do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1586/96 by Jean-Pierre BAZIN to the Commission. Bankruptcy of Bremer-Vulkan
Date: 1996-06-24
Institutions: BAZIN, European Parliament
Subjects: European Commission, development plan, exchange of information, industrial restructuring, interpretation of the law, privatisation, shipbuilding













EUR-Lex - 91996E1586 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1586

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1586/96 by Jean-Pierre BAZIN to the Commission. Bankruptcy of Bremer-Vulkan  


Official Journal C 345 , 15/11/1996 P. 0086 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1586/96 by Jean-Pierre Bazin (UPE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)Subject: Bankruptcy of Bremer-VulkanIn a recent interview in the German magazine Der Spiegel Mr Karel Van Miert, the Commissioner responsible for competition policy, said that the Commission had now appointed a new consultant to conduct a full investigation into Bremer-Vulkan.The same weekly reveals that Bremer-Vulkan has received DM 975 million from the coffers of the East German conglomerate Schiffskommerz, in addition to aid from the Treuhand fund.Can the Commission, with the aid of its new consultant, confirm or repudiate these revelations, and tell us whether it was aware of this additional subsidy?Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (19 July 1996)The article in 'Der Spiegel' of 29 April 1996 to which the Honourable Member refers, is neither based on investigations initiated by the Commission, nor on sources from the Commission.Contrary to the impression created by the article, the payments from 'Schiffscommerz' to the various shipyards in East Germany are perhaps little known, but the information was not kept confidential, or even secret. All bidders at the privatization were aware of the accounts receivable which are the base of these payments, from the balance sheets of the yards. The Commission was informed by the German government of the existence of these claims at the time of notification of the privatization programme, and they were considered in the evaluation of the restructuring programmes. Subsequently, the Commission gave information about the developments in these claims and the relevant contracts in the multilateral meetings with the Member States.The Commission would recall that before German unification the yards did not accept export orders themselves, but all these contracts were directed through the central export agency 'Außenhandelsbetrieb Schiffscommerz'. The yards had no influence on the commercial terms which were in general very unfavourable for them.At the time of privatization all yards had therefore substantial accounts receivable against 'Schiffscommerz' from completed and pending contracts. These claims against 'Schiffscommerz' were adapted to the deutsche Mark price level following the general rules of ¶ 32 DM-Bilanzgesetz. This conversion is to be regarded as a general measure in the context of the unification of Germany. It therefore does not constitute aid in the sense of Article 92 of the EC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1615/96 by Richard HOWITT to the Commission. Implementation of the 20:20 proposal in Latin America
Date: 1996-06-24
Institutions: European Parliament, HOWITT
Subjects: EU aid, Latin America, aid programme, development aid, international meeting, project evaluation, report, social development













EUR-Lex - 91996E1615 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1615

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1615/96 by Richard HOWITT to the Commission. Implementation of the 20:20 proposal in Latin America  


Official Journal C 322 , 28/10/1996 P. 0094 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1615/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)Subject: Implementation of the 20:20 proposal in Latin AmericaHow far has the Commission sought to implement the 20:20 proposal in relation to its development aid to Latin America, as discussed at the UN Social Summit in Copenhagen and endorsed by the Interparliamentary Conference between the European and Latin American Parliaments?Could the Commission indicate the practical result of these efforts and identify which further initiatives in this respect are planned during the next two years?Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission (10 July 1996)The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member about the value as a development target of the 20/20 clause, whereby donor countries of the advanced industrialized world are called on to devote 20% of their aid to social projects and recipient countries to assign 20% of their domestic budget to the same sector.We would point out that, as is stated in Article 46 of the Final Act of the Twenty-First EC-Latin America Interplarliamentary Conference, the clause was not in fact approved by participants at the Copenhagen Summit, and that while it is undoubtedly of relevance to the Community it is targeted primarily at the Member States.The proportion of EC aid to Latin America devoted to the social sector as defined at the Copenhagen Summit far exceeds 20% and is thus fully in keeping with the Summit's recommendations.Much of the tenor of those recommendations is incorporated in the Commission communication to the Council and Parliament entitled 'The European Union and Latin America: the present situation and prospects for closer partnership 1996-2000', which sets out general cooperation guidelines for the next five years.For details of results of operations implemented by the Commission in this field, we would refer the Honourable Member to the reports and minutes communicated to Parliament under Article 30 of the Final Act referred to above, evaluation reports and the annual report of the Latin America directorate, which we will be pleased to send the Honourable Member at his request.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1614/96 by Richard HOWITT to the Commission. Development aid in Latin America
Date: 1996-06-24
Institutions: European Parliament, HOWITT
Subjects: EU aid, Latin America, OECD, coordination of aid, development aid, dissemination of information, personnel administration, report













EUR-Lex - 91996E1614 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1614

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1614/96 by Richard HOWITT to the Commission. Development aid in Latin America  


Official Journal C 322 , 28/10/1996 P. 0093 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1614/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)Subject: Development aid in Latin AmericaWhat is the Commission's response to the OECD's DAC report on EU aid, in relation to its comments in particular concerning Latin America?Could the Commission indicate which recommendations it agrees with and which it rejects?Where it is in agreement, can the Commission indicate how it is seeking to implement changes?Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (15 July 1996)The Commission provided both oral and written contributions to the work of the OECD's Development Assistance Committee (DAC) which drafted the report on development aid administered by the Community. The final draft was scrutinized at a joint OECD/Commission/Member State meeting in Paris on 19 September last year.The Commission is thus wholly familiar with the report's conclusions and welcomes the DAC's comments on cooperation with Latin America, which apply to the whole range of Community operations, EIB loans as well as Commission-administered grants.The DAC recommendations set out in the summary and conclusions which call for particular attention from the Commission relate mainly to staffing, coordination with Member States, evaluation of operations and the drafting of country strategy papers.The experts on the DAC noted that the Commission did not have the staff to undertake social projects, participatory development operations, programmes for women, and population, health, education and environmental projects. The Commission does in fact have specialist staff in most of these fields, though admittedly too limited to handle the workload.The Commission considers the DAC's comments on coordination with the Member States most pertinent and wholly in line with the guidelines set out in its communication COM(94) 495 final entitled 'The EU and Latin America: the present situation and prospects for closer partnership 1996-2000' ((COM(95) 495 final. )).Some country strategy papers for South American countries are already available, and the set should soon be complete. Papers analysing the situation of women in Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador and Paraguay are also available.The Commission endorses the DAC's views on evaluation and the importance both of taking the results into account when planning future operations and disseminating them to a wider public. It will endeavour to do so and to internalize the relevant parts of the DAC report.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1662/96 by Jesús CABEZÓN ALONSO , Juan COLINO SALAMANCA to the Commission. Sugar production quotas
Date: 1996-06-24
Institutions: CABEZON ALONSO, COLINO SALAMANCA, European Parliament
Subjects: Spain, guaranteed price, isoglucose, production quota, sugar, underproduction













EUR-Lex - 91996E1662 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1662

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1662/96 by Jesús CABEZÓN ALONSO , Juan COLINO SALAMANCA to the Commission. Sugar production quotas  


Official Journal C 356 , 25/11/1996 P. 0080 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1662/96 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) and Juan Colino Salamanca (PSE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)Subject: Sugar production quotasSpain currently has a sugar production quota of 1 m tonnes.Consumption is an estimated 1 150 000 tonnes.Could the Commission possibly review the Spanish quota with a view to raising it by 50 000 tonnes?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (11 July 1996)The production quotas applicable to sugar and isoglucose in Spain were established during the course of the accession negotiations in 1985 and have undergone regular reviews since then alongside those applicable in the other producing regions of the Community.The latest review was completed in April 1995 with the decision to roll-over the production quotas for a further six marketing years until 30 June 2001. Council Regulation (EC) No 1101/95 ((OJ L 110, 17.5.1995. )) lays down that the quota system to apply after that date will be determined before 1 January 2001.Consumption has never been a criterion for calculating production quotas in the sugar sector. Italy, Ireland, Portugal, Finland, and the United Kingdom are deficit Member States insofar as sugar is concerned, in addition to Spain. For all these deficit Member States, higher derived guaranteed prices are fixed for the purpose of encouraging trade-flows of sugar from surplus Member States.The Commission does not consider it possible to revise the production quota for sugar for Spain in these circumstances.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1690/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. European Observatory for SMEs
Date: 1996-06-24
Institutions: AMADEO, European Parliament
Subjects: European Commission, activity report, craft production, dissemination of information, information network, job creation, small and medium-sized enterprises, translation













EUR-Lex - 91996E1690 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1690

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1690/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. European Observatory for SMEs  


Official Journal C 385 , 19/12/1996 P. 0025 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1690/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (24 June 1996)Subject: European Observatory for SMEsOne of the main tasks of the Observatory is to provide the Commission with data that will enable it to formulate specific policies for SMEs, including the craft sector. This data is also useful for national governments and organizations working in the sector.In view of this and the extreme importance of this sector for creating new jobs which, in the near future, will undoubtedly no longer be generated by large-scale industries but by small craft firms, does the Commission not consider that the report, together with the executive summary, given its significance for all citizens of the Member States interested in the work of SMEs, should be published in all the European Union's official languages?Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (16 September 1996)The Commission broadly shares the opinion of the Honourable Member as regards the importance and interest of the annual reports from the European Observatory for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs), which are an essential reference instrument for the Community institutions, national authorities and intermediary bodies representing SMEs. As a result, the Commission has encouraged the network responsible for compiling these independent reports to publish them in three languages and, as emphasised by the Honourable Member, the Commission itself ensures that the executive summaries of these reports are translated into all the Community languages and are disseminated as an Annex to the Commission's comments on each report.Given the very nature of these reports, the Commission also feels that their dissemination could be further improved by other means such as those envisaged in its proposal on a third multiannual programme for SMEs ((OJ C 156, 31 May 1996. )). In particular, it will seek to determine whether it is possible to record the main qualitative and quantitative conclusions of the reports in a database which can be accessed directly by SMEs and whether some of the reports can be placed on the Internet. In order to reach a wider public, the Commission also intends to organise an annual conference at which the conclusions of each report would be discussed in depth with all the parties involved.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1602/96 by Richard HOWITT to the Commission. Follow-up of the Helios Programme
Date: 1996-06-24
Institutions: European Parliament, HOWITT
Subjects: EU aid, action programme, association, disabled person, project evaluation













EUR-Lex - 91996E1602 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1602

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1602/96 by Richard HOWITT to the Commission. Follow-up of the Helios Programme  


Official Journal C 322 , 28/10/1996 P. 0089 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1602/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)Subject: Follow-up of the Helios ProgrammeHow many of the evaluation studies undertaken at national or pan-European level of the Helios Programme have been undertaken by independent experts who are themselves people with disabilities?Will the Commission confirm that, when it submits proposals for a European observatory on disability, it will specifically recruit only academics or experts who are persons with disabilities and that its overall work programme will be subject to detailed consultation with the independent European Disability Forum?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (30 July 1996)In accordance with the principles underlying the Helios II programme, the Commission strongly encourages participation by disabled people in all measures receiving Community support. However, the Commission does not require the registration of disabled people for this purpose. In connection with its project for the creation of an observatory on policies for the disabled, the Commission will take care to ensure that the persons entrusted with research and analysis offer the required skills and independence.Applications from disabled persons meeting these requirements will be appreciated.Finally, the Commission will pursue its dialogue with associations of the disabled concerning potential subjects of research.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1698/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Marine equipment
Date: 1996-06-24
Institutions: AMADEO, European Parliament
Subjects: Council of the European Union, application of EU law, free movement of goods, maritime shipping, maritime transport, proposal (EU), safety standard, transport safety













EUR-Lex - 91996E1698 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1698

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1698/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Marine equipment  


Official Journal C 385 , 19/12/1996 P. 0026 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1698/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (24 June 1996)Subject: Marine equipmentThe main objectives of the proposal for a Council Directive on marine equipment (COM(95) 0269 ((OJ C 218, 23.8.1995, p. 9. ))) are safety at sea, uniform application of testing standards within the Community, free circulation within all Member States of equipment approved under EU legislation and standards.However, the Directive appears to be geared more to removing obstacles to free circulation of the equipment than to promoting a higher level of safety.Since safety is an essential objective, will the Commission bring forward legislation in this area which makes safety and protection of the environment the first priority?Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (16 September 1996)The Commission fully shares the Honourable Member's opinion that safety is an essential objective of the legislative measures which have been proposed in the field of maritime transport since the adoption of the communication on a common policy on safe seas in 1993.Safety is certainly the main objective of the proposal for a Council directive on marine equipment, which is based on Article 84(2) of the EC Treaty. The draft aims to enhance the performance of the equipment carried on board ships throughout the Community. Free movement of the equipment manufactured in accordance with the provisions of the directive is however an additional and useful objective of the proposal. Member States will accept the equipment carrying the mark referred to in the directive without further controls since such a mark is a guarantee that the equipment fulfils the relevant safety standards.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1595/96 by Christine CRAWLEY to the Commission. Racist border controls
Date: 1996-06-24
Institutions: CRAWLEY, European Parliament
Subjects: EU national, France, identity document, racial discrimination, racism













EUR-Lex - 91996E1595 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1595

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1595/96 by Christine CRAWLEY to the Commission. Racist border controls  


Official Journal C 305 , 15/10/1996 P. 0113 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1595/96 by Christine Crawley (PSE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)Subject: Racist border controlsA group from East Birmingham College were recently subject to border controls and searches in France which were clearly targeted at black students and of an obvious racist nature.What action will the Commission take to ensure that no country carries out border controls of a racist nature?Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (11 July 1996)Community law provides for citizens of the Union to enter Member States' territory by simply producing a valid identity card or passport. The Commission does not have sufficient details on the incident mentioned by the Honourable Member and would therefore ask the Honourable Member to provide further information.Nevertheless, it should be noted that the prime responsibility for ensuring that border controls are carried out without racial discrimination lies with the Member States themselves.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1629/96 by Richard HOWITT to the Commission. Environmental protection under Tacis programme
Date: 1996-06-24
Institutions: European Parliament, HOWITT
Subjects: environmental protection, management of resources, protection of animal life, water resources













EUR-Lex - 91996E1629 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1629

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1629/96 by Richard HOWITT to the Commission. Environmental protection under Tacis programme  


Official Journal C 305 , 15/10/1996 P. 0115 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1629/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)Subject: Environmental protection under Tacis programmeWhy does the environment component of the Tacis programme which assists economic reform in the new independent states, not include wildlife protection? Might it be extended to do so in the near future?Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (22 July 1996)The environmental component of the Tacis programme is implemented both by way of free standing environmental projects (e.g. the Black Sea environment programme, the regional environmental facility, the Aral Sea water resources management programme) and as an integral part of projects in other sectors (e.g. energy, agriculture). To date, there have been no Tacis projects specifically in the field of wildlife protection.All Tacis projects are both requested and approved by beneficiary authorities in the New independent states (NIS). Thus, the absence of Tacis projects related to wildlife protection would indicate that this issue has not yet been identified as a priority by the beneficiary authorities themselves.However, if such action was requested by the NIS authorities it could be considered for inclusion into the Tacis country or inter-state (multi country) programmes where compatible with the multiannual priorities agreed between the Commission and the partner governments of the NIS.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1677/96 by Anita POLLACK to the Commission. Greenpeace's CO2 court case
Date: 1996-06-24
Institutions: European Parliament, POLLACK
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union, European Commission, Spain, air quality, association, environmental protection, legal action













EUR-Lex - 91996E1677 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1677

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1677/96 by Anita POLLACK to the Commission. Greenpeace's CO2 court case  


Official Journal C 356 , 25/11/1996 P. 0083 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1677/96 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (24 June 1996)Subject: Greenpeace's CO2 court caseWhy does the Commission maintain that individuals and NGO's do not have rights of legal standing to challenge actions of the Commission which harm or threaten their environmental interests?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (26 July 1996)The Honourable Member is no doubt referring to the decision of the Court of first instance of 9 August 1995 (case T-585/93 ((Rec: 1995, II-2205. )), Greenpeace International and others-v-Commission).As the Honourable Member will be aware, that judgement is the subject of an appeal to the Court of justice (case C-321/95P). It is not the Commission's policy to comment on matters which are sub judice.