do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1308/96 by Undine-Uta BLOCH von BLOTTNITZ to the Commission. Animal experiments and pentachloropherol
Date: 1996-05-31
Institutions: BLOCH VON BLOTTNITZ, European Parliament
Subjects: EU financing, animal experimentation, cancer, medical research, research body, scientific research













EUR-Lex - 91996E1308 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1308

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1308/96 by Undine-Uta BLOCH von BLOTTNITZ to the Commission. Animal experiments and pentachloropherol  


Official Journal C 356 , 25/11/1996 P. 0026 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1308/96 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission (31 May 1996)Subject: Animal experiments and pentachloropherol1. Does the EU provide funding for animal experiments designed to prove the carcinogenic effects of pentachloropherol?2. If so, what level of funding is provided and where and by whom are such experiments conducted?Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (23 July 1996)At present, the Community is not involved in any research projects which use animals for experimentation purposes and which aim to form a link between exposure to pentachlorophenol (PCP) and cancer.
Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 34/96 of 31 May 1996 amending Annex XIX (Consumer protection) to the EEA Agreement
Date: 1996-05-31
Institutions: EEA Joint Committee
Subjects: European Economic Area, agreement (EU), consumer goods, consumer protection, foodstuff, publishing of prices








L_1996237EN.01004101.xml










19.9.1996   


EN


Official Journal of the European Communities


L 237/41





DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE
No 34/96
of 31 May 1996
amending Annex XIX (Consumer protection) to the EEA Agreement
THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,
Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as adjusted by the Protocol Adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as the Agreement, and in particular Article 98 thereof,
Whereas Annex XIX to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 18/95 of 24 February 1995 (1);
Whereas Directive 95/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 November 1995 amending Directive 79/581/EEC on consumer protection in the indication of the prices of foodstuffs and Directive 88/314/EEC on consumer protection in the indication of the prices of non-food products (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The following indent shall be added in point 1 (Council Directive 79/581/EEC) in Annex XIX to the Agreement:






‘—



395 L 0058: Directive 95/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 November 1995 (OJ No L 299, 12. 12. 1995, p. 11).’




Article 2
The following shall be added in point 6 (Council Directive 88/314/EEC) in Annex XIX to the Agreement:
‘, as amended by






—



395 L 0058: Directive 95/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 November 1995 (OJ No L 299, 12. 12. 1995, p. 11).’




Article 3
The texts of Directive 95/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, which are annexed to the respective language versions of this Decision, are authentic.
Article 4
This Decision shall enter into force on 1 June 1996, provided that all the notifications under Article 103 (1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee.
Article 5
This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Communities.


Done at Brussels, 31 May 1996.


For the EEA Joint Committee


The President

P. BENAVIDES




(1)  OJ No L 83, 13. 4. 1995, p. 49.

(2)  OJ No L 299, 12. 12. 1995, p. 11.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1302/96 by Ian WHITE to the Commission. T1 documents
Date: 1996-05-31
Institutions: European Parliament, WHITE
Subjects: Union transit, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, application of EU law, customs document, customs formalities, customs harmonisation, customs regulations, customs union, sanction (EU)













EUR-Lex - 91996E1302 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1302

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1302/96 by Ian WHITE to the Commission. T1 documents  


Official Journal C 322 , 28/10/1996 P. 0053 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1302/96 by Ian White (PSE) to the Commission (31 May 1996)Subject: T1 documentsRegulation 2454/93, Article 346 states 'The goods and the T1 documents shall be presented at the office of destination which shall record details of controls carried out and shall without delay send a copy to the office of departure and retain the other copy'.Would the Commission be prepared to look at the possibility of possible change which would mean that if the goods and T1 documents had been correctly presented at the office of destination and that office does not comply with the regulation, then any penalty arising shall be levied on the Member States to which the office of destination belongs?Answer given by Mr Monti On behalf of the Commission (25 July 1996)The provision referred to by the Honourable Member does indeed require the office of destination in a transit operation to send without delay a copy of the T1 document to the office of departure. As a general rule this must be within ten working days of presentation of the consignment and documents, but may be within one working day of presentation in the case of goods for which a comprehensive guarantee is temporarily prohibited from being used.Although this time limit may occasionally be exceeded, any Member State which fails to take steps to ensure that this obligation is met by its customs offices may find the Commission or other Member States will institute the procedures provided for by the Treaty to enforce Community law. Under the present Treaty only the Court of Justice of the European Communities is empowered to impose a fine or penalty on a Member State and only if the latter has failed to take the necessary measures to comply with a previous judgment on its failure to meet its obligations.The Commission has considered the possibility of introducing into secondary legislation a power of direct pecuniary sanction of Member States which do not meet their obligations in order to ensure the proper transposition and implementation of directives relating to the completion of the single market. Because of the direct applicability of legislation and a division of responsibilities between the Commission and Member States in the customs field a partnership approach has been taken to the management of the customs union and protection of the Community's external border. This approach may eventually be reviewed if it is not successful in ensuring the proper functioning of the customs union.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1299/96 by Ulla SANDBÆK to the Commission. EURATHLON programme
Date: 1996-05-31
Institutions: European Parliament, SANDBAEK
Subjects: EU aid, exchange of information, sport













EUR-Lex - 91996E1299 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1299

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1299/96 by Ulla SANDBÆK to the Commission. EURATHLON programme  


Official Journal C 305 , 15/10/1996 P. 0082 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1299/96 by Ulla Sandbæk (EDN) to the Commission (31 May 1996)Subject: EURATHLON programmeHow much has been spent on the EURATHLON programme since October 1994? How many and which projects have been granted aid? What criteria apply to the granting of aid?Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (23 July 1996)Under the Eurathlon programme, ((OJ C 262, 7.10.1995. )) the Commission granted aid totalling ECU 0.7 million to 82 selected projects in 1995 and ECU 2 million to 175 selected projects in 1996. The lists of selected projects are being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.The eligibility criteria are contained in point 4.1 of the Eurathlon programme, a copy of which is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1493/96 by Jaak VANDEMEULEBROUCKE to the Council. Recruitment procedures
Date: 1996-05-31
Institutions: European Parliament, VANDEMEULEBROUCKE
Subjects: Council of the European Union, administrative competition, dissemination of information, recruitment, servant (EU)













EUR-Lex - 91996E1493 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1493

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1493/96 by Jaak VANDEMEULEBROUCKE to the Council. Recruitment procedures  


Official Journal C 356 , 25/11/1996 P. 0045 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-1493/96 by Jaak Vandemeulebroucke (ARE) to the Council (31 May 1996)Subject: Recruitment proceduresI understand that in recruitment procedures the Council is increasingly taking the applicant's nationality into consideration. That criterion is even said to take priority over examination results.Can the Council state if that is in fact the case? If so, does the Council not consider that it is acting contrary to the prohibition on discrimination on grounds of nationality?Can the Council inform me how many cases of judicial proceedings have been brought hitherto in this connection and in how many such cases judgment was given against the Council?Reply (14 October 1996)1. Article 27 of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities provides, inter alia, that:- recruitment shall be on the broadest basis from among nationals of Member States of the Communities;- no posts shall be reserved for nationals of any specific Member State.The Council organises its recruitment procedures in strict accordance with these provisions of the Staff Regulations and the case law established by the Court of Justice.The Council therefore formally denies the Honourable Member's assertion that in recruitment procedures it is increasingly taking the applicant's nationality into consideration, or that nationality takes priority over examination results.2. The Council does not have records of judicial proceedings in connection with staff matters. The Council will nevertheless carry out a research of staff cases against the Council in which discrimination on grounds of nationality was invoked, and communicate directly to the Honourable Member the result of this research.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1307/96 by Undine-Uta BLOCH von BLOTTNITZ to the Commission. EU funding for experiments involving animals
Date: 1996-05-31
Institutions: BLOCH VON BLOTTNITZ, European Parliament
Subjects: Germany, animal experimentation, biotechnology, economic support, protection of animals, research body













EUR-Lex - 91996E1307 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1307

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1307/96 by Undine-Uta BLOCH von BLOTTNITZ to the Commission. EU funding for experiments involving animals  


Official Journal C 356 , 25/11/1996 P. 0025 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1307/96 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission (31 May 1996)Subject: EU funding for experiments involving animalsAt Berlin Free University research is conducted into and using animals. In the field of basic research, for example, experiments are conducted using ticks on domestic rabbits. The rabbits are killed at the end of the series of experiments. It is said that European funding is available for these and similar experiments.1. Have other German research establishments applied for funding from the Commission for such or similar series of experiments?2. If so when, which establishments were involved and what was the level of funding?3. Has the Commission given financial support to such or similar experiments and will it continue to do so?4. If so, when, to whom and what will the level of funding be?5. Does the Commission consider such experiments useful and necessary?Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (10 July 1996)There is no research project involving tests with ticks on domestic rabbits which is currently funded by the Community.Moreover, the Community research programme on biomedicine and health lays down that animals should be used for experiments only in the absence of alternative methods.As regards the measures taken by the Commission to limit the number of animals used in experiments, reference should be made to Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes. ((OJ L 358, 18.12.1986. )) Under this Directive, the Commission set up, in 1993, the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM). This Centre, which forms part of the Joint Research Centre of the Commission, is primarily concerned with coordinating the validation of alternative methods to in vivo tests at Community level.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1463/96 by Undine-Uta BLOCH von BLOTTNITZ to the Commission. Brown bears in the EU
Date: 1996-05-31
Institutions: BLOCH VON BLOTTNITZ, European Parliament
Subjects: EU financing, European Union, animal breeding, animal production, marine mammal, protection of animals, wildlife













EUR-Lex - 91996E1463 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1463

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1463/96 by Undine-Uta BLOCH von BLOTTNITZ to the Commission. Brown bears in the EU  


Official Journal C 345 , 15/11/1996 P. 0075 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-1463/96 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission (31 May 1996)Subject: Brown bears in the EUBrown bears in the wild are now rare in the European Union. Attempts are therefore being made in certain places, amid great difficulties, to reintroduce specimens of these animals. At the same time, brown bears are being bred year after year in Community zoos in order to attract the public with their loveable offspring. Once the animals have grown larger, the zoos dispose of these bears in a variety of ways. In Saxony-Anhalt (Germany) there is even a restaurant which breeds brown bears in order to put them on show in small cages and, later, slaughter them for consumption on the premises.1. Where in the EU, and in precisely what ways, are brown bears currently being prepared for life in the wild?2. Who is paying for these programmes, how much are they costing, and what is the EU's financial and/or moral commitment to such programmes?3. How does the Commission view the fact that bear cubs are being bred in European zoos purely for the short-term gratification of the public?4. How does the Commission view the fact that, on the one hand, attempts are being made, amid great difficulties, to reintroduce bears into the wild whilst, on the other hand, bears are being bred and kept under highly questionable conditions (as in Saxony-Anhalt, for example) for purposes of consumption?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (2 July 1996)1-2. The Commission has no information in its possession on any plans to breed brown bears (ursus arctos) in captivity with a view to their reintroduction into the Community.3-4. The Commission has put a recommendation to the Council on the keeping of wild animals in a zoological environment. ((COM(95) 619 final. )) The matter of breeding in captivity is dealt with in Item 8.8.In addition the boosting of the population that is jointly financed under LIFE-Nature Projects uses bears taken from a non-threatened wild population.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1464/96 by Spalato BELLERE' to the Commission. Exports of crystallized fruits produced in Italy
Date: 1996-05-31
Institutions: BELLERE, European Parliament
Subjects: France, Italy, State aid, export, free movement of goods, fruit product, health legislation













EUR-Lex - 91996E1464 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1464

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1464/96 by Spalato BELLERE' to the Commission. Exports of crystallized fruits produced in Italy  


Official Journal C 305 , 15/10/1996 P. 0102 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-1464/96 by Spalato Belleré (NI) to the Commission (31 May 1996)Subject: Exports of crystallized fruits produced in ItalyAPT-UNION SIPRIAL, which markets crystallized fruits in Italy with the help of aid provided by the French Government, has initiated court proceedings against AMBROSIO SRL of San Giuseppe Vesuviano in the Naples area, which exports crystallized fruits - including three-coloured melon cubes - to France, on the grounds that the labels on the products concerned bear no guarantee of the quality of the contents.Given that the USL (Local Health Centre) certificate, which under Italian law must be obtained before a product may be placed on the market, contains details of the marketability test carried out on the product, together with certification by the Italian health authorities that it is suitable for sale, the case to be brought by the French authorities before the civil court in Avignon on 6 June 1996 would appear spurious, to say the least.Would the Commission therefore take urgent action to ensure that products may move freely within the Community by drawing up an unambiguous directive harmonizing the existing directives, in such a way as to rule out dubious or, what is worse, spurious interpretations?Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (21 June 1996)As the Honourable Member states, the case is currently before the Avignon civil court. Therefore, in accordance with its normal practice, the Commission is not in a position to comment on the substance of the case.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1301/96 by Klaus-Heiner LEHNE to the Commission. German citizens may not own summer houses in Denmark
Date: 1996-05-31
Institutions: European Parliament, LEHNE
Subjects: Denmark, EU national, equal treatment, purchase, residence, secondary residence













EUR-Lex - 91996E1301 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1301

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1301/96 by Klaus-Heiner LEHNE to the Commission. German citizens may not own summer houses in Denmark  


Official Journal C 345 , 15/11/1996 P. 0053 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1301/96 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE) to the Commission (31 May 1996)Subject: German citizens may not own summer houses in DenmarkAccording to a press report ((Article in the Rheinische Post of 1 May 1996. )), the Danish judicial authorities intend to force German citizens to sell their summer houses in Denmark. This is the authorities' reaction to growing complaints from several municipalities. Evidently, foreigners resident in Denmark - including EU citizens - are forbidden to purchase summer houses in the country. Many purchasers evade this prohibition by claiming that they intend to use the house as their permanent residence. Local residents and politicians are afraid that such purchases will result in municipalities becoming excessively foreign and in property prices rising to the disadvantage of Danish nationals.In recent weeks 13 summer houses not occupied all year round are reported to have been detected. It is said that even the refuse of the occupants of summer houses has been checked in this context. In all 13 cases the persons concerned may be prosecuted and forced to sell their houses.Does the Danish law contravene the EU Treaty, and especially the prohibition of discrimination?Is the Commission aware of this law? Will it be taking any action to prevent discrimination against EU citizens in Denmark?Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (18 July 1996)In accordance with Protocol No 1 to the EC Treaty, Denmark may maintain the existing legislation on the acquisition of second homes.That legislation does not limit the purchase of second homes, and in particular summer houses, to Danish citizens but to any person living in Denmark at the moment of purchase or having lived there for at least five years, regardless of nationality.As regards the particular problem raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission is carrying out a detailed study and will inform him of the result of its research as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1295/96 by Roberto MEZZAROMA to the Commission. Kidney trafficking in India
Date: 1996-05-31
Institutions: European Parliament, MEZZAROMA
Subjects: EU aid, India, competence of the Member States, customs regulations, import policy, import restriction, poverty













EUR-Lex - 91996E1295 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1295

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1295/96 by Roberto MEZZAROMA to the Commission. Kidney trafficking in India  


Official Journal C 297 , 08/10/1996 P. 0116 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1295/96 by Roberto Mezzaroma (UPE) to the Commission (31 May 1996)Subject: Kidney trafficking in IndiaIn the State of Tamil Nadu in southern India paid kidney transplants have given rise to a flourishing international trade and at least five thousand people, women in particular, live with only one kidney.Although the new law on transplants, adopted in May of last year in response to a wave of public outrage, has drastically curbed kidney trafficking, paid organ transplants have not completely disappeared.1. What measures will the Commission take to strengthen controls in EU Member countries on the illegal importing of human organs?2. Does the Commission not consider that a team of medical experts and Community inspectors should be sent to India to verify the real extent of this phenomenon and does it not consider that human rights with regard to personal health are being violated?Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission (20 June 1996)The Commission entirely agrees on the need to eradicate illicit human organ transplants for payment, and welcomes the efforts made by India to eliminate this practice.1. The application of penal law in the fight against the illicit traffic of organs is clearly a matter for the Member States. The Commission nevertheless notes the need for a co-ordination of customs services when faced with the difficulty of identifying the origin (paying or non-paying) of imported organs at the frontier.2. Control within the country of origin is therefore essential to an effective policy. Given that poverty is the main reason for the continuing supply of organs, the Commission has increased its commitment to raising the quality of life in India by financing public health, education and information projects with special emphasis on women. The Commission feels that such positive measures are the best means of tackling the problem, and it is ready to consider supporting further practical measures if India requests help in eliminating or investigating the situation.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1303/96 by Johanna MAIJ-WEGGEN to the Commission. Charge for the European passport and its period of validity
Date: 1996-05-31
Institutions: European Parliament, MAIJ-WEGGEN
Subjects: European passport, Netherlands, harmonisation of prices, harmonisation of standards, price disparity













EUR-Lex - 91996E1303 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1303

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1303/96 by Johanna MAIJ-WEGGEN to the Commission. Charge for the European passport and its period of validity  


Official Journal C 297 , 08/10/1996 P. 0117 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1303/96 by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission (31 May 1996)Subject: Charge for the European passport and its period of validityComplaints by Dutch citizens reveal that charges for passports and their period of validity differ in the various EU countries.1. Can the Commission indicate what each EU Member State now charges for the European passport and how long it is valid in each EU country?2. Does the Commission appreciate that the citizens of Europe are rather annoyed about the differences in charges for the European passport and in its period of validity, and is it prepared to propose to the Council that the charges and periods of validity should be harmonized, so that it is not just the cover of the passport that is European?Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (25 June 1996)The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.