do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2201/96 by Alexander FALCONER to the Commission. Suspension of the starch refund
Date: 1996-08-02
Institutions: European Parliament, FALCONER
Subjects: CCT duties, import, price increase, production refund, pulp and paper industry, starch, suspension of aid, tariff exemption, tariff quota, third country













EUR-Lex - 91996E2201 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2201

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2201/96 by Alexander FALCONER to the Commission. Suspension of the starch refund  


Official Journal C 011 , 13/01/1997 P. 0063 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2201/96 by Alexander Falconer (PSE) to the Commission (2 August 1996)Subject: Suspension of the starch refundIn reply to my letter, DG VI stated that the starch production refund was fixed at zero from 12 April 1996 as the current high price on the world market for the raw materials which are used to make starch no longer allow the granting of a refund to benefit the European starch industries.Many paper companies purchase large quantities of starch from the EU each year. As a result of last year's severe weather conditions, European starch prices have risen by up to 30%, greatly increasing costs to the industry. To alleviate this situation, companies wish to import starch from outside the EU, for instance from the Far East. It has been drawn to my attention that some 20 000 tonnes of tapioca starch has already been imported duty-free into the EU by a European starch producer and sold as European starch.Would the Commission confirm that other shipments of this produce into the EU will be given similar duty-free status?If not, will the Commission confirm that the starch refund will be restored?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (24 September 1996)The Commission is very surprised to learn that a European starch producer has imported duty-free some 20.000 tonnes of tapioca starch into the Community and would welcome any further information the Honourable Member may be in a position to provide.The current import duty for tapioca starch (CN Code 11081400) is 228.7 ECU per tonne. Under a tariff quota of 17,875 tonnes (of which 7,500 tonnes are reserved for imports from Thailand), there is indeed a possibility to import, in the current year, tapioca starch at a duty of 128.7 ECU per tonne (that is 100 ECU per tonne less than the current duty). Imports outside these duties or tariff quotas are not allowed.The Commission does not intend to grant any duty free status for shipments of this produce into the Community and continues to respect the GATT commitments which foresee a gradual reduction of the import duties.As regards the refunds, starch is currently benefiting from an export refund. Production refunds may be restored as soon as the prevailing market conditions allow.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2154/96 by Thomas MEGAHY to the Commission. Promotion of smoking on university campuses
Date: 1996-08-02
Institutions: European Parliament, MEGAHY
Subjects: Belgium, approximation of laws, proposal (EU), sales promotion, smoking, tobacco industry, university













EUR-Lex - 91996E2154 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2154

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2154/96 by Thomas MEGAHY to the Commission. Promotion of smoking on university campuses  


Official Journal C 365 , 04/12/1996 P. 0086 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2154/96 by Thomas Megahy (PSE) to the Commission (2 August 1996)Subject: Promotion of smoking on university campusesAmerican cigarette manufacturers are in the habit of sponsoring party nights at universities in Belgium.Can the Commission say whether this practice is known in other Member States and whether it believes that anything can be done at Community level to put an end to this clear attempt to promote the consumption of a lethal drug amongst young people?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (30 September 1996)No. The Commission has no information at its disposal concerning this marketing technique. However, in its amended proposal for a Council directive on the approximation of Member States' laws, reulations and administrative provisions on advertising of tobacco products ((OJ C 129 of 21.5.1992. )), it is envisaged that any free distribution of tobacco products be banned.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2147/96 by Richard HOWITT to the Commission. Article 10 Programme
Date: 1996-08-02
Institutions: European Parliament, HOWITT
Subjects: Austria, EU Member State, EU programme, European Regional Development Fund, Finland, Sweden, action programme, economic development, local authority, regional authority













EUR-Lex - 91996E2147 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2147

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2147/96 by Richard HOWITT to the Commission. Article 10 Programme  


Official Journal C 011 , 13/01/1997 P. 0053 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2147/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (2 August 1996)Subject: Article 10 ProgrammeCould the Commission outline the number of applications it has received under the Article 10 Programme 1994-99 according to the number of partners in each Member State of the European Union?What special action has been taken to ensure equal participation from local and regional authorities in the most recent accession countries of Finland, Sweden and Austria?Answer given by Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (19 September 1996)The Commission has received some 900 applications, 840 of them eligible, concerning pilot schemes under Article 10 of the Regulation concerning the European Regional Development Fund ((OJ L 193, 31.7.1993. )). The following table provides a breakdown by field and Member State.>TABLE>(*) RIS stands for 'regional innovation strategies'. RTT stands for ' regional technology transfer' (regional pilot schemes). IS 1 stands for 'information society - area 1 (strategies). IS 2 stands for 'information society - area 2 (regional pilot schemes). NSE stands for 'new sources of employment'. 'Culture' comprises interregional cooperation networks for economic development with a cultural slant. (**) Finno-Swedish projectsA special effort was made in the three new Member States to promote December 1995's Directoria, an event which provided 72 delegations from local and regional authorities and agencies in these countries with an opportunity to learn about Article 10 programmes and seek potential partners. It is also worth noting that the application forms and associated check-lists were drawn up in all eleven Community languages.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1567/96 of 2 August 1996 repealing Regulation (EC) No 291/96 fixing an export tax in relation to the product falling within CN code 1003 00 90
Date: 1996-08-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: barley, export licence, export tax, market intervention













EUR-Lex - 31996R1567 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



31996R1567

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1567/96 of 2 August 1996 repealing Regulation (EC) No 291/96 fixing an export tax in relation to the product falling within CN code 1003 00 90  


Official Journal L 193 , 03/08/1996 P. 0026 - 0026 





COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1567/96 of 2 August 1996 repealing Regulation (EC) No 291/96 fixing an export tax in relation to the product falling within CN code 1003 00 90 THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organization of the market in cereals (1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 923/96 (2), and in particular Article 16 thereof,Whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 291/96 (3) fixes an export tax on barley;Whereas the market conditions which led to the introduction of the export tax on barley no longer apply; whereas the tax on those products should be abolished;Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:Article 1 Regulation (EC) No 291/96 is hereby repealed.Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on 3 August 1996.This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.Done at Brussels, 2 August 1996.For the CommissionChristos PAPOUTSISMember of the Commission(1) OJ No L 181, 1. 7. 1992, p. 21.(2) OJ No L 126, 24. 5. 1996, p. 37.(3) OJ No L 38, 16. 2. 1996, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2198/96 by Martin SCHULZ , Jutta HAUG to the Commission. Fuel for Commission vehicles at Shell garages
Date: 1996-08-02
Institutions: European Parliament, HAUG, SCHULZ
Subjects: Nigeria, common position, ethnic discrimination, international sanctions, invitation to tender, oil industry













EUR-Lex - 91996E2198 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2198

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2198/96 by Martin SCHULZ , Jutta HAUG to the Commission. Fuel for Commission vehicles at Shell garages  


Official Journal C 365 , 04/12/1996 P. 0091 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2198/96 by Martin Schulz (PSE) and Jutta Haug (PSE) to the Commission (2 August 1996)Subject: Fuel for Commission vehicles at Shell garagesThe inhuman policy of the Nigerian government towards the Ogoni people - a policy made possible only with the help of the Shell Group - has already been condemned on a number of occasions by the European Parliament. The governments of a number of European countries have therefore advocated a boycott of Shell.Do official Commission vehicles obtain fuel from Shell garages, or is there any guarantee that the opposite is the case?Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behaf of the Commission (26 September 1996)Since 1 January 1996, the Commission vehicles no longer use Shell petrol, in line with the results of a tender for the provision of fuel issued the previous year.The Commission continues to examine, in concert with the Member States, its policy towards Nigeria. The Union established a common position on Nigeria in November 1995, containing a number of provisions. These remain in application until 4 December 1996. They do not cover fuel products.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2151/96 by Richard HOWITT to the Commission. Article 10 Programme
Date: 1996-08-02
Institutions: European Parliament, HOWITT
Subjects: Denmark, EU programme, EU regional policy, European Regional Development Fund, budget estimate, co-financing, complaint to the Commission, exchange of information, local authority, regional authority













EUR-Lex - 91996E2151 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2151

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2151/96 by Richard HOWITT to the Commission. Article 10 Programme  


Official Journal C 011 , 13/01/1997 P. 0045 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2151/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (2 August 1996)Subject: Article 10 ProgrammeIs it true that Danish local authorities have written to the Commission complaining that they are unable to make applications for interregional cooperation under the Article 10 Programme because of the high amount of match-funding required, and that they prefer smaller interregional cooperation projects of the type supported by the PACTE Programme?What has been the Commission's response to this comment? And why in these circumstances is the Commission seeking to merge the PACTE Programme into the Article 10 Budget line for 1997?Joint answer to Written Questions E-2093/96, E-2149/96 and E-2151/96 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (22 October 1996)The Commission appreciates the Parliament's concern about the financing of projects for initiating interregional cooperation, and in view of the budgetary situation it is studying the possibility of funding these projects under Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 4254/88 as amended, which relates to the European Regional Development Fund. ((OJ L 193, 31 July 1993. )) These projects could involve a Community contribution of ECU 150 000 to 300 000.The Commission will not fail to inform Parliament at the appropriate time of the results of its study, which must take account in particular of the Court of Auditors' criticisms of partially delegated management of Community appropriations.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2157/96 by Bárbara DÜHRKOP DÜHRKOP to the Commission. Implementation of Budget line B3-2003: 'Other cultural measures in the Community and cultural cooperation with third countries'
Date: 1996-08-02
Institutions: DUEHRKOP DUEHRKOP, European Parliament
Subjects: Community budget, EU financing, agreement (EU), cultural cooperation, cultural policy, third country













EUR-Lex - 91996E2157 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2157

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2157/96 by Bárbara DÜHRKOP DÜHRKOP to the Commission. Implementation of Budget line B3-2003: 'Other cultural measures in the Community and cultural cooperation with third countries'  


Official Journal C 011 , 13/01/1997 P. 0055 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2157/96 by Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop (PSE) to the Commission (2 August 1996)Subject: Implementation of Budget line B3-2003: 'Other cultural measures in the Community and cultural cooperation with third countries'The remarks against Line B3-2003 of the 1996 General Budget assign the major part of this amount (ECU 4 710 000 out of a total of ECU 6 000 000) to certain specific activities.Can the Commission say how much of the remaining ECU 1 290 000 is intended for third countries, and how much for the Community?How much is intended for Latin American countries which have a cultural clause in their agreements with the EU?How much is intended for countries which do not have agreements with the Community?What proportion will go to third countries in Europe and the rest of the world?According to what criteria are projects selected?.Answer given by M. Oreja on behalf of the Commission (16 October 1996)First of all, the Commission would like to point out that it is difficult to provide exact figures in the course of the financial year. However, it can give some indications of the pattern so far.The Community has agreements containing cultural clauses with 112 non-member countries, but its budget does not permit it to meet all its commitments. Therefore, the Community currently tends to distinguish between countries participating in European cultural projects - at the moment ten Central and Eastern European countries and Cyprus and Malta are involved - and other countries.The Commission has set aside approximately ECU 600 000 for projects in the associated countries of Central and Eastern Europe as an interim measure until protocols making provision for cultural programmes are added to the Treaties of Association. These projects must fit in with existing cultural projects.In the particular case of Latin America, very few cultural projects have been referred to the Commission; some have been supported, such as 'La casa de los tres mundos' project, which has received ECU 100 000.Grants of ECU 30 000 (Tibet) and ECU 40 000 (the European Union Baroque Orchestra's tour of South Africa) have been made to support cultural projects regarding other non-member countries.The Commission also plans to run joint projects in the cultural sphere with UNESCO and the Council of Europe. To this end, a coordination meeting will shortly be organized.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2177/96 by Richard HOWITT to the Commission. Asbestos compensation
Date: 1996-08-02
Institutions: European Parliament, HOWITT
Subjects: United Kingdom, asbestos, competence of the Member States, health risk, indemnification, insurance indemnity, mortality, occupational accident insurance, occupational disease, personal insurance













EUR-Lex - 91996E2177 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2177

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2177/96 by Richard HOWITT to the Commission. Asbestos compensation  


Official Journal C 011 , 13/01/1997 P. 0059 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2177/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (2 August 1996)Subject: Asbestos compensationIs the Commission aware that there are still many people such as my constituent, Mr Ayton, who have suffered from asbestos related concerned and have still not been compensated?The insurance company, The London and Manchester, deny that they have the necessary insurance certificate.Mr Ayton has lost his wife, his sister, his brother, his niece and his friends who all worked in the same asbestos contaminated environment with him. After his great pain and suffering are there any measures proposed at European level to safeguard against victims of disasters such as the asbestos one being denied their rights?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (24 October 1996)In the United Kingdom diseases linked to exposure to asbestos are among those recognised as occupational diseases liable for compensation, and subject to preventive measures.Whether or not the diseases of the Honourable Member's constituent and his family were occupational diseases, the system of compensation is a matter for the Member State.The Honourable Member's reference to an insurance certificate is not understood.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2159/96 by Miguel ARIAS CAÑETE to the Commission. Checks on peaches and nectarines withdrawn from the market in Greece
Date: 1996-08-02
Institutions: ARIAS CANETE, European Parliament
Subjects: Greece, fresh fruit, market supervision, marketing, preparation for market, producer organisation, stone fruit, withdrawal from the market













EUR-Lex - 91996E2159 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2159

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2159/96 by Miguel ARIAS CAÑETE to the Commission. Checks on peaches and nectarines withdrawn from the market in Greece  


Official Journal C 011 , 13/01/1997 P. 0056 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2159/96 by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission (2 August 1996)Subject: Checks on peaches and nectarines withdrawn from the market in GreeceIn its 1994 Annual Report the Court of Auditors observed that inspections of operations to withdraw fruit and vegetables from the market in Greece had revealed consistent excess payments of compensation for peaches and nectarines, amounting to ECU 30 m in both 1993 and 1994. This was due to erroneous application of a coefficient of 0.90 by the Greek authorities, corresponding to market presentation after classification and packaging, while the correct coefficient, according to the Court of Auditors, would have been 0.65, as the crates used for withdrawals are the same as those in which the fruit was harvested, not those for final presentation on the market.In view of the Commission's reply to the Court of Auditors, that its inspectors would carry out a detailed investigation into this matter, what have been the results of these inspections, what measures have been taken by the Commission to rectify the situation, and what were the financial implications with regard to winding up the accounts?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (11 September 1996)The Commission has carried out a number of inspections at producers organisations in the fruit and vegetables sector in Greece. These controls have included the procedures for the withdrawal of produce from the market.This audit work has revealed various weaknesses, particularly in respect of the procedures for recognising and supervising producers organisations operating in this sector. As regards peaches and nectarines, financial consequences will be drawn in the clearance of the accounts of the 1994 financial exercice.As regards the specific problem referred to by the Honourable Member, the Commission has requested the Greek authorities to provide detailed information concerning the follow-up measures taken by them in response to the remarks of the Court of auditors. Furthermore, by means of Regulation (EC) No 872/95 ((OJ L 89, 21.4.1995. )) the Commission has since deleted the packaging coefficient of 0.90 so as to rectify the situation.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2164/96 by Jannis SAKELLARIOU to the Commission. Utilization of budgetary funds for the defence of human rights
Date: 1996-08-02
Institutions: European Parliament, SAKELLARIOU
Subjects: Community budget, EU financing, human rights, project evaluation













EUR-Lex - 91996E2164 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2164

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2164/96 by Jannis SAKELLARIOU to the Commission. Utilization of budgetary funds for the defence of human rights  


Official Journal C 365 , 04/12/1996 P. 0087 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2164/96 by Jannis Sakellariou (PSE) to the Commission (2 August 1996)Subject: Utilization of budgetary funds for the defence of human rightsEuropean Union aid in the field of human rights is granted through the budget lines under the heading 'European initiative for democracy and the protection of human rights'.In its annual report for 1995, the Commission states that ECU 5.5 m were utilized under budget line B7-5240 and supplies a list of the organizations and associations which received financial support.1. What criteria were used to select projects from among those submitted?2. Were steps taken to ensure that, on the basis of the projects submitted and in compliance with the expenditure criteria laid down by the European Parliament, a proper balance was achieved between organizations in all the Member States of the EU?3. Would it not be appropriate to present a full list of the projects submitted, i.e. including those rejected, specifying the reasons for this decision?4. Does the Commission agree that a detailed examination of the activities of the European Human Rights Foundation should be carried out on the basis of the requirements so far envisaged, given that this organization receives almost one third of the funds allocated from budgetary line B7-5240?Joint answer to Written Questions E-2163/96 and E-2164/96 given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (13 September 1996)As the Honourable Member points out, the Commission makes a full report to the Parliament on the use of funds under budget line B7-7040. The last such report sent on 15 January 1996, relating to 1995, specified the objectives of the line which carefully follow the budget commentary. The selection of projects is made with reference to these objectives purely on the basis of requests received by non-governmental organisations, irrespective of the Member State of origin. As many projects as possible are funded, provided they fall within the stated criteria, until the line is exhausted for the budget year in question.With regard to the European human rights foundation, this organisation publishes a full annual report on its activities and the criteria under which they are conducted, which is sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.