do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 774/96 by Thomas MEGAHY to the Council. Public health information
Date: 1996-04-01
Institutions: European Parliament, MEGAHY
Subjects: Türkiye, epidemiology, exchange of information, health risk, infectious disease, public health, tourism













EUR-Lex - 91996E0774 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0774

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 774/96 by Thomas MEGAHY to the Council. Public health information  


Official Journal C 356 , 25/11/1996 P. 0008 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0774/96 by Thomas Megahy (PSE) to the Council (1 April 1996)Subject: Public health informationOne of my constituents has complained that he was exposed to the risk of catching Legionnaires' disease because of lack of proper public health communication between Turkey and the UK. This is a matter that may also concern other EU countries.He states that Legionnaires' disease was contracted at a hotel in Kusadisi in May 1995. There were eleven cases in total. However, it was only in late September that tourists were removed from this hotel and during this time four and a half thousand British holidaymakers had been exposed to the risk of Legionnaires' disease.What arrangements exist between the EU and Turkey for the exchange of vital public health information? Does the Council think the present methods of communicating public health hazards are satisfactory? If not, what can be done to improve them?Reply (14 October 1996)1. At present no specific arrangements exist between the European Union and Turkey for the exchange of public health information. However, as part of the overall solution of 6 March 1995 implementing the final phase of the Customs Union, provision was made for cooperation with Turkey to be expanded in the scientific sector and as regards information and communication in order to promote the mutual exchange of information.2. The occurrence of a case of Legionnaires' disease in Turkey mentioned by the Honourable Member concerns the whole problem of infectious diseases and their spread across borders.Attention is drawn to two recent initiatives which take account of the hazards resulting from the emergence of new epidemiological phenomena and the resurgence of known infectious diseases.At Community level the European Parliament and the Council have before them a proposal for a Decision, the aim of which is to create a network for the epidemiological surveillance and control of communicable diseases.Moreover, in the context of the new Transatlantic action plan signed on 3 December 1995, the European Union and the United States proposed to create an EU-US task force responsible for developing and implementing an effective global early warning system and response network for communicable diseases. The task force held its first meeting in Rome on 16 and 17 May 1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 786/96 by Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Austrian restrictions on road hauliers
Date: 1996-04-01
Institutions: European Parliament, MUSCARDINI
Subjects: Austria, EU law, carriage of goods, charges for use of infrastructure, tax harmonisation, toll, vehicle tax













EUR-Lex - 91996E0786 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0786

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 786/96 by Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Austrian restrictions on road hauliers  


Official Journal C 305 , 15/10/1996 P. 0018 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0786/96 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (1 April 1996)Subject: Austrian restrictions on road hauliersSince 1 February 1996, Austria has been applying new measures to restrict the passage of lorries in its territory.Is the Commission in a position to say whether:1. The new measures constitute a considerable increase in the costs to road-hauliers, which will result in higher prices for the goods transported, will be passed on to the final consumer and will have an impact on inflation?2. It has assessed the adverse effects of these increases on road-haulage firms, and on jobs?3. These measures are compatible with current legislation and with the accession treaty?4. If not, whether it intends to take steps to remove this unwelcome burden placed on all Europe's road hauliers?5. Whether Austria's decision was partly the result of the lack of suitable measures to increase rail transport with a view to contributing to environmental protection and the defence of the population's ecological aspirations?Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (3 June 1996)The Commission has analysed the recent measures adopted by the Austrian authorities which have resulted in a substantial increase in tolls on the Brenner motorway in the light of the relevant provisions of Community law and, in particular, of Directive 93/89/EEC ((OJ L 279, 12.11.1993. )) on road charges.The increase in tolls has been analysed with due consideration of the proportionality principle, as the above-mentioned Directive specifies that toll rates shall be related to the costs of constructing, operating and developing the infrastructure network concerned. The toll income for the Brenner, on the basis of figures supplied by the Austrian authorities, is substantially higher than its costs.The Commission has, therefore, invited the Austrian authorities to submit their observations in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 169 of the EC Treaty. The Commission has taken this action strictly in accordance with existing Community rules and in order to ensure compliance with Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 763/96 by Aline PAILLER to the Commission. Rights of migrants and their families
Date: 1996-04-01
Institutions: European Parliament, PAILLER
Subjects: International Labour Office, UN convention, immigration, integration of migrants, international standard, migrant worker, political asylum, ratification of an agreement













EUR-Lex - 91996E0763 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0763

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 763/96 by Aline PAILLER to the Commission. Rights of migrants and their families  


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





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0763/96 by Aline Pailler (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (1 April 1996)Subject: Rights of migrants and their familiesIn its Communication of 23 February 1994 on immigration and asylum policies (COM(94)23 final) the Commission states that the ratification by the Member States of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, adopted by the UN General Assembly on 18 December 1990, would guarantee that the rights granted to migrants and their families resident in the Community meet the highest international standards.Can the Commission say which Member States have ratified this Convention? Is it prepared to take steps to encourage all the Member States to ratify the Convention and submit proposals for improving the protection of the social, economic, cultural and political rights of migrants and their families in the European Union?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (7 May 1996)The United Nations Convention on the protection of the rights of all migrant workers and members of their families has not been ratified by the Member States of the Community.In its medium term social action programme 1995-1997 ((COM(95) 134 final. )) the Commission declared that it will encourage Member States to ratify the United Nations Convention in order to improve the position of migrant workers and their families resident in the Community and ensure that the rights accorded to them correspond to international standards.The Commission is proceeding with the preparatory work, including the drafting of a report on the difficulties and possibilities of ratification by the Member States and the added value of ratification of this Convention in comparison with other international instruments adopted by the International Labour office and the Council of Europe.The Commission will continue to take forward the actions to strengthen integration policies for the benefit of immigrants set out in its communication on immigration and asylum policies of 23 February 1994, including the promotion of exchange of information and experience with governments and non governmental organizations and the granting of subsidies to projects for integration.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 586/96 of 1 April 1996 amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff
Date: 1996-04-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, clothing, common customs tariff













EUR-Lex - 31996R0586 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



31996R0586

Commission Regulation (EC) No 586/96 of 1 April 1996 amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff  


Official Journal L 084 , 03/04/1996 P. 0018 - 0018 





COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 586/96 of 1 April 1996 amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 344/96 (2), and in particular Article 9 thereof,Whereas in order to ensure uniform application of the combined nomenclature, it is necessary to clarify the terms 'pullover` and 'waistcoat` used in Note 3 (b) to Chapter 61 of the combined nomenclature; whereas for this purpose it is necessary to supplement Additional Note 1 to Chapter 61 of the combined nomenclature; whereas Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has to be amended accordingly;Whereas the Tariff and Statistical Nomenclature Section of the Customs Code Committee has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman;HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:Article 1 The second paragraph of Additional Note 1 to Chapter 61 of Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 is replaced by the following:'For this purpose:- the fabric used can be unbleached, bleached, dyed, of yarns of different colours or printed,- a pullover or waistcoat with ribbing is to be considered as a component of an ensemble even if there is no ribbing on the component intended to cover the lower part of the body, provided that the ribbing is not sewn on but produced directly by the knitting process.`Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on the 21st day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.Done at Brussels, 1 April 1996.For the CommissionMario MONTIMember of the Commission(1) OJ No L 256, 7. 9. 1987, p. 1.(2) OJ No L 49, 28. 2. 1996, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 776/96 by Gerardo FERNÁNDEZ-ALBOR to the Commission. Promoting industrial processing of fishery products
Date: 1996-04-01
Institutions: European Parliament, FERNANDEZ ALBOR
Subjects: Spain, fishing area, food processing, job creation, location of industry













EUR-Lex - 91996E0776 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0776

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 776/96 by Gerardo FERNÁNDEZ-ALBOR to the Commission. Promoting industrial processing of fishery products  


Official Journal C 280 , 25/09/1996 P. 0079 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0776/96 by Gerardo Fernández-Albor (PPE) to the Commission (1 April 1996)Subject: Promoting industrial processing of fishery productsModernization, restructuring and diversification are the three key issues for the future of the fisheries sector in most areas of Spain.However, greater profitability in the fisheries sector in most parts of Spain can best be achieved by means of the organization of markets, involving special promotional measures for fishery products, and the establishment of fish processing industries. This would at the same time lead to new jobs in the fisheries sector, which must realize that fishing involves more than simply catching fish.Measures to promote industrial processing of fishery products therefore have a major role to play in the restructuring of the fisheries sector in many parts of Spain.Would the Commission say to what extent its programmes providing support for business initiatives aimed at the diversification of fishing activities make provision for concerted action to promote initiatives likely to lead to the establishment of new fish processing industries?Answer given by Ms Bonino on behalf of the Commission (21 May 1996)Among the structural intervention schemes for fisheries in Spain, processing and marketing constitute one of the priority subsectors for financing from the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG). Total investment of ECU 408 million in the processing sector is made up of ECU 273 million in public aid (ECU 223 million of this from the Community) and over ECU 134 million in private sector support. The aid goes mainly on improvements in competitiveness, health standard conformity and the embracing of new technologies.The Commission believes that aid for processing industries should help smooth their way into the new globalizing market for fisheries products.The Community's Pesca initiative is also designed to support restructuring of the industry in fish-dependent areas. Pesca, which complements IFOP, has a budget of ECU 41 million for the period 1994-99, including ECU 24 million in investment for preservation and processing of fisheries products.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 766/96 by Thomas MEGAHY to the Commission. Corruption scandal in Taiwan in 1992/1993
Date: 1996-04-01
Institutions: European Parliament, MEGAHY
Subjects: China, Taiwan, corruption, exchange of information, judicial inquiry, oil industry













EUR-Lex - 91996E0766 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0766

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 766/96 by Thomas MEGAHY to the Commission. Corruption scandal in Taiwan in 1992/1993  


Official Journal C 297 , 08/10/1996 P. 0025 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0766/96 by Thomas Megahy (PSE) to the Commission (1 April 1996)Subject: Corruption scandal in Taiwan in 1992/19931. Is the Commission aware of an immense corruption scandal (Kaohsiung Refinery) that occurred in Taiwan in 1992/93 involving the state-owned companies CPC (Chinese Petroleum Corporation) and Tang Eng Iron Works Co (TE) and their respective managements?2. Is it known to the Commission that any moment now a major sequel to that corruption scandal may erupt, regarding the use by and on behalf of CPC of designs that CPC, in collusion with TE, obtained from a subcontractor, while continuously refusing compensation, to the detriment of EU constituents? Such behaviour is unacceptable, all the more so for state-owned companies, and borders on embezzlement.3. Does the Commission agree that, in accordance with the recently reformulated policy towards the People's Republic of China, this unfortunate matter, which may apparently generate explosive publicity, needs to be most diligently addressed?4. Does the Commission agree, in view of the above and with regard to internationally respected standards, that the request from Taiwan for support by the European Union in obtaining membership of the United Nations should be seriously reconsidered?Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (2 May 1996)The Commission is grateful to the Honourable Member for drawing its attention to the matters raised in the question. No representations have been received from Community economic operators on this issue. The Commission would of course be ready to look into the matter in more depth when further details are available.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 777/96 by Gerardo FERNÁNDEZ-ALBOR to the Commission. Disparities in family allowances in the EU Member States
Date: 1996-04-01
Institutions: European Parliament, FERNANDEZ ALBOR
Subjects: EU Member State, Eurostat, competence of the Member States, social inequality













EUR-Lex - 91996E0777 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0777

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 777/96 by Gerardo FERNÁNDEZ-ALBOR to the Commission. Disparities in family allowances in the EU Member States  


Official Journal C 217 , 26/07/1996 P. 0113 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0777/96 by Gerardo Fernández-Albor (PPE) to the Commission (1 April 1996)Subject: Disparities in family allowances in the EU Member StatesAccording to the findings of the Eurostat survey, between 1980 and 1991, the EU Member States spent 15 times as much as Spain on family benefits. A Spanish woman would need to have 16 children to receive the allowance which a British woman receives for one child.While in most Member States of the Union family allowances are not linked to income, in Spain the allowances paid by the government are based on minimum income levels, which disqualifies the majority of families.Does the Commission intend to tackle such disparities by proposing a family allowances policy which ensures that all European families receive equivalent allowances and rules out flagrant disparities such as those currently affecting Spanish families?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (7 May 1996)The fixing of family allowances is within the sole discretion of the Member States. The only competence of the Commission in this area is to make sure that citizens living in another Member State than of their origin do not suffer discrimination. Futhermore the European observatory on national family policies monitors the measures in favour of families and reports on them on an annual basis.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 787/96 by Florus WIJSENBEEK to the Commission. VAT on telecommunications services
Date: 1996-04-01
Institutions: European Parliament, WIJSENBEEK
Subjects: OECD, VAT, competitiveness, restriction on competition, telecommunications, third country













EUR-Lex - 91996E0787 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0787

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 787/96 by Florus WIJSENBEEK to the Commission. VAT on telecommunications services  


Official Journal C 297 , 08/10/1996 P. 0027 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0787/96 by Florus Wijsenbeek (ELDR) to the Commission (1 April 1996)Subject: VAT on telecommunications services1. Is the Commission aware that competing telecommunications operators registered in a country outside the EU (for example, the USA) which does not apply VAT can, as a result, offer more attractive prices to users not entitled to make deductions, such as public authorities, banks, insurance companies and private individuals?2. Is it true that the Commission believes that the rule in Article 9(1) of the Sixth Directive (determining the place where a service is supplied) is applicable to telecommunications services and that telecommunications operators registered in the EU Member States must therefore charge VAT on all their telecommunications services, regardless of customer and regardless of where the service is performed?3. Does the Commission subscribe to the view that it cannot be the intention for the EU to place its own industry at a disadvantage, as far as VAT is concerned, compared with its competitors outside the EU?4. If so, what action will it take to put an end to this distortion of competition as soon as possible?5. If not, why does the Commission allow this unfair competition to continue?Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (21 May 1996)The Commission is aware that the current arrangements for the taxation of telecommunications, which are governed by Article 9(1) of the Sixth VAT Directive (77/388/EEC), ((OJ L 145, 13.6.1977. )) under which such services are taxed in the Member State in which the supplier has established his business, are no longer appropriate in view of technological developments in this area.Since the rules place Community operators at a competitive disadvantage in some instances, the Commission has begun examining the matter through a group of experts. It has also asked for the subject to be discussed by an expert group within the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.On the basis of the conclusions drawn from such discussions, the Commission expects to put forward new rules on the place at which VAT is charged on telecommunications by the end of the year. The new rules should ensure that, under the common system of value added tax, any service of this kind provided within the Community is subject to tax.