do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Council Regulation (Euratom, ECSC, EC) No 1548/96 of 26 July 1996 adjusting the weightings applicable in Greece and Italy, except Varese, to the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Communities
Date: 1996-07-26
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: European official, Greece, Italy, pay, pension scheme, servant (EU)













EUR-Lex - 31996R1548 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



31996R1548

Council Regulation (Euratom, ECSC, EC) No 1548/96 of 26 July 1996 adjusting the weightings applicable in Greece and Italy, except Varese, to the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Communities  


Official Journal L 192 , 02/08/1996 P. 0001 - 0001 





COUNCIL REGULATION (EURATOM, ECSC, EC) No 1548/96 of 26 July 1996 adjusting the weightings applicable in Greece and Italy, except Varese, to the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European CommunitiesTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing a Single Council and a Single Commission of the European Communities,Having regard to the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities laid down by Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC) No 2963/95 (2), and in particular Articles 63, 64, 65a, 82 of, and Annex XI to, the Staff Regulations and the first subparagraph of Article 20 and Article 64 of the Conditions of Employment,Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,Whereas in the second half of 1995 the cost of living increased substantially in Greece and Italy, Member States where officials and other servants of the European Communities are employed; whereas, therefore, the weightings applicable to the remuneration and pensions of these officials and other servants pursuant to Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC) No 2963/95 should be adjusted with effect from 1 January 1996,HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:Article 1 1. With effect from 1 January 1996, the weightings applicable to the remuneration of officials and other servants employed in the Member States referred to below shall be as follows:Greece: 81,7,Italy (except Varese): 83,7.2. The weightings applicable to pensions shall be determined in accordance with Article 82(1) of the Staff Regulations.Articles 3 to 10 of Regulation (ECSC, EEC, Euratom) No 2175/88 (3) shall continue to apply.Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on the 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, 26 July 1996.For the CouncilThe PresidentD. SPRING(1) OJ No L 56, 4. 3. 1968, p. 1.(2) OJ No L 310, 22. 12. 1995, p. 1.(3) OJ No L 191, 22. 7. 1988, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2085/96 by Glyn FORD to the Commission. Free movement
Date: 1996-07-26
Institutions: European Parliament, FORD
Subjects: EU national, United Kingdom, customs inspection, domestic animal, free movement of persons, physically disabled person, rabies, transport of animals, veterinary inspection













EUR-Lex - 91996E2085 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2085

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2085/96 by Glyn FORD to the Commission. Free movement  


Official Journal C 385 , 19/12/1996 P. 0091 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2085/96 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (26 July 1996)Subject: Free movementThe commitment to free movement for citizens of the Member States of the Union was, I presume, intended also to cover blind people.What action does the Commission propose to take against the UK government by refusing to let blind people take blind dogs to the UK when travelling? This in effect is a restriction on free movement.Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (3 October 1996)Of course the commitment to free movement of citizens within the European Union applies to blind people. The restriction of movement in this case is not to the blind person per se but rather to the accompanying guide dog which is currently subject to British rabies quarantine regulations.A number of initiatives have already been taken including Community funding of a rabies eradication scheme, which is progressing satisfactorily and an alternative system to quarantine has been agreed for entry of traded dogs and cats into the United Kingdom. The Commission is committed to making suitable proposals for accompanied dogs and cats at an appropriate time.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2087/96 by Angela BILLINGHAM to the Commission. Electric and magnetic fields
Date: 1996-07-26
Institutions: BILLINGHAM, European Parliament
Subjects: Denmark, Greece, cancer, child, electric cable, electrical equipment, medical research, public health, rail transport













EUR-Lex - 91996E2087 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2087

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2087/96 by Angela BILLINGHAM to the Commission. Electric and magnetic fields  


Official Journal C 356 , 25/11/1996 P. 0120 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2087/96 by Angela Billingham (PSE) to the Commission (26 July 1996)Subject: Electric and magnetic fieldsI have been made aware that there are an unusual number of cases of leukaemia in a particular area of Northampton, the Spencer estate. One possible cause of this high incidence of leukaemia is thought to be the effects of electric and magnetic fields on individuals from high voltage cables, given that an electrified railway line runs close to the edge of this estate.Could the Commission inform me of the current standards in EC countries, regarding the proximity of high voltage power cables to dwellings and the levels of these fields and gases which are considered acceptable when encountered?Is the Commission investigating the possible link between leukaemia and the close proximity to high voltage cables with a view to proposing new legislation in this area?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (18 September 1996)The Danish ministry of health convened, in 1992, an expert group on non-ionising radiation to perform a comprehensive scientific review and assessment of the exposure of the general population to non-ionising radiation, including the associated health risks. The expert group considered the regulations in force and the recommendations followed in Denmark, Finland, Sweden, United Kingdom, Norway and United States. The group also considered the evaluations and activities originated by the World health organisation (WHO), the International radiation protection association (IRPA) and the Commission. The conclusions ((SEIIS Report No 1 'Report on the risks of cancer living in homes exposed to 50 Hz magnetic fields from high voltage lines'. Danish National Board of Heath, January 1994. )) support the hypotheses of previous studies that children living near high-current plants have an increased frequency of cancer, but the results do not exclude the possibility that the association might be due to chance. The group found no scientific justification for establishing standards with respect to high current plants. New research results must be followed closely in the future.Currently the Commission supports an epidemiological study, the title of which is 'Electro-magnetic fields and other risk factors in the etiology of childhood leukaemia in Greece'. The conclusions, expected for 1997, will improve knowledge on this subject.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2084/96 by Glyn FORD to the Commission. Fight against Racism
Date: 1996-07-26
Institutions: European Parliament, FORD
Subjects: European symbol, anti-discriminatory measure, budgetary amendment, budgetary power, preliminary draft budget, racism, xenophobia













EUR-Lex - 91996E2084 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2084

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2084/96 by Glyn FORD to the Commission. Fight against Racism  


Official Journal C 011 , 13/01/1997 P. 0042 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2084/96 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (26 July 1996)Subject: Fight against RacismWhy does Commissioner Liikanen continue to try and impose his view that the Commission has no competence in the fight against racism and xenophobia by slashing budget lines when the Commissioner named responsible has already admitted competence in this area?Does he always try and impose his views by slashing budget lines in such a manner?Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (14 October 1996)The Honourable Member does not accurately reflect the views of either Mr Liikanen or the Commission.On the contrary, the Commission's preliminary draft budget for 1997 provides for ECU 4.7 million to combat racism (heading B3-4114), despite the particularly tight constraints affecting this budget.The Honourable Member is also reminded that the Commission operates on a collegiate basis.Last but not least, on the basis of a Commission proposal 1997 has been declared European Year against Racism.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2168/96 by Giovanni BURTONE to the Commission. Illegal imports and 'Communitarization' of Argentine lemons
Date: 1996-07-26
Institutions: BURTONE, European Parliament
Subjects: Argentina, EU production, citrus fruit, discriminatory price, import, marketing, production cost, restriction on competition













EUR-Lex - 91996E2168 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2168

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2168/96 by Giovanni BURTONE to the Commission. Illegal imports and 'Communitarization' of Argentine lemons  


Official Journal C 060 , 26/02/1997 P. 0129 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-2168/96 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (26 July 1996)Subject: Illegal imports and 'Communitarization' of Argentine lemonsI understand from reliable sources that vast quantities of lemons from Argentina have been and are being imported into the Community illegally through ports in Spain and Portugal where they are passed off as Community produce and marketed as lemons of Spanish or Portuguese origin.This situation is extremely serious and damaging to the Community's interests as produce from other Member States is exposed to unfair competition because of the low prices of Argentine lemons, the production costs of which are significantly lower than for European produce. Consumer health is also at risk since pesticides and preservatives which have long been banned in the Community are still being used in Argentina.1. Is the Commission aware of these serious breaches of Community law?2. What direct action will it take and what measures will it ask the Member States to take to put an immediate stop to this practice?3. Should Community producers not be compensated, indirectly if not directly, for the serious damage they have suffered?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (9 September 1996)The Commission is unaware of the situation described by the Honourable Member. To date it has registered no quantitative anomalies in imports under quota nor any significant fall in the entry price of lemons.To satisfy itself that Spain and Portugal are not in breach of the rules, it is of course willing to ask the Spanish and Portuguese authorities to check that these imports are compatible with the established Community arrangements.However, to do so constructively and effectively it must have a clear picture of any problems likely to affect the proper operation of the internal market, and would therefore ask the Honourable Member to be more specific in his allegations and provide whatever detailed particulars he can.
96/503/EC: Commission Decision of 26 July 1996 authorizing Portugal and the United Kingdom to pay the processing premium provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 on the common organization of the market in beef and veal, for animals withdrawn from production before exceeding the age of 20 days (Only the English and Portuguese texts are authentic)
Date: 1996-07-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Portugal, United Kingdom, agricultural guidance, aid system, beef













EUR-Lex - 31996D0503 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



31996D0503

96/503/EC: Commission Decision of 26 July 1996 authorizing Portugal and the United Kingdom to pay the processing premium provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 on the common organization of the market in beef and veal, for animals withdrawn from production before exceeding the age of 20 days (Only the English and Portuguese texts are authentic)  


Official Journal L 204 , 14/08/1996 P. 0019 - 0019 





COMMISSION DECISION of 26 July 1996 authorizing Portugal and the United Kingdom to pay the processing premium provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 on the common organization of the market in beef and veal, for animals withdrawn from production before exceeding the age of 20 days (Only the English and Portuguese texts are authentic) (96/503/EC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of 27 June 1968 on the common organization of the market in beef and veal (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1357/96 (2), and in particular Article 4i (4) thereof,Whereas, pursuant to Article 4i (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68, the processing premium applies to animals withdrawn from production before passing the age of 10 days; whereas, however, pursuant to paragraph 4 of that provision, the Commission may authorize a Member State to pay the premium for animals withdrawn before exceeding the age of 20 days, on the basis of a duly substantiated request setting out appropriate control measures; whereas Portugal and the United Kingdom have each submitted a request accompanied by a programme of control measures intended to prevent any abuse and to ensure in particular that these animals are excluded from human consumption; whereas, therefore, the authorization requested should be granted;Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Beef and Veal,HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:Article 1 Portugal and the United Kingdom are hereby authorized to grant the processing premium provided for in Article 4i of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 for animals withdrawn from production before exceeding the age of 20 days.Article 2 This Decision is addressed to the Portuguese Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.Done at Brussels, 26 July 1996.For the CommissionFranz FISCHLERMember of the Commission(1) OJ No L 148, 28. 6. 1968, p. 24.(2) OJ No L 175, 13. 7. 1996, p. 9.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2112/96 by Carlos PIMENTA to the Commission. Alqueva dam
Date: 1996-07-26
Institutions: European Parliament, PIMENTA
Subjects: EU financing, Portugal, application of EU law, engineering structure, environmental impact, impact study, protected area













EUR-Lex - 91996E2112 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2112

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2112/96 by Carlos PIMENTA to the Commission. Alqueva dam  


Official Journal C 385 , 19/12/1996 P. 0097 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2112/96 by Carlos Pimenta (PPE) to the Commission (26 July 1996)Subject: Alqueva damDirective 85/337/EEC ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. )) requires that Environmental Impact Assessment studies evaluate the indirect impact of the projects.The existing studies on the Alqueva project do not contemplate the impact of the water transfer to the Sado basin, a major objective of the project. This is particularly serious because the estuary of the Sado is an important Special Protection Area.Is the Commission going to require that these and other indirect impacts are evaluated, or ignore this requirement of the Directive?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (30 September 1996)It is estimated that the overall construction of the infrastructure for the Alqueva investment will take around 30 thirty years.The Commission deems it necessary for those elements of the project to be carried out after the year 2002 (the areas to be irrigated, the new dams and irrigation channels, and the planned transfer of the water of the Guardiana to the Sado basin) to undergo impact assessment in accordance with Directive 85/337/EEC.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2088/96 by Angela BILLINGHAM to the Commission. Radon gas
Date: 1996-07-26
Institutions: BILLINGHAM, European Parliament
Subjects: EAEC recommendation, United Kingdom, carcinogenic substance, health risk, public health, radiation protection, safety standard













EUR-Lex - 91996E2088 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2088

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2088/96 by Angela BILLINGHAM to the Commission. Radon gas  


Official Journal C 385 , 19/12/1996 P. 0092 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2088/96 by Angela Billingham (PSE) to the Commission (26 July 1996)Subject: Radon gasEnvironmentally occurring radon gas is recognised in the United Kingdom as a major cause of cancer. Could the Commission inform me of the current standards in EC countries, regarding the levels of this gas, proximity to dwellings, which are considered acceptable when encountered?Is the Commission willing to consider legislation in this area to ensure the proper protection of the citizens of the European Union against this threat to health?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (16 September 1996)The Commission made on 21 February 1990 a Recommendation on the protection of the public against indoor exposure to radon (90/143/EURATOM ((OJ L 80, 27.3.1990. ))). In this Recommendation, a reference level of 400 Bq m-3 radon gas concentration is introduced for consideration of remedial action for existing dwellings, and a design level of 200 Bq m-3 for future constructions.Member States have responded to this Recommendation in different ways, depending inter alia on the specific features of environmental radon occurrence in each Member State. In general, where reference levels have been introduced, they are coherent with the guidance offered in the Recommendation. The legal status and practical implications of such reference levels being different, it is not meaningful to make a mere numerical comparison.The Commission actively pursues the follow-up of its Recommendation in Member States. It is, however, the responsibility of national authorities to implement a radon mitigation policy for the protection of the public, in the framework of an overall concern for the public health.The recently revised Council Directive on the basic safety standards for the health protection of the general public and workers against the dangers of ionizing radiation (96/29 EURATOM ((OJ L 159, 29.6.1996. ))), applies inter alia to natural radiation sources, including radon, mainly as regards occupational exposure but excludes radon in dwellings, which is covered by the above-mentioned Recommendation.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2121/96 by José VALVERDE LÓPEZ to the Commission. Veterinary inspections on British farms to detect cases of BSE
Date: 1996-07-26
Institutions: European Parliament, VALVERDE LOPEZ
Subjects: United Kingdom, agricultural holding, animal disease, cattle, competence of the Member States, epidemiology, free service, slaughter of animals, veterinary inspection













EUR-Lex - 91996E2121 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2121

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2121/96 by José VALVERDE LÓPEZ to the Commission. Veterinary inspections on British farms to detect cases of BSE  


Official Journal C 011 , 13/01/1997 P. 0051 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2121/96 by José Valverde López (PPE) to the Commission (26 July 1996)Subject: Veterinary inspections on British farms to detect cases of BSEThe plan adopted to control and eradicate BSE provides for a detailed study to be carried out by a vet on each farm where BSE cases are detected, so as to identify all the animals to be slaughtered on the basis of epidemiological tests.Who are the 'authorities' in the UK responsible for imposing this requirement and, should they fail to do so, what civil liability do they incur under British law?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (23 September 1996)The state veterinary service, which is part of the Ministry of agriculture, fisheries and food, is the authority responsible for imposing the requirement for an epidemiological study.The Commission cannot advise on liability incurred under English law for a possible breach of this duty.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2089/96 by Peter SKINNER to the Commission. The practice of first aid in the workplace
Date: 1996-07-26
Institutions: European Parliament, SKINNER
Subjects: Council of the European Union, EC Directive, occupational safety, workplace













EUR-Lex - 91996E2089 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2089

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2089/96 by Peter SKINNER to the Commission. The practice of first aid in the workplace  


Official Journal C 365 , 04/12/1996 P. 0081 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2089/96 by Peter Skinner (PSE) to the Commission (26 July 1996)Subject: The practice of first aid in the workplaceCan the Commission inform Parliament of the measures and legislation taken at national level to ensure that there is adequate first aid cover or protection for workers in the workplace?Can it also comment on any legal implications of first aid intervention in the event of an accident and any national measures or legislation which would prevent an effective first aid policy?Can the Commission please state what measures it will be taking to assure adequate first aid cover if the answers to my questions above do not provide comprehensive first aid cover for employees in the workplace across the EU?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (4 October 1996)As regards first aid at the workplace, Article 8 of Council Directive 89/391/EEC ((OJ L 183, 29. 6.1989. )) on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work provides that employers shall take the necessary measures. Notably, they shall arrange any necessary contacts with external services, particularly as regards first aid, emergency medical care, rescue work and firefighting. They must also designate the workers required to implement such measures and these workers must be trained and provided with adequate equipment.Supplementary provisions in this area are contained in the directives on minimum safety and health requirements for the workplace (89/694/EEC) ((OJ L 393, 30.12.1989. )), temporary or mobile construction sites (92/57/EEC) ((OJ L 245, 26. 8.1992. )), the mineral-extracting industries (92/91/EEC ((OJ L 348, 28.11.1992. )) and 92/104/EEC) ((OJ L 404, 31.12.1992. )), and vessels (92/29/EEC ((OJ L 113, 30. 4.1992. )) and 93/103/EEC) ((OJ L 307, 13.12.1993. )).Pursuant to Article 118a(3) of the EC Treaty, Member States are free to maintain or introduce more stringent measures for the protection of working conditions.