do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1740/96 by Alex SMITH to the Commission. Trade with South Africa
Date: 1996-06-17
Institutions: European Parliament, SMITH ALEX
Subjects: EU relations, European Commission, GATT, South Africa, free-trade area, market access, tariff negotiations, trade agreement, trading operation













EUR-Lex - 91996E1740 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1740

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1740/96 by Alex SMITH to the Commission. Trade with South Africa  


Official Journal C 322 , 28/10/1996 P. 0102 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-1740/96 by Alex Smith (PSE) to the Commission (17 June 1996)Subject: Trade with South AfricaThe European Commission has repeatedly stated that, in its view, 'substantially all trade' under the new WTO rules for Free-Trade Areas should be interpreted as 90% of all trade.With regard to the negotiations on a FTA with South Africa, could the Commission clarify how it intends to determine that 90% of all trade? Could the Commission provide the details on which its calculation is based, such as reference years and other relevant data?Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (4 July 1996)The Commission has not expressed a view as to what precise percentage of trade coverage would meet the World trade organisation requirement that a free trade agreement (FTA) lead to the removal of duties on 'substantially all trade'. As the Commission pointed out in its communication SEC(95) 332, General agreement in tariffs and trade working parties have never been able to reach clear conclusions on these question. In October 1995 the Commission recalled that 'the Community cannot unilaterally identify any fixed percentage of trade with the well known requirement of Article XXIV that an FTA should cover substantially all trade'.The complementary negotiating directives eventually adopted by the Council in March 1996 do not therefore contain any target percentage for the coverage of the proposed FTA with South Africa. In its negotiations with South Africa, the Commission will aim for the greatest possible liberalization of mutual trade, while taking due account of sensitive interests and products. 'Choosing an ambitious target' in the case of South Africa, the Commission said (October 1995), is 'justified by the present level of tariff barriers and the need to reach significant mutual improvement in market access'.Since the products to be included or excluded from the FTA will be defined through negotiations, evaluation of WTO conformity of the FTA will only be possible once the negotiations have been completed.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1541/96 by Salvador JOVÉ PERES to the Commission. Control of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)
Date: 1996-06-17
Institutions: European Parliament, JOVE PERES
Subjects: United Kingdom, animal disease, animal product, cattle, export restriction, health risk, medical research, public health













EUR-Lex - 91996E1541 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1541

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1541/96 by Salvador JOVÉ PERES to the Commission. Control of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)  


Official Journal C 365 , 04/12/1996 P. 0010 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1541/96 by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (17 June 1996)Subject: Control of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)On 27 June 1994 the Commission defined high-risk animal products and recognized treatments to inactivate the BSE agent. However in its decision of 6 March 1995 it stated that 'it is not possible at present to define processes which can guarantee total inactivation of the [TSSE] agents in the commercial rendering industry'.1. In view of the fact that these decisions were motivated by health concerns, has the Commission assessed the risks which were taken in the past on account of changes to the assessment of scientific evidence? To what extent does the Commission intend to take responsibility for risks to human health as a result of such changes?In view of the Commission's proposal to lift the ban on tallow, gelatine and semen,2. What new information has the Commission obtained that enables it to put forward a proposal for the partial lifting of the ban on tallow, gelatine and semen from the United Kingdom?3. Can the Commission forward the scientific evidence it holds which enables it to put forward a proposal for the partial lifting of the ban? Can the Commission forward a description of the new scientific experiments carried out and the results thereof and say who carried them out and what the relevant scientific bodies' assessment of them is?4. Does the Commission regard as sufficient the evidence forwarded to it by economic operators with interests in the sector (reports drawn up by gelatine manufacturers' associations)?5. Can the Commission submit the relevant scientific bodies' assessment of the implementation of the plan to eradicate BSE in the United Kingdom?6. In the Commission's proposal, has the scientific evidence relating to consumer protection outweighed political pressure exerted by the United Kingdom, or vice versa?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (2 August 1996)The Commission is studying the issues presented by the Honourable Member and will reply once the results are available.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1544/96 by Alexandros ALAVANOS to the Commission. Continuous improvement of bathing water in Greece
Date: 1996-06-17
Institutions: ALAVANOS, European Parliament
Subjects: Greece, Integrated Mediterranean Programmes, bathing water, pollution control measures, quality of the environment













EUR-Lex - 91996E1544 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1544

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1544/96 by Alexandros ALAVANOS to the Commission. Continuous improvement of bathing water in Greece  


Official Journal C 356 , 25/11/1996 P. 0056 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1544/96 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (17 June 1996)Subject: Continuous improvement of bathing water in GreeceThe Commission's 1995 annual report on the quality of bathing water in the Member States indicates that Greece has the cleanest bathing water in the European Union and that, in the few cases where pollution is occurring, the situation is progressively improving. There can be no doubt that this trend is partly due to greater public awareness and partly long-term measures within Community programmes, together with joint funding for investment to improve the marine environment. Since we believe that these efforts should be recognized, can the Commission provide the following information:1. What projects does it consider are helping directly or indirectly to improve the marine environment (IMPs, first and second CSF and other programmes) and what appropriations have been earmarked for this purpose?2. What other information can the Commission provide or what sources can it quote to show the extent of the effort made in this area?Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (22 July 1996)As the Honourable Member points out, the improvement in Greece's bathing water is the result of greater public awareness and long-term measures.The Commission believes the improvement is due mainly to new sewerage systems and municipal waste water treatment plants, the installation of which was largely cofinanced from the integrated Mediterranean programmes, Community support frameworks and the cohesion funds.Between 1986 and 1996, the total cost of related work in Greece was an estimated ECU 650 million.In addition, the operational programme for the environment cofinances schemes to clear beaches of solid waste, which helps keep waters clean and resorts attractive. Similarly, the Greek coastguard has been equipped with two modern vessels, partly financed from the Envireg initiative, in order to combat accidental maritime pollution.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1537/96 by Nikitas KAKLAMANIS to the Commission. Infringement of the Treaty of Lausanne
Date: 1996-06-17
Institutions: European Parliament, KAKLAMANIS
Subjects: Aegean Islands, Association Council (EU), Kurdistan question, Türkiye, colonialism













EUR-Lex - 91996E1537 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1537

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1537/96 by Nikitas KAKLAMANIS to the Commission. Infringement of the Treaty of Lausanne  


Official Journal C 322 , 28/10/1996 P. 0083 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1537/96 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (17 June 1996)Subject: Infringement of the Treaty of LausanneAccording to the Turkish newspaper 'Hürriyet', the Turkish authorities have announced the construction of a reservoir involving the flooding of a Turkish village in the Gallipoli area, and the removal of its inhabitants, together with Kurdish settlers, to the island of Imbroz.The Treaty of Lausanne, however, specifically and categorically prohibits settlement on the islands of Imbroz and Tenedos and states that the two islands shall be self-administered.Will the Commission raise this issue at the next meeting of the EC-Turkey Association Council?Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (10 July 1996)The Commission has asked the Turkish authorities for information about the article in the daily paper, Hürriyet, referred to by the Honourable Member.The authorities have said they have no intention of sending settlers to the islands of Imbroz or Tenedos.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1555/96 by Glyn FORD to the Commission. Omission of the English flag
Date: 1996-06-17
Institutions: European Parliament, FORD
Subjects: United Kingdom, flag













EUR-Lex - 91996E1555 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1555

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1555/96 by Glyn FORD to the Commission. Omission of the English flag  


Official Journal C 305 , 15/10/1996 P. 0109 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1555/96 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (17 June 1996)Subject: Omission of the English flagCan the Commission confirm how many different lapel badges it produces with the EU flag and flags of other nations or regions within and outside the Union?Can the Commission explain why although Scotland and Wales are included in this plethora, the English flag is not available?Is this merely an oversight or rather is it Commission policy?Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (22 July 1996)The Commission ordered 173 207 lapel badges in 1995. These were all with the European flag emblem, without national flags.The Commission does not order lapel badges with the flags of individual Member States. The badges to which the Honourable Member refers, namely with the Scottish and Welsh flags, would have been produced by the private sector.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1546/96 by Alexandros ALAVANOS to the Commission. Private airlines in Greece
Date: 1996-06-17
Institutions: ALAVANOS, European Parliament
Subjects: Greece, civil aviation, free service, privatisation, restriction on competition, trade licence













EUR-Lex - 91996E1546 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1546

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1546/96 by Alexandros ALAVANOS to the Commission. Private airlines in Greece  


Official Journal C 322 , 28/10/1996 P. 0084 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1546/96 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (17 June 1996)Subject: Private airlines in GreeceAccording to Greek and foreign press reports, following the liberalization of the air transport sector and the accompanying increase in the number of private and charter airlines in Greece, a number of infringements of Community law have occurred, for example the illegal registration of aircraft concerning which the particulars required under Community regulations have not been provided, the illegal operation of air transport services, the use of non-approved aircraft belonging to foreign airlines despite rulings to the contrary and infringement of rules concerning admissible noise levels and staffing. The economic soundness of these airlines also appears to be in doubt in view of their repeated delays in paying fees, airport taxes etc.If the above allegations are true, this means an immediate danger to flight safety and distortion of competition in respect of those airlines which do respect the regulations. Is the Commission aware of this and will it investigate the matter further?Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (30 July 1996)According to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 ((OJ L 240, 24.8.1992. )) on the licensing of air carriers, it is primarily up to the Member State which has delivered an operating licence to an air carrier to check the financial as well as the technical ability of this carrier to operate under acceptable safety conditions. The Commission, using its general power given by the EC Treaty, controls the proper application of this Regulation by the Member states. However, the Commission is not aware of the infringements of Community rules to which the Honourable Member refers.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1554/96 by Wolfgang KREISSL-DÖRFLER to the Commission. Beef storage costs
Date: 1996-06-17
Institutions: European Parliament, KREISSL-DOERFLER
Subjects: European Commission, beef, exchange of information, extra-EU trade, intra-EU trade, statistics, storage cost, third country, transport of animals













EUR-Lex - 91996E1554 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1554

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1554/96 by Wolfgang KREISSL-DÖRFLER to the Commission. Beef storage costs  


Official Journal C 356 , 25/11/1996 P. 0058 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1554/96 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (V) to the Commission (17 June 1996)Subject: Beef storage costsCan the Commission say how many cattle produced in the Community were transported between 1990 and 1995 as livestock(a) in intra-Community trade;(b) in trade with third countries?Can the Commission provide any information in terms of tonne-kilometres?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (18 July 1996)The Commission will forward tables containing available information (1990-1994) directly to the Honourable Member and Parliament's Secretariat.The Commission does not have any information on the distances over which animals have been transported in intra and extra-Community trade.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1565/96 by José POMÉS RUIZ to the Commission. Information on the call for pilot project proposals under Article 10 of the ERDF Regulation
Date: 1996-06-17
Institutions: European Parliament, POMES RUIZ
Subjects: EU Official Journal, European Commission, European Regional Development Fund, co-financing, development plan, invitation to tender, project evaluation, self-employed person, town planning













EUR-Lex - 91996E1565 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1565

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1565/96 by José POMÉS RUIZ to the Commission. Information on the call for pilot project proposals under Article 10 of the ERDF Regulation  


Official Journal C 345 , 15/11/1996 P. 0084 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1565/96 by José Pomés Ruiz (PPE) to the Commission (17 June 1996)Subject: Information on the call for pilot project proposals under Article 10 of the ERDF RegulationWhat progress has been made in the selection process for projects eligible for ERDF funding, under Article 10 thereof, following the call for proposals published in OJ C 319 of 30 November 1995?Answer given by Ms Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (5 July 1996)In all, 484 dossiers have been presented to the Commission in response to the call for proposals published in the Official Journal referred to by the Honourable Member.A panel of independent experts will be appointed to examine the proposals received. In view of the time needed to set up this panel and for detailed analysis and rigorous selection of the dossiers, it may be possible to complete the process towards the end of October.The budget at present available will enable the Commission to cofinance only some 25 projects for all the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1540/96 by Alexandros ALAVANOS to the Commission. Second CSF - railway network in Greece
Date: 1996-06-17
Institutions: ALAVANOS, European Parliament
Subjects: EU financing, Greece, rail network













EUR-Lex - 91996E1540 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1540

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1540/96 by Alexandros ALAVANOS to the Commission. Second CSF - railway network in Greece  


Official Journal C 365 , 04/12/1996 P. 0010 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1540/96 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (17 June 1996)Subject: Second CSF - railway network in GreeceUnder the national provisions of the second CSF for Greece, funding has been earmarked for the railway network. It concerns mainly the Athens-Patras-Thessonoliki link forming part of the trans-European rail network. It is projected that 88% of the Athens-Thessonoliki line will be double-track, considerably reducing the length of the journey, but new rail links will be built and the Korinthos-Patras line will be modernized.1. What was the uptake of appropriations for 1994-1995?2. What were the principal causes for any delay in utilizing the funds?3. Can information be given concerning progress on the project itself?Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (2 August 1996)The uptake of the railway operational programme included in the Greek Community Support Framework (CSF) for 1994-99 was 40% for 1994 and 34% for 1995.The rate at which projects are carried out will be raised by the establishment, in June 1996, of Ergose, the subsidiary of OSE which will manage implementation of railway projects cofinanced by Community funds and by the recruitment of a project manager who will assist.So far 36 km of twin track has been built, 30 km of line has been renewed and ten level crossings have been built on the Athens-Thessaloniki line. A number of other jobs are in progress on the same line.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1519/96 by Amedeo AMADEO , Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. EU economic planning with regard to the problem of 'mad cow disease'
Date: 1996-06-17
Institutions: AMADEO, European Parliament, MUSCARDINI
Subjects: United Kingdom, animal disease, beef, cattle, export refund, farm income, farm price support, producer organisation, slaughter of animals, slaughter premium













EUR-Lex - 91996E1519 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1519

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1519/96 by Amedeo AMADEO , Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. EU economic planning with regard to the problem of 'mad cow disease'  


Official Journal C 322 , 28/10/1996 P. 0079 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1519/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) and Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (17 June 1996)Subject: EU economic planning with regard to the problem of 'mad cow disease'The measures envisaged by the EU to enable the United Kingdom to tackle BSE consist in the slaughter and destruction of all cattle more than 30 months old (15 thousand animals per week, equivalent to a value of Lit 600 billion per year).Since the EU took action on 28 July 1989 in the form of Regulation No 469 for the benefit of cattle-breeders in the United Kingdom and hence the phenomenon does not seem to be new, but goes back at least 8 years, EU intervention does not seem to be penalizing bad farming but seem to be rewarding it. Can the Commission therefore consider immediate measures to reduce drastically the premium to British farmers and grant it to producers in other Member States who are suffering the effects of the 'mad cow' crisis without being in any way responsible for it?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (12 July 1996)In general stockfarmers in the United Kingdom or any other Member State cannot be held responsible for the development of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) problem. Premia therefore will continue to be paid across the Community on a fair and equitable basis.The measures taken in connection with BSE concern all Community producers and are designed to support the beef market throughout the Community. Amongst the most important measures already taken by the Commission are:- the part-financing of the destruction of animals of less than six months, born in the United Kingdom and held by producers in Belgium, France and the Netherlands;- the re-introduction of intervention, with certain temporary derogations designed to make it more effective. This measure has been mainly taken up by producers in Member States other than the United Kingdom;- an increase in the export refunds on live cattle and beef.Finally, at its meeting of 24 to 26 June 1996, the Council adopted a package of 850 MECU income support for beef producers.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1510/96 by Sebastiano MUSUMECI to the Commission. The ecosystem of the Eolian islands
Date: 1996-06-17
Institutions: European Parliament, MUSUMECI
Subjects: European Commission, Sicily, chemical pollution, competence of the Member States, environmental protection, free service, impact study, island region, proposal (EU), sea fish













EUR-Lex - 91996E1510 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1510

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1510/96 by Sebastiano MUSUMECI to the Commission. The ecosystem of the Eolian islands  


Official Journal C 345 , 15/11/1996 P. 0081 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1510/96 by Sebastiano Musumeci (NI) to the Commission (17 June 1996)Subject: The ecosystem of the Eolian islandsThe Institute of Veterinary Pathology at the University of Messina, whilst carrying out routine checks, discovered traces of chemical pollutants in the sea off the Eolian islands, particularly in the stretch of water off the town of Rinella in the district of Leni on the island of Salina and the village of Acquacalda on Lipari.The seriousness of the problem is highlighted by the discovery of many species of fish, such as white seabream, grey mullet and amberjack, with obvious anatomical malformations, such as atrophied tail fins and eyes and extensive desquamation.Can the Commission carry out an investigation to ascertain the presence of chemical pollutants in the ecosystem of the Eolian islands?Can it also issue a directive as a matter of urgency for the protection of the sea and Community coastlines in the Mediterranean basin, with particular reference to the environmental protection of the Eolian islands?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (17 July 1996)The Commission is concerned to hear of the pollution of the waters around the Eolian islands,but notes that any investigation or remedial action is the responsibility of the Italian authorities. Without further information, the Commission is unable to ascertain whether there is a problem, what the cause of the problem might be and whether there has been any breach of Community law.The Commission is currently preparing a proposal for a water resources framework directive which would require the regular monitoring of coastal waters for signs of pollution and of its impact on the ecosystem. It would require action to be taken to ensure a good quality environment and would insist on regular reporting to the public.