do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 750/96 by Hadar CARS to the Commission. Regional policy beyond 2000
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: CARS, European Parliament
Subjects: Community budget, Structural Funds, development aid, enlargement of the Union, regional aid, regional policy













EUR-Lex - 91996E0750 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0750

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 750/96 by Hadar CARS to the Commission. Regional policy beyond 2000  


Official Journal C 297 , 08/10/1996 P. 0023 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0750/96 by Hadar Cars (ELDR) to the Commission (26 March 1996)Subject: Regional policy beyond 2000By how much would the budget have to be increased if the present structural funds regime were to be applied to X new Member States without punishing the regions presently benefiting from support?If the budget for the structural funds is not increased when X ((X = Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovenia.)) new states become members, which regions would be entitled to support:1. under prolongation of the present regime?2. if unemployment, instead of GNP, were to be used as a parameter?Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (30 April 1996)The existing level of structural aid to underdeveloped regions - a category generally held to cover the Central and East European candidates for accession as well - cannot be used as a starting point for future proposals regarding the budget for structural policy towards prospective members.Most regions eligible for Objective 1 funding in the fifteen existing Member States have been receiving structural fund support for ten years or more, so present transfer levels reflect a lengthy process of incremental increase. The same is bound to happen with the applicant countries, which will be unable, in the first few years of membership, to absorb structural funds in excess of a tiny percentage of GDP, partly because, both in macro-economic terms and administratively, they will lack the capacity to handle the part-financing requirements.The future eligibility of regions in the existing Member States in the event of enlargement will depend on various imponderables including the actual date of accession of individual applicant countries, possible changes to the rules governing eligibility (one such being the use of unemployment as a parameter, as suggested by the Honourable Member), progress towards convergence in the interim by regions currently receiving support, and the relative wealth of the applicant countries at the time, something which is still far from clear.It is therefore idle at this stage to speculate about the structural fund budget or regional eligibility criteria beyond 1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 683/96 by Jesús CABEZÓN ALONSO , Juan COLINO SALAMANCA to the Commission. Aid to bovine animals
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: CABEZON ALONSO, COLINO SALAMANCA, European Parliament
Subjects: agricultural guidance, aid to agriculture, bull, cattle, livestock farming













EUR-Lex - 91996E0683 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0683

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 683/96 by Jesús CABEZÓN ALONSO , Juan COLINO SALAMANCA to the Commission. Aid to bovine animals  


Official Journal C 297 , 08/10/1996 P. 0015 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0683/96 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) and Juan Colino Salamanca (PSE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)Subject: Aid to bovine animalsIn the context of a possible revision of the aids to bovine animals, what are the Commission's reasons for endeavouring to abolish such aid in the case in the case of fighting bulls?Are these animals not a source of beef for the consumer?Which Member States would be affected by the Commission's proposal?Is the Commission aware of how many head of cattle with these characteristics have benefited from this aid?Is the Commission aware of the nature of this type of extensive cattle-raising, and is it aware that not all the bovine animals of this type are raised for bullfighting?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (12 April 1996)The special premium for beef producers was a measure intended to compensate producers for the fall in institutional prices in 1987 (year of introduction of the premium). In the case of bullfighting, although the animals are subsequently a source of beef for the consumer, they are obviously raised primarily for fighting rather than for beef. In response to criticism that beef production aid was being channelled to help finance the production of fighting bulls, the Commission has decided that the measure whereby animals may qualify for the special premium after they have been selected for bullfighting is anomalous and must be discontinued.The Member State most affected by the proposal concerning allocation of the premium for fighting animals is Spain. Since the broad aim of the proposal is to deter production of a type of animal not in market demand but to encourage the production of lighter animals, the focus of the proposal is on a type of production and not on particular Member States.Given that the current beef premium arrangements make no distinction between the different destinations of animals in receipt of the premium, the Member States in question have no information on the headage of cattle for which Community aid has been granted and the Commission is not able therefore to give a precise answer to this question.The Commission is quite well aware of the extensive production in which producers of bullfighting animals are engaged and that most of the animals raised by such producers do not take part in bullfights. This is why this proposal relates wholly to the animals rather than the systems of production by which they have been raised.
Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 9/96 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, European standard, agreement (EU), construction equipment, noise, noise protection








L_1996124EN.01002301.xml










23.5.1996   


EN


Official Journal of the European Communities


L 124/23





DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE
No 9/96
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 15/96 (1);
Whereas European Parliament and Council Directive 95/27/EC of 29 June 1995 amending Council Directive 86/662/EEC on the limitation of noise emitted by hydraulic excavators, rope-operated excavators, dozers, loaders and excavator-loaders (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The following indent shall be added in point 10 (Council Directive 86/662/EEC) in Chapter VI of Annex II to the Agreement:






‘—



395 L 0027: European Parliament and Council Directive 95/27/EC of 29 June 1995 (OJ No L 168, 18. 7. 1995, p. 14).’




Article 2
The texts of Directive 95/27/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)  See page 17 of this Official Journal.

(2)  OJ No L 168, 18. 7. 1995, p. 14.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 752/96 by Josu IMAZ SAN MIGUEL to the Commission. Mental illness
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: European Parliament, IMAZ SAN MIGUEL
Subjects: EU financing, disabled person, health policy, mental illness, public health, reintegration into working life, social integration, suicide













EUR-Lex - 91996E0752 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0752

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 752/96 by Josu IMAZ SAN MIGUEL to the Commission. Mental illness  


Official Journal C 217 , 26/07/1996 P. 0106 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0752/96 by Josu Imaz San Miguel (PPE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)Subject: Mental illnessThe Commission has a number of action programmes in the field of public health and in areas designed to provide support for the disabled. Among the measures in the field of public health there is a specific section for 'other illnesses'.Because of the comparative lack of resources devoted historically to mental illness, special arrangements for this area need to be one of the priority areas for action in our society.Moreover, mental illness is a serious form of disability which eats into the resources that such patients have for coping with their everyday lives, including their integration into society and the world of work.Does the Commission include mental illness in its programmes for public health?Are such illnesses, and those who suffer from them, included among the groups listed as potential beneficiaries of European Union programmes for the disabled?Is the Commission aware of the need to devise measures for groups which suffer from high-risk mental illnesses, with a view to developing special therapies so that treatment can be carried out in environments which are physically close to the family environment?If it accepts these objectives, what programmes or budgetary measures is the Commission devoting, or does it plan to devote, to them?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (21 May 1996)Mental illness is taken into consideration in the HELIOS II programme, which aims to improve the situation of disabled people.In its communication concerning a Community action programme on health monitoring in the context of the framework for action in the field of public health ((COM(95) 449. )), the Commission identified mental illness, including suicide, as having a high rate of mortality and morbidity. It is currently looking into possible approaches to preventing suicides in the context of a programme on voluntary and involuntary accidents and injuries.Moreover, well-being, including mental health, is also covered by the programme on health promotion, information, education and training within the framework for action in the field of public health ((OJ L 95, 16.4.1996. )).It should be noted that the budgetary authorities have decided to boost budget heading B3-4300 by ECU 5 million in 1996 to tackle Alzheimer's disease and other forms of mental illness.
96/256/EC: Commission Decision of 26 March 1996 amending Commission Decision 95/190/EC laying down specific conditions for importing fishery and aquaculture products from the Philippines (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Philippines, fishery produce, fishery product, health certificate, import, veterinary inspection













EUR-Lex - 31996D0256 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



31996D0256

96/256/EC: Commission Decision of 26 March 1996 amending Commission Decision 95/190/EC laying down specific conditions for importing fishery and aquaculture products from the Philippines (Text with EEA relevance)  


Official Journal L 086 , 04/04/1996 P. 0083 - 0085 





COMMISSION DECISION of 26 March 1996 amending Commission Decision 95/190/EC laying down specific conditions for importing fishery and aquaculture products from the Philippines (Text with EEA relevance) (96/256/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 (1), laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of fishery products, 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 the Philippines for importing fishery and aquaculture products into the Community has been drawn up in Commission Decision 95/190/EC (2); whereas this list may be amended following the communication of a new list by the competent authority in the Philippines;Whereas the competent authority in the Philippines has communicated a new list adding 17 establishments and amending the date of 2 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 (3),HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:Article 1 Annex B of Decision 95/190/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 123, 3. 6. 1995, p. 20.(3) OJ No L 8, 11. 1. 1990, p. 70.ANNEX 'ANNEX BLIST OF APPROVED ESTABLISHMENTS>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 706/96 by Gianni TAMINO to the Commission. Failure by Italy to transpose the Directive on cosmetic products
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: European Parliament, TAMINO
Subjects: Italy, animal experimentation, cosmetic product













EUR-Lex - 91996E0706 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0706

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 706/96 by Gianni TAMINO to the Commission. Failure by Italy to transpose the Directive on cosmetic products  


Official Journal C 217 , 26/07/1996 P. 0098 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0706/96 by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission (26 March 1996)Subject: Failure by Italy to transpose the Directive on cosmetic productsLaw No 52 of 6 February 1996 empowers the Italian Government to transpose Directive 93/35/EEC ((OJ L 151, 23.6.1993, p. 32. )) on cosmetic products by 25 February 1997.Article 3 of the Directive stipulates that Member States must adopt the laws necessary for compliance by 14 June 1995.Is the Commission aware of the above facts?What steps will it take to make Italy transpose the Directive?Article 29, second paragraph, of the above-mentioned Italian law lays down an obligation to observe the provisions and time-limits set out in Article 1(3) of Directive 93/35/EEC where animal experiments are concerned. What is the Comission's view on that point?Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (8 May 1996)In a letter dated 29 February 1996 the Italian Government provided the Commission with the official communication of Law No 57/1996 which empowers the above-mentioned Government to transpose Directive 93/35/EEC on cosmetic products by 25 February 1997.In compliance with its obligations under Article 155 of the EC Treaty, the Commission brought an infringement procedure against Italy for failure to transpose the directive under consideration and duly notified the Italian government in October 1995. This procedure will be shelved once the Directive has been transposed into the Italian legal order.The Italian Law mentioned by the Honourable Member mandates the Italian Government to transpose Article 3 of the Directive in question into the Italian legal order within the appropriate time limit.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 732/96 by Reimer BÖGE to the Commission. Current state of the EU fishing fleet
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: BOEGE, European Parliament
Subjects: European Commission, European Union, aid system, application of EU law, common fisheries policy, exchange of information, financing policy, fishing fleet, fishing rights













EUR-Lex - 91996E0732 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0732

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 732/96 by Reimer BÖGE to the Commission. Current state of the EU fishing fleet  


Official Journal C 280 , 25/09/1996 P. 0069 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0732/96 by Reimer Böge (PPE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)Subject: Current state of the EU fishing fleetWhat is the current state of the Community fishing fleet (tonnage, kW)?To what extent have the agreed capacity targets (GRT and kW) been implemented and adhered to in the Member States?Is the Commission considering suspending some aid to the fishing industry if individual Member States do not implement the capacity targets, so as to finally ensure equal opportunity among the fishing fleets?Answer given by Ms Bonino on behalf of the Commission (17 April 1996)The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and the Parliament Secretariat a table with the number, tonnage and power (KW) of ships in each Member State fleet at 1 January.Another table sets the actual size of the Community fleet (again broken down by Member State) at 1 January last year against the targets of the third generation of multiannual guidance programmes (MGP).Under Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 3699/93, any Member State aid leading to increased catches must be suspended if the annual MGP targets - even interim ones - are not met. ((OJ L 346, 31.12.1993. ))
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 724/96 by Concepció FERRER to the Commission. Employment of people with disabilities
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: European Parliament, FERRER
Subjects: European official, competition (EU), disabled person, equal treatment, gender equality, job access, recruitment













EUR-Lex - 91996E0724 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0724

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 724/96 by Concepció FERRER to the Commission. Employment of people with disabilities  


Official Journal C 297 , 08/10/1996 P. 0019 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0724/96 by Concepció Ferrer (PPE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)Subject: Employment of people with disabilitiesThe main objective of Decision 93/136/EEC ((OJ L 56, 9.3.1993, p. 30 )) establishing a third Community Action Programme to assist disabled people (Helios II 1993-1996) is to promote equal opportunities for and the integration of people with disabilities.The candidates' guide to the selection procedure in an open competition for the scientific service mentions equal opportunities for men and women but makes no mention whatever of integrating people with disabilities.Does the Commission not consider that the need to promote such integration should also be stated?Can the Commission also state what percentage of people with disabilities currently work in the Commission in relation to the number of applications submitted by disabled people?Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (22 May 1996)In accordance with the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities, the Commission pursues a recruitment policy based on equal opportunities. Officials and servants are selected without reference to race, creed or sex. This policy in particular aims at ensuring equal opportunities among men and women.In addition, the Commission strives to do all that is possible to facilitate the participation of people with disabilities in its competitions. There is a dispensation from the age limit for candidates with officially recognised physical disabilities, and candidates are requested to specify on application forms any special dispensation they consider necessary in order to take part in the tests. The objective is to ensure at all times that disabled candidates can compete under the same conditions as other candidates.A disabled official's working environment and equipment are tailored to his/her particular disability in order to ensure optimal conditions for his/her professional development.Within the Commission a working group has been set up to develop a code of practice for the employment of people with disabilities. The aim is to reform policy in this area.Unfortunately the information requested by the Honourable Member cannot be provided as statistics indicating the percentage of people with disabilities currently working in the Commission, in relation to the number of applications submitted by disabled people, have not been compiled.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 693/96 by Freddy BLAK to the Commission. Infertility
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: BLAK, European Parliament
Subjects: Europe, chemical product, fertility, health risk, scientific research













EUR-Lex - 91996E0693 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0693

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 693/96 by Freddy BLAK to the Commission. Infertility  


Official Journal C 217 , 26/07/1996 P. 0097 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0693/96 by Freddy Blak (PSE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)Subject: InfertilityInfertility has been on the increase for a period of years throughout Europe.Is the Commission contemplating, or has it already undertaken, an investigation into the causes of and possible solutions to this problem?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (15 May 1996)The popular and scientific press have carried items referring to an association between infertility and suspected exposure to 'pseudoendocrines' or 'xeno-oestrogens' in chemical substances released in the environment. Concerns have been expressed, in particular over reported declines in the quantity or quality of human sperm. Studies in which such trends have been reported, have, however, been contested. Other pertinent studies do not show such a decline. Moreover, it is by no means certain that the supposed decrease in human sperm quality implies a decline in human fertility. Proper conclusions about any causal relationship between the occurence of health phenomena and exposure to the substances will have to wait the outcome of additional scientific research.