do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1860/96 by Ursula SCHLEICHER to the Commission. Consequences of legislative procedures
Date: 1996-07-05
Institutions: European Parliament, SCHLEICHER
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European Commission, common position, consultation procedure, cooperation procedure, proposal (EU)













EUR-Lex - 91996E1860 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1860

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1860/96 by Ursula SCHLEICHER to the Commission. Consequences of legislative procedures  


Official Journal C 356 , 25/11/1996 P. 0106 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1860/96 by Ursula Schleicher (PPE) to the Commission (5 July 1996)Subject: Consequences of legislative proceduresIn which instances has a Commission proposal finally not been adopted, because the Council failed to conclude its second reading within the three-month time limit provided for in Article 189(c)(f) of the EC Treaty?Joint answer to Written Questions E-1860/96 and E-1861/96 given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (5 August 1996)Since the implementation of the Single European Act there have been only seven cases of rejection of a common position by the Parliament under the co-operation procedure.These were:- Protection of workers from exposure to benzene (on 12.10.1988)- Sweeteners as additives in foodstuffs (on 13.5.1992)- Energy consumption of domestic equipment (on 8.7.1992)- Maximum power of 2/3 wheeled vehicles (on 27.10.1993)- Emissions from large combustion plants (on 14.12.1994)- Incineration of hazardous waste (on 14.12.1994)- Landfill of waste (on 22.5.1996)In three cases (energy consumption of domestic equipment, emissions from large combustion plants, incineration of hazardous waste), unanimity existed in Council and the legislation was finally adopted. However, it should be noted that the only point of difference with Parliament on the energy consumption of domestic equipment dossier was comitology, a problem since resolved by the interinstitutional agreement on a modus vivendi.In one case (maximum power of 2/3 wheeled vehicles), the vote of rejection took place just before the entry into force of the Treaty on European Union and was then interpreted as an 'intention to reject' under Article 189b 2(C). The issues subsequently were resolved in the conciliation procedure as the proposal now came under the co-decision procedure.In the case of protection of workers from exposure to benzene, the legislation fell, but the key issue with regard to the information and consultation of workers was subsequently the subject of a separate proposal, which successfully passed all stages of the co-operation procedure.After the rejection of the common position on sweeteners in food additives, the Commission decided to replace its proposal by a package of new proposals. The same approach is envisaged for the landfill of waste proposal which the Commission intends to replace with a new proposal as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1807/96 by Mihail PAPAYANNAKIS to the Commission. Report on the implementation of Directive 79/409
Date: 1996-07-05
Institutions: European Parliament, PAPAYANNAKIS
Subjects: Council of the European Union, EC Directive, application of EU law, degree of pollution, protected species, protection of animal life, wildlife













EUR-Lex - 91996E1807 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1807

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1807/96 by Mihail PAPAYANNAKIS to the Commission. Report on the implementation of Directive 79/409  


Official Journal C 385 , 19/12/1996 P. 0041 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1807/96 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (5 July 1996)Subject: Report on the implementation of Directive 79/409In 1993 the Commission submitted its second report on the implementation of Directive 79/409 ((OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1. )).Article 12 (2) provides that the Commission shall publish such a report every three years. This means that at the end of 1996 the Commission should publish its third report on the implementation of the Directive.Will the Commission say whether it has already drawn up a draft of its third report which it could make available to the European Parliament?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (6 September 1996)The composite report which will be prepared by the Commission will be based on the reports of the Member States on the implementation of national provisions in the period 1993-1995.The Commission will draft its report as soon as these reports are available.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1748/96 by Michl EBNER to the Council. Decentralized, federally organized civil protection and disaster planning
Date: 1996-07-05
Institutions: EBNER, European Parliament
Subjects: civil defence, cooperation policy, environmental risk prevention, natural hazard













EUR-Lex - 91996E1748 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1748

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1748/96 by Michl EBNER to the Council. Decentralized, federally organized civil protection and disaster planning  


Official Journal C 385 , 19/12/1996 P. 0033 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1748/96 by Michl Ebner (PPE) to the Council (5 July 1996)Subject: Decentralized, federally organized civil protection and disaster planningThere are still no uniform civil protection and disaster planning arrangements in the States of the European Union.Disaster planning is becoming increasingly important, as modern society and settlement in risky areas combine to increase the risk of natural disasters.Will the Council state whether any initiatives are under way to develop plans for coping with disasters?Does it not consider that such plans should be developed, through local authorities and provincial or regional administrations, in a decentralized and federal form?Reply (29 October 1996)It is not for the Council to make statements on the internal organization arrangements of the Member States with regard to civil protection and disaster assistance organization.It is nevertheless examining proposals on European cooperation in this area. It has also been informed of the opportunities for cooperation in disaster prevention and the organization of assistance as part of the Community initiative programmes managed by the Commission, such as the Interreg programme (Structural Funds), which allow local authorities to participate actively.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1851/96 by Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Tuscany regional council's failure to comply with European environmental case law
Date: 1996-07-05
Institutions: European Parliament, MUSCARDINI
Subjects: case-law (EU), environmental impact, environmental protection, impact study, waste disposal













EUR-Lex - 91996E1851 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1851

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1851/96 by Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Tuscany regional council's failure to comply with European environmental case law  


Official Journal C 365 , 04/12/1996 P. 0044 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1851/96 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (5 July 1996)Subject: Tuscany regional council's failure to comply with European environmental case lawIn judgment No 176 of 5 May 1994 the Tuscany regional council failed to apply European environmental rules; when it reconsidered the regional plan for the organization of waste disposal services it confirmed the authorization for the special waste dump and possible fixed installations (some 600 000 m2) at Motrena in Agro in the commune of Colle Val d'Elsa.This thus constitutes infringement of Council Directive EEC/85/337 of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment as well as failure to comply with Council Directives 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances and 82/176/EEC of 22 March 1982 on the quality of water for human consumption. Article 130r of the Single Act however explicitly acknowledges Community jurisdiction in environmental matters, and the Treaty of Maastricht provides for the integration of environmental policy in Community measures.The Tuscany regional council has thus in all respects disregarded the spirit and letter of European case law on the environment. Will the Commission intervene to protect the rights of European citizens in conformity with the Treaties?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (5 September 1996)Following a complaint, the Commission has been informed of the Tuscan regional council's decision to authorize the opening of a special waste dump at Motrena in Agro, in the commune of Val d'Elsa. It will approach the Italian authorities as soon as it receives the additional information it has requested from the complainants.
Decision No 1/96 of the EC/EFTA Joint Committee on Common Transit of 5 July 1996 implementing Article 34A of Appendix II of the Convention of 20 May 1987 on a common transit procedure
Date: 1996-07-05
Institutions: EC–EFTA Joint Committee
Subjects: EFTA countries, Union transit, agreement (EU), application of EU law, customs fraud, tobacco industry













EUR-Lex - 21996D0907(01) - EN






Avis juridique important




|



21996D0907(01)

Decision No 1/96 of the EC/EFTA Joint Committee on Common Transit of 5 July 1996 implementing Article 34A of Appendix II of the Convention of 20 May 1987 on a common transit procedure  


Official Journal L 226 , 07/09/1996 P. 0020 - 0021 





DECISION No 1/96 OF THE EC/EFTA JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMON TRANSIT of 5 July 1996 implementing Article 34A of Appendix II of the Convention of 20 May 1987 on a common transit procedure (96/531/EC)THE JOINT COMMITTEE,Having regard to the Convention of 20 May 1987 on a common transit procedure (1) and in particular Article 34A of Appendix II thereto (2),Whereas Appendix II of the Convention contains, inter alia, specific provisions relating to guarantees;Whereas under the provisions of Article 34A of Appendix II, the use of the comprehensive guarantee may be temporarily forbidden at the request of one or more Contracting Parties, with regard of goods presenting an exceptional risk of fraud;Whereas on the basis of information obtained by the European Community, it has been duly established that common transit operations involving cigarettes present exceptional risks of fraud which may cause considerable harm to the budgets of the Contracting Parties and to the many economic enterprises concerned;Whereas the European Community has already taken measures within the framework of Community transit to temporarily forbid the use of the comprehensive guarantee for transport of cigarettes of the sub-heading 24.02.20 of the Harmonised System because of the exceptional risk of fraud affecting those operations;Whereas the European Community considers it necessary to adopt similar measures for the transport of such goods within the framework of Common Transit, and has expressed the wish to make use of Article 34A to temporarily forbid the use of the comprehensive guarantee;Whereas the measures provided for by the aforesaid Article 34A are such as to respond effectively to the fraudulent practices affecting transit,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 1 In accordance with the provisions of Article 34A of Appendix II of the Convention of 20 May 1987 on a common transit procedure, the use of the comprehensive guarantee is temporarily forbidden for the transport of cigarettes under sub-heading 24.02.20 of the Harmonized System where the consignment exceeds the quantity of 35 000 pieces.Article 2 This Decision shall enter into force on 5 July 1996.It shall apply from 1 August 1996 for a period of six months.Done at Brussels, 5 July 1996For the Joint CommitteeThe chairman.J. CURRIE(1) OJ No L 226, 13. 8. 1987, p. 2.(2) OJ No L 12, 15. 1. 1994, p. 33.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1889/96 by Luigi FLORIO to the Commission. Commission premises
Date: 1996-07-05
Institutions: European Parliament, FLORIO
Subjects: European Commission, electrical energy, management, operating cost, organisation chart, public building, seat of institution, telephone, workplace













EUR-Lex - 91996E1889 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1889

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1889/96 by Luigi FLORIO to the Commission. Commission premises  


Official Journal C 305 , 15/10/1996 P. 0123 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-1889/96 by Luigi Florio (UPE) to the Commission (5 July 1996)Subject: Commission premises1. How many buildings does the Commission currently occupy in the various EU countries?2. How many buildings does the Commission currently occupy in non-EU countries?3. What are the location (address) and size of the various buildings referred to in 1 and 2?4. What is each of them used for?5. On what basis is each building occupied (ownership, rental etc.)?6. If occupied in return for payment but not owned, what was the annual cost for each building in 1994 and 1995?7. How many officials work in each building?8. What was the phone bill for each building in 1994 and 1995?9. What was the electricity bill for each building in 1994 and 1995?Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (15 July 1996)The Commission is collecting the necessary information to answer the question. It will pass on the results of its research as soon as possible.Since the Honourable Member has stated that it is a priority question, the Commission would remind him that under Parliament's rules of procedure priority questions are those which 'require an immediate answer but no detailed research'.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1849/96 by Giuseppe RAUTI to the Commission. Air transport for the purposes of vivisection
Date: 1996-07-05
Institutions: European Parliament, RAUTI
Subjects: air transport, animal experimentation, application of EU law, international transport, protection of animals, wildlife













EUR-Lex - 91996E1849 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1849

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1849/96 by Giuseppe RAUTI to the Commission. Air transport for the purposes of vivisection  


Official Journal C 365 , 04/12/1996 P. 0043 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1849/96 by Giuseppe Rauti (NI) to the Commission (5 July 1996)Subject: Air transport for the purposes of vivisectionWhat is the Commission's reaction to the forceful campaign of counter-information being conducted by the French anti-vivisection league which recently took the form of distribution of an excellent folder to those such as Air France and Sabena whom it accuses of complicity in international transport for the purposes of vivisection?Can the Commission not intervene vis-à-vis the two companies on the grounds of European Union rules on the subject?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (6 September 1996)Community law allows the use of animals in laboratories and the transport of the animals involved subject to certain conditions.Council Regulation 3626/82 ((OJ L 384, 31.12.1982. )) lays down requirements for the import of specimens of wild species into the Community. Council Directive 86/609/EEC ((OJ L 358, 18.12.1986. )) lays down general standards on the keeping and use of animals in laboratories. In addition, Directive 91/628/EEC ((OJ L 340, 11.12.1991. )) lays down detailed requirements for the welfare of transported animals including those transported by air.As the Honourable Member has not indicated any breach of the above mentioned requirements by the airlines to which he refers, there would appear to be no basis for intervention by the Commission in this matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1861/96 by Ursula SCHLEICHER to the Commission. Effects of legislative procedures
Date: 1996-07-05
Institutions: European Parliament, SCHLEICHER
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Parliament, common position, consultation procedure, cooperation procedure, proposal (EU)













EUR-Lex - 91996E1861 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1861

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1861/96 by Ursula SCHLEICHER to the Commission. Effects of legislative procedures  


Official Journal C 356 , 25/11/1996 P. 0106 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1861/96 by Ursula Schleicher (PPE) to the Commission (5 July 1996)Subject: Effects of legislative proceduresSince the introduction of the cooperation procedure, in which cases has the Commission withdrawn its proposal, following Parliament's rejection at second reading of the common position of the Council?Joint answer to Written Questions E-1860/96 and E-1861/96 given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (5 August 1996)Since the implementation of the Single European Act there have been only seven cases of rejection of a common position by the Parliament under the co-operation procedure.These were:- Protection of workers from exposure to benzene (on 12.10.1988)- Sweeteners as additives in foodstuffs (on 13.5.1992)- Energy consumption of domestic equipment (on 8.7.1992)- Maximum power of 2/3 wheeled vehicles (on 27.10.1993)- Emissions from large combustion plants (on 14.12.1994)- Incineration of hazardous waste (on 14.12.1994)- Landfill of waste (on 22.5.1996)In three cases (energy consumption of domestic equipment, emissions from large combustion plants, incineration of hazardous waste), unanimity existed in Council and the legislation was finally adopted. However, it should be noted that the only point of difference with Parliament on the energy consumption of domestic equipment dossier was comitology, a problem since resolved by the interinstitutional agreement on a modus vivendi.In one case (maximum power of 2/3 wheeled vehicles), the vote of rejection took place just before the entry into force of the Treaty on European Union and was then interpreted as an 'intention to reject' under Article 189b 2(C). The issues subsequently were resolved in the conciliation procedure as the proposal now came under the co-decision procedure.In the case of protection of workers from exposure to benzene, the legislation fell, but the key issue with regard to the information and consultation of workers was subsequently the subject of a separate proposal, which successfully passed all stages of the co-operation procedure.After the rejection of the common position on sweeteners in food additives, the Commission decided to replace its proposal by a package of new proposals. The same approach is envisaged for the landfill of waste proposal which the Commission intends to replace with a new proposal as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1853/96 by Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Falconry
Date: 1996-07-05
Institutions: European Parliament, MUSCARDINI
Subjects: amendment of a law, animal life, application of EU law, degree of pollution, hunting regulations, import, live animal, protection of animal life, wildlife













EUR-Lex - 91996E1853 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1853

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1853/96 by Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Falconry  


Official Journal C 356 , 25/11/1996 P. 0104 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1853/96 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (5 July 1996)Subject: FalconryArticle 9 of the regulation on the protection of wild flora and fauna provides that animals may be moved provided prior authorization is requested and received. While the regulation envisages the movement of animals that are ill or require to be moved to other sites, it heavily penalizes the practice of falconry which, however, had been permitted by Article 7(4) of Directive 409/79 on the conservation of wild birds.Will the Commission amend Article 9(3) of the regulation (C4-0285/96) so as to abolish the prior authorization for animals that have to be moved when the move concerns wild fauna used for falconry?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (2 August 1996)The Commission would point out that its proposal for a regulation on the protection of wild flora and fauna ((OJ C 26, 3.2.1992 and OJ C 131, 12.5.1994. )) only requires prior authorization for the movement from a prescribed address where imported wild-collected live animals of Annex A species are involved. The Council adopted a common position on the proposal on 26 February 1996 ((OJ C 196, 6.7.1996. )).Imports of wild-collected live birds of prey of Annex A species are subject to conditions that are not likely to be met where the import is for the purpose of falconry. As a result, the use of birds of prey for falconry will be limited to animals that are either collected from the wild in a Member State in accordance with Directive 73/409/EEC ((OJ L 103, 25.4.1979. )), or bred in captivity, or of an Annex B species. In none of these cases an authorization to move the animals is required so that the suggested amendment is not necessary.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1855/96 by Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Trafficking in dogs and cats
Date: 1996-07-05
Institutions: European Parliament, MUSCARDINI
Subjects: Council of the European Union, EC Directive, application of EU law, approximation of laws, competence of the Member States, domestic animal, health certificate, intra-EU trade, protection of animals













EUR-Lex - 91996E1855 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1855

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1855/96 by Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Trafficking in dogs and cats  


Official Journal C 356 , 25/11/1996 P. 0104 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1855/96 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (5 July 1996)Subject: Trafficking in dogs and catsIllegal trafficking in dogs and cats in the Community is possible because of the lack of uniform laws in defence of animal rights.The legislation in force in Italy and thus the monitoring and defence of animal rights does not apply in other countries where today illegal trafficking occurs.Will the Commission propose a directive providing that legislation in force in one Member State on the protection of pets is also applicable in the other Community countries?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (30 July 1996)Trade in dogs and cats is subject to two Council Directives, namely 91/628/EEC ((OJ L 340, 11.12.1991. )) and 92/65/EEC ((OJ L 268, 14.9.1992. )). If the Honourable Member is aware of any specific breaches of the above mentioned Directives, she is requested to notify full details to the national authorities and also the Commission.However, questions such as cruelty to animals and the maintenance of zootechnical standards are not harmonized at Community level and continue to fall within the power of the Member States. It is not the intention of the Commission to propose any additional welfare legislation regarding dogs and cats at the present time.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1852/96 by Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Contractual discrimination against naturalized Italians
Date: 1996-07-05
Institutions: European Parliament, MUSCARDINI
Subjects: Italy, contract, dismissal, migrant worker, teacher, university













EUR-Lex - 91996E1852 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1852

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1852/96 by Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Contractual discrimination against naturalized Italians  


Official Journal C 322 , 28/10/1996 P. 0105 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1852/96 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (5 July 1996)Subject: Contractual discrimination against naturalized ItaliansIn accordance with the European Court of Justice judgment of 2 August 1993 the 88 lecturers at the Eastern university institute of Naples should have been contractually employed like their Italian colleagues on the teaching staff. Instead, as they had refused a work contract that offered them disparaging and professionally degrading conditions they were dismissed.Those who suffer from this absurd policy would seem to be those who graduate in foreign languages and literature from the institute, who are apparently absolutely lacking in a practical knowledge of their chosen languages.Given this discrimination, which amounts to a serious infringement of the principle of equal treatment of citizens of the Union, what will the Commission do to ensure that Community law is complied with?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (1st August 1996)The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question P-1092/96 by Mr McMahon ((OJ C 217, 26.7.1996, p. 135. )).