do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2004/96 by Francesco BALDARELLI to the Commission. Distortion of competition for local authority public companies in Italy
Date: 1996-07-12
Institutions: BALDARELLI, European Parliament
Subjects: Italy, Treasury, competence of the Member States, means of public conveyance, national law, public finance, public sector, restriction on competition













EUR-Lex - 91996E2004 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2004

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2004/96 by Francesco BALDARELLI to the Commission. Distortion of competition for local authority public companies in Italy  


Official Journal C 356 , 25/11/1996 P. 0118 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-2004/96 by Francesco Baldarelli (PSE) to the Commission (12 July 1996)Subject: Distortion of competition for local authority public companies in ItalyThe European Union has frequently reaffirmed the principle that public companies should abide by the rules of free competition and has often ruled that legal provisions designed to give public companies an advantage over private business are contrary to Community law.In Italy, local authority public companies (special agencies, associations) providing public transport services are subject to the Single Treasury provisions (Italian Law No 720 of 29 October 1984 and Ministerial Decree of 2 July 1990), under which they are required to pay all available liquid assets into branches of the State Provincial Treasury. In practice, this means that liquid reserves cannot be invested or held in interest-bearing bank accounts. The provision is designed to help reduce the State's cash requirements. It does not apply to all operators but only to local authority public companies, which means that private businesses are exempt.Does the Commission not consider that these provisions of Italian law violate the principle of free competition by disadvantaging local authority public transport companies? Does it not consider that, given the way in which the legislation reduces the competitiveness of these companies, formal infringement proceedings should be opened?Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (5 August 1996)The Commission considers that the question falls outside its jurisdiction, since local public transport does not normally involve competition at Community level or trade between Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1998/96 by Freddy BLAK to the Commission. Pepsi-Cola's bogus agreement
Date: 1996-07-12
Institutions: BLAK, European Parliament
Subjects: European undertaking, aerated drink, beverage industry, collective agreement, labour law, worker consultation, worker information, works council













EUR-Lex - 91996E1998 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1998

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1998/96 by Freddy BLAK to the Commission. Pepsi-Cola's bogus agreement  


Official Journal C 356 , 25/11/1996 P. 0117 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-1998/96 by Freddy Blak (PSE) to the Commission (12 July 1996)Subject: Pepsi-Cola's bogus agreementPepsiCO has concluded an agreement with its employees on the setting up of its own European works council in order to avoid coming under the European works council Directive.There are several grounds for misgivings about this agreement. The so-called employees' representatives were carefully selected by the management. The agreement consequently reflects this. The agreement specifically states that the European trade union confederation may not act in an advisory capacity when the European works council meets. The employees have no opportunity at all to meet before the meetings of the works council.Does the Commission check that such voluntary agreements meet the provisions of the Directive on European works councils?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (5 September 1996)Article 13 of Directive 94/45/EC ((OJ L 254, 30.9.1994. )) stipulates that 'the obligations arising from this Directive shall not apply to Community-scale undertakings or Community-scale groups of undertakings in which, on the date laid down in Article 14(1) for the implementation of this Directive, or the date of its transposition in the Member State in question where this is earlier than the abovementioned date, there is already an agreement, covering the entire workforce, providing for the transnational information and consultation of employees'.It is up to the Member States and the national courts in the first resort to examine, if necessary, whether an agreement such as that mentioned by the Honourable Member reflects the conditions referred to in the abovementioned Article 13, which are required to be transposed into the national laws of all the Member States to which the Directive is addressed.Accordingly, and given also that the deadline for transposition of the Directive has not yet been reached, the Commission considers it premature to examine whether the agreement in question conforms with Community law.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1359/96 of 12 July 1996 exempting certain Member States from the obligation to buy in certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 1996-07-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, derogation from EU law, fruit vegetable, pip fruit, public contract, stone fruit













EUR-Lex - 31996R1359 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



31996R1359

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1359/96 of 12 July 1996 exempting certain Member States from the obligation to buy in certain fruit and vegetables  


Official Journal L 175 , 13/07/1996 P. 0014 - 0014 





COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1359/96 of 12 July 1996 exempting certain Member States from the obligation to buy in certain fruit and vegetablesTHE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of 18 May 1972 on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1363/95 (2), and in particular Article 19a (4) thereof,Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1852/85 of 2 July 1985 laying down detailed rules of application with a view to exempt Member States from the obligation to buy in certain types of fruit and vegetables (3) specified what information the Member States were to provide to the Commission with a view to their being exempted if they so requested, as provided for in Article 19a (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72, from intervention purchasing;Whereas this information must concern either the proportion of each of the products indicated in Article 19a of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 marketed through recognized producer organizations or the proportion harvested in the Member State concerned during the last three marketing years;Whereas the Member States have supplied this information; whereas the conditions for exemption laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 1852/85 are met by certain Member States for certain products for the 1996/97 marketing year; whereas those Member States which have so applied should therefore be exempted from the obligation to make intervention purchases,HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:Article 1 The following Member States are hereby exempted from the obligations to make intervention purchases, as provided for in Article 19a of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72, of pears from 1 July to 31 August 1996, and peaches, apricots, tomatoes and aubergines during the 1996/97 marketing year:Austria,Belgium,Denmark,Germany,Finland,Ireland,Luxembourg,Netherlands,United Kingdom,Sweden.This exemption shall apply in respect of Greece only to the pears during the summer period referred to above.Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.Done at Brussels, 12 July 1996.For the CommissionFranz FISCHLERMember of the Commission(1) OJ No L 118, 20. 5. 1972, p. 1.(2) OJ No L 132, 16. 6. 1995, p. 8.(3) OJ No L 174, 4. 7. 1985, p. 24.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2028/96 by Mary BANOTTI to the Commission. PHARE programme - financial accountability
Date: 1996-07-12
Institutions: BANOTTI, European Parliament
Subjects: closing of accounts, distribution of aid, financial control, management audit, payment, use of aid













EUR-Lex - 91996E2028 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2028

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2028/96 by Mary BANOTTI to the Commission. PHARE programme - financial accountability  


Official Journal C 345 , 15/11/1996 P. 0114 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-2028/96 by Mary Banotti (PPE) to the Commission (12 July 1996)Subject: PHARE programme - financial accountabilityCan the Commission indicate how the financial accountability of consultants appointed under the PHARE programme is monitored?Can the Commission also state how payments to secondary consultants are monitored and audited?Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (1 August 1996)The general conditions for all service contracts financed from Phare stipulate that the 'contractor shall be liable to the contracting party for full performance of all obligations resulting from the contract, repair any damage caused to the contracting party or the persons to whom the services were provided as a result of any action or omission relating to the performance of the contract, which is attributed to him as a result in particular of his warranty or negligence, errors or omissions'. A similar clause is stipulated for the supply contracts.The Commission monitors the implementation of all projects closely and payment is undertaken only after verification that the terms of the contract have been met. Contractors' reports are verified by the Commission and, when required, by independent monitors. Payment is effected as specified in the contract to ensure that at every step of the project the objectives and targets are met before payment is undertaken. All bills and expenses submitted for reimbursement are verified by the Commission on the basis of justifying documentation as stipulated in the contract. At the end of the project, the accounts are cleared on the basis of an independent financial audit. In addition to the Commission's controls, the Court of auditors audits the Phare programme and present annual report on all aspects of the implementation.In very few cases, the contractor is entrusted with the management of special funds for the purpose of the implementation of a project. In that event, the funds are guaranteed by the bank where the funds are deposited and are only released for payment upon the Commission's authorization.The Commission does not make payments in favour of secondary consultants. The contractor always remains fully responsible towards the Commission in regard to any sub-contracted parts of the contract. The payments to the contractor are made only after the services have been rendered or the goods supplied.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2026/96 by Angela BILLINGHAM to the Commission. UK Nationality Act 1981
Date: 1996-07-12
Institutions: BILLINGHAM, European Parliament
Subjects: EU national, European passport, United Kingdom, competence of the Member States, foreign national, national law, nationality, sexual discrimination













EUR-Lex - 91996E2026 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2026

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2026/96 by Angela BILLINGHAM to the Commission. UK Nationality Act 1981  


Official Journal C 385 , 19/12/1996 P. 0080 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-2026/96 by Angela Billingham (PSE) to the Commission (12 July 1996)Subject: UK Nationality Act 1981Prior to the UK Nationality Act of 1981, which came into effect in 1983, a child could only get British nationality from his father and not his mother. This Act is not retrospective.I have become aware of a case in which a female British national, who is married to a Sudanese national is unable to get British citizenship or a British Passport for her son, who was born in 1962, because she failed to apply for a British passport for him before he was 16.Hence the British law prior to 1981 still directly applies to her. If her son had been born after 1981 or she had been a 'male' British citizen married to a foreign spouse, her son would be entitled to have British citizenship in spite of the fact that she failed to apply for a British passport for him before he was 16 years of age.Does the Commission not consider this an instance of direct sexual discrimination?Is the Commission aware of similar cases to this? Do European safeguards or measures exist to protect people against this type of discrimination, arising from the non-retrospective element of the UK Nationality Act of 1981 or has the Commission any plans to introduce such safeguards?Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (16 September 1996)The rules governing the granting of nationality of a Member State do not fall within the competence of the Community.According to Declaration No 2 annexed to the EC Treaty, whenever a reference is made to nationals of a Member State in the Treaty, the question whether an individual possesses the nationality of a Member State shall be settled solely by reference to the national law of the Member State concerned. It would not therefore be appropriate for the Commission to intervene in the way proposed by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1973/96 by Luciano VECCHI to the Commission. Community action on anti-personnel mines
Date: 1996-07-12
Institutions: European Parliament, VECCHI
Subjects: Community budget, EU aid, EU financing, civilian victim, conventional weapon, developing countries, explosive, third country













EUR-Lex - 91996E1973 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1973

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1973/96 by Luciano VECCHI to the Commission. Community action on anti-personnel mines  


Official Journal C 356 , 25/11/1996 P. 0116 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-1973/96 by Luciano Vecchi (PSE) to the Commission (12 July 1996)Subject: Community action on anti-personnel minesThe European Parliament has, through its resolutions and the introduction of a specific budget line, called for the implementation of mine-clearance programmes in third countries, especially in developing countries.1. Will the Commission state what mine-clearance plans have been approved?2. Does it intend to promote mine-clearance programmes on a larger scale, either independently or in conjunction with other organizations (international agencies, governments, non-governmental organizations, etc.)?3. What is the justification for the proposal contained in the preliminary draft budget for 1997 to remove budget line B7-615 'European Union action relating to anti-personnel mines'?Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (2 August 1996)During the period 1995-1996 some 50 MECU from the Community budget, as well as from the European development fund (EDF), is being devoted to mine clearance activity around the world.As far as the B7-615 budget line is concerned, the Commission wishes to use approximately 6-7 MECU of this for mine clearance actions in Bosnia-Herzegovina, an area in urgent need of assistance, where the Commission has identified four particular projects which it wishes to take forward as quickly as possible. It is now engaged in tender procedures for two of these and is awaiting proposals from non governmental organizations for the other two. In addition, a number of projects in other countries are being identified for possible funding from the new budget line, in such areas as training in detection and neutralisation of explosive devices and mine accidents prevention.To improve internal management the 1996 budget line B7-615 has been changed to B7-661 (specific actions with third countries - Community participation in actions related to anti-personnel mines), hence the apparent 'deletion'. The intention is that it should be a central fund available for mine-clearance-related activities (including victim support) both in former Yugoslavia and in any other afflicted regions of the world.From a practical point of view, and through its political efforts, the Community stands at the forefront of the most effective international actions to overcome the anti-personnel mine tragedy, particularly in the developing world. The Commission is continuing to play a major part in this.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2057/96 by Peter SKINNER to the Commission. Recent evidence concerning health and safety aspects of mobile phones
Date: 1996-07-12
Institutions: European Parliament, SKINNER
Subjects: Council of the European Union, action programme, proposal (EU), public health, radio telecommunications, research, self-employed person, telephone













EUR-Lex - 91996E2057 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2057

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2057/96 by Peter SKINNER to the Commission. Recent evidence concerning health and safety aspects of mobile phones  


Official Journal C 356 , 25/11/1996 P. 0119 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-2057/96 by Peter Skinner (PSE) to the Commission (12 July 1996)Subject: Recent evidence concerning health and safety aspects of mobile phonesFollowing recently revealed new evidence in the British media concerning the potential health and safety risks arising from the use of mobile phones, what measures does the European Commission plan to take to protect both workers and citizens from these risks?Will this be one of the aspects included under 'new and emerging risks' in the Commission's Health and Safety Programme?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (6 September 1996)The Commission published recently a report entitled 'Non-ionizing radiation, sources, exposure and health effects', which reviews the existing literature on the subject as well as guidelines and regulations for protection against non-ionizing radiation (the use of mobile telephones is also addressed by the report). The conclusions support the Commission's approach to workers' protection as far as the prevention of risks to health from non-ionizing radiation is concerned.The prevention of risks associated with the use by workers of mobile telephones was addressed by the Commission with the submission of the amended proposal for a Council directive on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents ((OJ C 230, 19.8.1996. )), an annex of which is dedicated to electric and magnetic fields. In the Commission's communication on a Community programme concerning safety, hygiene and health at work (1996-2000) ((COM(95) 282 final. )), the Commission confirmed its intention to press for adoption by the Council of this proposal but up to now no progress has been made at Council level.The Commission is aware that reports in the media have fuelled the debate on the health hazards due to radiofrequency emissions. In this context the Commission invited a group of independent experts to prepare a programme for comprehensive research into the effects of radio frequency radiation on health. This programme should be ready later this year.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1977/96 by Per GAHRTON to the Commission. Double VAT for Swedish mobile telephone subscribers
Date: 1996-07-12
Institutions: European Parliament, GAHRTON
Subjects: Sweden, VAT, double taxation, radio telecommunications, redemption, tax relief













EUR-Lex - 91996E1977 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1977

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1977/96 by Per GAHRTON to the Commission. Double VAT for Swedish mobile telephone subscribers  


Official Journal C 365 , 04/12/1996 P. 0058 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-1977/96 by Per Gahrton (V) to the Commission (12 July 1996)Subject: Double VAT for Swedish mobile telephone subscribersAccording to 'Dagens Nyheter' of 1 July 1996, Swedish mobile telephone subscribers are being charged double VAT as many EU Member States are failing to comply with the relevant directive in respect of the repayment of VAT to Telia, the Swedish national telephone company. Telia is therefore deducting both foreign VAT on mobile telephone services and Swedish VAT calculated on the entire amount, the call charges plus the foreign VAT.Does the Commission regard this double charging by Telia as compatible with EU rules? What steps does the Commission intend to take to persuade all Member States to comply with the directives in force so that Swedish mobile telephone subscribers no longer have to pay double VAT on calls made abroad?Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (17 September 1996)The common VAT system does not give rise to double taxation within the Community. This is avoided either by deduction or by refund in accordance with the 8th Directive on arrangements for the refund of VAT to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country (79/1072/EEC). ((OJ L 331, 27.12.1979. ))Since the system was introduced, the Commission has taken particular care to ensure that refund procedures abide by the six-month deadline laid down in the Directive and do not unduly put up firms' costs. It has on several occasions started infringement procedures when deadlines were systematically missed, and this led to such practices being censured. (See cases C-287/91 and C-16/95). The Commission therefore wishes to encourage the plaintiffs to send it any details that might be useful in examining any infringements.The Commission wishes to stress, however, that this problem no longer arises under the new VAT arrangements, which are based on the principle of taxation at origin. Under this system, the tax is deducted by the person liable who sets it off against the amount of the tax payable, independently of where the deductible tax was paid. Any specific refund procedure falling within the 8th VAT Directive is therefore null and void.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2001/96 by Yves VERWAERDE to the Commission. Commission decision of 12 July 1989 - UIP case
Date: 1996-07-12
Institutions: European Parliament, VERWAERDE
Subjects: EU production, European Commission, Netherlands, United States, competition, decision (EU), film industry, film production, inter-company agreement, joint subsidiary













EUR-Lex - 91996E2001 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2001

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2001/96 by Yves VERWAERDE to the Commission. Commission decision of 12 July 1989 - UIP case  


Official Journal C 011 , 13/01/1997 P. 0038 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-2001/96 by Yves Verwaerde (PPE) to the Commission (12 July 1996)Subject: Commission decision of 12 July 1989 - UIP caseCommission Decision 89/467/EEC ((OJ L 226, 3.8.1989, p. 25. )) of 12 July 1989 in the UIP case was favourable to UIP on condition that this subsidiary company and its parent companies encouraged production in Europe.1. Does the Commission believe that this condition has been met?2. If not, why not?Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (30 July 1996)It is true that UIP's contribution to European production was one of the factors taken into account when the Decision of 12 July 1989 was adopted. With a view to determining whether or not this exemption should be renewed, the Commission is currently examining UIP's effects on the cinema market. Its impact on European production, as one of these effects, is being taken into account. The Commission has not as yet completed its investigations.