do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Legislative resolution embodying Parliament's opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 3813/92 on the unit of account and the conversion rates to be applied for the purposes of the common agricultural policy (COM(96)0040 - C4-0155/96 - 96/0037(CNS) ) (Consultation procedure)
Date: 1996-07-19
Institutions: Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, European Parliament
Subjects: common agricultural policy, euro, exchange rate, representative rate













EUR-Lex - 51996AP0192 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51996AP0192

Legislative resolution embodying Parliament's opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 3813/92 on the unit of account and the conversion rates to be applied for the purposes of the common agricultural policy (COM(96)0040 - C4-0155/96 - 96/0037(CNS) ) (Consultation procedure)  


Official Journal C 261 , 09/09/1996 P. 0198 





A4-0192/96Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 3813/92 on the unit of account and the conversion rates to be applied for the purposes of the common agricultural policy (COM(96)0040 - C4-0155/96 - 96/0037(CNS))The proposal was approved.Legislative resolution embodying Parliament's opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 3813/92 on the unit of account and the conversion rates to be applied for the purposes of the common agricultural policy (COM(96)0040 - C4-0155/96 - 96/0037(CNS))(Consultation procedure)The European Parliament,- having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council, COM(96)0040 - 96/0037(CNS) ((OJ C 101, 3.4.1996, p. 14.)),- having been consulted by the Council pursuant to Article 43 of the EC Treaty (C4-0155/96),- 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 (A4-0192/96),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.
Legislative resolution embodying Parliament's opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision concerning the conclusion of a Protocol to the Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Economic Community and the Principality of Andorra following the accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to the European Union (COM(95)0745 - C4- 0383/96 - 96/0009(CNS)) (Consultation procedure)
Date: 1996-07-19
Institutions: Committee on External Economic Relations, European Parliament
Subjects: Andorra, agreement (EU), customs regulations, enlargement of the Union, originating product, protocol to an agreement













EUR-Lex - 51996AP0241 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51996AP0241

Legislative resolution embodying Parliament's opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision concerning the conclusion of a Protocol to the Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Economic Community and the Principality of Andorra following the accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to the European Union (COM(95)0745 - C4- 0383/96 - 96/0009(CNS)) (Consultation procedure)  


Official Journal C 261 , 09/09/1996 P. 0200 





A4-0241/96Legislative resolution embodying Parliament's opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision concerning the conclusion of a Protocol to the Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Economic Community and the Principality of Andorra following the accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to the European Union (COM(95)0745 - C4-0383/96 - 96/0009(CNS))(Consultation procedure)The European Parliament,- having regard to the proposal for a Council Decision, COM(95)0745 - 96/0009(CNS) ((OJ C 88, 25.3.1996, p. 1.)),- having regard to the Agreement between the European Community and the Principality of Andorra and the Protocol thereto,- having regard to Articles 113 and 99 of the EC Treaty,- having been consulted by the Council pursuant to Article 228(3), first subparagraph, of the EC Treaty (C4-0383/96),- having regard to Rule 90(7) of its Rules of Procedure,- having regard to the report of the Committee on External Economic Relations (A4-0241/96),1. Approves the conclusion of the Protocol;2. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Principality of Andorra.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2039/96 by Jaak VANDEMEULEBROUCKE to the Commission. 1985 White Paper
Date: 1996-07-19
Institutions: European Parliament, VANDEMEULEBROUCKE
Subjects: EC Directive, free service, single market













EUR-Lex - 91996E2039 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2039

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2039/96 by Jaak VANDEMEULEBROUCKE to the Commission. 1985 White Paper  


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





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2039/96 by Jaak Vandemeulebroucke (ARE) to the Commission (19 July 1996)Subject: 1985 White PaperCan the Commission indicate which Member States have not yet transposed into national law the measures included in the 1985 White Paper and can it provide details?According to the Commission, what are the most important consequences of this omission?Does the Commission intend to take steps against these Member States and if so, what?Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (3 October 1996)Delays have occurred in all Member States as regards notification of national measures implementing the directives referred to in the White Paper 'Completing the internal market'. ((COM(85) 310 final. )) The Commission has still not been notified of 7.4% of the national measures needed in order to transpose the directives already in force. Further details are given in a table sent to the Honourable Member direct and to Parliament's Secretariat.The main effect of the delays in transposing the White Paper directives and - more generally - all the internal market directives has been to create legal uncertainty for businesses and private individuals, thereby preventing them from enjoying the full benefits of the internal market.As a matter of course, and particularly by means of bilateral contact with Member States, the Commission ensures that directives are quickly and correctly incorporated into national law, instituting infringement proceedings under Article 169 of the EC Treaty in respect of any Member State that has failed to notify national implementing measures by the deadline stipulated in the directive concerned. Its monitoring work recently received fresh impetus from the Florence European Council, whose conclusions expressly called upon Member States to transpose quickly directives relating to the internal market.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2054/96 by Jesús CABEZÓN ALONSO to the Commission. European Year against Racism
Date: 1996-07-19
Institutions: CABEZON ALONSO, European Parliament
Subjects: Africa, Spain, anti-racist movement, competence of the Member States, foreign national, illegal migration, racism, removal, xenophobia













EUR-Lex - 91996E2054 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2054

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2054/96 by Jesús CABEZÓN ALONSO to the Commission. European Year against Racism  


Official Journal C 385 , 19/12/1996 P. 0087 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2054/96 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (19 July 1996)Subject: European Year against RacismWith the approach of 1997, the European Year against Racism and Xenophobia, what view does the Commission take of the secret, summary expulsion, which was condemned by NGOs and the Spanish Ombudsman, of 103 African illegal immigrants from Spain?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (9 September 1996)The Commission wishes to remind the Honourable Member that the question concerning the procedures for deporting illegal immigrants are the exclusive competence of the Member States.However, since Article K.1 of Title VI of the Treaty on European Union defines policy regarding nationals of third countries as being a matter of common interest, the Council has adopted a number of texts governing cooperation in regard to the removal of persons illegally present on the territory of the Member States. Although these texts are not binding, they lay down common principles which the Member States are invited to adhere to in accordance with their respective domestic legal orders. These principles include the right of persons subject to deportation to appeal the decisions, as well as compliance with the international conventions on the protection of human rights.
Legislative resolution embodying Parliament's opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision concluding the Agreement for scientific and technical cooperation between the European Community and the State of Israel (COM(96)0205 - C4-0311/96 - 96/0134(CNS)) (Consultation procedure)
Date: 1996-07-19
Institutions: Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, European Parliament
Subjects: Israel, scientific cooperation, technical cooperation













EUR-Lex - 51996AP0250 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51996AP0250

Legislative resolution embodying Parliament's opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision concluding the Agreement for scientific and technical cooperation between the European Community and the State of Israel (COM(96)0205 - C4-0311/96 - 96/0134(CNS)) (Consultation procedure)  


Official Journal C 261 , 09/09/1996 P. 0195 





A4-0250/96Legislative resolution embodying Parliament's opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision concluding the Agreement for scientific and technical cooperation between the European Community and the State of Israel (COM(96)0205 - C4-0311/96 - 96/0134(CNS))(Consultation procedure)The European Parliament,- having regard to the proposal for a Council Decision, COM(96)0205 - 96/0134(CNS),- having regard to the draft Agreement for scientific and technical cooperation between the European Community and the State of Israel, initialled by the Commission, COM(96)0205,- having been consulted by the Council pursuant to Articles 130m and 228(2) and (3), first subparagraph, of the EC Treaty (C4-0311/96),- having regard to Rule 90(7) of its Rules of Procedure,- having regard to the report of the Committee on Research, Technological Development and Energy (A4-0250/96),1. Approves the conclusion of the Agreement;2. Instructs its President to forward this opinion to the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the State of Israel.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2048/96 by Nuala AHERN to the Commission. Dumping of munitions in Cardigan Bay
Date: 1996-07-19
Institutions: AHERN, European Parliament
Subjects: United Kingdom, competence of the Member States, environmental protection, environmental risk prevention, firearms and munitions, marine pollution













EUR-Lex - 91996E2048 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2048

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2048/96 by Nuala AHERN to the Commission. Dumping of munitions in Cardigan Bay  


Official Journal C 385 , 19/12/1996 P. 0087 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2048/96 by Nuala Ahern (V) to the Commission (19 July 1996)Subject: Dumping of munitions in Cardigan BayIt was revealed in a letter sent in May by the Earl Howe, the British Defence Minister with responsibility for environment matters, to a British MP, Cynog Dafis, that some incendiary bombs had been dumped unofficially in Cardigan Bay following the second world war. The dumping of these munitions took place during up to 36 sorties to the so-called 'jettison area'.As the British Defence Ministry admits that full past records of such dumping are not available, will the Commission take action to assist in the location, monitoring and if necessary removal of the munitions in order to protect the marine environment from potential pollution?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (1 October 1996)The Commission was not aware of the dumping of munitions in Cardigan Bay but is aware that munitions have in the past been dumped at sea in the waters of several Member States. The dumping of munitions is not a question which falls within the competence of the Community. The Commission considers that to the extent that action is necessary it is for the Member States concerned to decide what specific action is necessary.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2045/96 by Martina GREDLER to the Commission. Information on the danger of infection with tuberculosis on long-haul flights
Date: 1996-07-19
Institutions: European Parliament, GREDLER
Subjects: European Commission, United States, air transport, competence of the Member States, exchange of information, infectious disease, newspaper













EUR-Lex - 91996E2045 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2045

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2045/96 by Martina GREDLER to the Commission. Information on the danger of infection with tuberculosis on long-haul flights  


Official Journal C 365 , 04/12/1996 P. 0075 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2045/96 by Martina Gredler (ELDR) to the Commission (19 July 1996)Subject: Information on the danger of infection with tuberculosis on long-haul flightsA study by the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, USA, confirms that airline passengers on long-haul flights can be infected with tuberculosis bacteria if another passenger is suffering from open tuberculosis (BMJ 312, 1996, 1110).Patients throughout the world who are suffering from open tuberculosis should therefore be instructed not to travel.Is the Commission aware of this study?Is the Commission considering forwarding the information on this risk of infection to travel agencies, airlines and specialist clinics and their tuberculosis patients?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (30 September 1996)The Commission is aware of the situation outlined by the Honourable Member, deriving from an article published in the 'New England Journal of Medicine' (1996;334:933-8).It should be noted that, in the article, the authors emphasise the specific conditions giving rise to transmission of the disease, namely a highly infectious passenger, a long-haul flight and close contact with the person concerned.As regards the final question, it is up to the health services of each Member State to take all the necessary measures to ensure that persons suffering from open tuberculosis are suitably treated.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2034/96 by Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Women and men sharing the same ward at Milan General Hospital
Date: 1996-07-19
Institutions: European Parliament, MUSCARDINI
Subjects: Italy, health service, medical institution, paid leave, paramedical profession, patient's rights, personnel administration













EUR-Lex - 91996E2034 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2034

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2034/96 by Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Women and men sharing the same ward at Milan General Hospital  


Official Journal C 385 , 19/12/1996 P. 0082 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2034/96 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (19 July 1996)Subject: Women and men sharing the same ward at Milan General HospitalOwing to staff shortages on account of holdiay leave, the management of Milan General Hospital has temporarily combined the general surgical wards to form a single unit by installing five women's beds in two small rooms adjoining the men's area.The patients being treated there are forced to share washing and toilet facilities with the men, resulting in obviously unwelcome personal embarrassment.Will the Commission take steps to ensure that health problems are not reduced to a mere mockery by the lamentable failure to distinguish between pressing human needs and absurd organizational considerations, bearing in mind that holidays are scheduled irrationally, more often than not to accommodate the pleasure of the persons concerned, a fact which contrasts all the more crassly with its consequences? Does it not believe that it should lay down rules in the form of a Directive to prevent medical and paramedical staff from causing situations such as the one described above?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (6 September 1996)Questions relating to the organisation of services and personnel in individual hospitals in the Member States are for the relevant local, regional or national health authorities to consider. The Commission has no mandate to intervene in such matters.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2025/96 by Antonio TAJANI to the Commission. Impact of the privatization of the French international group Thomson on the activities of the Videocolor company based in Anagni, Italy
Date: 1996-07-19
Institutions: European Parliament, TAJANI
Subjects: France, Italy, cessation of trading, collective dismissal, electronics industry, group of companies, job cuts, privatisation













EUR-Lex - 91996E2025 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2025

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2025/96 by Antonio TAJANI to the Commission. Impact of the privatization of the French international group Thomson on the activities of the Videocolor company based in Anagni, Italy  


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





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2025/96 by Antonio Tajani (UPE) to the Commission (19 July 1996)Subject: Impact of the privatization of the French international group Thomson on the activities of the Videocolor company based in Anagni, ItalyIn view of the fact that the French Government has announced that the Thomson group is to be privatized;- In view of the fact that the Videocolor company based in Anagni - the only factory in Italy producing (since 1971) picture tubes for colour televisions - belongs to Thomson;- In view of the fact that Videocolor has a workforce of approximately 2400 and provides indirect employment for a further 3000 people; its annual turnover is approximately 1200 billion lira and it makes a positive contribution to Thomson's balance sheet which compensates for the losses made by other companies in the group; it is the world's leading manufacturer of large-format tubes and it has the capacity to produce approximately four million items per year; in the past it has received funding of various kinds from both the Italian Government and the EEC/EIB in order to allow appropriate investment to be made to safeguard jobs;- In view of the fact that, following the privatization of Thomson, there is a risk that Videocolor's technologies and production could be transferred to some other of the French group's companies in Europe or outside the Community altogether, which would automatically lead to reduced investment and lower production levels which would in turn seriously jeopardize the continued existence of the factory in Italy,does the Commission not think that it should monitor the situation and intervene in order to protect the Italian workers and enable them to continue working?Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (13 September 1996)At present the Commission has no information regarding the future of the company Videocolor di Anagni in the framework of the proposed privatisation of the French group Thomson.The information submitted by the Honourable Member does not disclose any action which goes against European legislation and which might justify intervention in the matter. While the Commission is sensitive to the Honourable Member's concern regarding the consequences that any change in the present situation might have on the company's workforce, it feels that at present there is no basis which would justify its intervention in the matter.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2030/96 by Michael SPINDELEGGER to the Commission. Differing frontier formalities for EU citizens on journeys within the Community
Date: 1996-07-19
Institutions: European Parliament, SPINDELEGGER
Subjects: Austria, EU national, European passport, Germany, Ireland, administrative formalities, equal treatment, free movement of persons, identity document













EUR-Lex - 91996E2030 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2030

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2030/96 by Michael SPINDELEGGER to the Commission. Differing frontier formalities for EU citizens on journeys within the Community  


Official Journal C 385 , 19/12/1996 P. 0081 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2030/96 by Michael Spindelegger (PPE) to the Commission (19 July 1996)Subject: Differing frontier formalities for EU citizens on journeys within the CommunityThe creation, provided for in Article 7a of the EC Treaty, of an area without internal frontiers, in particular as regards people, is still subject to immense difficulties in its implementation.The following actual case occurred: an Austrian holidaymaker had chosen Munich as the airport of departure for a holiday in Ireland as he lives in western Austria. At Munich airport he was refused permission to leave Germany, however, as he had 'only' an Austrian identity card and not a passport. He was therefore unable to start his holiday.The traveller concerned had been able, on his previous holiday in Ireland, to enter Ireland with no difficulty using his Austrian identity card and in this case the journey had been started in Switzerland, where it had also not been a problem that he had only an identity card. Thus, whilst for Austrian citizens the identity card is seen as a valid document for crossing the frontier into Ireland it is unfortunately not valid for leaving Germany!Does the Commission intend to take steps to ensure that, until frontier checks have been completely abolished in the Community, there is at least equal treatment for EU citizens as regards the identity documents required for crossing frontiers within the Community?Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (3 October 1996)The Commission would point out that, in accordance with the Community legislation in force regarding free movement, EU citizens may leave the territory of a Member State and travel to another Member State simply on production of a valid identity card or passport (see in particular Articles 2(1) and 3(1) of Directive 68/360/EEC). ((OJ L 257, 19.10.1968. ))If the Honourable Member were to provide it with all relevant particulars concerning the matter at issue, the Commission would examine the complaint and, if appropriate, institute proceedings under Article 169 of the EC Treaty.