do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1088/96 by José BARROS MOURA to the Commission. Illegal duplicate files on officials
Date: 1996-05-13
Institutions: BARROS MOURA, European Parliament
Subjects: European official, confidentiality, fundamental rights, judgment of the Court (EU), protection of privacy, regulations for civil servants, staff assessment













EUR-Lex - 91996E1088 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1088

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1088/96 by José BARROS MOURA to the Commission. Illegal duplicate files on officials  


Official Journal C 322 , 28/10/1996 P. 0029 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1088/96 by José Barros Moura (PSE) to the Commission (13 May 1996)Subject: Illegal duplicate files on officialsBearing in mind Mr Liikanen's answer of 9 April 1996 to my Written Question E-0612/96, ((OJ C 183, 24.6.1996, p. 42.)) and pointing out that the term used in the original Portuguese question to describe the answer was 'insuficiente' rather than 'inadequada', can the Commissioner answer the following:1. Is, then, all for the best in the best of all possible worlds, even though this is evidently not the view taken in the judgment handed down on 11 October 1995 by the Court of First Instance?2. Is it the Commission's sole task to defend the standpoint of the service, or should it not also act as 'guardian' of Community legality?Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (10 June 1996)1. In its answer to Question E-612/96 by the Honourable Member, the Commission merely recalled the terms of the judgment of the Court of First Instance, which annulled the administrative decision not to put certain documents into an official's personal file.The Court awarded the official compensation for non-material damage which he had suffered and rejected his claims for damages for material loss as regards his career.The Commission has given effect to the Court's judgement.2. At no stage in the proceedings was there any question of defending the standpoint of the department in question, and the Commission, as always, considers itself as the guardian of legality in Community business.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1062/96 by Carlos ROBLES PIQUER to the Commission. Architecture in Europe
Date: 1996-05-13
Institutions: European Parliament, ROBLES PIQUER
Subjects: approximation of laws, architecture, environmental protection, heating, renewable energy, town planning, town-planning regulations, town-planning scheme













EUR-Lex - 91996E1062 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1062

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1062/96 by Carlos ROBLES PIQUER to the Commission. Architecture in Europe  


Official Journal C 322 , 28/10/1996 P. 0027 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1062/96 by Carlos Robles Piquer (PPE) to the Commission (13 May 1996)Subject: Architecture in EuropeIn January 1996, for the first time in its history, the Architects Council of Europe presented a Joint Declaration on the criteria which, in its opinion, should be followed by the building industry in Union countries in the future. Some measures were as drastic as banning the use of heating which has not been generated using non-renewable sources of energy or proposing a European point of view for the conferences to be held in Berlin ('the ecological city') and Istambul ('Habitat II').Has the Commission studied the declaration and has it formed an opinion about it?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (13 June 1996)The Commission welcomes the declaration of the Architects council of Europe contained in its white paper 'Europe and architecture tomorrow' and will take careful account of its recommendations in matters of Community competence. A large number of the recommendations however concern issues of Member State and local competence.The Commission is also seeking to associate the Architects council with its work and has held several meetings with representatives to discuss the declaration. In addition the Architects council is now represented on the Commission's urban environment expert group where it can influence the Commission actions aiming to improve the environment in urban areas.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1073/96 by Richard HOWITT to the Commission. Fishing issues in Essex and Kent
Date: 1996-05-13
Institutions: European Parliament, HOWITT
Subjects: EU aid, South East (England), common fisheries policy, competence of the Member States, conservation of fish stocks, fishing fleet, fishing vessel, industrial fishing, modernisation aid, national law













EUR-Lex - 91996E1073 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1073

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1073/96 by Richard HOWITT to the Commission. Fishing issues in Essex and Kent  


Official Journal C 345 , 15/11/1996 P. 0027 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1073/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (13 May 1996)Subject: Fishing issues in Essex and KentIs it true that with British Government capital gains tax regulations as they stand, instead of making a contribution towards EU decommissioning, the British Government is actually making a profit? If so, why does the Commission not insist that this money is reallocated to aid impoverished fishing communities?Joint answer to Written Questions E-1071/96, E-1072/96 and E-1073/96 given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (6 June 1996)Community aid is provided for measures adopted in Community programmes for fisheries within the framework of Regulation (EC) No 3699/93 of 21 December 1993 ((OJ L 346, 31.12.1993. )). Individual fisheries projects, including construction or modernisation of fishing vessels cited by the Honourable Member are considered by the Member State in accordance with the programme indicated above and having regard to the capacity reduction targets fixed in the multiannual guidance programmes (MAGP) for the United Kingdom fishing fleet.The Commission does not feel that the above-mentioned measures favour construction or modernisation of vessels of a particular length, design or type of fishing gear. Also, it is not correct to say that incentives are used to finance new constructions under 10 metres in length to avoid conservation or territorial limits.The purpose of a measure such as decommissioning is to reduce fishing capacity in line with MAGP targets. The United Kingdom decommissioning scheme requires the surrender and suppression of the licence attached to the decommissioned vessel. The fleet capacity is, therefore, reduced irrespective of whether the owner purchases another existing licence or not. The measure satisfies the purpose for which it was introduced by reducing the size of the United Kingdom fishing fleet.Provided that national legislation does not contravene the fundamental principles of the EC Treaty, in particular the prohibition of discrimination, and provided that exemptions from taxation do not amount to unlawful state aids, Community law cannot interfere with the autonomy of a Member State in matters of taxation. Member States can apply their own social and fiscal law in relation to matters of income, as long as they are in conformity with the Treaty and the aims of the common fisheries policy are not impeded.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1085/96 by Laura DE ESTEBAN MARTIN to the Commission. VAT exemption for sports organizations
Date: 1996-05-13
Institutions: DE ESTEBAN MARTIN, European Parliament
Subjects: EC opinion, European Commission, Spain, VAT, application of EU law, tax exemption













EUR-Lex - 91996E1085 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1085

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1085/96 by Laura DE ESTEBAN MARTIN to the Commission. VAT exemption for sports organizations  


Official Journal C 297 , 08/10/1996 P. 0080 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1085/96 by Laura De Esteban Martin (PPE) to the Commission (13 May 1996)Subject: VAT exemption for sports organizationsIn October 1994 the Commission delivered a reasoned opinion for the Kingdom of Spain concerning VAT exemption for sports organizations. Can the Commission say what measures have been adopted pursuant to this opinion and what the current situation is in this regard?Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (3 June 1996)Regarding the infringement procedure against Spain about VAT exemption for sports organizations the Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the matter has been brought before the Court of Justice and entered as Case No C-124/96.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1064/96 by Carlos ROBLES PIQUER to the Commission. Electricity links between France and Spain
Date: 1996-05-13
Institutions: European Parliament, ROBLES PIQUER
Subjects: France, Spain, action programme, electrical energy, environmental protection, feasibility study













EUR-Lex - 91996E1064 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1064

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1064/96 by Carlos ROBLES PIQUER to the Commission. Electricity links between France and Spain  


Official Journal C 305 , 15/10/1996 P. 0044 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1064/96 by Carlos Robles Piquer (PPE) to the Commission (13 May 1996)Subject: Electricity links between France and SpainAt the beginning of February 1996 the French Government decided to suspend work on linking up the French and Spanish electricity networks between Cazaril (France) and the Region of Aragón. The Commissioner Mr Papoutsis expressed his concern at a measure which was obviously in conflict with the general plan for the major trans-European energy networks. On the Spanish side protests referred to the 'cisolation (in the energy field) of the Iberian peninsula'.Since two months have passed since then, can the Commission say what progress has been made on this issue?Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (21 June 1996)Since the announcement of the suspension of the project, the enterprises responsible for carrying it out, Electricité de France and Red Eléctrica de Espana, have held numerous discussions to see if there are alternatives to the current project, their economic viability and their impact on the environment.The Commission is following these contacts with great interest and will encourage a solution which, while respecting the environment meets the objectives and priorities established at Community level for the development of the trans-European energy networks. The Commission has a special interest in this project, which was declared a priority project by the Essen European Council of December 1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1060/96 by Carlos ROBLES PIQUER to the Commission. Appeals against the use of the name 'Euro' for the single currency
Date: 1996-05-13
Institutions: European Parliament, ROBLES PIQUER
Subjects: European Monetary System













EUR-Lex - 91996E1060 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1060

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1060/96 by Carlos ROBLES PIQUER to the Commission. Appeals against the use of the name 'Euro' for the single currency  


Official Journal C 297 , 08/10/1996 P. 0080 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1060/96 by Carlos Robles Piquer (PPE) to the Commission (13 May 1996)Subject: Appeals against the use of the name 'Euro' for the single currencyCan the Commission confirm whether the Court of First Instance has in fact received an appeal against the change in the name of the single currency from 'Ecu' to 'Euro', mentioned in Paris last January by Mr Spitzer and based on an alleged infringement of the Maastricht Treaty?Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (10 June 1996)As far as the Commission is aware, no appeal has been lodged with the Court of First Instance or with the Court of Justice against the choice of the name 'euro' for the single currency.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1123/96 by Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Exclusion of Italian meat from EU storage
Date: 1996-05-13
Institutions: European Parliament, MUSCARDINI
Subjects: Italy, award of contract, beef, farm price support, intervention buying, intervention price, market intervention, maximum price, production cost













EUR-Lex - 91996E1123 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1123

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1123/96 by Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Exclusion of Italian meat from EU storage  


Official Journal C 305 , 15/10/1996 P. 0052 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1123/96 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (13 May 1996)Subject: Exclusion of Italian meat from EU storageOn Friday, 12 April 1996, the EU Management Committee for Beef and Veal admitted 9 200 tonnes of beef for intervention at the price of Lit 5 800 per kilo with the result that the 1 366 tonnes offered by Italian operators at the price of Lit 6 500 per kilo, a price justified by higher production costs, were excluded.Given that the Italian market is being swamped with the other Member States' surplus stocks, whilst Italian meat, which is healthier and carries more guarantees, is left unsold and the entire sector is in crisis, can the Commission take prompt action to introduce a regionalized offer price which takes into account the different production conditions in the individual Member States?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (5 June 1996)Under the 157th invitation to tender for the purchase of beef and veal into intervention, the Commission decided on 12 April 1996 to buy 7 665 tonnes of young beef carcasses out of a total of 9 667 tonnes tendered. The maximum purchase price was set at ECU 278 per 100 kilos, i.e. 80% of the intervention price for beef. This amount corresponds to the maximum level of support permitted under Community rules since meat cannot be bought into intervention when the market price is lower than the intervention price. The tenders submitted by Italy were, however, significantly higher than the maximum purchase price, at between 86% and 91% of the intervention price and were therefore rejected.These high tender prices reflect market prices in Italy prior to the beef scare; they no longer reflect the market situation of mid-April.The Commission accepts the Honourable Member's point of view that the setting of a regionalized offer price is a possibility to be considered provided, however, that it does not exceed the maximum level of support authorized.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1113/96 by Jesús CABEZÓN ALONSO to the Commission. Support for SMEs
Date: 1996-05-13
Institutions: CABEZON ALONSO, European Parliament
Subjects: administrative formalities, business start-up, committee (EU), exchange of information, member country, small and medium-sized enterprises













EUR-Lex - 91996E1113 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1113

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1113/96 by Jesús CABEZÓN ALONSO to the Commission. Support for SMEs  


Official Journal C 297 , 08/10/1996 P. 0087 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1113/96 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (13 May 1996)Subject: Support for SMEsWhat initiatives has the Commission considered submitting to recommend simplifying certain administrative procedures to encourage and promote the setting-up of small- and medium-sized undertakings?Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (20 June 1996)The Commission is aware of the extent of the administrative burden on enterprises and therefore established, in December 1994, a committee for the improvement and simplification of the business environment, comprising representatives from Member States and enterprises. This committee is responsible for organising fora for the sharing of best practices and innovative ideas to ease the burden of regulatory and administrative formalitites, with the aim of encouraging Member States to improve their own fiscal, legal, social, administrative and statistical practices.The first subject chosen by the Committee was the creation of new enterprises. It seems, in fact, that in a considerable number of Member States, setting up a new enterprise is not easy due to the numerous and complex administrative processes and formalities which have to be gone through. Furthermore, various regulations, particularly those concerning taxation, accounting and social measures, when hiring an employee for example, could discourage new businessmen. To initiate this exchange of good practices between Member States, the committee organised its first forum in Paris, in June 1995. Work was then carried out with experts to identify which concrete simplification measures should be taken in the Member States.These examples of best practices will be the subject of a Commission communication and will provide a point of reference for all those interested in the simplification of the formalities involved in enterprise creation. In fact, the upshot of the joint action between the Member States and enterprise representatives was that it is important to take concrete action in this area and that the exchange of information between Member States is very useful in this respect.The Commission will continue to encourage the establishment of simplification programmes in the Member States. Above all, it hopes to foster a change of attitude in the relations between public authorities and small and medium-sized enterprises. This is a very important factor for enterprises and, in particular, new enterprises, whose role is essential in the creation of employment.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1133/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Safety and explosive atmospheres
Date: 1996-05-13
Institutions: AMADEO, European Parliament
Subjects: explosive, occupational safety, safety standard, small and medium-sized enterprises













EUR-Lex - 91996E1133 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1133

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1133/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Safety and explosive atmospheres  


Official Journal C 322 , 28/10/1996 P. 0034 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1133/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (13 May 1996)Subject: Safety and explosive atmospheresThe proposal for a Council Directive on minimum requirements for improving the safety and health protection of workers potentially at risk from explosive atmospheres (COM(95) 310 ((OJ C 332, 09.12.1995, p. 10. ))) is based on Article 118a of the EC Treaty. It falls within the framework of the EU measures designed to establish the social dimension of the single market and may be regarded as a measure which supplements the directives regulating the free movement of goods, in particular Directive 94/9/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning equipment and protective systems intended for use in potentially explosive atmospheres.With regard to the organization of work, workplaces and equipment which has already been used, does the Commission not agree that the three-year period laid down in Article 9(4) for complying with the minimum requirements should be extended to five years in order to facilitate the application of the directive to small and medium-sized businesses and cottage industries, in particular?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (16 July 1996)The Commission is well aware of the issue raised, in particular as this was debated at length during the 333rd plenary session of the Economic and social committee held on 28 and 29 February 1996.The Committee did not favour extending the transitory period but called for positive actions to help small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to establish minimum Community health and safety standards. Therefore the Committee adopted a favorable opinion on the Commission's proposal for a directive on minimum requirements for improving the safety and health protection of workers potentially at risk from explosive atmospheres. This opinion states under point 2.4.2 as follows: 'To help SMEs, particularly those in the craft sector, to meet the requirements of the directive, the Committee underlines the need for the Member States to provide SMEs with the necessary information and technical and administrative back-up to enable them to implement the provisions in question in full and without delay. In this context, it is important that the social partners in the SMEs take part in negotiations with a view to achieving full implementation of the directive. The social partners in the SMEs should actively support the bringing into effect of the SAFE programme which may make a concrete contribution towards the implementation of the provisions of the present directive'.The Commission considers this to be a realistic approach to this issue.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1055/96 by Stephen HUGHES to the Commission. Freedom of movement for pets between Sweden, the UK and Ireland
Date: 1996-05-13
Institutions: European Parliament, HUGHES STEPHEN
Subjects: Sweden, United Kingdom, domestic animal, national law













EUR-Lex - 91996E1055 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1055

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1055/96 by Stephen HUGHES to the Commission. Freedom of movement for pets between Sweden, the UK and Ireland  


Official Journal C 297 , 08/10/1996 P. 0079 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1055/96 by Stephen Hughes (PSE) to the Commission (13 May 1996)Subject: Freedom of movement for pets between Sweden, the UK and IrelandA letter I received from Commissioner Fishler dated 8 July 1995 stated, 'Sweden has recently changed its laws and has provided for a similar regime for entry of all dogs and cats from continental Europe as described above. Additionally the Treaty of accession with Sweden provides for similar arrangements to be applied for movement of dogs and cats between Sweden, the UK and Ireland as is applied to movement between Ireland and the UK. The precise arrangements for such movement is currently under discussion between Sweden, Ireland, the UK and the Commission'.What is the current state of play of these discussions and the likely date when free movement could be expected for pets between the UK and Sweden?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (29 May 1996)The United Kingdom authorities state that discussions are still continuing on this subject. They are unable to indicate a final date for their conclusion. Consequently the Commission is unable to give a likely date when free movement of dogs and cats can be expected between the United Kingdom and Sweden.