do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 603/96 by Carole TONGUE to the Commission. Subsidies for performing arts
Date: 1996-03-13
Institutions: European Parliament, TONGUE
Subjects: EU aid, cultural cooperation, cultural event, music, performing arts, project evaluation













EUR-Lex - 91996E0603 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0603

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 603/96 by Carole TONGUE to the Commission. Subsidies for performing arts  


Official Journal C 217 , 26/07/1996 P. 0078 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0603/96 by Carole Tongue (PSE) to the Commission (13 March 1996)Subject: Subsidies for performing artsIs the Commission aware of the problems brought to light by the Musicians Union that European financial subsidies may be being used to prevent British ballet companies from taking their own orchestras with them whilst travelling abroad? Birmingham Royal Ballet have encountered such difficulties. Are subsidies being used in such a way?Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (23 April 1996)Community support for cultural events in the field of music and dance is given under the Kaleidoscope programme and, previously, under the Kaleidoscope pilot project.For a Community grant to be awarded, certain conditions, which are specified in the calls for proposals published in the Official Journal, must be met. In particular, the event must have a European dimension (those co-organizing and participating in the event must come from at least three Member States), be of high quality, innovative and exemplary.In this context, the Commission, which, incidentally, was not aware of this particular problem encountered by the Birmingham Royal Ballet, would point out that the aim of its support is to encourage cooperation between Member States, and that it is not involved in the preparation and realization of the projects it supports; this is entirely a matter for the organizers.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 617/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Internal waterway transport
Date: 1996-03-13
Institutions: AMADEO, European Parliament
Subjects: EU aid, development plan, industrial restructuring, inland waterway fleet, inland waterway shipping, transport policy













EUR-Lex - 91996E0617 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0617

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 617/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Internal waterway transport  


Official Journal C 280 , 25/09/1996 P. 0049 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0617/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (13 March 1996)Subject: Internal waterway transportIn adopting Regulation (EEC) No. 1101/89 ((OJ L 116, 28.4.1989, p. 25. )), the Council introduced measures for structural improvements in inland waterway transport, aimed primarily at reducing the overcapacity of fleets through scrapping schemes coordinated at Community level. For this purpose, the Member States concerned provided their scrapping funds, by drawing on their national budgets, with the financial resources needed to offer a scrapping premium to shipowners who submitted their applications by 30 June 1994, in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No. 3039/94 ((OJ L 322, 15.12.1994, p. 11. )).However, as a result of the sector's economic difficulties, further applications for scrapping premiums were submitted to the national scrapping funds after the deadline. The budgetary authority therefore decided to enter ECU 5 million (LIT 10 bn) in the 1995 Community budget.While approving the measures adopted, I would ask the Commission whether it agrees that alterations should be made to the nature and scope of the restructuring measures, which have hitherto been financed primarily by the internal waterway transport sector itself?Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (6 May 1996)The Council has endorsed the main elements of the proposal to intensify the existing scrapping programme, in order to reduce capacity by 15% of the total tonnage through a common scrapping action over a three-year period, from 1996 to 1998. The programme will be jointly financed by the Member States concerned, by the industry and by a contribution from the Community budget.However, the Council decided that Community co-funding for the scrapping action whould be restricted to 1996 alone, so that for 1997 and 1998 the Member States directly concerned will have to make available additional means in proportion to the size of their respective fleets.On 11 March 1996, the Council reached a political agreement on a package to liberalise the inland waterway market along with accompanying measures.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 628/96 by Nikitas KAKLAMANIS to the Commission. Nuclear power plant in Turkey
Date: 1996-03-13
Institutions: European Parliament, KAKLAMANIS
Subjects: Türkiye, ecology movement, electrical energy, energy production, environmental protection, feasibility study, industrial project, nuclear power station, nuclear safety













EUR-Lex - 91996E0628 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0628

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 628/96 by Nikitas KAKLAMANIS to the Commission. Nuclear power plant in Turkey  


Official Journal C 280 , 25/09/1996 P. 0052 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0628/96 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (13 March 1996)Subject: Nuclear power plant in TurkeyFresh information that has come to my notice compels me to return to the question of the nuclear power plant in Turkey.A Japanese firm has carried out a feasibility study for the nuclear plant at Akkuyu, while a Korean company, Kaeri-Gamb, took charge of the technical part of an international competition to find the lowest bidder to construct it.Turkish environmentalists plan to form an 80 km long human chain on 25 May in protest at the proposed plant.The Turkish Energy Ministry plans to build two nuclear plants for generating electricity by the year 2010.Bearing in mind the customs union between the EU and Turkey, will the Commission say:1. whether it is aware of Turkey's plans described above;2. whether those plans are consistent with European policy on the use of nuclear power;3. whether a study of the human and environmental safety aspects exists; and4. how it intends to react?Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (22 April 1996)According to current administrative procedures in Turkey, the Turkish Ministry of Energy's decision to build a nuclear power station at Akkayu cannot be implemented without the approval of the Ministry of the Environment. Such approval should be given only after a detailed study of the effects upon the environment and the safety of the population. This study has not yet started.Furthermore, the Ministry of Energy's decision has been the subject of legal proceedings instituted by a Turkish environmental NGO. The court has not yet given its judgment.At this stage the Commission is watching developments closely.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 594/96 by Anita POLLACK to the Council. Mordecai Vanunu
Date: 1996-03-13
Institutions: European Parliament, POLLACK
Subjects: EP resolution, Israel, human rights, imprisonment, nuclear weapon, prison system, settlement of disputes













EUR-Lex - 91996E0594 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0594

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 594/96 by Anita POLLACK to the Council. Mordecai Vanunu  


Official Journal C 305 , 15/10/1996 P. 0006 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0594/96 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Council (13 March 1996)Subject: Mordecai VanunuIs the Council aware that Parliament has adopted several resolutions in the past on the continuing imprisonment of Mordecai Vanunu in Israel?Has the Council made any attempt to persuade the Israeli Government to end its long vendetta against this man?Joint reply to Written Questions E-0274/96 and E-0594/96 (2 August 1996)Mr Vanunu's case has not been raised in the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 621/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Safety at the workplace
Date: 1996-03-13
Institutions: AMADEO, European Parliament
Subjects: Italy, cessation of trading, economic consequence, occupational health, occupational safety, project evaluation













EUR-Lex - 91996E0621 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0621

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 621/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Safety at the workplace  


Official Journal C 217 , 26/07/1996 P. 0080 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0621/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (13 March 1996)Subject: Safety at the workplaceThere is currently a heated debate in Italy about the application of Directive 89/655/EEC ((OJ L 393, 30.12.1989, p. 13. )) of 30 November 1989, which was converted into national law by Law 626 and whose implementation was delayed until 20 January 1996.Many companies, especially craftsmen with a small staff, maintain that the financial burden which this law will create could place small companies in a crisis situation. Some are even raising the prospect of closure.According to the information we have and the statements made by the responsible Member of the European Commission, there are no reliable forecasts as regards the expected cost of implementing this Directive.Will the Commission consider the need to reply to such questions as soon as possible by outlining the prospects or, at least, draw up a forecast with the Member States?We consider it alarming that it was possible for a Directive to be applied without any estimate of the extra costs this would entail for all European businesses and without any assessment of the measure's impact on Europe's competitiveness in relation to non-Community countries.Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (7 May 1996)As in the case of the other draft directives on the protection of the safety and health of workers, the Commission first prepared an impact assessment form on the proposal for a Directive concerning work equipment (89/655/EEC).On the other hand the Member States had themselves already assessed the Directive's implications on their territory before its unanimous adoption by the Council on 30 December 1989.Furthermore, as the Commission already stated in its Communication on a Community programme concerning safety, hygiene and health at work (1996-2000) ((COM(95) 282 final. )), it intends to evaluate, in cooperation with the Member States and the social partners, the socio-economic impact of health and safety legislation in the different Member States as well as the effectiveness of Community health and safety policy. Following this evaluation the Commission will propose any amendments to existing legislation which it considers appropriate.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 619/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Teleshopping
Date: 1996-03-13
Institutions: AMADEO, European Parliament
Subjects: quantitative restriction, television, trade regulations













EUR-Lex - 91996E0619 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0619

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 619/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Teleshopping  


Official Journal C 217 , 26/07/1996 P. 0080 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0619/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (13 March 1996)Subject: TeleshoppingTeleshopping services are currently being liberalized in two different ways. On the one hand, there are no more time limits on channels which deal exclusively with such services; on the other, the maximum length of teleshopping broadcasting slots on other services is being increased from one hour to three hours a day.While the Commission is to be commended for tackling the specific subject of teleshopping and the problem must be seen primarily in connection with distance contracts, does it not consider that this marketing technique must, by its very nature, be subject to a set of strict rules in the broadcasting sector, which the Commission should lay down as from now?Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (6 May 1995)In its proposal ((OJ C 185, 19.7.1995. )) for the revision of Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, ((OJ L 298, 17.10.1989. )) the Commission proposed a change in the rules applicable to teleshopping to take account of developments in television broadcasting.The Commission proposed that services not exclusively devoted to teleshopping be allowed to broadcast up to three hours of teleshopping programmes per day, compared with the one-hour limit laid down by the existing Directive. Services devoted exclusively to teleshopping would be subject to no quantitative restrictions.The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern that the general interest be given due consideration in teleshopping programmes. It has therefore proposed that the consumer protection rules laid down in Articles 12 to 16 of Directive 89/552/EEC be extended to teleshopping, without prejudice to the application of other Community instruments.In its legislative resolution adopted at first reading on 14 February 1996, Parliament adopted a number of amendments on teleshopping designed to guarantee even higher standards of consumer protection. ((OJ C 65, 4.3.1996. )) The Commission has welcomed some of these amendments, in particular those concerning the form and content of teleshopping programmes, and will give them full consideration in drawing up its amended proposal.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 608/96 by Peter TRUSCOTT to the Commission. Indirect taxation
Date: 1996-03-13
Institutions: European Parliament, TRUSCOTT
Subjects: VAT, VAT rate, alcohol, excise duty, indirect tax, single market, tax harmonisation, tax on consumption, tobacco













EUR-Lex - 91996E0608 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0608

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 608/96 by Peter TRUSCOTT to the Commission. Indirect taxation  


Official Journal C 280 , 25/09/1996 P. 0046 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0608/96 by Peter Truscott (PSE) to the Commission (13 March 1996)Subject: Indirect taxationDoes the Commission have a viewpoint on the reduction of indirect taxation on alcohol and tobacco by Member States?Would the Commission support equalization of such tariffs at the top rate within the EU as opposed to the lowest rate?Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (6 May 1996)As part of its preparation for the internal market, the Commission originally proposed fully harmonised rates of duty for alcohol and tobacco products. This approach was rejected by Council, as was a revised approach based on minimum and target rates. Ultimately, the Council adopted just minimum rates, which were set at quite low levels. It follows that, in legal terms, Member States are free to increase or reduce national rates, as long as they respect the minimum rates laid down by Council.However, the relevant directives also require that the minimum rates be reviewed every two years, taking account of the internal market, the real value of the rates of duty and wider Treaty objectives. The first such review did not give rise to proposals, but led to a major consultation process with administrations, trade representatives and other interest groups. This process, which is nearing conclusion, seeks to analyse the various policy objectives which may be relevant for future excise policy. The Parliament itself is a participant in that process, and its input is expected shortly.Following the consultation process, the Commission will draw up its conclusions and proposals for future excise policy, in the form of the next review of minimum rates which is scheduled for later this year.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 584/96 by Michl EBNER to the Council. EU Office in Brussels
Date: 1996-03-13
Institutions: EBNER, European Parliament
Subjects: Austria, Belgium, European integration, Italy, anti-European movement, information centre, judicial inquiry













EUR-Lex - 91996E0584 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0584

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 584/96 by Michl EBNER to the Council. EU Office in Brussels  


Official Journal C 217 , 26/07/1996 P. 0014 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0584/96 by Michl Ebner (PPE) to the Council (13 March 1996)Subject: EU Office in BrusselsThe public prosecutors in Bolzano and Trento (Italy) have opened proceedings against a Brussels office of the chambers of commerce and/or regional governments of Trentino-Alto Adige (Italy) and Tyrol (Austria) and against four employees of this office, in connection with the 'European Region of Tyrol' being debated by the regional assemblies of Trentino-Alto Adige and Tyrol, for 'attacking the integrity of the State' (section 241 of the Italian Criminal Code). What measures does the Council propose taking against these proceedings which are in blatant contravention of the Maastricht Treaty, the Interreg II programme, the Madrid Agreement, the Framework Agreement between Italy and Austria on this subject and generally against the spirit of ever closer Union in Europe?What does the Council intend to do to put a stop to this kind of action, which is an obstacle to cooperation between regions attempting daily to take one more step towards an integrated Europe?Joint answer to Written Questions E-0244/96, E-0258/96, E-0309/96 and E-0584/96 (3 June 1996)The Council has not been informed of the subject referred to by the Honourable Members nor indeed of the opening of information offices for other regions. This question does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 630/96 by Angela BILLINGHAM to the Commission. Emergency health treatment
Date: 1996-03-13
Institutions: BILLINGHAM, European Parliament
Subjects: European social policy, United Kingdom, foreign national, free medical care, health insurance, social security













EUR-Lex - 91996E0630 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0630

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 630/96 by Angela BILLINGHAM to the Commission. Emergency health treatment  


Official Journal C 322 , 28/10/1996 P. 0003 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0630/96 by Angela Billingham (PSE) to the Commission (13 March 1996)Subject: Emergency health treatmentIs the Commission aware that non-EU nationals living in Britain, who are paying their full taxes and national insurance, are not entitled to the E111 form giving them cost-free emergency health treatment when they travel abroad?Does the Commission feel that this is justifiable when these citizens are paying the same towards the EEA as any other British citizens?Will the Commission investigate this anomaly and press the UK Government to rectify it?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (15 April 1996)The E111 form acts as a guarantee that the holder is insured for health care in the issuing Member State in order to enable the holder to receive emergency health care while on a short stay in another Member State. This scheme comes within the scope of Community Regulations nos (EEC) 1408/71 ((OJ L 149, 5.7.1971 - consolidated version OJ C 325, 10.12.1992. )) and (EEC) 574/72 ((OJ L 74, 27.3.1972 - consolidated version OJ C 325, 10.12.1992. )) on the coordination of the social security schemes of the countries of the European economic area (EEA).The coordinating regulations, however, apply only to nationals of one of the countries of the EEA and to stateless people and refugees. For this reason those who do not have the nationality of one of the EEA countries ('third country nationals') cannot use the E111 system, which is governed by Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) no 1408/71, even when they are legally insured and pay taxes in one of the Member States. The United Kingdom, therefore, is acting in complete accordance with the current Community rules.The Commission has been aware for some time of the problems created by the present situation, and for this reason a proposal was made on 26 June 1995 ((COM(95) 284 final - OJ C 242, 19.9.1995. )) to extend the scope of Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) no 1408/71 to nationals of third countries so that they could make use of the E111 sytem.Unfortunately, this proposed amendment was not approved by the Council due to the fact that all amendments to the social security regulations must be approved unanimously. However, as announced in the medium term social action programme ((COM(95) 134 final. )), 1995-1997, the Commission intends to make another proposal in the second half of 1996 to extend to nationals of third countries the provisions on emergency health care as well as other limited benefits.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 620/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Access to the groundhandling market
Date: 1996-03-13
Institutions: AMADEO, European Parliament
Subjects: air transport, airport, carriage of passengers, free competition, freedom to provide services, freight rate, provision of services, right to stopover, services company













EUR-Lex - 91996E0620 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0620

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 620/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Access to the groundhandling market  


Official Journal C 280 , 25/09/1996 P. 0050 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0620/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (13 March 1996)Subject: Access to the groundhandling marketIn most Community airports, the exercise of groundhandling activities, i.e. activities which take place in the air transport sector, are reserved for national carriers or the airport itself. This is contrary to the principle of free competition on which the liberalization of air transport is based.Having closely examined the many articles of the Directive on access to the groundhandling market, and while welcoming the efforts made to provide rapid and effective services at European airports, in particular for passengers and goods, I would ask the Commission whether it would agree that the following measures should be taken:1. to examine the scope of the aforementioned provisions in the context of a careful study of working procedures at airports;2. to require air transport companies and other service suppliers to unbundle the various activities, in terms of accounts and management,3. to provide a more detailed definition of the composition and activities of the Users' Committee.Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (30 April 1996)The common position of 25 March 1996 on the Commission's proposal ((OJ C 142, 8.6.1995. )) for a Council directive on access to the groundhandling market at Community airports establishes a threshold of 2 million passenger movements or 50 000 tonnes of freight for the full liberalisation of third-party handling at Community airports. This threshold corresponds to the average number of passenger movements or freight throughput which would make it economically viable for at least two handlers to supply services at a given airport. The scope of the proposed directive and the special measures concerning certain services on the air-side take account of the conclusions of studies which relate in particular to constraints of capacity, space, safety and security on the ramp.The Commission supports the Council in its decision to extend the obligation of separation of accounts to all suppliers of groundhandling activities.The users' committee will be composed of all the carriers or representative associations of all the carriers, exercising their air transport activity at the airport concerned. In the common position, the committee has no decision making role but only a consultative function. The draft directive does not require the creation of a new committee if such a committee already exists at the airport.