do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 818/96 by Pieter DANKERT , Carlos PIMENTA to the Commission. Visit by the Commissioner for Regional Policy to Portugal
Date: 1996-04-03
Institutions: DANKERT, European Parliament, PIMENTA
Subjects: European Commissioner, Lisbon and the Tagus Valley, Portugal, engineering structure, exchange of information, minister, project evaluation, regional policy













EUR-Lex - 91996E0818 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0818

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 818/96 by Pieter DANKERT , Carlos PIMENTA to the Commission. Visit by the Commissioner for Regional Policy to Portugal  


Official Journal C 297 , 08/10/1996 P. 0033 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0818/96 by Pieter Dankert (PSE) and Carlos Pimenta (ELDR) to the Commission (3 April 1996)Subject: Visit by the Commissioner for Regional Policy to PortugalThe Commissioner for Regional Policy is apparently to visit Portugal in the near future?Will he be visiting the new Tagus bridge, partly financed from the Cohesion Fund?Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (30 May 1996)Since her visit to Portugal on 25 and 26 March was the first following the recent change of government, the Member of the Commission responsible for regional policy took the opportunity of meeting all the relevant ministers together to review both general issues and a number of major projects, including the new road crossing of the Tagus in the Lisbon area.On this point, owing to a very busy schedule, the Commissioner did not visit the project in question.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 802/96 by Sebastiano MUSUMECI to the Commission. Crisis in the CAP
Date: 1996-04-03
Institutions: European Parliament, MUSUMECI
Subjects: Community preference, GATT, agricultural product, common agricultural policy, common organisation of markets, economic consequence, free-trade agreement, reform of the CAP













EUR-Lex - 91996E0802 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0802

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 802/96 by Sebastiano MUSUMECI to the Commission. Crisis in the CAP  


Official Journal C 297 , 08/10/1996 P. 0028 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0802/96 by Sebastiano Musumeci (NI) to the Commission (3 April 1996)Subject: Crisis in the CAPDoes the Commission agree that the agreements on free trade in agricultural products concluded with third countries by the European Union as a whole or by individual Member States are in danger of plunging the whole Common Agricultural Policy,and hence the Community preference system itself, into crisis?Does the Commission agree that it is odd, to say the least, that free trade agreements of this kind are concluded with countries whose agricultural production is similar to that of the Mediterranean countries, whose products, incidentally, are among those receiving the least protection and subsidies under the CAP?Does the Commission agree that it is worrying that by means of this series of agreements the European Union places at a disadvantage mainly those agricultural economies that are already afflicted by structural and marketing deficiencies and are characterized by the small or medium-sized undertakings that are so important for the preservation both of the ecosystem and of social and cultural traditions and identity?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (10 May 1996)In addition to participating in the multilateral trading process through its membership of the GATT (General agreement on tariffs and trade), the Community maintained and developed a number of bilateral trade agreements. Following the successful completion of the multilateral Uruguay Round, the Community is seeking to improve and widen the scope of bilateral trading agreements.In considering trade in agricultural products, it should be borne in mind that not only is the Community the largest single importer, it is also the world's second largest exporter of such products.When negotiating trade agreements the Commission and, when approving the results the Council, take appropriate account of the socio-economic factors cited by the Honourable Member. In particular, in 1992, the Council approved a series of reforms to the common market organisations and a series of accompanying measures designed to protect the specificity of European agriculture and the rural world.For a limited number of agricultural sectors not covered by the 1992 reforms (in particular rice, fruit and vegetables, and wine), the Commission has tabled initiatives in pursuit of the 1992 reform process. In the case of rice, the Council approved reform proposals in December 1995. For the other sectors discussions are continuing.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 817/96 by Marie-Paule KESTELIJN- SIERENS to the Commission. Evaluation of Project 1992
Date: 1996-04-03
Institutions: European Parliament, KESTELIJN-SIERENS
Subjects: competitiveness, economic analysis, economic consequence, resolution (EU), single market













EUR-Lex - 91996E0817 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0817

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 817/96 by Marie-Paule KESTELIJN- SIERENS to the Commission. Evaluation of Project 1992  


Official Journal C 217 , 26/07/1996 P. 0118 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0817/96 by Marie-Paule Kestelijn-Sierens (ELDR) to the Commission (3 April 1996)Subject: Evaluation of Project 1992At the end of the 1980's Cecchini, in cooperation with the Commission departments, carried out an ex-ante evaluation of the costs and benefits of Project 1992.Does the Commission intend to carry out an ex-post assessment now that more than three years have passed since the entry into force of the internal market?Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (23 April 1996)Under Resolution 1218/92 of the Council of 7 December 1992 ((OJ No C 334, 18.12.1992. )), the Commission is required 'to provide an overall analysis of the effectiveness of measures taken in creating the single market, taking particular account of promoting throughout the Community a harmonious and balanced development of economic activities, sustainable and non-inflationary growth respecting the environment, a high degree of convergence of economic performance, a high level of employment and of social protection, the raising of the standard of living and quality of life, economic and social cohesion and solidarity among Member States. This analysis could, in addition, consider the impact of improving the competitiveness of European business in world markets'.The Commission is currently conducting a major review covering the impact of single market measures on manufacturing and services sectors, on the development of infrastructures, on the dismantling of barriers, on trade, investment and competition. The aggregate impact on the Community economy as well as that of individual regions will also be assessed.Work is well underway and it is expected that the Commission will communicate the results of this evaluation to the Council and the Parliament before the end of the current year.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 807/96 by Christine CRAWLEY to the Commission. Mycotoxins
Date: 1996-04-03
Institutions: CRAWLEY, European Parliament
Subjects: European cooperation, food contamination, foodstuff, foodstuffs legislation, human nutrition, public health, scientific committee (EU), scientific cooperation, toxic substance













EUR-Lex - 91996E0807 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0807

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 807/96 by Christine CRAWLEY to the Commission. Mycotoxins  


Official Journal C 297 , 08/10/1996 P. 0030 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0807/96 by Christine Crawley (PSE) to the Commission (3 April 1996)Subject: MycotoxinsFollowing its discussion document, what plans does the Commission have to introduce EC legislation controlling the presence of mycotoxins in food?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (15 May 1996)Council Regulation (EEC) No 315/93 of 8 February 1993 laying down Community procedures for contaminants in food ((OJ L 37, 13.2.1993. )), provides that maximum levels may be set for certain contaminants in foods in order to protect public health and to avoid barriers to trade within the internal market due to differences in maximum levels laid down in national legislation.Mycotoxins, such as aflatoxins and ochratoxin A, which may be present as contaminants in certain foods under certain circumstances, fall within the scope of this Regulation. The Commission is studying these matters as a matter of priority. The scientific committee for food was consulted by the Commission under Regulation (EEC) No 315/93 and delivered its opinion on 23 September 1994 ((Thirty-fifth Series of Opinions of the Scientific Committee for Food (in print). )).Finally, in the scientific cooperation framework of Council Directive 93/5/EEC of 25 February 1993 on assistance to the Commission and cooperation by the Member States in the scientific examination of questions relating to food ((OJ L 52, 4.3.1993. )), under Commission Decision 95/142/EC ((OJ L 92, 25.4.1995. )) of 11 April 1995 amending Commission Decision 94/652/EC establishing the inventory and distribution of tasks to be undertaken within the framework of cooperation by Member States in the scientific examination of questions relating to food, tasks on aflatoxins and ochratoxin A are currently being finalised.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 816/96 by Caroline JACKSON to the Commission. Implementation report on framework waste directive (75/442/ EEC)
Date: 1996-04-03
Institutions: European Parliament, JACKSON CAROLINE
Subjects: EC Directive, application of EU law, report, waste management













EUR-Lex - 91996E0816 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0816

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 816/96 by Caroline JACKSON to the Commission. Implementation report on framework waste directive (75/442/ EEC)  


Official Journal C 305 , 15/10/1996 P. 0020 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0816/96 by Caroline Jackson (PPE) to the Commission (3 April 1996)Subject: Implementation report on framework waste directive (75/442/EEC)In its reply to my Written Question E-2414/95 ((OJ C 9, 15.1.1996, p.40. )) the Commission stated that it 'intends to publish a report' on the implementation of Directive 75/442/EEC ((OJ C 9, 25.7.1975, p.39. )) 'by the end of 1995'. Has the report been published yet, and, if not, when will it appear? If it has been published, why have copies not been sent to members and substitutes of the Parliament's Environment Committee?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (8 May 1996)The report mentioned in the answer given by the Commission to written question E-2414/95 ((OJ C 9, 15.1.1996. )) has still not been published.Given the translation deadlines it is currently planned that the Commission will adopt this in the autumn of 1996 (reports on four directives are planned, making up a total of more than 100 pages).It will be immediately sent to Parliament and the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 820/96 by Francisco LUCAS PIRES to the Commission. Community AIDS programmes
Date: 1996-04-03
Institutions: European Parliament, LUCAS PIRES
Subjects: AIDS, medical research, public health, social facilities













EUR-Lex - 91996E0820 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0820

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 820/96 by Francisco LUCAS PIRES to the Commission. Community AIDS programmes  


Official Journal C 217 , 26/07/1996 P. 0118 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0820/96 by Francisco Lucas Pires (PPE) to the Commission (3 April 1996)Subject: Community AIDS programmesDo Community AIDS programmes provide for any form of support for the construction of reception and treatment centres by private social welfare institutions?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (7 May 1996)In accordance with Article 129 of the EC Treaty, Community action in the field of public health must be directed towards the prevention of diseases, by promoting research into their causes and their transmission, as well as towards health information and education.Within this framework, the programme of Community action on the prevention of AIDS and certain other communicable diseases (1996 to 2000) ((OJ L 95, 16.4.1996. )), adopted by the European Parliament and the Council on 29 March 1996, provides for a whole range of actions concerning the surveillance and monitoring of AIDS, the fight against its transmission, information and education for the public in general and for certain target groups, exchanges of experience and information concerning modes of assistance for those testing seropositive and for those infected with AIDS, as well as the fight against discrimination.Under the terms of Article 129 of the EC Treaty, the Commission's Community action programme does not provide for any direct support for the construction of reception and treatment centres for those with HIV/AIDS.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 723/96 of 3 April 1996 amending Regulation (EC) No 2009/95 laying down detailed rules for the free supply of agricultural products held in intervention stocks to Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1975/95
Date: 1996-04-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: USSR, agricultural product, aid system, food aid, intervention stock, terms for aid













EUR-Lex - 31996R0723 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



31996R0723

Commission Regulation (EC) No 723/96 of 3 April 1996 amending Regulation (EC) No 2009/95 laying down detailed rules for the free supply of agricultural products held in intervention stocks to Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1975/95  


Official Journal L 100 , 23/04/1996 P. 0009 - 0009 





COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 723/96 of 3 April 1996 amending Regulation (EC) No 2009/95 laying down detailed rules for the free supply of agricultural products held in intervention stocks to Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1975/95THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1975/95 of 4 August 1995 on actions for the free supply of agricultural products to the people of Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 686/96 (2), and in particular Article 4 thereof,Whereas Regulation (EC) No 686/96 includes Turkmenistan amongst the countries to receive free supplies; whereas the same detailed rules of application must be extended to that country;Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Joint Management Committee,HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:Article 1 Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2009/95 (3) is hereby replaced by the following:'Article 1This Regulation shall apply to the free supply of agricultural products from intervention stocks or of foodstuffs belonging to the same group of products to Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1975/95, without prejudice to any additional provisions adopted for particular supplies.`Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on the third 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, 3 April 1996.For the CommissionFranz FISCHLERMember of the Commission(1) OJ No L 191, 12. 8. 1995, p. 2.(2) OJ No L 97, 18. 4. 1996, p. 1.(3) OJ No L 196, 19. 8. 1995, p. 4.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 800/96 by Jesús CABEZÓN ALONSO , Juan IZQUIERDO COLLADO to the Commission. Imports of saffron from Iran
Date: 1996-04-03
Institutions: CABEZON ALONSO, European Parliament, IZQUIERDO COLLADO
Subjects: CCT duties, EU production, Iran, Spain, aromatic plant, common organisation of markets, economic consequence, import













EUR-Lex - 91996E0800 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0800

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 800/96 by Jesús CABEZÓN ALONSO , Juan IZQUIERDO COLLADO to the Commission. Imports of saffron from Iran  


Official Journal C 217 , 26/07/1996 P. 0115 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0800/96 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) and Juan Izquierdo Collado (PSE) to the Commission (3 April 1996)Subject: Imports of saffron from IranThe appearance on the EU markets of saffron from Iran has had highly unfavourable effects on Spanish producers in this area.In the Spanish region of Castile-La Mancha, 20 000 people are employed in saffron production.Iranian saffron is of inferior quality, and is placed on the EU market at prices which destroy any possibility of competition on an equal basis.Is the Commission aware of this state of affairs?What measures has it adopted, or what measures does it intend to adopt, to protect this EU product?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (24 April 1996)Saffron is imported into the Community at a rate of 10% duty. The common organisation of the market in saffron and other spices, is covered by Council Regulation (EEC) 827/68 ((OJ L 151, 30.6.1968, most recently amended by Council Regulation (EC) 3290/94 (OJ L 349, 31.12.1994). )).In 1994, the most recent year for which complete figures are available, imports of saffron from Iran amounted to 30 tonnes (worth 7.4 MECU) which was 55% of the total volume of saffron imported into the Community and represents approximately a doubling of the level of recent years. In the same year Spanish exports of saffron (including intra-Community trade) were 45 tonnes (worth 14.1 MECU).In the absence of reliable production and price data for saffron, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the effect of Iranian imports. The Commission will be pleased to examine any more detailed information on these imports and any detrimental effects on Community markets and production.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 815/96 by Caroline JACKSON to the Commission. Directive 94/31/EEC on hazardous waste
Date: 1996-04-03
Institutions: European Parliament, JACKSON CAROLINE
Subjects: EC Directive, application of EU law, dangerous substance, waste management













EUR-Lex - 91996E0815 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0815

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 815/96 by Caroline JACKSON to the Commission. Directive 94/31/EEC on hazardous waste  


Official Journal C 322 , 28/10/1996 P. 0009 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0815/96 by Caroline Jackson (PPE) to the Commission (3 April 1996)Subject: Directive 94/31/EEC on hazardous wasteIn its reply of 10 October 1995 to my Written Question E-2415/95 ((OJ C 9, 15.1.1996, p.41. )) the Commission stated that only 5 Member States (Belgium (Wallonia and Brussels regions), Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and Austria) had met the requirement of Directive 94/31/EEC ((OJ L 168, 2.7.1994, p.28. )) to inform the Commission by 27 June of the national measures they had taken to comply with its terms. The Commission also stated that it was initiating infringement proceedings against those Member States which had not complied.Have these proceedings had any effect? Which Member States are still ignoring the terms of the directive? Why does the Commission not give adverse publicity to such infringements on such an important subject?Answer given by Ms Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (22 May 1996)The infringement proceedings announced in the reply to abovementioned written question from the Honourable Member have been initiated. To this end, letters of notice were sent to those Member States which failed to notify the national measures taken to transpose Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste, as amended by Directive 94/31/EC, within the time limit set by the Directive.The countries concerned are Belgium (Flanders), Denmark, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom. Since these letters of notice were sent, the Commission has received notification of France's national measures, which partly transpose the Directive.As a general rule, the Commission publicizes infringement proceedings initiated for failure to notify measures implementing directives. These proceedings were mentioned in the EU Bulletin of October 1995 (point 1.8.1) and will also be referred to in the 13th annual report on the application of Community law, shortly to be sent to Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 793/96 by Robin TEVERSON to the Commission. ERASMUS
Date: 1996-04-03
Institutions: European Parliament, TEVERSON
Subjects: Community budget, educational institution, financing method, student mobility, supplementary financing













EUR-Lex - 91996E0793 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0793

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 793/96 by Robin TEVERSON to the Commission. ERASMUS  


Official Journal C 217 , 26/07/1996 P. 0114 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0793/96 by Robin Teverson (ELDR) to the Commission (3 April 1996)Subject: ERASMUSAre there any funding changes in the ERASMUS programme in the European Union and more specifically any increases or decreases in the funding allocation for the United Kingdom? In view of the continued increases in EU student numbers, what steps does the Commission intend to take not only to safeguard existing ERASMUS allocations but also ensure that they keep up with the student population?Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (13 May 1996)The Erasmus programme forms an integral part of the new Community programme Socrates, which was adopted by the Council and the Parliament on 14 March 1995 ((OJ L n° 87, 20.4.1995. )).The Community budget agreed for the implementation of the Socrates programme, for the period 1995-1999, is 850 MECU. According to the terms of the decision establishing the programme, the budget for Chapter I - Erasmus, may not be less than 55% of the total budget for Socrates.The budget distribution between the Member States of the part provided for student mobility grants (Chapter I - Action 2), is calculated according to parameters given in the decision itself. As far as the United Kingdom allocation is concerned in 1996, there is a slight decrease compared with 1995, due mainly to the new factor that has been introduced relating to distance.Despite the importance of student mobility, and the constant increase of Community funding, the Community budget alone cannot fund total student demand for mobility. For this purpose, the Commission urges the Member State authorities and higher education institutions to try to secure complementary funding. Moreover, the status 'Erasmus student' is now independent of 'Erasmus grant holder', thus allowing students who can afford to fund their own mobility costs to participate in Erasmus without grants, and students who have special needs to have their grant increased.