do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1933/96 by Luigi FLORIO to the Commission. Italian translation of the decision of 11 June 1996 on mad cow disease
Date: 1996-07-16
Institutions: European Parliament, FLORIO
Subjects: Italy, United Kingdom, animal disease, cattle, decision (EU), export restriction, health risk, linguistics, translation, veterinary inspection













EUR-Lex - 91996E1933 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1933

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1933/96 by Luigi FLORIO to the Commission. Italian translation of the decision of 11 June 1996 on mad cow disease  


Official Journal C 011 , 13/01/1997 P. 0027 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1933/96 by Luigi Florio (UPE) to the Commission (16 July 1996)Subject: Italian translation of the decision of 11 June 1996 on mad cow diseaseThe Italian language version of Commission Decision 96/362/EC ((OJ L 139, 12.6.1996, p. 17. )) of 11 June 1996 amending Decision 96/239/EC ((OJ L 78, 28.3.1996, p. 47. )) on emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy reads: 'che tutte le atre materie prime (pelli e carnicci, tendini e nervi) siano sottoposte a trattamento alcalino come indicato al precedente trattino, seguito da trattamento technico a 138-140°C per 4 secondi' (Annex, paragraph 1, second indent).The word 'nervi' (nerves) appears only in the Italian version and in none of the other language versions.1. Which language version is authentic?2. Does the Commission believe that the word 'nerves' was included by mistake?3. If it does, how would it explain such a mistake which, rather than being a mistranslation, actually involves the inclusion of a new word?4. Who will be held accountable for any damage to health which this mistake may cause in Italy, given that it was promptly transposed in a decree issued by the Minister for Health?5. Who was responsible for the Italian translation of the aforementioned provision?6. Who checks the work of translators?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (24 September 1996)1. As Commission Decision 96/362/ EC is addressed to all Member States, all the language versions are authentic. ((OJ L No 139 of 12.6.1996. ))2. and 3. The Commission acknowledges that there was a material error in the Italian text. As soon as it became aware of the discrepancy vis-à-vis the other language versions, and in particular the error cited by the Honourable Member, it adopted and published an corrigendum. ((OJ L No 172 of 11.7.1996 (Italian version). ))4., 5. and 6. Where such errors occur despite the checks that are carried out, the Commission assumes responsibility for this and sets in train as swiftly as possible the procedures laid down for making the necessary corrections. In the particular case referred to by the Honourable Member, the Commission took the appropriate measures without delay to correct the mistake in the Italian version. It should be noted that the measure in question concerns gelatine and dicalcic phosphate produced in the United Kingdom and obtained from cattle slaughtered in the United Kingdom. The Commission has not yet fixed a date for resumption of consignments of the products listed in the Annex.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1923/96 by Thomas MEGAHY to the Commission. Testing of cosmetics on animals
Date: 1996-07-16
Institutions: European Parliament, MEGAHY
Subjects: European Commission, animal experimentation, cosmetic product, product safety, protection of animals, report, research, research method, research policy













EUR-Lex - 91996E1923 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1923

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1923/96 by Thomas MEGAHY to the Commission. Testing of cosmetics on animals  


Official Journal C 356 , 25/11/1996 P. 0111 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1923/96 by Thomas Megahy (PSE) to the Commission (16 July 1996)Subject: Testing of cosmetics on animalsRecent reports in the UK press have suggested that the Commission is considering proposing an indefinite postponement of the ban on the testing of cosmetics on animals currently scheduled for 1998Is there any truth in these suggestions and, if so, what possible justification can there be for such a postponement?Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (9 September 1996)The Commission attaches the highest importance to the development of alternative methods to animal testing in the field of cosmetics.The situation and the progress made in this field in 1995, as well as the perspectives for validation, the funding of research and the actions of the European centre for the validation of alternative methods will be described in the 1995 report on the development, validation and legal acceptance of alternative methods, which should be adopted by the Commission in the course of the coming days.The Commission has, by 1 January 1997, to submit draft measures to postpone the date of implementation of the ban on animal testing in those fields where satisfactory methods to replace animal testing are not expected to be ready by 1 January 1998, according to the latest information available in the autumn of 1996.The Commission supports all efforts to reduce and suppress animal suffering, but also has to ensure the safety of products offered to the consumer.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2105/96 by Wolfgang KREISSL-DÖRFLER to the Commission. Follow-up Conference to the World Social Summit held in late April 1996 in Oslo
Date: 1996-07-16
Institutions: European Parliament, KREISSL-DOERFLER
Subjects: EU control, European Monetary Fund, UN Development Programme, World Bank, developing countries, non-governmental organisation, social policy, summit meeting













EUR-Lex - 91996E2105 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2105

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2105/96 by Wolfgang KREISSL-DÖRFLER to the Commission. Follow-up Conference to the World Social Summit held in late April 1996 in Oslo  


Official Journal C 305 , 15/10/1996 P. 0124 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-2105/96 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (V) to the Commission (16 July 1996)Subject: Follow-up Conference to the World Social Summit held in late April 1996 in OsloIn late April 1996 high-ranking representatives from developing countries and industrialized nations, the World Bank, IMF, UNDP and NGOs met in Oslo to instigate measures to implement the 20:20 initiative proposed at the World Social Summit held in Copenhagen in March 1995.Did the Commission attend the Oslo Conference? If so, by whom was it represented? What was the Commission's position there with regard to the implementation of the 20:20 initiative? What contribution of its own did it propose to strengthen basic social provision in developing countries?If the Commission was not present at the Conference, why did it not consider it necessary to attend such an important international meeting?Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission (2 August 1996)The Commission was not invited to the meeting and consequently did not attend.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1372/96 of 16 July 1996 fixing the standard fee per farm return for the 1996 accounting year of the farm accountancy data network
Date: 1996-07-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU aid, agricultural holding, farm accountancy data network, farm income, farm return













EUR-Lex - 31996R1372 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



31996R1372

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1372/96 of 16 July 1996 fixing the standard fee per farm return for the 1996 accounting year of the farm accountancy data network  


Official Journal L 178 , 17/07/1996 P. 0004 - 0004 





COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1372/96 of 16 July 1996 fixing the standard fee per farm return for the 1996 accounting year of the farm accountancy data networkTHE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Regulation No 79/65/EEC of 15 June 1965 setting up a network for the collection of accountancy data on the incomes and business operating of agricultural holdings in the European Economic Community (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2801/95 (2), and in particular Article 9 (2) thereof,Whereas Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1915/83 of 13 July 1983 on certain detailed implementation rules concerning the keeping of accounts for the purpose of determining the incomes of agricultural holdings (3) provides that a standard fee shall be fixed to be paid by the Commission to the Member States for each farm return completed;Whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 3141/94 (4) fixes the standard fee for the 1995 accounting year at ECU 120 per farm return;Whereas the trend in costs and its effects on the cost of completing the farm return do not justify a revision of the fee;Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Community Committee on the Farm Accountancy Data Network,HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:Article 1 The standard fee paid by the Commission to Member States for each duly completed farm return is hereby fixed at ECU 120 for the 1996 accounting year.Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.It shall apply for the 1996 accounting year.This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.Done at Brussels, 16 July 1996.For the CommissionFranz FISCHLERMember of the Commission(1) OJ No 109, 23. 6. 1965, p. 1859/65.(2) OJ No L 291, 6. 12. 1995, p. 3.(3) OJ No L 190, 14. 7. 1983, p. 25.(4) OJ No L 332, 22. 12. 1994, p. 14.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1938/96 by Miguel ARIAS CAÑETE to the Commission. Delays in payment of export refunds
Date: 1996-07-16
Institutions: ARIAS CANETE, European Parliament
Subjects: EAGGF Guarantee Section, administrative formalities, advance payment, exchange of information, export, export restriction, free service, payment, restriction on competition, third country













EUR-Lex - 91996E1938 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1938

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1938/96 by Miguel ARIAS CAÑETE to the Commission. Delays in payment of export refunds  


Official Journal C 011 , 13/01/1997 P. 0028 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1938/96 by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission (16 July 1996)Subject: Delays in payment of export refundsUnder current Community legislation, there is no stipulated period within which payment of export refunds must be made. The period therefore varies from country to country, ranging from less than one month in the Netherlands or France, to 4 months in Spain or Italy.This state of affairs clearly demonstrates the absurdity (which, furthermore, has been acknowledged by the EAGGF) of establishing a right for operators and at the same time reducing its effectiveness in practice. What is more, it is leading to distortions of competition.Given the above, would the Commission agree that provisions establishing a maximum payment period should be incorporated into the relevant Community legislation?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (5 September 1996)The Commission confirms the Honourable Member's assertion that, under current Community legislation, there is no stipulated period within which payment of refunds to operators must be made by paying agencies in the Member States: paying agencies must often await proof of arrival at destination in the third country of goods for which a refund has been applied before proceeding to settle payment. However, the Commission, in its relations with the Member States, monitors closely the processing and settlement of refund payments. It informs the paying agencies and, where applicable, the national authorities, without fail if the payment periods are subject to undue or improper delay. The Commission considers that payments should be made within a reasonable period so as not to prejudice the economic objective of the measure.The Commission would also point out that, in order to mitigate the adverse consequences of prolonged refund payment periods, provision is made, in Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87, ((OJ L 351, 14.12.1987. )) for an exporter to obtain all or part of an advance on the refund following the lodging of a security.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2098/96 by Roberta ANGELILLI to the Commission. Jubilee celebrations of the year 2000 in Rome
Date: 1996-07-16
Institutions: ANGELILLI, European Parliament
Subjects: EU aid, European Commission, Latium, aid system, commemoration, cultural policy













EUR-Lex - 91996E2098 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2098

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2098/96 by Roberta ANGELILLI to the Commission. Jubilee celebrations of the year 2000 in Rome  


Official Journal C 356 , 25/11/1996 P. 0121 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-2098/96 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (16 July 1996)Subject: Jubilee celebrations of the year 2000 in RomeIn view of the importance, from both a cultural and a religious point of view, of the jubilee celebrations of the year 2000 in Rome for Italy and, indeed, for Europe as a whole, could the Commission say whether there will be special funding for the event and, if not, what the arrangements are for submitting an application for funding or for obtaining information regarding the opportunities available under official Community programmes? Could it also say whether there is any possibility of securing EU support for the celebrations?Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (13 September 1996)1. For the moment there are no specific plans for funding Millennium celebrations, but the question is being considered. Furthermore, the Community is supporting cultural and artistic events over a period of three years through the Kaleidoscope programme. ((OJ C 114, 19.4.1996. )) In the light of the experience gained, the Commission will present new proposals for renewing this programme in due course.To receive a Community subsidy, certain conditions must be met. These are given in the calls for proposals published each year and include the European dimension (co-organizers and participants from at least three Member States), the quality and the exemplary nature of the project.2. Commission patronage is possible, in principle, as long as the events meet the criteria defined in the rules on patronage ((SEC (94) 9210. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1942/96 by Irene CREPAZ to the Commission. 'Cattle AIDS'
Date: 1996-07-16
Institutions: CREPAZ, European Parliament
Subjects: AIDS, United Kingdom, access to information, animal disease, cattle, consumer protection, health risk, medical research, public health, veterinary medicine













EUR-Lex - 91996E1942 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1942

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1942/96 by Irene CREPAZ to the Commission. 'Cattle AIDS'  


Official Journal C 385 , 19/12/1996 P. 0065 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1942/96 by Irene Crepaz (PSE) to the Commission (16 July 1996)Subject: 'Cattle AIDS'According to a news programme on the ARD television channel, there are in the United Kingdom cases of cattle infected with AIDS whose milk is poured away in the fields because the cooperatives will not take it.1. Are there any research findings on the infectiousness of the virus as a result of the consumption of the milk or meat of cows infected with AIDS?2. What does the Commission intend to do in this matter? (This is alleged to be a greater threat than BSE.)3. What is being done to protect consumers - what information is being disseminated in this area?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (17 September 1996)The Honourable Member is probably referring to the occurrence of bovine immunodeficiency-like virus (BIV) on a farm in the United Kingdom.BIV is a disease caused by a virus belonging to the group retroviruses, which includes the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Retroviruses are characterised by being species-specific, i.e. a virus from one species does not affect other species under natural conditions. Other members of this group include a feline and a sheep virus.There is evidence for a worldwide distribution of BIV, being somewhat more prevalent on the North-american continent. It has not been isolated in Europe so far, the only evidence of its existence being serological.There is good evidence that BIV and the other animal retroviruses have no significance for public health. The disease is not considered to pose a serious threat to cattle herds, although reports from the United States do confirm its association with a chronic wasting condition. It is very misleading to refer to it as bovine acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), since it does not cause AIDS-like symptoms. However, further research is necessary to assess the importance of this virus.The Commission and the Member States will assess any future evidence, particularly in respect of hazards to humans, and will not hesitate to take any necessary measures to protect consumers. The Commission has a policy of clarity and transparency in respect of public health issues and will make all information freely available.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1927/96 by Ana MIRANDA DE LAGE to the Commission. Delays in initiating projects funded under the EDF
Date: 1996-07-16
Institutions: European Parliament, MIRANDA DE LAGE
Subjects: EU relations, European Development Fund, Latin America, development aid, economic development, impact study, project management













EUR-Lex - 91996E1927 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1927

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1927/96 by Ana MIRANDA DE LAGE to the Commission. Delays in initiating projects funded under the EDF  


Official Journal C 385 , 19/12/1996 P. 0065 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1927/96 by Ana Miranda de Lage (PSE) to the Commission (16 July 1996)Subject: Delays in initiating projects funded under the EDFThe European Union has made major efforts to step up and improve the effectiveness of development cooperation in Latin America. This has substantially improved its public image in the region.The US's budgetary problems, historical prejudice and the attitude adopted in some cases by the US administration have caused some Latin American countries to be wary of the United States.Would the Commission state what steps it intends to take with a view to ensuring that the transatlantic dialogue between the US and the EU, which is of vital importance, does not have an adverse effect on countries which have suffered more directly than others from measures such as the extra-territorial laws, withdrawal of certification, and so on?Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (7 October 1996)The Commission shares the Honourable Member's view that there has been both a quantitative and qualitative improvement in development cooperation between the Community and Latin America. It also believes that the major improvement in relations between the two regions has enhanced the Community's image in the eyes of Latin American governments and citizens.The Commission will therefore continue to deepen ties between the Community and the Latin America countries on the basis of their separate and special model for their relations founded on dialogue, development cooperation and the respect for international laws.In its communication of July 1995 ((COM(95) 411 final. )) the Commission set out in detail the need to bolster and update ties between the Community and the United States. There is no reason why this should have an adverse effect on third countries.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1918/96 by Wolfgang KREISSL-DÖRFLER to the Commission. Animal consignments - Bavaria
Date: 1996-07-16
Institutions: European Parliament, KREISSL-DOERFLER
Subjects: Bavaria, Germany, carrier, exchange of information, location of production, meat processing industry, slaughter animal, transport capacity, transport of animals













EUR-Lex - 91996E1918 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1918

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1918/96 by Wolfgang KREISSL-DÖRFLER to the Commission. Animal consignments - Bavaria  


Official Journal C 356 , 25/11/1996 P. 0110 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1918/96 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (V) to the Commission (16 July 1996)Subject: Animal consignments - Bavaria1. At what locations are slaughterhouses to be found?2. Who are the operators of the slaughterhouses?3. What capacity do the slaughterhouses have?4. What are the places of origin of the animals slaughtered?5. What haulage undertakings deliver to the slaughterhouses?Joint answer to Written Questions E-1917/96, E-1918/96, E-1920/96 and E-1922/96 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (1 August 1996)The Commission does not have sufficient, up-to-date information and is therefore unable to answer the questions put. This being the case, the Commission recommends that the Honourable Member approach the German authorities, including those of the Free State of Bavaria, which are more competent to answer this question.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1963/96 by Shaun SPIERS to the Commission. Welfare of broiler birds reared for meat
Date: 1996-07-16
Institutions: European Parliament, SPIERS
Subjects: animal nutrition, genetic engineering, intensive livestock farming, poultry, protection of animals, slaughter of animals, veterinary legislation













EUR-Lex - 91996E1963 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1963

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1963/96 by Shaun SPIERS to the Commission. Welfare of broiler birds reared for meat  


Official Journal C 385 , 19/12/1996 P. 0068 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1963/96 by Shaun Spiers (PSE) to the Commission (16 July 1996)Subject: Welfare of broiler birds reared for meatBearing in mind the concerns expressed by animal welfare organizations, does the Commission intend to propose legislation which will oblige broiler breeding companies to halt the trend towards ever-faster weight gain and to seek to reverse the genetic selection which has resulted in health problems such as leg weakness and ascites in birds destined for slaughter at 6-7 weeks?Will the Commission confirm that these, together with the other health problems which affect intensively reared broiler birds, will be addressed by the Scientific Veterinary Committee in its updated report on the welfare of hens and by the proposals for a Council regulation which the Commission is expected to forward before the end of 1996?Joint answer to Written Questions E-1963/96 and E-1964/96 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (17 September 1996)There is currently no Community legislation on the subject of the keeping and breeding of poultry kept for meat production. The Commission's approach in this domain has been to support and participate actively in the initiatives under the European convention on the protection of animals kept for farming purposes to which the Community is a contracting party. All Member States have ratified this convention.A recommendation on domestic fowl was adopted by the standing committee of this European convention. This text covers, among other things, the issues which are of particular concern to the Honourable Member, notably the development of breeds or strains of poultry which would limit or reduce animal welfare problems.With regard to the practice, mentioned by the Honourable Member, of keeping broiler breeders in a total state of chronic hunger, the recommendation under the European convention mentioned above provides specifically that feed levels for breeding birds shall not be so low that they are caused distress.The Commission is presently examining the most appropriate way of implementing this recommendation within the Community.