do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Regulation (EC) No 851/96 of 8 May 1996 fixing the minimum import price applicable to certain types of processed cherries during the 1996/97 marketing year
Date: 1996-05-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: fruit, fruit product, import price, marketing year, minimum price, stone fruit













EUR-Lex - 31996R0851 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



31996R0851

Commission Regulation (EC) No 851/96 of 8 May 1996 fixing the minimum import price applicable to certain types of processed cherries during the 1996/97 marketing year  


Official Journal L 115 , 09/05/1996 P. 0012 - 0014 





COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 851/96 of 8 May 1996 fixing the minimum import price applicable to certain types of processed cherries during the 1996/97 marketing year THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 426/86 of 24 February 1986 on the common organization of the market in products processed from fruit and vegetables (1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2314/95 (2), and in particular Article 10a (8) thereof,Whereas, pursuant to Article 10a (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 426/86, minimum import prices are to be determined having regard in particular to:- the free-at-frontier prices on import into the Community,- the prices obtained on world markets,- the situation on the internal Community market,- the trend of trade with non-member countries;Whereas a minimum import price should be fixed on the basis of the abovementioned criteria for the 1996/97 marketing year for processed cherries listed in Annex I (B) to Regulation (EEC) No 426/86;Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Products Processed from Fruit and Vegetables,HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:Article 1 For each of the products listed in the Annex to this Regulation, the minimum import price applicable during the 1996/97 marketing year shall be as set out in that Annex.Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on 10 May 1996.This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.Done at Brussels, 8 May 1996.For the CommissionFranz FISCHLERMember of the Commission(1) OJ No L 49, 27. 2. 1986, p. 1.(2) OJ No L 233, 30. 9. 1995, p. 69.ANNEX >TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1056/96 by Carlos ROBLES PIQUER to the Council. Brazil's participation in the framework agreement between the EC and its Member States and Mercosur
Date: 1996-05-08
Institutions: European Parliament, ROBLES PIQUER
Subjects: Brazil, framework agreement, liberalisation of trade, regional cooperation, signature of an agreement













EUR-Lex - 91996E1056 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1056

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1056/96 by Carlos ROBLES PIQUER to the Council. Brazil's participation in the framework agreement between the EC and its Member States and Mercosur  


Official Journal C 305 , 15/10/1996 P. 0043 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1056/96 by Carlos Robles Piquer (PPE) to the Council (8 May 1996)Subject: Brazil's participation in the framework agreement between the EC and its Member States and MercosurOn 19 March 1996 the Official Journal of the European Communities published Council Decision 96/205/EC ((OJ L 69, 19.03.1996, p.1. )) of 20 November 1995 concerning the provisional application of certain provisions of the Interregional Framework Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Southern Common Market and its Party States, of the other part. The same issue of the Official Journal also contains the text of the Agreement.It is surprising that the Agreement, signed in Madrid on 15 December 1995, bears the signatures of all the plenipotentiaries except that of Luis Felipe Palmeira Lampreia, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Federative Republic of Brazil. Does this mean that the largest country in Mercosur is not party to the Framework Agreement and is therefore not involved in its provisional application?Reply (7 August 1996)Under Article 37 thereof, the Interregional Framework Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Southern Common Market and its Party States, of the other part, was "open for signature in Madrid between 15 and 31 December 1995."The Minister for Foreign Affairs of Brazil, in the presence of the President of Brazil, signed the texts on 20 December 1995".
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1086/96 by José BARROS MOURA to the Council. European collective agreements
Date: 1996-05-08
Institutions: BARROS MOURA, European Parliament
Subjects: EC Directive, European social policy, collective agreement, competence of the Member States, framework agreement, national law, parental leave













EUR-Lex - 91996E1086 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1086

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1086/96 by José BARROS MOURA to the Council. European collective agreements  


Official Journal C 305 , 15/10/1996 P. 0046 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1086/96 by José Barros Moura (PSE) to the Council (8 May 1996)Subject: European collective agreementsArticle 4(2) of the Agreement on social policy annexed to the EU Treaty lays down that European collective agreements shall be implemented either in accordance with national procedures and practices (those of management and labour or of the Member States) or, in matters covered by Article 2, at the joint request of the parties, 'by a Council decision on a proposal from the Commission'.With regard to the framework agreement on parental leave, the Council has adopted a directive whose intention (Article 2(1)) is not to make the agreement binding in all the Member States but to oblige the Member States to achieve the 'result' by adopting internal arrangements for applying collective agreements (conventional collective agreements or state agreements) within a given time limit.This being the case, in what does the notional and practical autonomy of the second part of Article 4(2) of the Agreement on social policy annexed to the EU Treaty consist in relation to the first part of that paragraph?Why was this measure not given the form of a decision, which, under Article 189 of the EU Treaty, is 'binding in its entirety upon those to whom it is addressed'?Reply (7 August 1996)It is not for the Council to interpret either the Treaty or the Portocol on social policy, together with the Agreement on social policy annexed thereto.Furthermore, it is for the institutions to choose on a case-by-case basis, from amongst the binding acts referred to in Article 189 of the EC Treaty, the most appropriate legal instrument for implementing the agreements concluded at Community level within the meaning of Article 4(2) of the Agreement on social policy.As regards the framework Agreement on parental leave concluded by the UNICE, the CEEP and the ESC, the Council and the Commission felt that the most appropriate instrument was a directive, as the framework Agreement contains provisions for transposition into Member States' national law and leaves it for them to decide on the form and means of achieving the desired result.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1217/96 by Anne McINTOSH to the Council. EC ban on CFCs
Date: 1996-05-08
Institutions: European Parliament, MCINTOSH
Subjects: EC Directive, aerosol, approximation of laws, public health













EUR-Lex - 91996E1217 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1217

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1217/96 by Anne McINTOSH to the Council. EC ban on CFCs  


Official Journal C 305 , 15/10/1996 P. 0064 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-1217/96 by Anne McIntosh (PPE) to the Council (8 May 1996)Subject: EC ban on CFCsWill the Council amend the 1994 EC Directive (94/1/EC ((OJ L 23, 28.1.1994, p. 28. ))) banning CFCs to include a derogation for Beconase nasal spray?As a derogation has already been granted for Becotide, Beclaforte and Ventolin, one should also be granted for Beconase. Does not the Council agree?Does not the Council realize that possible substitutes containing water or brine have proved ineffective, causing the swelling of the membrane and the seizing up of the nostrils?What little CFC is emitted by Beconase is directly ingested by the patient and not released into the atmosphere. There can, therefore, be no real justification for banning this product on environmental grounds.Reply (7 August 1996)The Council would remind the Honourable Member that the Directive to which she refers was adopted by the Commission in order to adapt to technical progress Council Directive 75/324/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to aerosol dispensers. The Council does not therefore have the necessary information to answer her questions.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1058/96 by Carlos ROBLES PIQUER to the Council. Political dialogue with Mercosur
Date: 1996-05-08
Institutions: European Parliament, ROBLES PIQUER
Subjects: framework agreement, political cooperation, regional cooperation, regional integration













EUR-Lex - 91996E1058 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1058

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1058/96 by Carlos ROBLES PIQUER to the Council. Political dialogue with Mercosur  


Official Journal C 356 , 25/11/1996 P. 0010 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1058/96 by Carlos Robles Piquer (PPE) to the Council (8 May 1996)Subject: Political dialogue with MercosurThe Interregional Framework Cooperation Agreement with Mercosur, signed in Madrid on 15 December 1995, included a Joint Declaration on political dialogue between the European Union and Mercosur. The declaration is fairly specific in establishing the mechanisms for this dialogue, as regards both their nature and structure and their content and the participants involved. This is commendable.Can the Council say what were or will be the first meetings constituting this dialogue, what subjects were examined, who was involved in each dialogue and the dates and places of the meetings?Reply (14 October 1996)The Foreign Ministers of the Member States of Mercosur, the Foreign Ministers of the European Union Troika and the Vice-President of the European Commission held an informal meeting on the occasion of the 6th Ministerial Meeting between the European Union and the Rio Group in Cochabamba, Bolivia, on 16 April 1996.The Ministers issued a joint communiqué expressing their firm resolve to hold the first institutionalized meeting of the Mercosur-European Union political dialogue, provided for in the Joint Declaration on Political Dialogue, in June 1996.The first annual Ministerial Meeting in the context of the European Union-Mercosur political dialogue was held in Luxembourg on 10 June 1996, under the Interregional Framework Agreement signed by the European Union and Mercosur in Madrid in December 1995. The Ministers reaffirmed their mutual interest in regional integration. The two parties noted that they had common interests in many fields. The European Union and Mercosur emphasized that it was important for their activities of mutual interest to be coordinated.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1067/96 by Winifred EWING to the Council. Persecution of the Baha'is in Iran
Date: 1996-05-08
Institutions: EWING, European Parliament
Subjects: Iran, death penalty, human rights, judicial proceedings, religious discrimination, religious group













EUR-Lex - 91996E1067 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1067

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1067/96 by Winifred EWING to the Council. Persecution of the Baha'is in Iran  


Official Journal C 356 , 25/11/1996 P. 0011 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1067/96 by Winifred Ewing (ARE) to the Council (8 May 1996)Subject: Persecution of the Baha'is in IranWill the Council raise with the Government of Iran the breach of human rights towards the Baha'is yet again, and in particular the case of Mr Dhabihu'llah Mahrami. He was charged with the crime of apostasy, found guilty and sentenced to death. He is currently awaiting execution. Will the Council intervene at once to stop this execution?Reply (14 October 1996)The Council remains concerned about the situation of the Baha' is in Iran and Mr Mahrami's case in particular. The Iranian authorities are well aware of our views. The Council understands that an earlier court verdict sentencing Mr Mahrami to death has been overruled by the Iranian Supreme Court and that legal proceedings are continuing. The Council will continue to monitor the situation closely.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1139/96 by Iñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO to the Council. Funding of SMU
Date: 1996-05-08
Institutions: European Parliament, MENDEZ DE VIGO
Subjects: EC opinion, EU financial instrument, credit guarantee, proposal (EU), small and medium-sized enterprises













EUR-Lex - 91996E1139 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1139

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1139/96 by Iñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO to the Council. Funding of SMU  


Official Journal C 356 , 25/11/1996 P. 0013 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1139/96 by Iñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE) to the Council (8 May 1996)Subject: Funding of SMUThe Commission recently proposed to the Council that a new instrument (ELISE) be set up to finance loan guarantees for SMU.Does the Council intend to approve the creation of this or a similar instrument, bearing in mind that SMU are the main source of employment in the Union and are at a disadvantage because banks generally feel that they represent a higher risk and can provide fewer guarantees?Reply (14 October 1996)The Commission proposal in question has just been forwarded to the Council and will be examined by a Working Party as soon as possible, pending the Opinion of the European Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1218/96 by María SORNOSA MARTÍNEZ to the Council. Communitarizing spatial planning policy
Date: 1996-05-08
Institutions: European Parliament, SORNOSA MARTINEZ
Subjects: Spain, environmental protection, protected area













EUR-Lex - 91996E1218 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1218

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1218/96 by María SORNOSA MARTÍNEZ to the Council. Communitarizing spatial planning policy  


Official Journal C 305 , 15/10/1996 P. 0064 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-1218/96 by María Sornosa Martínez (GUE/NGL) to the Council (8 May 1996)Subject: Communitarizing spatial planning policyThere are more and more situations like the one we have just seen in the Valencian Autonomous Community in Spain, where a government proposal to change the law concerning land which cannot be built on has given rise to alarm amongst ecological groups and the population at large.Does the Council believe that a spatial planning policy designed to safeguard the environment is required at Community level?Does the Council intend to consider what such a policy might consist of during the Intergovernmental Conference on revising the Treaties?If the Council has any drafts on this subject, would it supply me with copies?Reply (7 August 1996)It is not for the Council to comment on the domestic politics of a Member State, as is the case with the Government proposal to change the law mentioned by the Honourable Member.As regards the amendment of the Treaty requested by the Honourable Member, the Council as such is not competent to intervene. That is the responsibility of the Intergovernmental Conference, which, as its name suggests, is a conference of the Governments of the Member States.