do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2163/96 by Jannis SAKELLARIOU to the Commission. Variation of budgetary funds allocated to the European Human Rights Foundation
Date: 1996-08-02
Institutions: European Parliament, SAKELLARIOU
Subjects: Community budget, EU financing, human rights, project evaluation













EUR-Lex - 91996E2163 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2163

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2163/96 by Jannis SAKELLARIOU to the Commission. Variation of budgetary funds allocated to the European Human Rights Foundation  


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





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2163/96 by Jannis Sakellariou (PSE) to the Commission (2 August 1996)Subject: Variation of budgetary funds allocated to the European Human Rights FoundationThe European Human Rights Foundation receives almost one third of the funds under budget line B7-5240.Will the Commission provide information concerning:1. the projects funded by the Foundation;2. the geographical distribution of organizations financed by the Foundation both inside and outside EU Member States;3. the possibility of refunding travel expenses through contributions allocated by the Foundation?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.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2183/96 by Undine-Uta BLOCH von BLOTTNITZ to the Commission. EU membership of CITES
Date: 1996-08-02
Institutions: BLOCH VON BLOTTNITZ, European Parliament
Subjects: common position, international convention, protected species, trade regulations













EUR-Lex - 91996E2183 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2183

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2183/96 by Undine-Uta BLOCH von BLOTTNITZ to the Commission. EU membership of CITES  


Official Journal C 365 , 04/12/1996 P. 0089 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2183/96 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission (2 August 1996)Subject: EU membership of CITESThe Member States of the European Union are independent members of CITES, the international convention on the protection of endangered species. There have been attempts in the past to make the EU itself a member of CITES.1. Are attempts continuing at an official level to make the EU a member of CITES?2. If so, what is the timetable and what effects would EU membership have on the implementation of the EC Regulation on the protection of endangered species?3. If not, what grounds are there for the EU not to become a member of CITES?4. Would not the EU's absence from CITES make the implementation of the above-mentioned EC regulation more difficult?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (13 September 1996)An amendment to the Convention allowing Community accession was adopted by the 1983 extraordinary meeting of the conference of the parties. Its entry into force requires formal acceptance of two-thirds of the parties at the time of adoption (i.e. 2/3 × 81 = 54 of which 33 have accepted the amendment so far). At the occasion of the adoption of common position N° 26/96, adopted by the Council with a view to adopting a Council Regulation (EC) on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein ((OJ C 196, 6.7.1996. )), the Council and the Commission agreed on the urgent need for the Community to accede to the Convention and undertook to move towards that end.The timeframe for Community accession will depend upon the level of success of these joint efforts to ensure acceptance of the 1983 amendment by a sufficient number of additional parties.As a party to the Convention, the Community will be legally obliged to implement it - as opposed to the autonomous implementation of the Convention since 1984 - and become accountable on implementation and enforcement issues.Community membership will also bring the legal status of the Community in the Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora (CITES) in line with its area of competence on issues related to the Convention and render that status more transparent vis-à-vis third parties to the Convention.The current observer status in meetings of the conference of the parties and its many important committees and working groups is indeed a negative factor in this context.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2149/96 by Richard HOWITT to the Commission. Future of the PACTE programme in 1997
Date: 1996-08-02
Institutions: European Parliament, HOWITT
Subjects: EU programme, EU regional policy, European Commission, European Regional Development Fund, budget estimate, co-financing, exchange of information, local authority, management, regional authority













EUR-Lex - 91996E2149 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2149

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2149/96 by Richard HOWITT to the Commission. Future of the PACTE programme in 1997  


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





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2149/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (2 August 1996)Subject: Future of the PACTE programme in 1997Given the Commission's proposal to merge budget line B2-600 into the Article 10 Programme, can the Commission confirm its intention to retain support for the PACTE Programme for 1997 at its current level of funding and with its current administration by the local authority associations themselves?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. 2160/96 by Miguel ARIAS CAÑETE to the Commission. Checks on withdrawals of fruit and vegetables in Greece
Date: 1996-08-02
Institutions: ARIAS CANETE, European Parliament
Subjects: European Court of Auditors, Greece, closing of accounts, discount sale, fruit, producer organisation, product quality, sales aid, vegetable, withdrawal from the market













EUR-Lex - 91996E2160 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2160

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2160/96 by Miguel ARIAS CAÑETE to the Commission. Checks on withdrawals of fruit and vegetables in Greece  


Official Journal C 060 , 26/02/1997 P. 0127 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2160/96 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (2 August 1996)Subject: Checks on withdrawals of fruit and vegetables in GreeceThe 1994 Annual Report by the Court of Auditors states that its inspections revealed that in Greece inspectors did not record checks on quality, nor the results of operations to withdraw fruit and vegetables from the market; consequently, there were no checks or documentation on the eventual destination of produce which had been rejected.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 and what measures have been taken by the Commission to rectify the situation?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (9 September 1996)The Court's remarks highlight the need for regulation of certain aspects of the system used by Member States for the withdrawal of fruit and vegetables from the market.Failure to record quality checks is a deficiency in the system but the Court has not demonstrated any direct link between this and the acceptance of non-conforming batches.Rejected produce belongs to the producer organization which is therefore solely responsible for its marketing. A rejected batch may be represented for sale or withdrawal after repackaging.This matter will be discussed during the next inspection to be undertaken in this Member State and the financial consequences of any irregularity discovered will be drawn when the accounts for 1994 are cleared.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2176/96 by Christine CRAWLEY to the Commission. Over-60s pass project
Date: 1996-08-02
Institutions: CRAWLEY, European Parliament
Subjects: EC recommendation, European Commission, European passport, co-financing, elderly person, feasibility study, report













EUR-Lex - 91996E2176 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2176

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2176/96 by Christine CRAWLEY to the Commission. Over-60s pass project  


Official Journal C 356 , 25/11/1996 P. 0122 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2176/96 by Christine Crawley (PSE) to the Commission (2 August 1996)Subject: Over-60s pass projectWould the Commission provide information on the Europass project in which five Member States will participate? What steps does the Commission envisage taking to ensure that the results of the project are used to enforce a European wide over-60s pass?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (9 September 1996)The Commission is co-financing the Europass project to which the Honourable Member refers. The project aims to develop models which Member States could adapt to meet their own particular circumstances. This could eventually provide a common basis for reciprocal benefits and mutual recognition within the Community. The results of a feasibility study should be available in mid 1997. The Commission will review the situation based on the report from this study. The aim is to identify concrete measures by which progress might be made on the Commission Recommendation of 10 May 1989. This Recommendation, which no Member State so far has implemented, called for the introduction of a common 'over sixties card' which could make existing rights of older people visible, especially when travelling outside their own Member State.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2170/96 by Gerhard SCHMID to the Commission. German Bundesbank gold
Date: 1996-08-02
Institutions: European Parliament, SCHMID
Subjects: capital transfer, central bank, foreign currency, foreign-exchange reserves, gold, monetary union













EUR-Lex - 91996E2170 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2170

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2170/96 by Gerhard SCHMID to the Commission. German Bundesbank gold  


Official Journal C 365 , 04/12/1996 P. 0088 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2170/96 by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission (2 August 1996)Subject: German Bundesbank goldAfter the European Central Bank (ECB) is set up, the national central banks of the Member States belonging to the Monetary Union must transfer a certain proportion of their monetary reserves to that bank.1. What will happen to the gold holdings of the national central banks, and in particular the Bundesbank?2. Must a certain proportion thereof also be transferred to the ECB?3. How are these gold holdings valued?Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (23 September 1996)According to Article 105(2) third indent EC Treaty, one of the basic tasks to be carried out through the European system of central banks (ESCB) shall be 'to hold and manage the official foreign reserves of the Member States'. The transfer of foreign assets to the European central bank (ECB) is laid down by Article 30 of the statute of the ESCB and the ECB: '... the ECB shall be provided by the national central banks with foreign reserve assets, other than Member States' currencies, ECUs, IMF reserve positions and SDRs, up to an amount equivalent to ECU 50 000 million' (Article 30.1.). This means that the following types of assets are eligible for transfer to the ECB: currencies of third countries, currencies of non-participating Member States and gold. However, the requirement of transfer of gold is not expressly provided for. The decision on the amount and the composition of the foreign assets to be transferred has to be made by the Council of the ECB and therefore can only be made after the setting-up of the ECB in early 1998.The non-transferred parts of the foreign reserve assets remain at the national central banks, whose free disposal is only limited by article 31.2. of the statute of the ESCB and ECB. Operations in the remaining foreign reserve assets and Member States'transactions with their foreign exchange working balances are, above a certain limit to be established by the ECB Council, subject to approval by the ECB. This provision will ensure the consistency of these operations with the exchange rate and monetary policies of the Community.The question of the valuation of the foreign reserve assets is currently under discussion in the European monetary institute.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2152/96 by Mark KILLILEA to the Commission. Banning of driftnet tuna by Basque fisheries
Date: 1996-08-02
Institutions: European Parliament, KILLILEA
Subjects: Basque Country, France, Ireland, Spain, cannery, fishing industry, fishing net, marketing restriction, sea fish, trade restriction













EUR-Lex - 91996E2152 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2152

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2152/96 by Mark KILLILEA to the Commission. Banning of driftnet tuna by Basque fisheries  


Official Journal C 011 , 13/01/1997 P. 0054 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2152/96 by Mark Killilea (UPE) to the Commission (2 August 1996)Subject: Banning of driftnet tuna by Basque fisheriesCan the Commission comment on a report which appeared in the fishing industry journal 'Le Marin', of 28 June 1996, which states that as a result of a boycott no French or Irish albacore tuna caught with driftnets will be accepted by canneries in the Spanish Basque region for the coming season?What action does the Commission suggest should be taken to ensure that such restriction of the market for tuna catch is not allowed to take place?Answer given by Ms Bonino on behalf of the Commission (10 October 1996)No complaint has been received by the Commission relating to the point raised by the Honourable Member.As to the substance of the report, the Commission stresses that in refusing to accept certain categories of product for its supply of raw materials, the canning industry has not acted contrary to any current legislation, provided that such action does not constitute a barrier to the free movement of goods.The Commission has asked the Spanish authorities for further information.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2162/96 by Miguel ARIAS CAÑETE to the Commission. Checks on withdrawals of fruit and vegetables in Italy
Date: 1996-08-02
Institutions: ARIAS CANETE, European Parliament
Subjects: European Court of Auditors, Italy, farm price support, fresh fruit, fresh vegetable, market support, product quality, withdrawal from the market













EUR-Lex - 91996E2162 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2162

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2162/96 by Miguel ARIAS CAÑETE to the Commission. Checks on withdrawals of fruit and vegetables in Italy  


Official Journal C 011 , 13/01/1997 P. 0057 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2162/96 by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission (2 August 1996)Subject: Checks on withdrawals of fruit and vegetables in ItalyThe Court of Auditors' 1994 Annual Report states that irregularities were detected with regard to strict monitoring of fruit and vegetables withdrawn from the market in Italy, which possibly indicated that the Italian authorities were not carrying out sufficiently thorough quality controls.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, and what were the financial implications?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (25 September 1996)In its 1994 Annual Report the Court of Auditors did indeed express doubts regarding the thoroughness of the quality controls carried out by Italian authorities.The Court did not say that the financial compensation for the withdrawals should not have been paid but the Commission will take account of the Court's observations when carrying out checks on the withdrawals of fruit and vegetables in Italy and will draw any financial implications necessary when settling the 1994 accounts.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2190/96 by Otto von HABSBURG to the Commission. Air transport safety
Date: 1996-08-02
Institutions: European Parliament, HABSBURG
Subjects: air safety, air transport, directive (EU), personal effects, transport safety, weights and measures













EUR-Lex - 91996E2190 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2190

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2190/96 by Otto von HABSBURG to the Commission. Air transport safety  


Official Journal C 060 , 26/02/1997 P. 0132 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2190/96 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (2 August 1996)Subject: Air transport safetyIt has recently become noticeable again that many air passengers are ignoring the regulations and bringing more than one piece of often bulky luggage into the cabin. In the event of an emergency landing or a panic caused by the aisles being blocked, this poses a safety threat for all travellers.Is it not time to remind the airlines that they have a duty to implement the existing regulations?Should not some thought be given to enacting a Community directive on this subject?Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (16 September 1996)The safety issues of hand luggage in aircraft cabins are familiar to the Commission. There is however no evidence that limiting the number of pieces allowed would in itself improve safety, since aspects such as size, weight and storage are much more relevant. If, for example, carriers provide a convenient and adequately protected storage area in the cabin, there would be no reason to limit, as a matter of principle, the amount, size or weight of cabin luggage.This explains why most Member States do not regulate this matter in detail, requiring only that airlines ensure an appropriate level of cabin safety.Community legislation would only be considered if the current provisions and practices appeared insufficient to ensure the safety of the travelling public.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2174/96 by Christine CRAWLEY to the Commission. The primate trade
Date: 1996-08-02
Institutions: CRAWLEY, European Parliament
Subjects: air transport, animal experimentation, animal welfare, import, marketing, monkey, protection of animals, transport of animals, wildlife













EUR-Lex - 91996E2174 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2174

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2174/96 by Christine CRAWLEY to the Commission. The primate trade  


Official Journal C 011 , 13/01/1997 P. 0058 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2174/96 by Christine Crawley (PSE) to the Commission (2 August 1996)Subject: The primate tradeWould the Commission explain what action it plans to take to prevent the cruel practice of certain European airlines which import monkeys into Europe for experimentation?Joint answer to Written Questions E-2174/96 and E-2243/96 given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (13 September 1996)The importation of primates and their transport into the Community by airlines is a legal activity. There are current needs for primates, judged by the appropriate authorities to be essential, which cannot be met by the supply and use of animals already available in the Community.If the transport of these animals by air were banned, while their importation into the Community were still permitted, the result would be greatly increased suffering, as animals would be flown to third countries then imported into the Community by land or sea. This would result in much longer journeys for them and more suffering. Indeed, this is already happening, as many airlines have yielded to pressure and have stopped transporting primates.It is not possible to deal in a piecemeal way with the undoubted difficulties inherent in the use of primates as laboratory animals. The Commission is therefore developing a comprehensive strategy which would:a. require a much stronger justification for the use of primates in laboratories, as a way of reducing the numbers required,b. improve communication with regard to the availability of animals already in Member States, as a way of reducing the need to import them from outside,c. encourage, where possible, the provision of purpose-bred animals within the Community, to meet genuine needs.This strategy should be combined with a determination by all concerned to seek a progressive reduction in the need for primates to be used as laboratory animals, the ultimate goal being the elimination of any such need.These matters will be considered at a conference to be organised by the Commission in early 1997, at which the Community policy of 50% reduction in the use of animals for experimental and other scientific purposes by the year 2000 will be discussed.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2188/96 by Patricia McKENNA to the Commission. Golf course development at Buckroney Marsh, near Brittas Bay, Co. Wicklow, Ireland
Date: 1996-08-02
Institutions: European Parliament, MCKENNA
Subjects: European Regional Development Fund, Ireland, co-financing, complaint to the Commission, ecological balance, environmental impact, sports facilities













EUR-Lex - 91996E2188 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2188

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2188/96 by Patricia McKENNA to the Commission. Golf course development at Buckroney Marsh, near Brittas Bay, Co. Wicklow, Ireland  


Official Journal C 060 , 26/02/1997 P. 0132 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2188/96 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (2 August 1996)Subject: Golf course development at Buckroney Marsh, near Brittas Bay, Co. Wicklow, IrelandAbout two and a half years ago a complaint was filed with the Commission relating to environmental damage to a dune system in Buckroney Marsh, near Brittas Bay, Co. Wicklow, Ireland.An expansion of the golf course has occurred. The golf course has also received IR £337 000 in ERDF funding.Has the Commission received any covenant letters relating to the development? If so, can it give details?Has the Park and Wildlife Service in Ireland given any information to the Commission about any damage to natural habitats in the surrounding area? If it has, can the Commission give details?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (16 September 1996)In 1994, the Irish authorities wrote to the Commission informing it that the National parks and wildlife service had reached an agreement with the developer of a Community co-financed golf course at Buckroney in County Wicklow that sand dunes south of Buckroney stream would not be interfered with. They further stated that a debenture dated 19 December 1992 in relation to the grant of Community co-finance included a specific condition effectively to safeguard the area south of the stream and any further lands south of the stream which might be purchased by the developer. This meant that any development of these lands required the prior approval of Bord Failte and the National parks and wildlife service.The Irish national parks and wildlife service has not since then informed the Commission about damage to natural habitats in the area surrounding the golf course. The Commission is making appropriate enquiries of the Irish authorities.