do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 699/96 by Joan VALLVÉ to the Commission. Crossborder cooperation with Andorra
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: European Parliament, VALLVE
Subjects: Andorra, France, Spain, competence of the Member States, frontier region, regional planning, regional policy













EUR-Lex - 91996E0699 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0699

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 699/96 by Joan VALLVÉ to the Commission. Crossborder cooperation with Andorra  


Official Journal C 280 , 25/09/1996 P. 0065 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0699/96 by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission (26 March 1996)Subject: Crossborder cooperation with AndorraThe Interreg II regulation lays down guidelines for operational programmes for frontier development, crossborder cooperation and the energy network.Interreg II also provides for cooperation concerning the Union's internal and external frontiers.As Andorra is not a member of the EU, while the NUTS III areas bordering on that country are Ariège in France and Lleida (Lérida) in Spain, does the Commission consider that those border areas could be eligible to benefit from the Interreg II programme?Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (15 April 1996)The list of eligible border regions attached to the guidelines for the Interreg II operational programmes ((OJ C 180, 1.7.1994. )) includes the province of Lerida in Spain and the department of Ariège in France. Both border the other Member State and Andorra.The allocation of Interreg II funding for each frontier region has been worked out using objective rules which take no account of the number of countries bordering the relevant areas. Although the Commission has made no special mention of trans-border cooperation with non-member Andorra, it has no objection in principle to the operational programme for regions in the Spanish and French Pyrenees including measures for that country, which is surrounded by programme areas. It is up to the Spanish and French authorities to include such measures in the programmes should they so wish.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 753/96 by Anne ANDRÉ-LÉONARD to the Commission. Financial aid for projects relating to consumer protection in 1996
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: EU Official Journal, administrative formalities, consumer protection, financial aid













EUR-Lex - 91996E0753 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0753

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 753/96 by Anne ANDRÉ-LÉONARD to the Commission. Financial aid for projects relating to consumer protection in 1996  


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





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0753/96 by Anne André-Léonard (ELDR) to the Commission (26 March 1996)Subject: Financial aid for projects relating to consumer protection in 1996In 'Financial aid for projects relating to consumer protection in 1996' a notice published in OJ C 19 of 23 January 1996.The Commission listed all the eligibility requirements for such aid and set 31 January 1996 as the deadline for subsidy requests.How could applications forms be completed and sent to the Commission in such a short time (from 23 to 31 January)?How many projects were submitted?Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (25 April 1996)Publication of the text concerning the award of financial aid to projects devoted to consumer protection for 1996 has in fact been delayed. This is why - although the Commission has already received a large number (300) of subsidy requests - it has decided to postpone the deadline to 31 May 1996 so as not to penalise any particular organisation. The new communication to this effect will shortly be published.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 789/96 by Freddy BLAK to the Commission. Implementation of directives
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: BLAK, European Parliament
Subjects: Denmark, application of EU law, labour law, labour market













EUR-Lex - 91996E0789 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0789

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 789/96 by Freddy BLAK to the Commission. Implementation of directives  


Official Journal C 185 , 25/06/1996 P. 0085 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-0789/96 by Freddy Blak (PSE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)Subject: Implementation of directivesWhether directives can be implemented by means of collective agreements is still a moot point. In general, about 80% of the Danish labour market is covered, but it is not known whether the Commission will accept coverage of about 60% in individual sectors.What is the Commission's latest thinking on the subject? Will it accept that by analogy most people are actually covered by a directive even though it is implemented by collective agreements that apply to as little as 60% of the labour market, or does it adhere so rigidly to the erga omnes principle that further legislation is needed for the other 40%?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (6 May 1996)The Commission has on several occasions stated and explained its position regarding the possibilities of implementing Directives via collective agreements (see the Commission's joint answer to written questions E-2398/94 and E-2400/94 ((OJ C No 103, 24.4.1995. )) and the answer to oral question H-835/95 by Mrs Jensen during question time at the Parliament's part-session in November 1995 ((European Parliamentary Debates (November 1995). )).Moreover, it is not for the Commission to comment further on potential or purely hypothetical situations concerning the scope of collective agreements in Denmark.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 754/96 by Honório NOVO , Laura GONZÁLEZ ÁLVAREZ to the Commission. Construction of the dam at Sela on the River Minho
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: European Parliament, GONZALEZ ALVAREZ, NOVO
Subjects: EU financing, Portugal, Structural Funds, fish, impact study, power plant, viticulture













EUR-Lex - 91996E0754 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0754

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 754/96 by Honório NOVO , Laura GONZÁLEZ ÁLVAREZ to the Commission. Construction of the dam at Sela on the River Minho  


Official Journal C 217 , 26/07/1996 P. 0107 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0754/96 by Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) and Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (26 March 1996)Subject: Construction of the dam at Sela on the River MinhoAround 50 hydro-electric plants have already been built in the basin of the River Minho and a plan to build another at Sela, in Monção, northern Portugal, is being considered.Environmentalist associations in Portugal and Galicia (Spain), a number of associations of wine-growers and fishermen and several local authorities have for some time been drawing attention to the adverse impact on the environment of such projects. Among those frequently cited are the destruction of habitats needed for the survival of migratory fish species which are both a source of income and rare in Portugal, such as lamprey and shad, and delicate climatic changes which are having a harmful effect on the cultivation of a high-grade wine - Alvarinho - a type which is unique in Portugal and for an increase in the production of which Community funds were recently made available.Between April and September 1995 an environmental impact assessment was drawn up by organizations with an interest in the construction of the Sela dam (EDP in Portugal and FENOSA in Spain). Since this is a project which may well be supported by Community funds, it is important for a decision to be taken on carrying out the project only after a careful, impartial assessment has been made of the benefits and drawbacks.Have the governments of the Iberian Peninsula, either individually or jointly, submitted an application for the construction of the Sela dam to be subsidised by the Structural Funds?Is it acceptable for an environmental impact assessment to be drawn up by organizations with a direct interest in the construction of the dam? What methodology does the Commission believe would be more appropriate to ensure the impartiality of an environmental impact assessment?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (25 April 1996)No application for Community funding has been received for the project in question.According to the information in the Commission's possession there are currently no implementation plans for the project i.e. the Spanish and Portuguese authorities have at this stage still not taken any decision on implementation.Responsibility for the environmental impact assessment lies with the main customer. However, the environmental impact assessment itself is conducted by the environmental authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 711/96 by Anita POLLACK to the Commission. Canadian seal slaughter
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: European Parliament, POLLACK
Subjects: Canada, authorised catch, catch quota, hunting regulations, marine mammal, protection of animals, slaughter of animals













EUR-Lex - 91996E0711 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0711

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 711/96 by Anita POLLACK to the Commission. Canadian seal slaughter  


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





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0711/96 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)Subject: Canadian seal slaughterIs the Commission aware that the Canadian government has decided to allow up to 250 000 harp and hood seals to be slaughtered this year, often in a cruel manner and in contravention of conditions laid down in the Canadian Marine Mammal Regulations; despite the fact that many marine biology specialists maintain that overfishing is responsible for depletion of seal stocks?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (11 April 1996)The Commission is aware of the management measures adopted by the Canadian government in December 1995, which include a total allowable catch of 250,000 harp seals for the 1996 Atlantic seal harvest. The quota for previous years has been 186,000 with the number of seals actually killed around 60,000 annually. The Commission is not aware of an increased total allowable catch of hooded seals.As far as the reference by the Honourable Member to cruelty is concerned, the Canadian minister of fisheries and oceans confirmed that the harvest will be conducted in a humane and responsible manner in line with existing regulations, which prohibit the commercial harvest of whitecoats and hunting for personal use. Imports into the Community of furs and products of whitecoats have been prohibited since 1983 under Council Directive 83/129/EEC ((OJ L 91, 9.4.1983. )).The Commission is not aware of a depletion of the seal stock concerned through overfishing. On the contrary, Canadian scientists estimate the seal stock to be 4.8 million animals with an annual increase estimated at 250,000. It is claimed that these numbers are responsible for slowing the recovery of certain fish stocks.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 758/96 by Alexandros ALAVANOS to the Commission. Safer air travel
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: ALAVANOS, European Parliament
Subjects: EP resolution, air transport, civil aviation, crew, international standard, safety standard, transport safety, work schedule, working conditions













EUR-Lex - 91996E0758 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0758

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 758/96 by Alexandros ALAVANOS to the Commission. Safer air travel  


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





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0758/96 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (26 March 1996)Subject: Safer air travelFollowing the crash of a Birgen Air charter flight off the coast of the Dominican Republic in which a large number of people died, the European Parliament adopted a resolution (B4-0150/96) calling on the Commission to take more rapid action to submit practical proposals for improving and increasing the safety of civil aviation, particularly as regards the operating conditions of airlines operating charter flights, and to establish a 'blacklist' of airlines which do not observe international safety standards. On the basis of the above, and in view of the statements made by the International Federation of Airline Pilots' Association (IFALPA) that pilots, assistants, hostesses and technicians of the above airline had substantially exceeded permitted working hours, will the Commission say what specific measures it intends to take to implement the proposals set out in the resolution on safer air travel?Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (13 May 1996)The Commission is organising a high level working group to review possible actions to ensure safer air transport for European citizens, in particular by third country carriers on the basis of tickets sold in the Community.The Commission will report on the initial findings of this group in June 1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 738/96 by Peter TRUSCOTT to the Commission. Trade in live calves
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: European Parliament, TRUSCOTT
Subjects: EU law, calf, cattle, health legislation, intra-EU trade













EUR-Lex - 91996E0738 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0738

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 738/96 by Peter TRUSCOTT to the Commission. Trade in live calves  


Official Journal C 280 , 25/09/1996 P. 0070 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0738/96 by Peter Truscott (PSE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)Subject: Trade in live calvesCan the Commission list all legislation governing the intra-Community trade of live calves of under 15 days of age?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (22 April 1996)The following legislation governs trade in live calves under the age of 15 days (as well as other bovine animals, except where indicated):- Council Directive 64/432/EEC on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine ((OJ 121, 29.7.1964 (consolidated version, OJ C 189, 20.8.1975).)). Article 8 however exempts calves under 15 days for breeding and production from its provisions, except for additional requirements which may be agreed under the provisions of Articles 9 or 10.- Council Directive 90/425/EEC concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market ((OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.)). In particular, Article 11 provides for safeguard measures to be taken in the event of an outbreak of certain diseases.- Commission Decision 94/474/EC ((OJ L 194, 29.7.1994.)), as last amended by Decision 95/287/EC ((OJ L 181, 1.8.1995.)), concerning certain protection measures relating to bovine spongiform encephalopathy and repealing Decisions 89/469/EEC and 90/200/EEC. This Decision is taken under the legal framework of Article 11 of Directive 90/425/EEC.- Council Directive 91/628/EEC ((OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.)) on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC.- Commission Decision 93/42/EEC ((OJ L 16, 25.1.1993.)) concerning additional guarantees relating to infectious bovine rhinotracheitis for bovines destined for Member States or regions of Member States free from the disease.- Commission Decision 95/109/EC concerning additional guarantees relating to infectious bovine rhinotracheitis for bovines destined for certain parts of the territory of the Community ((OJ L 79, 7.4.1995.)).- Council Directive 77/504/EEC on pure-bred breeding animals of the bovine species ((OJ L 206, 12.8.1977.)).
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 686/96 by Jesús CABEZÓN ALONSO to the Commission. Driftnets
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: CABEZON ALONSO, European Parliament
Subjects: Community fisheries, Council of the European Union, European Commission, conservation of fish stocks, fisheries policy, fishing controls, fishing net, fishing regulations, proposal (EU)













EUR-Lex - 91996E0686 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0686

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 686/96 by Jesús CABEZÓN ALONSO to the Commission. Driftnets  


Official Journal C 185 , 25/06/1996 P. 0079 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0686/96 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)Subject: DriftnetsWhy has the Commission, in the course of preparing a revision of the multiannual guidance programmes for the Community fishing fleets, abandoned the debate on the use of driftnets within the terms approved by Parliament?Does the Commission not consider that the use of driftnets is harmful to species conversation and creates a significant distortion of competition between fishermen?Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (3 April 1996)The debate on driftnets is not abandoned. Discussion continues in the Council on the Commission's proposal ((COM(94)131. )). While no majority has emerged in its favour, the Commission has made it clear that it is prepared to associate itself with solutions that would help break the deadlock.The Commission has also actively cooperated with Member States in the control scheme set up in 1995 for this fishery by the Member States concerned. This ensured a generally high degree of compliance with the current rules in the Atlantic. The Commission is equally prepared to cooperate this year in a similar scheme.The Commission continues to support the gradual phasing out of this type of fishing.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 730/96 by Werner LANGEN to the Commission. Application of Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty: distortion of competition in the forestry sector in Germany
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: European Parliament, LANGEN
Subjects: Germany, State aid, restriction on competition













EUR-Lex - 91996E0730 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0730

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 730/96 by Werner LANGEN to the Commission. Application of Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty: distortion of competition in the forestry sector in Germany  


Official Journal C 217 , 26/07/1996 P. 0102 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0730/96 by Werner Langen (PPE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)Subject: Application of Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty: distortion of competition in the forestry sector in GermanyThe German state-owned forestry sector makes an average deficit per year (former federal Länder) of some DM 220 per hectare. This deficit is covered by public funds. Privately owned forestry undertakings receive only minimal amounts of aid, yet must compete with the state-owned forestry sector in the market.The unequal treatment represented by regular annual payments of taxpayers' money to cover deficits, compounded by the leading role still played by the state forestry sector in the negotiation of wood prices and wage agreements, places privately-owned forestry undertakings at a serious competitive disadvantage that jeopardizes their survival.1. Should not state-owned forestry undertakings -like other state-owned commercial undertakings compete on equal terms with forestry undertakings outside the public sector?2. Will the Commission consider the state of competition in the German timber industry in accordance with Article 93?3. What proposals does the Commission have to ensure that the high levels of aid in the state-owned forestry sector in Germany do not lead to flagrant discrimination against competing forestry undertakings in the common market?Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (18 April 1996)The Commission has so far taken a relatively favourable view towards state aid in relation to development, protection and sustainable management of forests, but assesses each individual case on its merits. This position is based on Community policy decided by the Council in 1989 in the context of the strategy and forestry action plan for the Community.The Commission entirely shares the point of view of the Honourable Member that state forestry enterprises should be managed under the same competition rules as private forestry enterprises.Therefore the Commission has asked the German authorities to clarify the matter and further emphasized the Member State's obligation under Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty to notify any plans to grant or alter aid. The German authorities have replied that there is no aid to public forestry enterprises, in particular not in the form of balancing of deficits or tax reductions. The German authorities also stressed that no such aid is being planned.
Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 19/96 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 standard, transport of dangerous goods, transport safety








L_1996124EN.01002701.xml










23.5.1996   


EN


Official Journal of the European Communities


L 124/27





DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE
No 19/96
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 74/95 (1);
Whereas Council Directive 95/50/EC of 6 October 1995 on uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The following point shall be inserted after point 17.C (Council Decision 93/704/EC) in Annex XIII to the Agreement:







‘17.D.



395 L 0050: Council Directive 95/50/EC of 6 October 1995 on uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road (OJ No L 249, 17. 10. 1995, p. 35).’





Article 2
The texts of Directive 95/50/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 57, 7. 3. 1996, p. 36.

(2)  OJ No L 249, 17. 10. 1995, p. 35.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 702/96 by José VALVERDE LÓPEZ to the Commission. Increase in the maximum guaranteed quantity for olive oil for Spain
Date: 1996-03-26
Institutions: European Parliament, VALVERDE LOPEZ
Subjects: Andalusia, Spain, olive oil, production aid, production quota













EUR-Lex - 91996E0702 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0702

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 702/96 by José VALVERDE LÓPEZ to the Commission. Increase in the maximum guaranteed quantity for olive oil for Spain  


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





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0702/96 by José Valverde López (PPE) to the Commission (26 March 1996)Subject: Increase in the maximum guaranteed quantity for olive oil for SpainThe Union of Small Farmers (UPA) of Jaén, one of the Andalusian provinces which are among Spain's largest oil producers, has called for an increase in the maximum guaranteed quantity for olive oil for Spain (at present 1 350 000 tonnes), to ensure that farmers are not penalized for exceeding it;it is felt that there is no genuine production surplus. For climate reasons, olive cultivation is being extended in Spain, which entails the risk that the present maximum guaranteed quantity will not be sufficient in future years.What proposals could the Commission consider with a view to responding to this demand of the Andalusian farmers for the forthcoming marketing years?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (12 April 1996)The maximum guaranteed quantity (MGQ) for olive oil was set for the first time during the 1987-88 reforms as part of the stabilizing mechanism.When it set price and aid levels for the 1994-95 marketing year (see Council Regulation (EC) No 1875/94 ((OJ L 197, 30.7.1994. ))), the Council again fixed the olive oil MGQ for 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 at the previous level of 1 350 000 tonnes.The olive oil MGQ will be reviewed by the end of the 1996-97 marketing year (31 October) and proposals tabled.