do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 721/96 by Clive NEEDLE to the Commission. EEC-Syria Cooperation Council
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: European Parliament, NEEDLE
Subjects: Association Council (EU), Syria, association agreement, cooperation agreement, democracy, freedom of expression, human rights, political prisoner, prisoner, reduction of sentence













EUR-Lex - 91996E0721 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0721

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 721/96 by Clive NEEDLE to the Commission. EEC-Syria Cooperation Council  


Official Journal C 185 , 25/06/1996 P. 0082 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0721/96 by Clive Needle (PSE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)Subject: EEC-Syria Cooperation CouncilWhat does the Commission view as the specific benefits to arise from the EEC-Syria Cooperation Council apart from the usual benefits of dialogue? Which human rights cases have been progressed as a result of this dialogue, and how is the Commission proposing to further those that have been brought to their attention such as Yusef Obeid?Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission (15 April 1996)The establishment, objectives and specific responsibilities of the Cooperation Council are expressly provided for in the Cooperation Agreement concluded with Syria on 18 January 1977 (Articles 5, 35 et seq.). ((OJ No L 269, 27.9.1978. ))Although human rights was not on the agenda of the Cooperation Council's meeting on 28 November 1994, it was raised informally by the Member States' Foreign Ministers with their Syrian counterpart.Partly as a result of Parliament's initiative in connection with the approval of the Fourth Protocol, the Commission ascertained that some progress had been made on this front. Subsequent improvements have been recently noted. In November 1995, 1 500 political prisoners and 500 ordinary prisoners were released and others had their sentences reduced.Some 2 000 prisoners are to be released at a later date.The situation is, however, still unsatisfactory despite these signs of relaxation and greater freedom of expression. The European Union is keeping a close eye on the situation and taking every opportunity to voice its concern to the Syrian authorities. Any new association agreement which may be negotiated will, in accordance with the Council's decision of 29 May 1995 and the conclusions of the Barcelona Euro-Mediterranean conference, include a reference to the fact that respect for democratic principles and human rights are a keystone of the agreement.
Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 21/96 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), road transport, safety device, telematics, transport safety








L_1996124EN.01002901.xml










23.5.1996   


EN


Official Journal of the European Communities


L 124/29





DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE
No 21/96
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 Resolution 95/C 264/01 of 28 September 1995 on the deployment of telematics in the road transport sector (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The following point shall be inserted after point 85 (Council Resolution 95/C 169/03) in Annex XIII to the Agreement:







‘86.



395 Y 1011(01): Council Resolution 95/C 264/01 of 28 September 1995 on the deployment of telematics in the road transport sector (OJ No C 264, 11. 10. 1995, p. 1).’





Article 2
The texts of Resolution 95/C 264/01 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 102, 25. 4. 1994, p. 51.

(2)  OJ No C 264, 11. 10. 1995. p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 697/96 by Katerina DASKALAKI to the Commission. Increasing the Greek national guaranteed quantity for dried fodder
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: DASKALAKI, European Parliament
Subjects: Greece, application of EU law, common organisation of markets, fodder, national production, production capacity, quantitative restriction













EUR-Lex - 91996E0697 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0697

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 697/96 by Katerina DASKALAKI to the Commission. Increasing the Greek national guaranteed quantity for dried fodder  


Official Journal C 185 , 25/06/1996 P. 0081 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0697/96 by Katerina Daskalaki (UPE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)Subject: Increasing the Greek national guaranteed quantity for dried fodderGreece's national guaranteed quantity (NGQ) for dried fodder has been set at 32 000 tonnes although its actual annual production is of the order of 50 000 tonnes.As Greece is the only EU Member State whose national guaranteed quantity does not correspond to its actual production, but represents a mere 64% of that figure, will the Commission state whether it intends to take action to adjust the quantity laid down in Regulation 603/95 ((OJ L 63, 21.3.1995, p. 1. )) to bring the Greek national guaranteed quantity up to 50 000 tonnes a year, thus helping ensure the survival of the dried fodder industry which has encountered severe problems because of the current system?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (16 April 1996)The Council compromise of July 1994 on the reform of the dried fodder sector was intended to put an end to the fast development of dried fodder production and uncontrolable growth of related budgetary expenses. One of the major issues of the reform was the establishment of maximum guaranteed quantities for dehydrated fodder as well as for sun-dried fodder.On the same occasion, the Council agreed upon the national guaranteed quantities (NGQs) attributed to the Member States for both kinds of dried fodder. Those NGQs were calculated on the basis of the subsidised production of dried fodder (dehydrated and sun-dried) in the Member States during the reference marketing years 1992/1993 and 1993/1994.The same rule was applied to all Member States and it implied, for some of them, fixing NGQs less than the level of their last production before the reform, owing to the fast upward trend of that production. This problem does not, therefore, only relate to Greece. As a consequence, should the Council agree to increase the Greek NGQ, those other Member States which find themselves in the situation described above would certainly apply for an increase of their NGQs and this would obviously be against the Council's intentions.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 742/96 by Robin TEVERSON to the Commission. National aids in the pig sector
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: European Parliament, TEVERSON
Subjects: State aid, aid to agriculture, animal disease, livestock farming, monetary compensatory amount, restriction on competition, slaughter of animals, swine













EUR-Lex - 91996E0742 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0742

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 742/96 by Robin TEVERSON to the Commission. National aids in the pig sector  


Official Journal C 217 , 26/07/1996 P. 0103 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0742/96 by Robin Teverson (ELDR) to the Commission (26 March 1996)Subject: National aids in the pig sectorThe history of illegal aids in the pig sector and unfair support to producers in some EU Member States is well-known. Stabiporc in France, monetary aid per sow in the Republic of Ireland, green DM rebates in Germany, 'slaughter' aid in Germany, Holland, Belgium, preferential loan schemes to young farmers have all created a tremendous imbalance in the pig sector within the EU. Although many of the 'aids' available to pig farmers in other Member States are considered legal, to the small pig farmer in the UK, the is seems unfair.How does the Commission oversee (control?) what is going on in this sector and what does it intend to do to redress these imbalances which are slowly squeezing the UK pig industry out of the market?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (12 April 1996)Commission powers to control state aid in the pig sector are based on Article 21 of Council Regulation (EEC) N° 2759/75 ((OJ No L 282, 1.11.1975. )). This stipulates that Articles 92 to 94 of the EC Treaty apply to the pig sector. Article 93(3) requires Member States to inform the Commission in sufficient time of any plans to grant or alter aid and requires the Commission to initiate the procedure provided in Article 92 paragraph 2 if it considers that any such plan is not compatible with the common market.As regards the Stabiporc aid, the Commission has taken decisions requiring amounts granted which are incompatible with Community provisions to be recovered, with interest. Concerning the slaughter of pigs, Commission policy is to allow the grant of compensatory payments where a slaughter policy is applied to control disease. Commission policy also allows state aid to help young farmers along lines set under Council Regulation (EEC) N° 2328/91 ((OJ No L 218, 6.8.1991. )). The green DM rebates in Germany were accepted in accordance with various Council regulations and decisions. The Commission is not however aware of a monetary aid per sow in Ireland, and invites the Honourable Member to provide evidence that such an aid exists or indeed ever existed.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 689/96 by José BARROS MOURA to the Commission. Anti-personnel mines
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: BARROS MOURA, European Parliament
Subjects: Asia, EU aid, European Union, conventional weapon, developing countries, development aid, disarmament, ministerial meeting, third country













EUR-Lex - 91996E0689 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0689

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 689/96 by José BARROS MOURA to the Commission. Anti-personnel mines  


Official Journal C 185 , 25/06/1996 P. 0080 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0689/96 by José Barros Moura (PSE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)Subject: Anti-personnel minesBearing in mind the objectives of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines and in view of the fact that a number of the countries taking part in the Euro-Asian Summit in Bangkok have already spoken out clearly in favour of a total ban (Belgium, Sweden, Austria, Denmark, Ireland, Cambodia, Laos, the Philippines and Malaysia), it would have been of great importance for the subject to be dealt with at the Summit. What decisions or guidelines were drawn up within the Commission with a view to the Summit, and what stand did the Summit take on this issue?Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (17 April 1996)The landmine question was not a specific item for discussion at the Euro-Asian summit although it was raised during the Foreign Ministers' meeting. Nevertheless the European Union continues to be at the forefront of both political and practical action to overcome the scourge of anti-personnel mines in particular, which afflicts so many parts of the developing world. At the moment the political emphasis is directed towards achieving a positive outcome to the CCW (Certain Conventional Weapons) review conference, which will reopen in Geneva on 22 April 1996, and where the Union has been very active in pressing for a much strengthened landmines protocol in response to basic humanitarian concerns. The Commmission is not of course a 'State Party' to the CCW Convention, but it has been active in the preparatory discussions, and in the Troika demarches to third countries.At the same time, both the Commission and Member States are continuing with active mine clearance operations in many areas. During the past four years the Commission, for example, has spent some 50 MECU on mine-clearance projects - in Afghanistan, Cambodia, Mozambique, Somalia, and Northern Iraq - usually as part of its wider and large-scale development, rehabilitation and humanitarian aid programmes. Attention is now being focused on the mines threat in the Former Yugoslavia.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 712/96 by Anita POLLACK to the Commission. Rabies
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: European Parliament, POLLACK
Subjects: animal disease, domestic animal, health legislation, rabies, trading operation, veterinary inspection













EUR-Lex - 91996E0712 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0712

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 712/96 by Anita POLLACK to the Commission. Rabies  


Official Journal C 297 , 08/10/1996 P. 0017 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0712/96 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)Subject: RabiesIn response to Mr Skinners' question No E-2964/95 ((OJ C 56, 26.2.1995, p. 55 )), the Commission said it would make 'suitable proposals on this matter at an appropriate time', what does the Commission define as 'an appropriate time' and how does it propose to decide when the time is appropriate?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (22 April 1996)The system currently applied as an alternative to quarantine for traded dogs and cats has to be reviewed before 1 January 1997 in the light of developments in the rabies situation in the Member States ((Article 10, paragraph 8 of Council Directive 92/65/EEC laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A (I) to Directive 90/425/EEC - OJ L 268, 14.9.1992 )). This review might be considered an appropriate time to make suitable proposals on the matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 727/96 by Salvador GARRIGA POLLEDO to the Commission. National measures to combat wastefulness and the misuse of Community resources
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: European Parliament, GARRIGA POLLEDO
Subjects: EU Member State, EU aid, EU financing, budgetary control, corruption, fight against wastage, financial aid













EUR-Lex - 91996E0727 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0727

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 727/96 by Salvador GARRIGA POLLEDO to the Commission. National measures to combat wastefulness and the misuse of Community resources  


Official Journal C 217 , 26/07/1996 P. 0101 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0727/96 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)Subject: National measures to combat wastefulness and the misuse of Community resourcesCan the Commission make available the comparative analysis of the reports supplied by the Member States on national measures taken to combat wastefulness and the misuse of Community resources, which also takes stock of progress in applying Article 209a of the EC Treaty, which the Commission forwarded to the Council on 17 November 1995?Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (3 May 1996)The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member its synthesis document and comparative analysis ((COM(95)556 final. )). This document has been sent to the Parliament.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 523/96 of 26 March 1996 adjusting the maximum annual fishing effort for certain fisheries
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Netherlands, common fisheries policy, fishery management, fishery resources, fishing area, fishing regulations













EUR-Lex - 31996R0523 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



31996R0523

Commission Regulation (EC) No 523/96 of 26 March 1996 adjusting the maximum annual fishing effort for certain fisheries  


Official Journal L 077 , 27/03/1996 P. 0012 - 0013 





COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 523/96 of 26 March 1996 adjusting the maximum annual fishing effort for certain fisheriesTHE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/95 of 15 June 1995 establishing a system for the management of fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources (1), and in particular the second indent of Article 4 thereof,Whereas the second indent of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 2027/95 provides that the Commission, at the request of a Member State, shall take appropriate measures so that the Member State in question can fish its quotas in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 6 (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 685/95 of 27 March 1995 on the management of fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources (2);Whereas the Netherlands has asked the Commission to adjust the maximum annual fishing effort granted to its vessels in respect of certain quotas which are allocated to it under Council Regulation (EC) No 3074/95 of 22 December 1995, fixing for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks the total allowable catches for 1996 and certain conditions under which they may be fished (3);Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture,HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:Article 1 The maximum annual fishing effort for the Kingdom of the Netherlands in respect of demersal species using towed gear, as referred to in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2027/95, is amended as laid down in the Annex hereto.Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.It shall apply from 18 March 1996.This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.Done at Brussels, 26 March 1996.For the CommissionEmma BONINOMember of the Commission(1) OJ No L 199, 24. 8. 1995, p. 1.(2) OJ No L 71, 31. 3. 1995, p. 5.(3) OJ No L 330, 30. 12. 1995, p. 1.ANNEX >TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 751/96 by Ian WHITE to the Commission. Bones for meat
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: European Parliament, WHITE
Subjects: carcase, consumer information, consumer protection, foodstuffs legislation, labelling, meat, meat product













EUR-Lex - 91996E0751 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0751

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 751/96 by Ian WHITE to the Commission. Bones for meat  


Official Journal C 217 , 26/07/1996 P. 0105 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0751/96 by Ian White (PSE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)Subject: Bones for meatMechanically recovered meat is obtained from carcasses which have been stripped in the normal way and then put through high-pressure massaging rollers to extract the shreds of tissue which cling to them.The resulting mixture of tendon ends, gristle, connective tissue and bone fragments is pulped into a slurry and used to bulk out meat products and, can still be called meat. Does the Commission have any plans to protect the consumer by way of appropriate labelling?Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (15 April 1996)The Commission is aware of the problem related to labelling of mechanically recovered meat (MRM) used in meat products. Initial discussions have already taken place on this subject, a few months ago, with the Member States within the framework of the standing committee for foodstuffs. The majority consider that the consumer should in principle be informed of the use of MRM in meat products.Further discussions with the experts of Member States on food labelling will be held shortly to examine in detail the most suitable manner of informing the consumer of the use of MRM.