do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2043/96 by Freddy BLAK to the Commission. Equal pay
Date: 1996-07-19
Institutions: BLAK, European Parliament
Subjects: Denmark, EU law, code of conduct, equal treatment, female work, pay, private sector, statistics













EUR-Lex - 91996E2043 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2043

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2043/96 by Freddy BLAK to the Commission. Equal pay  


Official Journal C 365 , 04/12/1996 P. 0073 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2043/96 by Freddy Blak (PSE) to the Commission (19 July 1996)Subject: Equal payDanmarks Statistik has recently published detailed statistics on pay in the private sector in Denmark. They reveal that women in the private sector have a much lower hourly rate than their male colleagues, regardless of whether the figures are broken down by sector, duties or education.Does the Commission have data on the differences between men's and women's pay in the other Member States?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (9 September 1996)From the beginning the principle of equal pay for women and men was an integral part of Community law (Article 119 of the EC Treaty and Directive 75/117/EEC) ((OJ N L 45, 19.2.1975. )). However, despite the existence of this Community legislation, which all Member States have transposed into their national domestic orders, the principle of equal pay for men and women workers has not yet become a reality. The gap in pay between men and women in the Community is still a very large one and in some cases is even growing, because of economic difficulties which seem to affect women more severely than men.In the light of these circumstances the Commission adopted a memorandum in 1994 that defines the scope and concept of equal pay for work of equal value and that puts forward guidelines on the criteria to be taken into account in regard to job evaluation and classification.This document was submitted for information and discussion to all interested parties affected by the problem of equal pay. On 17 July 1996, as a follow-up to this memorandum, the Commission adopted a code of good practice on equal pay for men and women for work of equal value, designed to provide practical advice to employers and parties to collective negotiations.This code is intended to apply both to the public and private sectors. It is not a legally binding instrument but it contains recommendations which employers are encouraged to follow by accommodating them to the dimension and structure of their firms.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2038/96 by Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Begging by and exploitation of children from outside the Community
Date: 1996-07-19
Institutions: European Parliament, MUSCARDINI
Subjects: Albania, Italy, admission of aliens, child, child labour, child protection, children's rights, foreign national, poverty













EUR-Lex - 91996E2038 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2038

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2038/96 by Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Begging by and exploitation of children from outside the Community  


Official Journal C 385 , 19/12/1996 P. 0085 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2038/96 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (19 July 1996)Subject: Begging by and exploitation of children from outside the CommunityIn Italy, children - their average age is tending to fall - in a filthy state and cunningly dressed in rags are resorting to begging, most commonly at traffic lights. Like window-cleaning, their activity constitutes a form of exploitation of children organized along near-industrial lines.The ranks of these unfortunates have recently been swelled first and foremost by Albanian children, some of whom are not even 10 years old.Will the Commission call on the governments to tighten up checks at all borders which could be used as entry points?Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (20 September 1996)The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that the problem of the exploitation of third country nationals and in particular, the exploitation of minors, needs to be addressed, at least in part, through the correct management of the external borders of the Member States.According to Title VI of the Treaty on European Union, the rules governing the crossing by persons of the external borders of the Member States and the exercise of controls thereon, are regarded by the Member States as matters of common interest. The Commission therefore tabled in 1993 a draft convention ((OJ C 11, 15. 1.1994. )), proposing common rules for this purpose, on which the Presidency invited and received the Parliament's opinion. Regrettably, and despite repeated insistence from the European Council (most recently at its meeting in Florence in June 1996), the Council has not reached agreement on this draft convention. These controls are, therefore, conducted according to national rules or international conventions in force between two or more Member States.The Council has, however, on the basis of a proposal by the Commission based on Article 100 C EC Treaty adopted Regulation EC No 2317/95 determining the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders of the Member States ((OJ L 234, 3.10.1995. )). Albania, to which the Honourable Member specifically refers, is on that list.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2021/96 by Luciano VECCHI to the Commission. Humanitarian aid for, and cooperation with, Cuba
Date: 1996-07-19
Institutions: European Parliament, VECCHI
Subjects: Cuba, EU aid, agricultural cooperative, budget, cooperation policy, development plan, humanitarian aid, project management, rural tourism













EUR-Lex - 91996E2021 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2021

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2021/96 by Luciano VECCHI to the Commission. Humanitarian aid for, and cooperation with, Cuba  


Official Journal C 365 , 04/12/1996 P. 0069 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2021/96 by Luciano Vecchi (PSE) to the Commission (19 July 1996)Subject: Humanitarian aid for, and cooperation with, CubaThe European Parliament has shown great interest in the development of aid activities (humanitarian or otherwise) in respect of Cuba and, inter alia, has created a special budget heading.What initiatives have so far been approved and what are the criteria for selecting the related projects submitted by non-governmental organizations?Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (13 September 1996)Last year Parliament created a special budget heading to back projects carried out by NGOs in Cuba. This heading was entered for the record only and did not therefore earmark any appropriations.Although a number of projects run by European and Cuban NGOs are financed from budget headings and appropriations administered by the Commission, the Commission nonetheless opted to make a transfer of ECU 300 000 enabling a project to be started under the special heading referred to above. This project, which has just got under way, is designed to help rehabilitate an agricultural cooperative situated in Laguna de Piedras-Vinales, an area of considerable tourist and cultural attraction, so that members of the cooperative can diversify their sources of income by developing rural tourism. The project also involves promotion of this type of tourism in Europe.No decision has yet been taken on projects which might be funded under this heading in 1996. The Commission's selection criteria reflect the content of the budget heading remarks.The Commission wishes to stress with regard to humanitarian schemes that European NGOs have been funded from appropriations under budget heading B7-210, which covers humanitarian aid and emergency food aid for developing countries and other non-member countries that are victims of disasters or serious crises.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2031/96 by Glyn FORD to the Commission. US communications base in Yorkshire
Date: 1996-07-19
Institutions: European Parliament, FORD
Subjects: European Commission, European security, United States, forces abroad, military base













EUR-Lex - 91996E2031 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2031

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2031/96 by Glyn FORD to the Commission. US communications base in Yorkshire  


Official Journal C 365 , 04/12/1996 P. 0070 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2031/96 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (19 July 1996)Subject: US communications base in YorkshireWhat discussions has the Commission had with the United States Government to gain assurance of the direction of surveillance at the United States' Menwith Hill site?What activity would the Commission consider a threat to European Union security, either military or commercial?Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (5 September 1996)The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to Oral Question H-0617/96 by Mr Bowe during question time at Parliament's July II 1996 part-session ((Debates of the Parliament (July 1996). )).As this matter is not of Community competence, it was never raised in the discussions between the Commission and the United States.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2032/96 by Mary BANOTTI to the Commission. Data relating to the Thorp reprocessing plant in the UK
Date: 1996-07-19
Institutions: BANOTTI, European Parliament
Subjects: EAEC Treaty, United Kingdom, application of EU law, competence of the Member States, confidentiality, dissemination of information, exchange of information, fuel reprocessing, nuclear fuel













EUR-Lex - 91996E2032 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2032

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2032/96 by Mary BANOTTI to the Commission. Data relating to the Thorp reprocessing plant in the UK  


Official Journal C 365 , 04/12/1996 P. 0071 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2032/96 by Mary Banotti (PPE) to the Commission (19 July 1996)Subject: Data relating to the Thorp reprocessing plant in the UKCan the Commission indicate whether the data supplied to it in relation to the Thorp reprocessing plant, by the UK Government and British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL), is available for inspection by either Parliament and/or the general public?Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (16 September 1996)The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that the data submitted to it in line with Commission Regulation (EEC) N° 3227/76 ((OJ L 363, 31.12.1976. )) in relation to the Thorp reprocessing plant are classified information and therefore may not, with reference to Article 194 of the Euratom Treaty, be released to the Parliament or the general public.General data communicated under the terms of Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty are also received in confidence by the Commission. Any decision to release such data is therefore for the Member State in question and not for the Commission.
Legislative resolution embodying Parliament's opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation fixing a supplementary premium payable to sheep producers in non- less favoured areas of Ireland and the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland (COM(96)0152 - C4-0315/96 - 96/ 0102(CNS)) (Consultation procedure)
Date: 1996-07-19
Institutions: Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, European Parliament
Subjects: Ireland, Northern Ireland, economic support, sheepmeat













EUR-Lex - 51996AP0209 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51996AP0209

Legislative resolution embodying Parliament's opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation fixing a supplementary premium payable to sheep producers in non- less favoured areas of Ireland and the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland (COM(96)0152 - C4-0315/96 - 96/ 0102(CNS)) (Consultation procedure)  


Official Journal C 261 , 09/09/1996 P. 0199 





A4-0209/96Proposal for a Council Regulation fixing a supplementary premium payable to sheep producers in non-less favoured areas of Ireland and the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland (COM(96)0152 - C4-0315/96 - 96/0102(CNS))The proposal was approved.Legislative resolution embodying Parliament's opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation fixing a supplementary premium payable to sheep producers in non-less favoured areas of Ireland and the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland (COM(96)0152 - C4-0315/96 - 96/0102(CNS))(Consultation procedure)The European Parliament,- having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council, COM(96)0152 - 96/0102(CNS) ((OJ C 159, 4.6.1996, p. 7. )),- having been consulted by the Council pursuant to Article 43 of the EC Treaty (C4-0315/96),- having regard to Rule 58 of its Rules of Procedure,- having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the opinion of the Committee on Budgets (A4-0209/96),1. Approves the Commission proposal;2. Calls on the Council to notify Parliament should it intend to depart from the text approved by Parliament;3. Asks to be consulted again should the Council intend to make substantial modifications to the Commission proposal;4. Instructs its President to forward this opinion to the Council and Commission.
European Parliament recommendation to the Council on observation by the European Union of the elections in Bosnia-Herzegovina
Date: 1996-07-19
Institutions: Committee on Foreign Affairs, European Parliament
Subjects: national election













EUR-Lex - 51996IP0234 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51996IP0234

European Parliament recommendation to the Council on observation by the European Union of the elections in Bosnia-Herzegovina  


Official Journal C 261 , 09/09/1996 P. 0185 





A4-0234/96European Parliament recommendation to the Council on observation by the European Union of the elections in Bosnia-HerzegovinaThe European Parliament,- having regard to Article J.7 of the EU Treaty,- having regard to Rule 92 of its Rules of Procedure,- having regard to the joint action adopted by the Council on 10 June 1996 on the Union's support for the electoral process in Bosnia-Herzegovina ((OJ L 168, 6.7.1996, p. 1.)),- having regard to the proposal for a recommendation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy (A4-0234/96),A. whereas the European Union has a special responsibility for the elections in Bosnia-Herzegovina scheduled for 14 September 1996,B. whereas the joint action adopted by the Council with regard to the Union's support for the electoral process is insufficient and should be reviewed, as the Council itself suggests in Article 4, to include election observation activities,C. whereas observation of the elections by Community institutions and by Member State parliaments and governments should be coordinated by the Union,D. whereas it is legitimate and politically consistent for the European Parliament to play a particularly prominent role in the political observation of the elections and this participation should be ensured by the Commission and Council,1. Puts to the Council the following recommendations:(a) that it review the joint action of 10 June 1996 and extend it with a view to providing full and high-profile Union support for election observation activities,(b) that it take all possible measures to coordinate the participation of the various Union and Member State institutions in election observation tasks and that it involve the European Parliament in the preparation, implementation and evaluation phases,(c) that the political nature of the European Parliament observers' delegation be recognized in the joint action and that its visibility and logistics be duly guaranteed by the Council and Commission in such a way as to distinguish it from supervisors and technical observers and to ensure that it enjoys suitable political prominence;2. Instructs its President to forward this recommendation to the Council and Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2055/96 by Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Burial of persons who have died of Aids
Date: 1996-07-19
Institutions: European Parliament, MUSCARDINI
Subjects: AIDS, action programme, anti-discriminatory measure, competence of the Member States













EUR-Lex - 91996E2055 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2055

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2055/96 by Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Burial of persons who have died of Aids  


Official Journal C 365 , 04/12/1996 P. 0078 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2055/96 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (19 July 1996)Subject: Burial of persons who have died of AidsIn some Member States, for example Italy, persons who have died of Aids apparently cannot be buried fully dressed. Instead, they have to be buried naked, wrapped in a sheet impregnated with disinfectants.This practice is a gross affront to the dignity of deceased persons and, above all, their relatives.1. Does the above practice occur and, if so, in what countries?2. Does not the Commission feel compelled to intervene in order that persons who have died of Aids may be buried with dignity, wearing their clothes, on the understanding that undertakers would have to take similar precautions to doctors who come into contact with sick people every day?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (18 September 1996)The Commission has no information on the burial practice mentioned by the Honourable Member. In this connection, and given the way the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is transmitted (via the blood and sexual secretions) the same precautions are to be recommended as those that apply to medical personnel in contact with patients.Pursuant to Article 129 of the EC Treaty, Community action in the health field is directed towards the prevention of diseases, in particular the major health scourges. However the article explicitly excludes all harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States. Hence the rules governing the burial of persons who have died as a result of HIV infection are a matter for the Member States.The programme of Community action on the prevention of AIDS and certain other communicable diseases, adopted on 29 March 1996 by the Parliament and Council ((Decision No 647/96/EC, OJ L 95, 16.4.1996. )), provides for actions designed to combat discrimination against persons with HIV, including an examination of actual or potential discriminatory situations and the exchange of information on measures taken in the Member States to avoid or combat discrimination.In this framework, projects which correspond to the programme's objectives and which provide added value at Community level are eligible for support.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2037/96 by Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Defrauding of persons covered under sickness or accident insurance policies
Date: 1996-07-19
Institutions: European Parliament, MUSCARDINI
Subjects: AIDS, cancer, consumer protection, contract, health insurance, insurance company, personal accident insurance













EUR-Lex - 91996E2037 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2037

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2037/96 by Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Defrauding of persons covered under sickness or accident insurance policies  


Official Journal C 385 , 19/12/1996 P. 0084 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2037/96 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (19 July 1996)Subject: Defrauding of persons covered under sickness or accident insurance policiesIs it true that many companies which offer policies providing cover in the event of illness or accident refuse to pay policyholders suffering from Aids when they contract diseases such as tumours and maintain instead that the latter are not eligible to receive payment unless they have been pronounced cured?If the above practice does indeed occur, does not the Commission believe it to constitute fraud at the expense of policyholders? What steps will the Commission take?Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (9 October 1996)The question whether policyholders suffering from Aids are eligible to receive payment when they contract diseases such as tumours depends on the content of the contracts concluded with the respective illness or accident insurers.As there is no Community legislation with respect to the insurance cover to be granted by sickness insurers, insurance conditions are in principle free (Article 29 of Council Directive 92/49/EEC ((OJ L 228, 11.8.1992. )) of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive)).The content of such contracts may, however, be appreciated on the basis of the Directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts (93/13/EEC) ((OJ L 95, 21.4.1993. )). It would be the task of national civil courts to do so. The Commission has no powers to interpret the wording of existing private contracts or to investigate punishable acts.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2046/96 by Martina GREDLER to the Commission. Commission position on Article 100a(4)
Date: 1996-07-19
Institutions: European Parliament, GREDLER
Subjects: EC opinion, European Commission, European Union, European treaties, Treaty on European Union, derogation from EU law, enlargement of the Union, environmental standard, intergovernmental conference (EU), revision of the Treaty (EU)













EUR-Lex - 91996E2046 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2046

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2046/96 by Martina GREDLER to the Commission. Commission position on Article 100a(4)  


Official Journal C 011 , 13/01/1997 P. 0039 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2046/96 by Martina Gredler (ELDR) to the Commission (19 July 1996)Subject: Commission position on Article 100a(4)During the last EU enlargement the more stringent environmental standards of the new countries in certain sectors were accepted until their revision in 1998.Can the Commission indicate whether insistence on these higher standards after 1998 for these areas which have been defined since 1994 will be accepted by the Commission, pursuant to Article 100a(4), or would the Commission interpret such action as arbitrary discrimination?Would this attitude be permissible, even though these standards existed prior to accession?Will Article 100a(4) need to be clarified in the revision of the Maastricht Treaty?Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (1 October 1996)Certain provisions and annexes of the Accession Treaty provide for derogations for the application of a number of Community environmental requirements until the end of 1998. During this period the Commission is to undertake a review of the Community requirements. This review is at present in hand and its outcome should not be prejudiced.The Commission, in its opinion to the intergovernmental conference, has not proposed revision of Article 100A ¶ 4 of the EC Treaty.