do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ' Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) amending Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 on the common organization of the markets in the sugar sector'
Date: 1996-03-27
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: Portugal, agricultural quota, common organisation of markets, production quota, sugar













EUR-Lex - 51996AC0412 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51996AC0412

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ' Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) amending Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 on the common organization of the markets in the sugar sector'  


Official Journal C 174 , 17/06/1996 P. 0029 





Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal  for a Council Regulation (EC) amending Regulation (EEC) No  1785/81 on the common organization of  the markets in the sugar sector`(96/C 174/07)On 16  January 1996 the Council decided to  consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Articles 43 and 198 of the Treaty establishing the  European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal. The Section for Agriculture and Fisheries, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work  on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 7  March 1996. The Rapporteur was Mrs Santiago. At its 334th Plenary Session of 27 and 28  March 1996 (meeting of 27  March 1996), the Economic and  Social Committee adopted the following Opinion by 83 votes to two, with three abstentions. 1. Introduction1.1. When Portugal joined the Community it was granted a sugar beet  production quota of 60 000 tonnes. The quota was not based on national production (which was  non-existent), nor was it designed to ensure supplies for the national market (this being the job  of existing refineries). The aim was basically political, to enable Portuguese farmers to grow  sugar beet. 1.2. Plans to build a new refinery have raised the expectations of Portuguese growers, but the  present basic quantities for sugar are too low for the expansion of beet production as an  alternative crop. 1.3. The present proposal raises the quota by 10 000 tonnes, divided between the A and B quantities  laid down initially in the Act of Accession. 2. General comments2.1. The Committee welcomes the Commission proposal for the following  reasons. 2.1.1. The proposed increase in quotas does not call into question the quotas established for other  regions of the Community. 2.1.2. Although the increase is lower than had been advocated, it could encourage sugar production  in Portugal and make a refinery viable, thereby boosting local development. 2.1.3. The Commission justifies the increase in the Portuguese production quota on the grounds that  it is necessary for the economic development of regions where there is no alternative to beet  growing. Such reasons should guide Community decisions more often. Done at Brussels, 27  March 1996. The Presidentof the Economic and Social CommitteeCarlos FERRER
Commission Regulation (EC) No 532/96 of 27 March 1996 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2123/89 establishing the list of representative markets for pigmeat in the Community
Date: 1996-03-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU market, common organisation of markets, pigmeat













EUR-Lex - 31996R0532 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



31996R0532

Commission Regulation (EC) No 532/96 of 27 March 1996 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2123/89 establishing the list of representative markets for pigmeat in the Community  


Official Journal L 078 , 28/03/1996 P. 0014 - 0014 





COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 532/96 of 27 March 1996 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2123/89 establishing the list of representative markets for pigmeat in the Community THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2759/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organization of the market in pigmeat (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 3290/94 (2), and in particular Article 4 (6) thereof,Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2123/89 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 426/96 (4), established the list of representative markets for pigmeat in the Community;Whereas in Belgium a change to the representative markets has taken place; whereas the list of representative markets for pigmeat in the Community listed in the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 2123/89 should consequently be amended;Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Pigmeat,HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:Article 1 Point 1 of the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 2123/89 is replaced by the following:'1. The following quotation centre: Brussels.`Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 April 1996.This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.Done at Brussels, 27 March 1996.For the CommissionFranz FISCHLERMember of the Commission(1) OJ No L 282, 1. 11. 1975, p. 1.(2) OJ No L 349, 31. 12. 1994, p. 105.(3) OJ No L 203, 15. 7. 1989, p. 23.(4) OJ No L 60, 9. 3. 1996, p. 3.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 688/96 by José BARROS MOURA to the Council. Anti-personnel mines
Date: 1996-03-27
Institutions: BARROS MOURA, European Parliament
Subjects: Asia, arms limitation, arms trade, civilian victim, conventional weapon, disabled person, international convention, joint action













EUR-Lex - 91996E0688 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0688

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 688/96 by José BARROS MOURA to the Council. Anti-personnel mines  


Official Journal C 356 , 25/11/1996 P. 0006 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0688/96 by José Barros Moura (PSE) to the Council (27 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 Council with a view to the Summit, and what stand did the Summit take on this issue?Reply (14 October 1996)Since May 1995, when the joint action on anti-personal mines was adopted, the European Union has redoubled its efforts to point out the scourge which the indiscriminate use of anti-personnel mines represents for civilian populations. In the framework of this joint action, the Member States of the Union have implemented a joint moratorium on the export of the anti-personnel mines, and intense diplomatic activity has been engaged in to prepare for the Conference of States party to the Convention on 'inhumane weapons' and to ensure that this leads to positive results.One of the fundamental problems that arises in connection with the above Convention is the small number of States that have ratified it. The Honourable Member will note that some of the non-member States mentioned in his question are not parties to the Convention. In these cirumstances, the fact that anti-personnel mines and the negotiations under way at the time of the Euro-Asian Summit on the Inhumane Weapons Convention, and in particular on Protocol II thereof, were not mentioned at the Summit, is not surprising.The Conference of States party to the Convention ended on 3 May with an outcome which overall constitutes significant progress both in terms of the amended Protocol II adopted by the Conference and in terms of the development of humanitarian law in general. However, as regards specific bans, the outcome only partially fulfils the objectives of the Union's joint action. The Council can assure the Honourable Member that in the framework of the CFSP intense efforts will continue to be made to ensure that the problem of mines remains a priority for international action and to promote universal accession to the Convention. Our Asian partners will doubtless be among those reached by the Union's diplomatic activity as it continues its initiative on anti-personnel mines.
Resolution on marine insurance
Date: 1996-03-27
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: marine insurance













EUR-Lex - 51996IP0413 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51996IP0413

Resolution on marine insurance  


Official Journal C 117 , 22/04/1996 P. 0020 





B4-0413/96Resolution on marine insuranceThe European Parliament,A. in the light of repeated maritime accidents resulting in serious environmental damage, including the recent accident involving the oil tanker 'Sea Empress¨,B. whereas, although the first priority is to improve substantially maritime safety standards, adequate insurance coverage is nevertheless necessary, where accidents do occur, to ensure effective application of the polluter pays principle,C. whereas the IG P& I Clubs are mutual insurers who control about 90% of the world market for marine liability insurance,D. whereas the IG P& I Clubs are reinsured only up to the level of US$ 1.5 billion, but provide coverage to their shipowner members, on a mutual basis, up to about US$ 20 billion (except in the case of oil pollution, where the maximum coverage is US$ 500 million),E. whereas in consequence, to the extent that any loss (other than oil pollution) exceeds the US$ 1.5 billion reinsurance bought, the loss (known as 'overspill¨) has to be met by shipowners (as mutual insurers) out of their own assets,F. whereas a large overspill claim could bankrupt a large proportion of the world's shipowners and a larger proportion of Europe's shipowners,G. whereas with P& I insurance limited to US$ 1.5 billion, the effect of a major catastrophe is to bankrupt one shipowner,H. whereas in contrast, the effect of offering about US $ 20 billion of cover with only US $ 1.5 billion of reinsurance is that such a catastrophe would have severe consequences not merely for the original shipowner but for other shipowners as well, and put at risk the P& I clubs themselves,The European Parliament,1. Urges the Commission to study various solutions to this problem, on the understanding that any solution proposed as a result of this study must fully respect the polluter pays principle;2. Urges the Commission to consider the question of the Article 85(3) exemption in the light of the conclusions of this study;3. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 531/96 of 27 March 1996 amending Regulation (EEC) No 570/88 on the sale of butter at reduced prices and the grant of aid for cream, butter and concentrated butter for use in the manufacture of pastry products, ice-cream and other foodstuffs
Date: 1996-03-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: butter, confectionery product, cream, discount sale, farm price support, food processing













EUR-Lex - 31996R0531 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



31996R0531

Commission Regulation (EC) No 531/96 of 27 March 1996 amending Regulation (EEC) No 570/88 on the sale of butter at reduced prices and the grant of aid for cream, butter and concentrated butter for use in the manufacture of pastry products, ice-cream and other foodstuffs  


Official Journal L 078 , 28/03/1996 P. 0013 - 0013 





COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 531/96 of 27 March 1996 amending Regulation (EEC) No 570/88 on the sale of butter at reduced prices and the grant of aid for cream, butter and concentrated butter for use in the manufacture of pastry products, ice-cream and other foodstuffs THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of 27 June 1968 on the common organization of the market in milk and milk products (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2931/95 (2), and in particular Articles 6 (7), 7a (3) and 12 (3) thereof,Whereas the first indent of Article 4 (4) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 570/88 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2931/95, provides that food preparations falling within subheadings 1902 20 10 to 1902 20 99 of the combined nomenclature are eligible as final products under that Regulation; whereas the reference to subheading 1902 20 99 stems from the adaptations resulting from Regulation (EC) No 2931/95; whereas, in view of the inconsistency between the various language versions of the Regulation, the abovementioned amendment has created uncertainty; whereas, as a result, the subheading concerned should be amended to prevent ruling out products previously included and to make it applicable from 1 January 1996;Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products,HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:Article 1 In the first indent of Article 4 (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 570/88, '1902 20 10 to 1902 20 99` is replaced by '1902 20 10 to 1902 30 90`.Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.It shall apply from 1 January 1996.This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.Done at Brussels, 27 March 1996.For the CommissionFranz FISCHLERMember of the Commission(1) OJ No L 148, 28. 6. 1968, p. 13.(2) OJ No L 307, 20. 12. 1995, p. 10.(3) OJ No L 55, 1. 3. 1988, p. 31.
Legislative resolution embodying the opinion of the European Parliament on the proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 on the common organization of the markets in the sugar sector (COM(95)0561 - C4-0032/96 - 95/0278(CNS)) (Consultation procedure)
Date: 1996-03-27
Institutions: Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, European Parliament
Subjects: common organisation of markets, sugar













EUR-Lex - 51996AP0040 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51996AP0040

Legislative resolution embodying the opinion of the European Parliament on the proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 on the common organization of the markets in the sugar sector (COM(95)0561 - C4-0032/96 - 95/0278(CNS)) (Consultation procedure)  


Official Journal C 117 , 22/04/1996 P. 0021 





A4-0040/96Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 on the common organization of the markets in the sugar sector (COM(95)0561 - C4-0032/96 - 95/0278(CNS))The proposal was approved with the following amendment:(Amendment 2)ARTICLE 1a (new)Article 27(2), first subparagraph, first indent (Regulation (EEC) No. 1785/81)>Text following EP vote>cle 1aArticle 27(2), first subparagraph, first indent, of Regulation (EEC) No. 1785/81 is replaced by the following:'- inform the Member State concerned, before 1 March, of the quantity being carried forward,'Legislative resolution embodying the opinion of the European Parliament on the proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 on the common organization of the markets in the sugar sector (COM(95)0561 - C4-0032/96 - 95/0278(CNS))(Consultation procedure)The European Parliament,- having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council, COM(95)0561 - 95/0278(CNS) ((OJ C 28, 1.2.1996, p. 6.)),- having been consulted by the Council pursuant to Article 43 of the Treaty (C4-0032/96),- having regard to Rule 58 of the Rules of Procedure,- having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the opinion of the Committee on Budgets (A4-0040/96),1. Approves the Commission proposal, subject to Parliament's amendment;2. Calls on the Council to notify Parliament should it intend to depart from the text approved by Parliament;3. Asks to be consulted again should the Council intend to make substantial modifications to the Commission proposal;4. Instructs its President to forward this opinion to the Council and Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 698/96 by Peter TRUSCOTT to the Council. Mr Emerson and TACIS funding
Date: 1996-03-27
Institutions: European Parliament, TRUSCOTT
Subjects: EU financing, European Union, USSR, action programme, development aid, image













EUR-Lex - 91996E0698 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0698

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 698/96 by Peter TRUSCOTT to the Council. Mr Emerson and TACIS funding  


Official Journal C 011 , 13/01/1997 P. 0001 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0698/96 by Peter Truscott (PSE) to the Council (27 March 1996)Subject: Mr Emerson and TACIS fundingCan the Council comment on the likely damage of the Michael Emerson affairs to the European Union's prestige in the Russian Federation and amongst other supporters of democratic and economic reform in Russia?Reply (19 November 1996)The Council has no information which could lead to the conclusion that the matter referred to by the Honourable Member might damage the European Union's prestige in the Russian Federation.
96/262/EC: Commission Decision of 27 March 1996 amending Commission Decision 93/437/EEC laying down specific conditions for importing fishery products from Argentina (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 1996-03-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Argentina, fishery product, fishing vessel, import













EUR-Lex - 31996D0262 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



31996D0262

96/262/EC: Commission Decision of 27 March 1996 amending Commission Decision 93/437/EEC laying down specific conditions for importing fishery products from Argentina (Text with EEA relevance)  


Official Journal L 089 , 10/04/1996 P. 0036 - 0041 





COMMISSION DECISION of 27 March 1996 amending Commission Decision 93/437/EEC laying down specific conditions for importing fishery products from Argentina (Text with EEA relevance) (96/262/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 and factory ships approved by Argentina for importing fishery products into the Community has been drawn up in Commission Decision 93/437/EEC (2), as last amended by Decision 96/31/EC (3); whereas the list may be amended following the communication of a new list by the competent authority in Argentina;Whereas the competent authority in Argentina has communicated a new list adding 12 establishments and 23 factory ships, deleting 6 establishments and 13 factory ships;Whereas it is necessary to amend the list of approved establishments and factory ships 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 93/437/EEC is replaced by the Annex to this Decision.Article 2 This Decision is addressed to the Member States.Done at Brussels, 27 March 1996.For the CommissionFranz FISCHLERMember of the Commission(1) OJ No L 268, 24. 9. 1991, p. 15.(2) OJ No L 202, 12. 8. 1993, p. 42.(3) OJ No L 9, 12. 1. 1996, p. 6.(4) OJ No L 8, 11. 1. 1990, p. 70.ANNEX 'ANNEX B>TABLE>>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 735/96 by Mihail PAPAYANNAKIS to the Council. 'Disappeared persons' and the Turkish invasion of Cyprus
Date: 1996-03-27
Institutions: European Parliament, PAPAYANNAKIS
Subjects: Cyprus, Türkiye, forced disappearance, law of war, prisoner of war, war victim













EUR-Lex - 91996E0735 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0735

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 735/96 by Mihail PAPAYANNAKIS to the Council. 'Disappeared persons' and the Turkish invasion of Cyprus  


Official Journal C 297 , 08/10/1996 P. 0022 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0735/96 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Council (27 March 1996)Subject: 'Disappeared persons' and the Turkish invasion of CyprusIn a recent television interview Mr Denktash contradicted the position Turkey has adopted for the last 21 years that there are no 'disappeared persons' as a result of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in July 1974. According to Mr Denktash, these 'disappeared persons' were actually killed in 1974 by Turkish-Cypriot paramilitary forces which had taken charge of any prisoners captured by the Turkish army. This raises the question of the responsibility of the military command of the Turkish army, since in time of war the officers and unit present in a given area are responsible for whatever happens there. There is also the problem of the families of 'disappeared persons' whose plight has repeatedly attracted the attention of the European Parliament.Will the Council say:a) what actions it intends to take to establish how many 'disappeared persons' were killed, who they were and where they are buried, so that their families can be satisfactorily informed and receive the remains of the dead for burial?b) Furthermore, how does it consider that the laws applicable to war and the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war can be applied in this case? Finally, do the two Member States of the Union - France and the United Kingdom - which are members of the UN Security Council intend to press for the prosecution of those responsible, on the modes of the prosecution proceedings initiated against Serb and Croat officers implicated in war crimes in Bosnia?Reply (16 July 1996)The Council noted with great concern the recent statement of Mr Denktash concerning the fate of the missing persons and attaches greatest importance to the investigation of the matter. The Council gives its strongest support to the United Nations Committee on Missing Persons established in 1981, which is an appropriate forum for conducting the necessary investigations. The Council will continue to follow the matter closely and will raise the issue with the appropriate authorities.The interpretation of the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war is a matter for the States parties to the Convention. As far as the question concerning France and the United Kingdom is concerned, it is not for the Council to reply.