 (page 11) as saying:'As the nephelometers contained very expensive chemicals, they were all stolen. We replaced them but they were stolen again, so we gave up.'1. Do Italian motorways comply with European road safety standards in the event of fog?2. Have any steps been taken to check that European Community funds for experimental fog warning systems in Italy are used properly and ascertain the effectiveness of such experiments?Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (18 April 1996)1. There is currently no Community legislation concerning the technical specifications for motorways nor, consequently, their minimum safety standards.However, in its report entitled 'Standardisation of road typology', the Start Group, which is part of the Motorway Working Group, looked at common specifications for the trans-European road network. Given the wide variety of climates in the Community, these common specifications, which are aimed at improving road safety and interoperability, do not examine safety risks in the event of fog.2. The information supplied by the Honourable Member does not question the effectiveness of technologies for improving safety in the event of fog as such, although for some road equipment, prevention against theft and acts of vandalism is emphasized.