do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 723/96 by Gerard COLLINS to the Commission. Structural Funds
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: Ireland, Structural Funds, industrial development













EUR-Lex - 91996E0723 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0723

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 723/96 by Gerard COLLINS to the Commission. Structural Funds  


Official Journal C 297 , 08/10/1996 P. 0018 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0723/96 by Gerard Collins (UPE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)Subject: Structural FundsIn the light of the paper presented to the Informal Council of Ministers responsible for regional policy and spatial planning, held in Madrid on 30 November/1 December 1995 by the Commission and, in particular, the proposal therein that the deflator be applied towards the key priorities for future development of the Structural Funds, might I ask the Commission to elaborate on how this principle was applied when negotiating the application of the deflator with the Irish authorities during 1995 and to describe the manner in which the Structural Funds expenditure in Ireland is being re-orientated to coincide with the policy objectives set out in the paper?Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (15 May 1996)During the negotiation of the Community support framework (CSF) for Ireland for the period 1994-1999, it was agreed that 'the projected levels of activity and the objectives set out in the operational programmes under the CSF and Community initiatives have been determined on the basis that indexation will apply to each programme. Accordingly, the Monitoring Committee will, as a general rule, apply the additional financial resources generated by indexation to each programme on a pro rata basis, provided it is progressing at a satisfactory rate and in accordance with the objectives laid down'.With regard to the application of the 1995 deflator the Commission agreed to a pro rata distribution within the CSF to individual operational programmes. It was then a matter for individual operational programme monitoring committees to decide how to distribute the additional funds between the various priorities within these programmes. In the case of the industrial development programme, for example, some of the additional resources were allocated to new measures following on from the recommendations of the Irish government's science, technology and innovation advisory committee (STIAC).The Commission and the Irish authorities will continue to review performance of individual programmes within the CSF. Moreover, structural fund spending will be subject to a mid-term review which will commence during the second half of 1996. One of the items to be considered as part of this review will be the manner in which the Commission's proposals to the informal meeting of ministers in Madrid on 30 November 1995-1 December 1995 (subsequently presented to the Council and Parliament as a communication ((COM(96) 109 ))) might be built into the CSF for Ireland over the period to 1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 684/96 by Jesús CABEZÓN ALONSO , Juan COLINO SALAMANCA to the Commission. Impasse concerning designations of origin
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: CABEZON ALONSO, COLINO SALAMANCA, European Parliament
Subjects: Denmark, Greece, cheese, designation of origin













EUR-Lex - 91996E0684 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0684

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 684/96 by Jesús CABEZÓN ALONSO , Juan COLINO SALAMANCA to the Commission. Impasse concerning designations of origin  


Official Journal C 217 , 26/07/1996 P. 0094 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0684/96 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) and Juan Colino Salamanca (PSE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)Subject: Impasse concerning designations of originThere is currently an impasse affecting 34 food products in the process of recognition of their designations of origin. This appears to have originated in conflicts between Denmark and Greece concerning the designation of the cheese known as 'feta'.What conflicts have given rise to this impasse?When does the Commission expect to find a solution to this problem, which represents a considerable blow to the promotion and marketing of the products affected?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (11 April 1996)An initial proposal containing 318 designations, 37 of which are Spanish, for registration as geographical indications or designations of origin pursuant to Article 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 ((OJ No L 208, 24.7.1992. )) was approved by the Commission on 6 March 1996 and submitted to the Council on 8 March.The approval of this proposal met with a number of obstacles, particularly in the case of Feta which the Greek Government had applied to have registered as a protected designation of origin but which was considered by the Danish Government as a generic designation. Designations which have become generic cannot be registered and can therefore be marketed freely.It is in the interests of certain producers using the designation Feta that it be considered generic because if it is protected, they will no longer be able to use it after a transitional period.The economic consequences of a decision on the protection of the designation Feta are considerable given the quantities produced outside the geographical area of origin (part of Greece). The Commission has therefore done everything it can to ensure that the name Feta complies with Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 and that it has not become generic.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 722/96 by Glyn FORD to the Commission. Publication of Commission material
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: European Parliament, FORD
Subjects: EU Official Journal, EU publication, GATT, competition, database, invitation to tender, printing, public contract













EUR-Lex - 91996E0722 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0722

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 722/96 by Glyn FORD to the Commission. Publication of Commission material  


Official Journal C 185 , 25/06/1996 P. 0083 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0722/96 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)Subject: Publication of Commission materialCan the Commission give details as to the process followed when Commission material is published in terms of Print Companies throughout the European Union being given the opportunity to tender and participate.Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (23 April 1996)Virtually all the printing work sub-contracted by the Publications Office is awarded on the basis of contracts for which, in accordance with the provisions of the Community Directives and the GATT, formal invitations to tender are always published in the Supplement to the Official Journal and the TED (Tenders Electronic Daily) data base.Minor one-off contracts are sometimes awarded on the basis of a tendering procedure in accordance with the provisions of the Financial Regulation ((As last amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC) No 2335/95 of 18 September 1995, OJ L 240 of 7.10.1995. )) applicable to the General Budget of the European Communities.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 725/96 by Concepció FERRER to the Commission. Cohesion Fund projects
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: European Parliament, FERRER
Subjects: EU financing, Spain, development plan, environmental protection, transport infrastructure













EUR-Lex - 91996E0725 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0725

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 725/96 by Concepció FERRER to the Commission. Cohesion Fund projects  


Official Journal C 297 , 08/10/1996 P. 0020 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0725/96 by Concepció Ferrer (PPE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)Subject: Cohesion Fund projectsIn December 1995 the Commission approved 225 projects financed by the Cohesion Fund in Spain, Greece, Ireland and Portugal. Can the Commission say which projects were approved for Spain, who submitted them and what sums were granted to each of these projects?Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (21 May 1996)In the 1995 financial year, the Commission adopted 14 decisions concerning Spain in respect of transport infrastructure at a cost of ECU 610 million, the budget breakdown of which for 1995 per mode of transport was as follows:>TABLE>In the same period, the Commission adopted 47 decisions concerning the environment. The aid in question amounted to ECU 574 million and covered, for 1995, the following:>TABLE>Further information is given in the 1995 annual report of the Cohesion Fund which will be available very shortly.With regard to the origin of the project in question, the Commission has had dealings only with the Spanish government authorities on this question.
Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 17/96 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), foodstuffs legislation, human nutrition, marketing, sweetener








L_1996124EN.01002401.xml










23.5.1996   


EN


Official Journal of the European Communities


L 124/24





DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE
No 17/96
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 14/96 ( (1));
Whereas Commission Directive 95/31/EC of 5 July 1995 laying down specific criteria of purity concerning sweeteners for use in foodstuffs (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
1.   The following indent shall be added in point 16 (Council Directive 78/663/EEC) in Chapter XII of Annex II to the Agreement:






‘—



395 L 0031: Commission Directive 95/31/EC of 5 July 1995 (OJ No L 178, 28. 7. 1995, p. 1).’




2.   The following point shall be inserted after point 46 (Commission Directive 89/107/EEC) of Chapter XII of Annex II to the Agreement:







‘46. A.



395 L 0031: Commission Directive 95/31/EC of 5 July 1995 laying down specific criteria of purity concerning sweeteners for use in foodstuffs (OJ No L 178, 28. 7. 1995, p. 1).’





Article 2
The texts of Directive 95/31/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 Comittee


The President

P. BENAVIDES




(1)  See page 16 of this Official Journal.

(2)  OJ No L 178, 28. 7. 1995, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 737/96 by Bernie MALONE to the Commission. Radiation emissions from GSM mobile phone masts
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: European Parliament, MALONE
Subjects: health risk, public health, radiation protection, radio telecommunications













EUR-Lex - 91996E0737 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0737

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 737/96 by Bernie MALONE to the Commission. Radiation emissions from GSM mobile phone masts  


Official Journal C 217 , 26/07/1996 P. 0013 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0737/96 by Bernie Malone (PSE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)Subject: Radiation emissions from GSM mobile phone mastsDoes the Commission agree that there are possible health hazards produced by GSM mobile phone mast radiation emissions, and does it consider it necessary that a study be carried out to assess these hazards? Does the Commission have in place regulations controlling the location of such masts and if not does it intend doing so?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (20 May 1996)Possible health hazards associated with the emission of non-ionizing radiation have been the object of several parliamentary questions. The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Questions E-274/95 ((OJ No C 179, 13.7.1995. )) and E-3142/95 ((OJ No C 179, 13.7.1995. )) by Mr Alavanos and E-1718/95 by Mr Hughes ((OJ No C 257, 2.10.1995. )).Moreover, the Commission has supported and published a study on sources, exposures and health effects of non-ionizing radiation. Copies have been sent to members of Parliament who have expressed an interest in these matters.In addition, as indicated in its communication to the Parliament and the Council ((COM(94)492 final. )) the Commission in 1995 decided on an action programme ((IP(95)1057. )) on the possible health effects of the use of mobile phones, especially with regard to possible athermal effects of non-ionizing radiation.This is currently being prepared by a group of eminent experts in the domain and a report will be available in September 1996.There are, at present, no Community regulations concerning the location of base station equipment for GSM (global system for mobile communications) mobile phones.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 733/96 by Reimer BÖGE to the Commission. Expenditure on fisheries agreements
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: BOEGE, European Parliament
Subjects: agreement (EU), commitment of expenditure, fisherman, fishing agreement, fishing vessel, job preservation, job security, subcontracting, third country













EUR-Lex - 91996E0733 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0733

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 733/96 by Reimer BÖGE to the Commission. Expenditure on fisheries agreements  


Official Journal C 297 , 08/10/1996 P. 0020 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0733/96 by Reimer Böge (PPE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)Subject: Expenditure on fisheries agreementsWhat has been the level of European Union expenditure on fisheries agreements with third countries in 1994, 1995 and 1996?In the Commission's opinion, how many additional jobs have been secured thereby in the European Union?Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (8 May 1996)The Commission is forwarding direct to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat general of the Parliament a table showing the expenditure on fisheries agreements (commitments and payments).The Community's agreements, by maintaining or expanding fishing possibilities for the Community fleet in third country waters, seek to protect the level of direct employment on fishing vessels and indirect employment in onshore processing facilities and related industries.Some 20 000 people are directly employed on fishing vessels operating under the fisheries agreements between the Community and third countries. The agreement with Morocco accounts, by itself for over 8 000 fishermen directly employed on vessels.It can be conservatively calculated that a further 25 000 people are employed in the fishing industry ((Employment in the processing industry is not included )) and the ancillary services resulting from these agreements.
Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 20/96 of 26 March 1996 amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: EEA Joint Committee
Subjects: European Economic Area, agreement (EU), harbour installation, maritime transport, prevention of pollution, working conditions








L_1996124EN.01002801.xml










23.5.1996   


EN


Official Journal of the European Communities


L 124/28





DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE
No 20/96
of 26 March 1996
amending Annex XIII (Transport) 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 XIII to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 8/96 (1);
Whereas Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995 concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports and sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States, of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions (port State control) (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The following point shall be inserted after point 56.A (Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2158/93) in Annex XIII to the Agreement:







‘56.B.



395 L 0021: Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995 concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports and sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States, of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions (port State control) (OJ No L 157, 7. 7. 1995, p. 1).’





Article 2
The texts of Directive 95/21/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 forco 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 102, 25. 4. 1996, p. 51.

(2)  OJ No L 157, 7. 7. 1995, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 744/96 by Josu IMAZ SAN MIGUEL to the Commission. Discards by the pelagic trawler fleet
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: European Parliament, IMAZ SAN MIGUEL
Subjects: fishing fleet, fishing regulations, fishing vessel, marine mammal, pollution from ships, protection of animal life, sea fish













EUR-Lex - 91996E0744 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0744

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 744/96 by Josu IMAZ SAN MIGUEL to the Commission. Discards by the pelagic trawler fleet  


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





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0744/96 by Josu Imaz San Miguel (PPE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)Subject: Discards by the pelagic trawler fleetThe recent statements in the newspaper Sud-Ouest (February 1996) by the French scientist Mrs Anne Collet, director of the scientific institute for the study of marine mammals at La Rochelle, have spread alarm concerning the extent of discards by the pelagic trawler fleet in the Bay of Biscay. These statements suggest that the use of the techniques in question is leading to a high mortality rate among mammals.Is the Commission aware of Mrs Collet's statements?Is the Commission making efforts to investigate and summarize the effects of fisheries discards, in particular those arising from pelagic trawling in the Bay of Biscay?If so, is the Commission in possession of quantitative data concerning the level of discards by this fleet? Could it inform Members of the consequences of these discards, assuming that it does have the data?Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (7 May 1996)The Commission is aware of these declarations to the press. The Commission is also aware of the results of several studies on the effects of some fishing gear on marine mammals, and has taken a number of initiatives (both scientific and regulatory) to promote studies on these effects and, in some particular cases where the scientific evidence was available, to ban certain fishing practices.In this context, the Commission prepared a report on the evaluation of biological impact of fisheries and, subsequently, a communication to the Council on the same subject ((COM (95) 40 final )) which notes that the scientific evidence on the impact of fisheries on marine mammals is still very weak and which therefore undertakes to support quantitative investigations in this field. The fisheries committee of the Parliament discussed this matter in detail and put forward a report ((Report Langenhagen - A4-0006/96 )) adopted in the plenary session of 16 February 1996 ((OJ C 65, 4.3.1996. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 762/96 by Angela BILLINGHAM to the Commission. Market testing
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: BILLINGHAM, European Parliament
Subjects: United Kingdom, competence of the Member States, economic consequence, labour law, provision of services, remuneration of work













EUR-Lex - 91996E0762 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0762

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 762/96 by Angela BILLINGHAM to the Commission. Market testing  


Official Journal C 217 , 26/07/1996 P. 0110 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0762/96 by Angela Billingham (PSE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)Subject: Market testingIs the Commission aware of the practice of market testing which is prevalent in the United Kingdom National Health Service and indeed in Local Government?Would it agree that by 'market testing' one aspect of a service, those workers market tested have been discriminated against?Is the Commission prepared to investigate this unhealthy practice of forcing workers (usually low paid) to compete regularly for their own jobs - usually by means only of accepting lower paid jobs.Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (7 May 1996)The questions raised seem to concern exclusively national law. In principle matters relating to pay should be settled according to each Member State's law.Another point is that where part of a business is transferred, which is not made clear in this question, the rights and obligations arising for the transferor from a contract of employment or from an employment relationship existing on the date of transfer are, by reason of such transfer, transferred to the transferee (Article 3(1) of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977) ((OJ L 61 of 5.3.1977. )).The transferee is bound by all the obligations of the transferor, including those which came into being before the date of transfer. The aim of the directive is to ensure that workers' rights are maintained in the case of a change in employer, by allowing them to continue to work for the transferee under the same conditions as those agreed by the transferor. Since the United Kingdom has transposed these aspects of Directive 77/187/EEC into national law, it follows that the national courts have jurisdiction in any disputes which might arise in this area.