do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1033/96 by Richard HOWITT to the Commission. Helios 2
Date: 1996-05-03
Institutions: European Parliament, HOWITT
Subjects: European Commission, association, disabled person, equal treatment, exchange of information, project evaluation, social policy













EUR-Lex - 91996E1033 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1033

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1033/96 by Richard HOWITT to the Commission. Helios 2  


Official Journal C 305 , 15/10/1996 P. 0040 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1033/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (3 May 1996)Subject: Helios 2When does the Commission plan to issue a formal document to the European Disability Forum on the Post Helios 2 initiative, specifically:1. proposals for any interim actions pending adoption of a successor programme and2. proposals for a successor programme?Answer given by Mr. Flynn on behalf of the Commission (8 July 1996)In accordance with its social action programme, the Commission has initiated widespread consultations on the most suitable Community initiatives to succeed the Helios II programme. This subject also regularly appears on the agenda for meetings of the Helios Advisory Committee and the European Disability Forum, although the advisory role of these bodies is limited, strictly speaking, to the implementation of the present programme.Pending the outcome of the final assessment of the programme (first half of 1997), the Commission will pursue the other major objectives which it has set itself as part of its social action programme, particularly with regard to equal opportunities, employment and dialogue with disabled organisations. In this context, the European Disability Forum will be kept informed and will be involved in these initiatives as soon as they are formalised.Moreover, the Commission is currently preparing a communication which will set out its overall strategy in the field of disability. This text will be presented to the other Community institutions and made available to all other interested bodies including in particular the European Disability Forum.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1024/96 by Miguel ARIAS CAÑETE to the Commission. Belgian national aid to vegetable producers
Date: 1996-05-03
Institutions: ARIAS CANETE, European Parliament
Subjects: Belgium, Spain, State aid, agri-monetary policy, common agricultural policy, cyclical fluctuation, farm income, financial loss, fruit, vegetable













EUR-Lex - 91996E1024 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1024

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1024/96 by Miguel ARIAS CAÑETE to the Commission. Belgian national aid to vegetable producers  


Official Journal C 385 , 19/12/1996 P. 0001 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1024/96 by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission (3 May 1996)Subject: Belgian national aid to vegetable producersUnder the aegis of Regulation 2611/95 ((OJ L 268, 10.11.1995, p. 3. )), the Belgian authorities are seeking to approve national aid to greenhouse vegetables and endives producers in compensation for loss of income due to the devaluation of the peseta. Given that the overlaps between the traditional Belgian and Spanish harvest occur between the months of October, April and May, and that in those months in 1994 and 1995 there were no appreciable monetary fluctuations, one must conclude that the loss of income suffered was not due to monetary fluctuations, but to structural problems in the operation of the market, the steady fall in prices since 1990, and the crisis in the Belgian subsidy system.Given that the volume of Spanish foreign trade in endives is not sufficient to disturb the markets, any aid based on its effects is groundless, and for that reason, the aid proposed by the Belgian government is intended to encourage tomato production, seriously altering normal competition conditions.Under the circumstances, I would ask the Commission whether it believes that the aid proposed by the Belgian Government meets the requirements laid down in Regulation 2611/95?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (12 June 1996)The Commission received on 18 April 1996 a notification from the Belgian authorities in accordance with the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 2611/95. The Commission has not yet completed its assessment of this notification.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1038/96 by Glyn FORD to the Commission. Entitlement to statutory holidays
Date: 1996-05-03
Institutions: European Parliament, FORD
Subjects: labour law, public holiday













EUR-Lex - 91996E1038 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1038

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1038/96 by Glyn FORD to the Commission. Entitlement to statutory holidays  


Official Journal C 280 , 25/09/1996 P. 0114 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1038/96 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (3 May 1996)Subject: Entitlement to statutory holidaysWhat is the entitlement to statutory holidays on a country-by-country basis in the Member States?What rights do workers have to these holidays, on a country-by-country basis?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (10 June 1996)The Commission understands the Honourable Member's question to refer to public holidays, rather than to paid annual leave which is provided for in Article 7 of Council Directive 93/104/EC concerning certain aspects of the organization of working time ((OJ L 307, 31.12.1993. )).The situation with regard to entitlement to public holidays is complex. In twelve Member States there is specific legislation in respect of public holidays. In Denmark and Sweden this right is recognised in collective agreements, while in the United Kingdom it depends on the contract of employment. Where there is legislation, collective agreements sometimes provide for further public holidays. There are different rules in different Member States covering the situation when the public holidays falls on another day of rest.The Commission has published a list of holidays in 1996 ((OJ C 45, 17.2.1996. )).The rights relating to entitlement to public holidays and the payment of wages on those days also vary. However some features are common in a number of Member States, namely workers normally have a right to be paid in respect of public holidays, the payment is made by the employer and no other body, and such holidays are paid in addition to paid annual leave. In most Member States public holidays are treated in the same way as Sundays in respect of the rules regarding working on these days and payment or compensatory rest for such work.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1025/96 by Miguel ARIAS CAÑETE to the Commission. Protecting Community avocados against imports from third countries
Date: 1996-05-03
Institutions: ARIAS CANETE, European Parliament
Subjects: EU market, EU production, import policy, market protection, quality standard, third country, tropical fruit













EUR-Lex - 91996E1025 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1025

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1025/96 by Miguel ARIAS CAÑETE to the Commission. Protecting Community avocados against imports from third countries  


Official Journal C 305 , 15/10/1996 P. 0038 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1025/96 by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission (3 May 1996)Subject: Protecting Community avocados against imports from third countriesAvocado production in the Community enjoys very little protection at the frontier.In particular, the competition of imports from countries such as Israel and Mexico pose serious problems to the sector's survival in the EU.I would therefore ask the Commission whether it has plans to establish specific measures to guarantee Community producers a viable level of profits, and whether it intends to establish minimum quality standards which would, in practice, constitute a means of checking and reducing imports from third countries?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (4 June 1996)The Commission does not envisage specific measures to assist avocado producers.As regards quality standards and conformity checking, the Commission proposes, in the context of the reform of the market organization for fruit and vegetables, to maintain the provisions already in force for some thirty products.At the request of the Member States and insofar as such marketing standards do not impede international trade under the terms of the agreements concluded with the World Trade Organization, such provisions may also be extended to other fruit and vegetables, such as avocados.In no case shall the standards in question be used as a means of protecting the Community market.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1155/96 by Konstantinos HATZIDAKIS to the Commission. 'Intervention meat' for the unemployed
Date: 1996-05-03
Institutions: European Parliament, HATZIDAKIS
Subjects: Greece, food aid, intervention stock, meat, unemployed person, voluntary organisation













EUR-Lex - 91996E1155 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1155

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1155/96 by Konstantinos HATZIDAKIS to the Commission. 'Intervention meat' for the unemployed  


Official Journal C 297 , 08/10/1996 P. 0099 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-1155/96 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE) to the Commission (3 May 1996)Subject: 'Intervention meat' for the unemployedAccording to information I have received from the Greek Union of the Unemployed, its 250 members are not being given 'intervention meat' despite a written recommendation to that effect from the responsible directorate of the Ministry for Agriculture. The meat is allegedly going to people in employment. These complaints have also already been made to the European Union's Athens Office.In the light of this, can the Commission intercede to ascertain what exactly is happening and will it say what corrective or preventive measures it could take to eliminate such practices?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (28 May 1996)The scheme to distribute foodstuffs to underprivileged Community citizens from intervention stocks has become well established in the Member States since it was first introduced in late 1987 via Council Regulation (EEC) No 3730/87 ((OJ L 352, 15.12.1987. )) (as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2535/92) ((OJ L 260, 31.10.1995. )) and a Commission implementing regulation which was later superseded by Regulation (EEC) No 3149/92 ((OJ L 313, 30.10.1992. )) (as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 267/96). ((OJ L 36, 14.2.1996. ))Each year, by 1 October, the Commission adopts an annual programme for the distribution of foodstuffs from intervention stocks, broken down by Member State and product. The Member States are then responsible for administering the scheme and deciding which national charities are to distribute the stocks. In Greece, the institution responsible is the Ministry of Agriculture.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1030/96 by Jens-Peter BONDE to the Commission. Customs duty on pectin
Date: 1996-05-03
Institutions: BONDE, European Parliament
Subjects: CCT duties, GATT, biochemistry, food industry, texture agent













EUR-Lex - 91996E1030 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1030

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1030/96 by Jens-Peter BONDE to the Commission. Customs duty on pectin  


Official Journal C 297 , 08/10/1996 P. 0071 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1030/96 by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDN) to the Commission (3 May 1996)Subject: Customs duty on pectinWhy, according to the Commission, must pectin be treated differently from gum arabic, carrageenan, guar gum, agar agar, locust bean seed gum, alginate and carboxymethylcellulose? What particular reason is there for raising the customs duty on pectin?Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (20 June 1996)The separate tariff classification of these products arises because the Combined Nomenclature is based on the Harmonized System adopted under Council Decision 87/369/EEC of 7 April 1987 ((OJ L 198, 20.7.1987 )), which classifies themindividually in headings 1301, 1302, 3912 and 3913. In the old CCT the duties represented the arithmetical average of the rates applicable in the six original Community Member States.These tariffs are now bound in GATT.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1037/96 by Glyn FORD to the Commission. Removal firms' responsibility for VAT
Date: 1996-05-03
Institutions: European Parliament, FORD
Subjects: VAT, carriage of goods, import, provision of services, residential mobility, single market, tax exemption, tax harmonisation













EUR-Lex - 91996E1037 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1037

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1037/96 by Glyn FORD to the Commission. Removal firms' responsibility for VAT  


Official Journal C 322 , 28/10/1996 P. 0026 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1037/96 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (3 May 1996)Subject: Removal firms' responsibility for VATWhat measures has the Commission taken to regularize the problems complained of by the British Association of Removers in their dealings with VAT?Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (3 June 1996)Prior to 1 January 1993, goods received in one Member State from another were treated as importations and the value of the associated transport services should have been added to the value of the goods for taxation at importation. Member States generally applied this rule to the transport of household goods although, normally, such goods are exempt from VAT. This meant, in practice, the removal services themselves were also exempted. However, after that date, when import barriers were abolished under the single market transitional system, such transport services, supplied to private people not registered for VAT, became taxable separately in the country of departure of the goods. This means that removal firms may have to account for VAT in Member States where they are not established and the Commission acknowledges the difficulties they encounter in ensuring that this is done correctly.In the current transitional system, these difficulties are inherent due to the principles governing the place of taxation of supplies of goods and services within the Community. The complexity of these rules encourages operators, faced by the cumbersome nature of their obligations and the scale of their costs, not to declare their activities or to declare them in the Member State in which their costs would be the lowest.Only a radical change in the place of taxation rules can provide an effective solution both for operators and tax administrations. The latter encounter serious difficulties in monitoring the present complex rules. This is a challenge to which the Community must now respond in the context of the work on setting up a definitive VAT system.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1036/96 by Glyn FORD to the Commission. Automatic compensation for victims of accidents
Date: 1996-05-03
Institutions: European Parliament, FORD
Subjects: approximation of laws, indemnification, insurance law, personal accident insurance, third-party insurance, transport accident, victim













EUR-Lex - 91996E1036 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1036

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1036/96 by Glyn FORD to the Commission. Automatic compensation for victims of accidents  


Official Journal C 297 , 08/10/1996 P. 0074 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1036/96 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (3 May 1996)Subject: Automatic compensation for victims of accidentsHas the Commission considered the various positions in Member States for dealing with compensation to victims?As the current situation in the UK leaves the onus on the victim to claim any compensation from insurers, invariably leading to lengthy legal proceedings, is the Commission proposing to address this problem to improve the rights of the individual?Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (17 June 1996)The Commission is aware that compensation for accidents is organised differently by the various Member States.The risk of suffering injury as the result of a traffic accident is covered in all Member States by compulsory third party insurance. Under this cover the insurer pays if the policyholder is liable. In most Member States liability depends on some sort of 'fault' of the driver. The question whether the driver was at fault may in fact lead to lengthy legal proceedings. The same holds true for defining the amount of compensation to be paid.These problems could only be solved by introducing a no-fault system for accidents which would imply an approximation or even harmonisation of the varying liability laws in the Member states. As already expressed in the Commission's answer to written question No 1334/87 by Mr Hänsch ((OJ C 57, 6.3.1989. )), both for reasons of competence and achievablity the Commission has no plans to initiate work in this field.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1021/96 by Doeke EISMA , Hugh KERR to the Commission. Misuse of EU funding by the European Bureau for Conservation and Development (EBCD)
Date: 1996-05-03
Institutions: EISMA, European Parliament, KERR
Subjects: EU aid, European Commission, European organisation, South-East Asia, activity report, exchange of information, management of resources, natural resources, use of aid













EUR-Lex - 91996E1021 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1021

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1021/96 by Doeke EISMA , Hugh KERR to the Commission. Misuse of EU funding by the European Bureau for Conservation and Development (EBCD)  


Official Journal C 322 , 28/10/1996 P. 0025 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1021/96 by Doeke Eisma (ELDR) and Hugh Kerr (PSE) to the Commission (3 May 1996)Subject: Misuse of EU funding by the European Bureau for Conservation and Development (EBCD)On 10 January 1996, the Commission stated, in answer to our Question E-3162/95 ((OJ C 91, 27.3.1996, p. 38. )) concerning the misuse of EU funding by the EBCD, that the evaluation of the financial report relating to the identification of Community-based wild resource management projects in South-East Asia implemented by the EBCD would be sent to us in due time.Is the Commission still examining the financial report mentioned above or has it finished its evaluation?If so, could it send us the results of this evaluation?Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission (5 July 1996)The Commission has completed its examination of the EBCD contract relating to the 'Sustainable use of wildlife; phase one - identification of demonstration projects in South Asia' - and concluded that there has not been a misuse of Community funds. The investigations did reveal internal disagreements within EBCD which may have led to the concerns on the misuse of project funds.Examination of the financial aspects of the project in question has shown minor errors as well as some expenditure after the end of the contract involving limited sums.In the absence of fresh information, no fraud can be imputed. The Commission is taking the customary steps to recover the excess sums paid in order to safeguard the financial interests of the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1137/96 by Carl LANG to the Commission. Supplementary social security schemes
Date: 1996-05-03
Institutions: European Parliament, LANG CARL
Subjects: EU law, additional benefit, social security, social-security benefit













EUR-Lex - 91996E1137 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1137

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1137/96 by Carl LANG to the Commission. Supplementary social security schemes  


Official Journal C 297 , 08/10/1996 P. 0093 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-1137/96 by Carl Lang (NI) to the Commission (3 May 1996)Subject: Supplementary social security schemesOn 26 March 1996 the Court of Justice of the European Communities gave a ruling on the scope of Council Directive 92/49/EEC (non-life insurance) ((OJ L 228, 11.8.1992, p. 1. )) in which it expressly stated that the Directive did not apply to statutory social security schemes. However, as formulated, the question referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling left out an important field of social security: supplementary schemes.One of the questions which is central to this issue appears to be the definition in Community law of the concept of a statutory social security scheme: does it include compulsory supplementary schemes? Does it include supplementary schemes covered by a collective agreement (as in the case of France, for example)?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (12 June 1996)In the framework of various legal instruments adopted by the Council in the domain of social protection (Regulations (EEC) Nos 1408/71 ((OJ L 149, 5.7.71; consolidated version, OJ C 325, 10.12.92 )) and 574/72 ((OJ L 74, 27.3.72; consolidated version, OJ C 325, 10.12.92 )) - social security of migrant workers, Directives 79/7/EEC ((OJ L 6, 10.1.79 )) - equal treatment for men and women, statutory schemes and 86/378/EEC ((OJ L 225, 12.8.96. )) - equal treatment for men and women, supplementary or occupational schemes) and in the light of the case law of the Court of Justice, a Community principle has been developed whereby a statutory social security scheme is taken basically to mean any social security scheme directly provided for and regulated by law that satisfies the principle of solidarity and is mandatory for general categories of workers or professionals in a Member State. This notion excludes any element of concertation within the firm or occupational sector in question.On the other hand, an occupational scheme designed to supplement benefits provided under a mandatory statutory social security scheme does not itself constitute a statutory social security scheme, irrespective of whether it results from a collective agreement or a statutory measure.In principle, the general social security scheme in France corresponds to the statutory scheme under Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1027/96 by Joaquim MIRANDA to the Commission. Visit to Portugal by the Commissioner responsible for Tourism
Date: 1996-05-03
Institutions: European Parliament, MIRANDA
Subjects: European Commissioner, Portugal, tourism













EUR-Lex - 91996E1027 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1027

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1027/96 by Joaquim MIRANDA to the Commission. Visit to Portugal by the Commissioner responsible for Tourism  


Official Journal C 217 , 26/07/1996 P. 0134 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1027/96 by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (3 May 1996)Subject: Visit to Portugal by the Commissioner responsible for TourismMedia reports claim that the Commissioner responsible for Tourism, Mr Christos PAPOUTSIS, is to visit Portugal on 18 April 1996.Can the Commission confirm that this is the case and, if so, provide me with details of the principal objectives of this visit and of the programme to be followed?Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (28 May 1996)The Commission has to inform the Honourable Member that the Commissioner responsible for tourism did not visit Portugal on 18 April 1996, and that no visit to Portugal had been planned for that date.