do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
96/255/EC: Commission Decision of 26 March 1996 amending Decision 94/766/EC laying down specific conditions for importing fishery and aquaculture products from Taiwan (Text withh EEA relevance)
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Taiwan, fishery produce, fishery product, health certificate, import, veterinary inspection













EUR-Lex - 31996D0255 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



31996D0255

96/255/EC: Commission Decision of 26 March 1996 amending Decision 94/766/EC laying down specific conditions for importing fishery and aquaculture products from Taiwan (Text withh EEA relevance)  


Official Journal L 086 , 04/04/1996 P. 0081 - 0082 





COMMISSION DECISION of 26 March 1996 amending Decision 94/766/EC laying down specific conditions for importing fishery and aquaculture products from Taiwan (Text with EEA relevance) (96/255/EC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991 laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of fishery products (1), as last amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, and in particular Article 11 (5) thereof,Whereas the list of establishments approved by Taiwan for importing fishery and aquaculture products into the Community has been drawn up in Commission Decision 94/766/EC (2), as amended by Decision 96/31/EC (3); whereas this list may be amended following the communication of a new list by the competent authority in Taiwan;Whereas the competent authority in Taiwan has communicated a new list of 17 establishments;Whereas it is necessary to amend the list of approved establishments accordingly;Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision have been drawn up in accordance with the procedure laid down by Commission Decision 90/13/EEC (4),HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:Article 1 Annex B of Decision 94/766/EC is replaced by the Annex to this Decision.Article 2 This Decision is addressed to the Member States.Done at Brussels, 26 March 1996.For the CommissionFranz FISCHLERMember of the Commission(1) OJ No L 268, 24. 9. 1991, p. 15.(2) OJ No L 305, 30. 11. 1994, p. 31.(3) OJ No L 9, 12. 1. 1996, p. 6.(4) OJ No L 8, 11. 1. 1990, p. 70.ANNEX 'ANNEX BLIST OF APPROVED ESTABLISHMENTS>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 740/96 by Robin TEVERSON to the Commission. Community initiatives (ADAPT)
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: European Parliament, TEVERSON
Subjects: European Social Fund, competence of the Member States, invitation to tender, small and medium-sized enterprises, tendering













EUR-Lex - 91996E0740 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0740

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 740/96 by Robin TEVERSON to the Commission. Community initiatives (ADAPT)  


Official Journal C 280 , 25/09/1996 P. 0072 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0740/96 by Robin Teverson (ELDR) to the Commission (26 March 1996)Subject: Community initiatives (ADAPT)When 'Calls for Tender' are published by the Commission in the Official Journal for EU programmes and funding opportunities, the deadline for submitting applications is usually within two or three months.In the context of the Community initiative ADAPT which is aimed at the SME sector, this time scale does not give sufficient time for those businesses who cannot afford extra staff to prepare a bid.Does the Commission therefore intend to extend this time between publishing 'Calls for Tender' and the deadline for submitting proposals?Answer given by M. Flynn on behalf of the Commission (9 April 1996)The calls for proposals under the Adapt Community initiative are launched exclusively by the Member State authorities responsible for the European social fund. There are no calls for proposals at Community level and therefore no announcements in the Official journal.The Commission collaborates closely with the Member State authorities to coordinate the timetable for such calls for proposals. In 1995 (the first call under Adapt), Member State authorities generally allowed 3.5 months (end May - 15 September 1995). The arrangements for the next call for proposals in 1997 are currently under consideration, and the need to allow sufficient time for the preparation of bids, especially from the small and medium sized entreprises sector, is accepted by all parties. Although the timetable is not yet agreed, the current proposal is to allow a period of four months between the launch of the calls and the closing deadline for applications. Other amendments to the selection process are also under consideration in order to facilitate participation.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 743/96 by Robin TEVERSON to the Commission. Animal welfare 'friendly' labelling system
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: European Parliament, TEVERSON
Subjects: animal product, approximation of laws, consumer information, foodstuff, labelling, livestock farming, quality label













EUR-Lex - 91996E0743 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0743

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 743/96 by Robin TEVERSON to the Commission. Animal welfare 'friendly' labelling system  


Official Journal C 280 , 25/09/1996 P. 0073 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0743/96 by Robin Teverson (ELDR) to the Commission (26 March 1996)Subject: Animal welfare 'friendly' labelling systemThere are great discrepancies in animal welfare standards between the Member States in the EU. Will the Commission look into the possibility of introducing a labelling system which could accompany animal products which would identify them as having come from animals bred and raised in recognized animal welfare 'friendly' conditions?Given the concern over this issue by the majority of EU citizens, this would be a positive step in encouraging all farmers to introduce animal rearing practices conducive to good animal welfare standards in addition to giving consumers a more informed choice.Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (22 April 1996)The Commission accepts that there are currently discrepancies in animal welfare standards not only between Member States but also within Member States. One of the principal aims of the directives so far adopted in this domain is to reduce these discrepancies. However, the three directives ((Directives 88/166/EEC - OJ L 74, 19.3.1988 - 91/629/EEC, 91/630/EEC - OJ L 340, 11.12.1991 )) on conditions of rearing animals are based on minimum standards and it is therefore possible for a certain level of differing standards to remain.As far as labelling is concerned, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question No. E-1476/92 ((OJ C 289, 5.11.1992. )) by Mrs Pollack.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 747/96 by Giovanni BURTONE to the Commission. Unjustified delay in approving the Urban national programme for Italy
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: BURTONE, European Parliament
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, free service, town planning













EUR-Lex - 91996E0747 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0747

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 747/96 by Giovanni BURTONE to the Commission. Unjustified delay in approving the Urban national programme for Italy  


Official Journal C 280 , 25/09/1996 P. 0073 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0747/96 by Giovanni Burtone (PPE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)Subject: Unjustified delay in approving the Urban national programme for ItalyThe Italian Prime Minister's Department for Community Policies, in conjunction with the Commission's DG XVI, adopted the Urban national programme in November 1995 and submitted it to the Commission for final approval with a view to starting up the operational programmes.Four months later, the Commission has still not approved the programme.1. What are the reasons for the Commission's delay in granting final approval for the Urban national programme in Italy?2. Does the Commission not consider that, as it has imposed strict deadlines and qualitative standards throughout the whole procedural process, the present delay is unjustified and is helping to fuel the public's image of an inefficient, over-bureaucratic Community?3. Does the Commission not believe that the Community should pay for the costs incurred to citizens and the public authorities, following the bureaucratic delays and conflicts between its own departments, given that they have proceeded in good faith with commitments and payments in the sure hope that the Urban national programme would be approved in good time?Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (24 May 1996)The innovative and intricate nature of the Community's 'Urban' initiative required a careful process of appraisal by bodies at various levels acting jointly with the Italian authorities.Appraisal took time because checks had to be made on the degree of Community added value and on the eligibility of expenditure. Suitable monitoring and control mechanisms also had to be found.Certain aspects were not resolved until the end of March, after which the Commission was able to draw up the final version of the programme, adopted on 30 April 1996.The Commission would point out that the period during which admissible programme activities can receive funding starts from the date the first proposal is submitted to it.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 710/96 by Anita POLLACK to the Commission. Capacity of the Commission to administer small scale forest projects
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: European Parliament, POLLACK
Subjects: European Union, forestry policy













EUR-Lex - 91996E0710 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0710

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 710/96 by Anita POLLACK to the Commission. Capacity of the Commission to administer small scale forest projects  


Official Journal C 217 , 26/07/1996 P. 0099 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0710/96 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)Subject: Capacity of the Commission to administer small scale forest projectsBoth the Regulation on Operations to Promote Tropical Forests and the Lomé Forest Protocol include small-scale, community-based forest projects among their key priorities. This development is most welcome as small-scale projects tend to be more innovative, cost-effective and locally appropriate than large-scale projects.However, given the extra burden involved in the administration of small-scale projects and the Commission's serious shortage of staff with expertise in the area of tropical forests, the Commission will probably have to find other ways to ensure that a large number of small-scale forest projects are funded in practice.1. Is the Commission aware of the 'Small Grants Tropical Rainforest Program' that the Netherlands Committee for the IUCN Implements? This program is financed by the Dutch Government with Dfl 5 million per year and finances projects up to a maximum of $ 75 000 per project. The application procedure is very short and administrative procedures are kept to a bare minimum. The programme is extremely successful.2. Is the Commission prepared to establish a similar program for the European Union, financed with money from budgetline B7-6201?Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (29 April 1996)The Commission's strategy to implement the new Regulation on tropical forests and the Lomé forest protocol involves funding not only for large-scale projects, but also medium-scale experimental pilot projects that are run jointly with local communities. To date, the Commission has rarely financed any operation under ECU 100 000, particularly because of insufficient operational capacity for the management of such operations.The Commission is aware of the existence of the small grants programme run by the Netherlands and would very much like to know more about how the programme works and its results. To this end, it intends to contact the Dutch authorities in the near future and, having studied the programme, it will draw conclusions as to strategy, subject, however, to restrictions imposed by the Financial Regulation and the budgetary rules.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 811/96 by David HALLAM to the Commission. European Union subsidies to the carpet industry (SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER)
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: European Parliament, HALLAM
Subjects: EU aid, European Social Fund, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom, carpet, competition, exchange of information, textile industry













EUR-Lex - 91996E0811(01) - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0811(01)

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 811/96 by David HALLAM to the Commission. European Union subsidies to the carpet industry (SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER)  


Official Journal C 297 , 08/10/1996 P. 0031 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-0811/96 by David Hallam (PSE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)Subject: European Union subsidies to the carpet industryThe carpet industry in the Wyre forest district of my constituency has recently suffered massive job losses.My local manufacturers claim they face stiff competition in the North American contract market from Ulster Carpets of Portadown Northern Ireland.How much subsidy has Ulster Carpets received from European Union sources?What were the subsidies for and, at the time they were given, was any consideration given to the likely impact on jobs elsewhere in the United Kingdom or European Union?Supplementary answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (17 June 1996)The Commission has ascertained from the relevant authority in Northern Ireland (the Training and Employment agency) that Ulster Carpet Mills of Portadown has benefitted from assistance under the European social fund (ESF).Ulster Carpet Mills received ESF support under the management, entrepreneurial and workforce training measure of the economic development sub-programme of the single programming document within the framework of the Training and employment agency's 'company development programme'. The Training and employment agency informs the Commission that the company received ESF assistance totalling £146 064 during 1994 and 1995. This support enabled Ulster Carpet Mills to undertake a structured and systematic review of its training and development needs in order to deal with the upgrading of skills among the company's workforce.Under Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as amended ((OJ L 193, 31.7.1993 )), measures financed by the structural funds must comply with the provisions of the Treaties, with the instruments adopted pursuant thereto and with Community policies. In this context, the single programming document for Northern Ireland sets out the requirements for compliance with competition rules, which are followed by the Member State in the implementation of structural fund measures.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 739/96 by Caroline JACKSON to the Commission. Great apes in West Africa
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: European Parliament, JACKSON CAROLINE
Subjects: Central Africa, EU financial instrument, aid system, ecosystem, environmental protection, protected species, protection of animal life













EUR-Lex - 91996E0739 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0739

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 739/96 by Caroline JACKSON to the Commission. Great apes in West Africa  


Official Journal C 280 , 25/09/1996 P. 0071 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0739/96 by Caroline Jackson (PPE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)Subject: Great apes in West AfricaGiven the concern about the slaughter of great apes in West Africa, of which the Commission is already aware, will the Commission confirm that it will use its review of funding under the EDF Ecofar programme to ensure that the endangered species of the region are protected as a condition of receiving EU assistance?Will the Commission confirm that such funding could be suspended where these conditions are not met?Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (10 May 1996)The Commission is aware of the concern caused by the slaughter of great apes in Africa.The first stage of the Ecofac project for the protection and rational use of forest ecosystems in Central Africa has produced encouraging results in the field of wildlife protection, particularly in the case of threatened species such as primates. The Commission feels that continuation of the programme is the most appropriate way of protecting these creatures in the more inaccessible parts of Central Africa. Discontinuing the programme would be tantamount, in the areas of operation, to sacrificing all that has been achieved to date for the protection of forest ecosystems in general and wildlife in particular.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 759/96 by Nikitas KAKLAMANIS to the Commission. Restructuring programme for Olympic Airways
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: European Parliament, KAKLAMANIS
Subjects: Greece, State aid, aid for restructuring, air transport, carrier













EUR-Lex - 91996E0759 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0759

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 759/96 by Nikitas KAKLAMANIS to the Commission. Restructuring programme for Olympic Airways  


Official Journal C 280 , 25/09/1996 P. 0075 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0759/96 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)Subject: Restructuring programme for Olympic AirwaysAlmost all state airlines in the European Union are facing financial problems. The Greek national airline, Olympic Airways is no exception. This company has embarked on a restructuring programme in line with suggestions made by the Commission.Can the latter say:1. What are the basic principles of this programme?2. What progress has it made so far?3. Does it know whether this programme is being propoerly implemented, or will checks be carried out? What results have been achieved so far?Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (24 May 1996)In its Decision 94/696/EC of 7 October 1994 ((OJ L 273, 25.10.1994. )), the Commission approved the package of state aids given to Olympic Airways, which accompanied a restructuring programme, summarized in this Decision. The detailed answer to the first two questions raised by the Honourable Member may be found in this text. This restructuring programme is due to be completed by 1997 and is aimed at making Olympic Airways a sound and profitable company in the coming years. It entails substantial cost reductions, in particular in personnel costs, increase of productivity, and fleet and network reorganisation.As provided in the above-mentioned Decision, and prior to payment of the second instalment by the Greek authorities to Olympic Airways, the Commission is now, in the customary fashion, examining the implementation of the programme and the question of whether the conditions which were attached to the Decision are being fully respected. In the framework of this examination, on 30 April 1996, the Commission re-opened the procedure in this case in accordance with Article 93.2 of the EC Treaty.
Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 18/96 of 26 March 1996 amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: EEA Joint Committee
Subjects: European Economic Area, agreement (EU), analytical chemistry, chemical product, cosmetic product, product quality








L_1996124EN.01002601.xml










23.5.1996   


EN


Official Journal of the European Communities


L 124/26





DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE
No 18/96
of 26 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 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 II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 38/94 (1);
Whereas Sixth Commission Directive 95/32/EC of 7 July 1995 relating to methods of analysis necessary for checking the composition of cosmetic products (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The following point shall be inserted after point 6 (Fifth Commission Directive 93/73/EEC) in Chapter XVI of Annex II to the Agreement:







‘7.



395 L 0032: Sixth Commission Directive 95/32/EC of 7 July relating to methods of analysis necessary for checking the composition of cosmetic products (OJ No L 178, 28. 7. 1995, p. 20).’





Article 2
The texts of Directive 95/32/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, 26 March 1996.


For the EEA Joint Committee


The President

P. BENAVIDES




(1)  OJ No L 372, 31. 12. 1994, p. 11.

(2)  OJ No L 178, 28. 7. 1995, p. 20.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 761/96 by Angela BILLINGHAM to the Commission. Unreasonable Behaviour at Work Act
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: BILLINGHAM, European Parliament
Subjects: United Kingdom, early retirement, educational institution, mental stress, project evaluation, violence, workplace













EUR-Lex - 91996E0761 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0761

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 761/96 by Angela BILLINGHAM to the Commission. Unreasonable Behaviour at Work Act  


Official Journal C 217 , 26/07/1996 P. 0109 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0761/96 by Angela Billingham (PSE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)Subject: Unreasonable Behaviour at Work ActBullying in the workplace is an issue which is coming increasingly to the public's attention. Education establishments are singled out by researchers as particularly prone to workplace bullying. In Britain, 150,000 teachers and lecturers have taken early retirement in the past 10 years with stress-related illnesses; this is three times as many as those who have retired because of age.Sweden is the only European country with effective law on this issue. The law is called 'The Unreasonable Behaviour at Work Act'.Is the Commission planning to take any action to introduce effective law at a European level which would protect people in the work place against bullying, preventing early retirement due to stress-related illnesses?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (7 May 1996)The Commission's actions in its Community programme concerning safety, hygiene and health at work for the period 1996-2000 ((COM(95) 282 final. )) include risk assessment for particular health and safety issues, including violence and stress at the workplace, to which the problem of bullying at work is linked. The assessment will include in due course an evaluation of whether or not action is required at Community level.