do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1201/96 by Richard HOWITT to the Commission. Redundant Jetty, Occidental oil site, Canvey, Essex
Date: 1996-05-15
Institutions: European Parliament, HOWITT
Subjects: European Regional Development Fund, South East (England), Structural Funds, aid system, coastal region, petrochemicals, regional aid













EUR-Lex - 91996E1201 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1201

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1201/96 by Richard HOWITT to the Commission. Redundant Jetty, Occidental oil site, Canvey, Essex  


Official Journal C 345 , 15/11/1996 P. 0039 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1201/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (15 May 1996)Subject: Redundant Jetty, Occidental oil site, Canvey, EssexWhat action could the Commission take to remove the one-mile long oil jetty at the Occidental oil site in Canvay, Essex, which cost £9 m. to build, yet has never been used since it was built twenty years ago? Does the Commission agree that this eyesore is a visual symbol of the industrial decline of South Essex and that its removal is a prerequisite to restoring investors' confidence and to assisting economic development? Will the Commission further investigate this question and determine specific measures in response?Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (17 July 1996)As far as the European regional development fund (ERDF) is concerned, no action can be taken by the Commission with respect to the oil jetty at the Occidental site in Canvey to which the Honourable Member refers.The area concerned is not eligible under objective 2 of the structural funds. Moreover, in the United Kingdom objective 2 regions, the reclamation of former industrial sites is supported by ERDF only if it can be directly linked to the generation of new economic activities and employment.The Commission has not had the occasion to study the site in detail and therefore cannot comment on its local impact.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1151/96 by Hugh McMAHON to the Commission. European Social Fund - United Kingdom
Date: 1996-05-15
Institutions: European Parliament, MCMAHON
Subjects: European Social Fund, United Kingdom, credit, financing plan, member country, vocational training













EUR-Lex - 91996E1151 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1151

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1151/96 by Hugh McMAHON to the Commission. European Social Fund - United Kingdom  


Official Journal C 297 , 08/10/1996 P. 0096 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1151/96 by Hugh McMahon (PSE) to the Commission (15 May 1996)Subject: European Social Fund - United KingdomFollowing on from the answer received to Oral Question H-0231/96, ((Debates of the European Parliament (April 1996). )) will the Commission please answer the original question asked: That is, what steps will the Commission take to improve the timing of ESF payments in the UK and what actions will the Commission take, as guardian of the Treaties, to ensure that European funds are passed timeously to training organizations so that Member States do not get away with allowing these funds to accrue interest in national exchequer accounts?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (26 June 1996)The reply to the Honourable Member's oral question H-231/96, described the payments system for the release of European social fund (ESF) monies to each Member State.Apart from the very first advance paid on the approval of each programme, the release of further ESF funds requires the Member State to submit requests for payment based on accurate, auditable data in relation to actual expenditure already incurred by beneficiaries in accordance with the priorities and the financial plan of the programme. The speed with which funds can be drawn down depends, therefore, both on the capacity of project sponsors to use the funds that they have already received as intended and to submit the necessary claims quickly, and on the ability of the Member State to process these expenditure claims promptly.Responsibility for managing this process rests primarily with the Member States. However, the Commission took the initiative recently to organise a seminar for the United Kingdom implementing authorities, including representatives from the Scottish office, to clarify ESF financial procedures. As a result, the United Kingdom authorities are expected to be able to submit the necessary requests, properly substantiated, to allow the Commission to make outstanding 1994 final claim and 1996 first advance payments by the end of July.As previously explained, responsibility for making ESF payments to individual beneficiaries also lies with the Member State authorities. They are required, under Article 21 of the Coordination Regulation (EEC) n° 2082/93 ((OJ L 193, 31.7.1993 )) governing structural funds payments, to ensure that beneficiaries receive the monies due to them within three months of receipt by the Member State. The United Kingdom authorities have generally met this deadline. The Commission has recently reminded the Scottish Office of its obligations in this respect.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1207/96 by Pedro MARSET CAMPOS to the Commission. Protection of the environment in Portman Bay (Spain)
Date: 1996-05-15
Institutions: European Parliament, MARSET CAMPOS
Subjects: Region of Murcia, application of EU law, environmental protection, gulf













EUR-Lex - 91996E1207 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1207

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1207/96 by Pedro MARSET CAMPOS to the Commission. Protection of the environment in Portman Bay (Spain)  


Official Journal C 356 , 25/11/1996 P. 0018 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1207/96 by Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (15 May 1996)Subject: Protection of the environment in Portman Bay (Spain)Can the Commission provide information concerning whether the environmental protection rules have been observed or breached in the improvement work at Portman Bay in the municipality of La Unión, near Cartagena (Spain)?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (16 July 1996)The Commission has, through the Cohesion Fund, financed a project in Portman Bay comprising a study of the situation and characteristics of the polluted area and the formulation of an action plan and initial measures on the ground. The action financed through the Cohesion Fund will comply with Community law, specifically that on the environment.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1172/96 by Karin RIIS-JØRGENSEN to the Commission. The packaging directive
Date: 1996-05-15
Institutions: European Parliament, RIIS-JOERGENSEN
Subjects: Denmark, approximation of laws, beer, beverage, environmental protection, free movement of goods, packaging, waste management













EUR-Lex - 91996E1172 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1172

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1172/96 by Karin RIIS-JØRGENSEN to the Commission. The packaging directive  


Official Journal C 322 , 28/10/1996 P. 0038 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1172/96 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission (15 May 1996)Subject: The packaging directiveDirective 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 ((OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10. )) on packaging and packaging waste must be implemented by 30 June 1996. Its purpose is to establish an internal market guaranteeing the free movement of packaging (so that producers, shops and consumers have the greatest possible choice of packaging) and to ensure that Member States promote environmentally sound systems for managing packaging and packaging waste.1. Has the Commission been notified of how the Danish authorities intend to implement the Directive, in particular as regards a possible lifting of the Danish ban on cans as packaging for beer and soft drinks?2. What information has it received from the Danish authorities demonstrating the environmental impact of the Danish ban on cans and what criteria will it impose in this connection as regards methods of assessing the environmental impact of various types of packaging (standards for life-cycle assessment)?3. Would a decision by the Danish authorities' to maintain a ban on a particular type of packaging be incompatible with the aims of the Directive, the purpose of which is to remove national exceptions in the field of packaging where such special rules are not justified by environmental considerations?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (19 June 1996)Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste has to be transposed into national law by 30 June 1996.The Commission has maintained contacts with the Danish authorities on the implementation of the Directive, but so far Denmark has notified to the Commission neither the draft of measures that it intends to adopt, nor existing laws adopted within its scope.The Directive set up a notification system which allows the Commission, in cooperation with Member States, to analyze measures to be adopted and to identify any problems of conformity with Community legislation before they enter into force.Until 30 June 1996 national legislation continues to be assessed on the basis of the EC Treaty. Afterwards it has to be compatible with the Directive.Danish authorities have not communicated to the Commission any information concerning the environmental impact of the Danish ban on cans. It is impossible at this stage to anticipate the Commission's position in case the ban is maintained.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1158/96 by Nikitas KAKLAMANIS to the Commission. Classification of farm machinery
Date: 1996-05-15
Institutions: European Parliament, KAKLAMANIS
Subjects: Greece, agricultural machinery, import, tariff nomenclature, technical standard, used goods













EUR-Lex - 91996E1158 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1158

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1158/96 by Nikitas KAKLAMANIS to the Commission. Classification of farm machinery  


Official Journal C 305 , 15/10/1996 P. 0056 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1158/96 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (15 May 1996)Subject: Classification of farm machineryThe Greek Association of Second-hand Construction and Lifting Machinery and Spare Parts Dealers has raised serious objections to a decision by the Ministry of Agriculture (DG3F3) promulgated in the Greek Official Gazette (No. 1044/20.12.1995) on the issue of a note on the classification of agricultural machinery in respect of second-hand agricultural machinery.The Ministry decision contravenes the EU's rules on the free movement of goods within the Member States, and the requirement for the import of agricultural machinery less than seven years old in the year of classification is causing serious financial problems to the farming industry, which is already in a parlous situation.Are the actions of the Greek Ministry of Agriculture in accordance with Community legislation, and if not, what action does the Commission intend to take?Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (26 June 1996)The Commission would like to thank the honourable member for having drawn his attention to the decision by the Greek Minister for Agriculture concerning the import into Greece of second-hand agricultural machinery.It would seem that this decision does not comply with Community law and more particularly Article 30 of the EC Treaty (restrictions on the import into one Member State of equipment moving freely within another Member State, and disproportionate action). This being the case the Commission will contact the Greek Government in order to examine the problem more closely and to find a solution.In addition it is probable that that ministerial decision may be considered to be a 'technical rule'. If that is so the Commission should have been notified thereof under Directive 83/189/EEC ((OJ L 109, 26.4.1983, as amended by Directives 88/182/EEC - OJ L 81, 26.3.1988, and 94/10/EC - OJ L 100, 19.4.1994. )) providing for an information procedure applying to standards and technical regulations. If that is indeed the case the Commission will examine the matter under Article 169 of the EEC Treaty. The Commission would remind the honourable member in this case of the judgment handed down by the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 April 1996 (Case C-194/94) stating that technical rules adopted in infringement of Directive 83/189/EEC do not apply to private persons.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1200/96 by Richard HOWITT to the Commission. Regional country park in South-East Essex
Date: 1996-05-15
Institutions: European Parliament, HOWITT
Subjects: EU aid, European Regional Development Fund, South East (England), aid system, cessation of trading, economic development, environmental protection, location of industry, protected area













EUR-Lex - 91996E1200 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1200

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1200/96 by Richard HOWITT to the Commission. Regional country park in South-East Essex  


Official Journal C 385 , 19/12/1996 P. 0011 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1200/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (15 May 1996)Subject: Regional country park in South-East EssexWould the Commission support the setting up of a regional country park linking Pitsea Hall Country Park, Hadleigh Castle Country Park, green-belt land at the redundant Occidental industrial site in Canvey Island, reclaimed landfall waste sites at Pitsea and Westwick and the Site of Special Scientific Interest North of the Mobil Oil Refinery in Thurrock? Bearing in mind its knowledge of the area, is the Commission aware of similar proposals or examples in other Member States? Precisely which European programmes are available which might provide financial support for such a project?Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (4 July 1996)It is a long-standing policy of the Commission to support the reclamation of former industrial sites to improve the image of regions where this will lead to the generation of new economic activities. This is a particular priority in those areas affected by industrial decline which are eligible for structural funds grants under objective 2.The Commission is not in a position to make a judgement about the specific example in the Honourable Member's question concerning the establishment of a large regional country park linking existing parks in the area with reclaimed land and sites. It is thus difficult to refer to proposals or examples in other Member States that might be similar.It appears that there is no possibility of Community financial support for this project under existing structural funds programmes in the area concerned.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1146/96 by Stephen HUGHES to the Commission. Leonardo Programme
Date: 1996-05-15
Institutions: European Parliament, HUGHES STEPHEN
Subjects: EU financing, United Kingdom, educational exchange, invitation to tender, school-industry relations, vocational training













EUR-Lex - 91996E1146 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1146

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1146/96 by Stephen HUGHES to the Commission. Leonardo Programme  


Official Journal C 297 , 08/10/1996 P. 0095 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1146/96 by Stephen Hughes (PSE) to the Commission (15 May 1996)Subject: Leonardo ProgrammeThe European Commission has recently issued a call for proposals for 1996 under the Leonardo Vocational Training Programme - the second since the programme started last year.After its first call for proposals, it financed 749 projects worth ECU 89.7 m. Which projects were financed in the United Kingdom, where were they based and how many individuals benefitted?Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (10 June 1996)A total of 98 projects in the United Kingdom (involving 1 692 partners in the United Kingdom and in other participating Member States) received support under the 1995 Leonardo da Vinci call for proposals, totalling 11.69 MECU out of the 89.65 MECU devoted to supporting pilot projects, certain placement and exchange activities, and surveys and analyses. The regional spread of these projects is as follows:>TABLE>While it is difficult to estimate how many individuals benefitted in total from this type of support for transnational projects, approximately 1400 students benefitted from transnational placement actions in the context of university-enterprise cooperation.In addition the United Kingdom received in 1995 a further 4.23 MECU as a block grant to support the transnational placement and exchange of young people in initial training, young workers and trainers (representing 14.86% of the 28.5 MECU devoted to this activity in 1995), and it is anticipated that approximately 2800 individuals will benefit from this Community support.A more detailed breakdown of support for United Kingdom based projects is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1185/96 by Bartho PRONK to the Commission. Cost and validity of passports in the European Union
Date: 1996-05-15
Institutions: European Parliament, PRONK
Subjects: identity document, passport, price disparity, prices













EUR-Lex - 91996E1185 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1185

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1185/96 by Bartho PRONK to the Commission. Cost and validity of passports in the European Union  


Official Journal C 297 , 08/10/1996 P. 0105 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1185/96 by Bartho Pronk (PPE) to the Commission (15 May 1996)Subject: Cost and validity of passports in the European Union1. What is the cost, in the 15 Member States of the European Union, of buying passports and identity cards valid in other Member States?2. Are there any obvious differences in cost between the Member States?3. If so, what can the Commission do to keep these price differences to a minimum?Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (24 June 1996)The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1153/96 by André SAINJON to the Commission. OECD agreement on shipbuilding
Date: 1996-05-15
Institutions: European Parliament, SAINJON
Subjects: Belgium, Denmark, EU aid, Germany, OECD, anti-dumping duty, shipbuilding













EUR-Lex - 91996E1153 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1153

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1153/96 by André SAINJON to the Commission. OECD agreement on shipbuilding  


Official Journal C 297 , 08/10/1996 P. 0097 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1153/96 by André Sainjon (ARE) to the Commission (15 May 1996)Subject: OECD agreement on shipbuildingThe collapse of the German shipbuilder, Bremer Vulkan, has led the German authorities to recapitalize the group's three shipyards in Mecklenburg-West Pomerania to the tune of at least DM 1 billion and they may have to do the same for the Bremen and Bremerhaven sites.In the wake of the Belgian and Danish bankruptcies, does the Commission not take the view that state aid for shipbuilding is essential and that, consequently, the OECD agreement will never be implemented in full? Should it not take note of this and reformulate a European policy worthy of the name by making jobs its top priority?Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (10 June 1996)First of all, the Commission would like to clarify that it has not yet been informed by the German authorities about their intentions as regards further assistance for the shipyards in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern which belonged to the Bremer Vulkan group, or in favour of the Bremer Vulkan shipyards in the Land of Bremen.The Commission is aware of the difficult situation of many shipbuilding companies in the Community. However, in the view of the Commission the bankruptcies and financial difficulties of shipyards in Germany, Belgium and Denmark to which the Honourable Member refers were not caused by the Organization for economic cooperation and development (OECD) shipbuilding agreement.The Commission is convinced that this agreement, reached after five years of intensive negotiations between the main players in the world shipbuilding markets, is well balanced and fully satisfactory to the Community. It will not only set common rules on all sorts of state aids but also, responding to the concerns of the European shipbuilding industry, introduce antidumping rules for the first time in this sector. This will allow the Community to take action against injurious pricing, which is of particular importance in view of the persisting overcapacities.Employment and social considerations ranked high in the negotiation of the agrement, and therefore it is also in the interest of securing long term employment in the European shipbuilding industry that the OECD shipbuilding agreement should enter into force as scheduled.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1154/96 by Luigi FLORIO to the Commission. Statement by Mr Santer in Bangkok
Date: 1996-05-15
Institutions: European Parliament, FLORIO
Subjects: China, EU relations, Indonesia, Portugal, charter on human rights, human rights













EUR-Lex - 91996E1154 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1154

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1154/96 by Luigi FLORIO to the Commission. Statement by Mr Santer in Bangkok  


Official Journal C 297 , 08/10/1996 P. 0098 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1154/96 by Luigi Florio (UPE) to the Commission (15 May 1996)Subject: Statement by Mr Santer in BangkokCan the Commission confirm the truth of Barbara Spinelli's claim in her leading article published in the Italian daily La Stampa on 12 April 1996 that the Commission President, Mr Santer, stated at the Euro-Asia Conference in Bangkok on 1 March this year, and I quote: 'We do not intend to provoke any disputes on human rights: it will only be possible to speak frankly on these matters when bridges have been built and alliances forged.'If so, what is the exact significance of this statement, which appears to fly in the face of the policy of respecting and spreading human rights, which has always been upheld by the democracies belonging to the EU?Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission (12 June 1996)In the Asia-Europe meeting (ASEM) in Bangkok and thereafter, the Commission President emphasised that discussions on human rights between Europe and Asia must continue in a spirit of constructive dialogue rather than conflictual criticism.This approach made it possible for the Bangkok summit to address directly these issues in plenary as well as in bilateral discussions, notwithstanding a prior hesitation on the part of certain Asian countries to address issues they felt to be controversial. Some examples include the discussions between the heads of state or government of France and China, and of Portugal and Indonesia, the inclusion in the chairman's statement of the Bangkok meeting of references to the Universal declaration on human rights and to the Vienna Declaration, and the particular commitment of all participants in the Bangkok meeting (also mentioned in the chairman's statement) to a strengthened political dialogue and deepened cooperation between Asia and Europe in a broad range of areas including the promotion of fundamental rights. This dialogue will certainly be developed further in future contacts with the ASEM partners, permitting these essential issues to be approached in a positive and constructive fashion.