do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2207/96 by Eolo PARODI to the Commission. PDO label for Ligurian pesto
Date: 1996-08-09
Institutions: European Parliament, PARODI
Subjects: Liguria, agricultural product, brand name, customs and traditions, designation of origin, foodstuff, producer organisation, product designation, product quality, quality label













EUR-Lex - 91996E2207 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2207

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2207/96 by Eolo PARODI to the Commission. PDO label for Ligurian pesto  


Official Journal C 011 , 13/01/1997 P. 0064 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2207/96 by Eolo Parodi (UPE) to the Commission (9 August 1996)Subject: PDO label for Ligurian pestoGenoese pesto, an authentically Ligurian sauce, is not protected in any way at Community level. Most seriously, the various non-Ligurian products sold under the name of pesto and the like have altered the nature of 'genuine typical Genoese pesto' resulting from the ingredients from which it is made, namely Ligurian basil, extra virgin olive-oil, garlic, and Parmesan and Pecorino cheeses.The Commission has recently announced the 318 Community products which have been awarded the 'protected designation of origin' (PDO) label. Ligurian pesto is not included.What criteria does the Commission observe when selecting products to be protected and promoted?Can it arrange immediately for the genuine, unique Genoese and Ligurian sauce to be placed on the list of 'PDO' products, since this is a product that is prized throughout the world on account of its geographical origin and therefore deserves to be protected and promoted, not least at Community level?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (25 September 1996)'Pesto' was not included in the first lists of registered products as the Commission did not receive a request for registration under the procedures laid down in Regulation 2081/92 relating to the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs. ((OJ L 208 of 24 July 1992. ))To be registered:- the pesto must come within the scope of the Regulation, that is to say it must be one of the agricultural products listed in Annex II to the Treaty;- there must be a link between the product and a geographical area delimited by objective natural and human factors or it must be a known geographical name.Another approach would be to have recourse to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/92 on certificates of specific character for agricultural products and foodstuffs designed to protect traditional recipes without requiring a link between the product and a delimited area.(1)These two Community schemes are voluntary so it is up to a producer group to define its product in accordance with specifications laid down and to lodge the registration request with its national authorities. If the request fulfils the criteria and definitions laid down, the national authorities forward it to the Commission. Community protection can be granted only when the criteria laid down in Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 2081/92 and Articles 2, 4, 5 and 6 Regulation 2082/92 have been met.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2218/96 by Roberta ANGELILLI to the Commission. Legislation to safeguard the image of women in advertising
Date: 1996-08-09
Institutions: ANGELILLI, European Parliament
Subjects: advertising, equal treatment, freedom of self-determination, mass media, position of women, sexual discrimination, woman













EUR-Lex - 91996E2218 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2218

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2218/96 by Roberta ANGELILLI to the Commission. Legislation to safeguard the image of women in advertising  


Official Journal C 091 , 20/03/1997 P. 0003 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2218/96 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (9 August 1996)Subject: Legislation to safeguard the image of women in advertisingIn Italy, as in the rest of Europe, women are used to advertise commercial products. However, they are depicted all too often in such contexts as if they were objects loaded with increasingly explicit sexual connotations.Can the Commission say whether there are Europe-wide recommendations to define, and hence safeguard, the image and dignity of women and give details of the legislation on the subject, if any, in force in the Member States?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (6 November 1996)The Commission is aware of the necessity to safeguard the image of women in advertising and the media.Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities ((OJ L 298, 17.10.1989. )) stipulates that television advertising should not jeopardize respect for human dignity or include any discrimination on grounds of sex.The Commission in its third medium-term action programme on equal opportunities for women and men (1991-1995) ((COM(90) 449. )) has defined actions to promote a positive image of women, emphasizing in particular the promotion of a better representation of women in the media industry as well as in the institutional and professional environment of media organisations, the development of innovating programmes which challenge traditional images and the production of recommendations concerning the representation of women in the media industry.There is a recent resolution of the Council of 5 October 1995 on the image of women and men portrayed in advertising and the media ((OJ C 296, 10.11.1995. )). It calls on the Member States and other bodies to provide for appropriate measures to ensure respect for human dignity and an absence of discrimination on grounds of sex. This Resolution also requires the Member States and other bodies to encourage advertising agencies and the media to promote the development and implementation of voluntary self-regulating codes.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2219/96 by Roberta ANGELILLI to the Commission. ESF assistance for retraining and re-employment of workers (SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER)
Date: 1996-08-09
Institutions: ANGELILLI, European Parliament
Subjects: EU financing, European Social Fund, Italy, employment aid, public sector, reintegration into working life, vocational training

C 21/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

22. 1. 98

(98/C 21/02)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2219/96

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(9 August 1996)

Subject: ESF assistance for retraining and re-employment of workers

In a trade-union tract the workers of the ailing IRITECNA/FINTECNA-IRI Group, who have been drawing the
short-time working allowance since October 1993, claim that the Union has allocated LIT 4 500 billion under the
European Social Fund to enable them to retrain and find new employment.

1.

Has the above contribution in fact been granted?

2.
If so, it is possible to ascertain how it is being used, given that the employees of the firms concerned (many
of whom will soon lose their unemployment benefit) are wondering what has happened to the money and fear
that it will be administered under a bankruptcy arrangement, as has previously been the case when funding of this
type has been provided?

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 1997)

Further to its answer of  1  October 1996 (1), the Commission is now able to provide the following additional
information.

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to her Written Question E-1408/97 (2).

(1)  OJ C 365, 4.12.1996.
(2)  OJ C 391, 23.12.1997, p. 82.

(98/C 21/03)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0613/97

by Joaqu(cid:14)·n Siso· Cruellas (PPE) to the Commission

(27 February 1997)

Subject: Growth hormone used for salmon

The  European  Farmers(cid:146)  Coordination  (CPE)  has  asked  the  Commission  to  prohibit  the  use  of  (cid:145)salmon
somatotrophine(cid:146), a genetically-engineered hormone which speeds up and boosts growth in salmon. The CPE
claims that the industrialization of salmon farming has led to a considerable reduction in quality, resulted in a
high concentration of production in Norway and also spread diseases related to industrial fish farming to the wild
salmon population. It therefore criticizes the industrialization of fish farming in general.

In view of European consumers(cid:146) scepticism about and lack of confidence in new biotechnology techniques as a
result of the adverse effects of using the BST milk hormone, can the Commission state what position is being
taken on the use of growth hormones in salmon farming?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 1997)

Somatosalm is a hormone intended solely to help young salmon adapt from fresh water to sea water.

At  the  request  of  the  company  holding  the  patent,  an  application  to  classify  the  substance  was  made  under
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum
residue  limits  of  veterinary  medicinal  products  in  foodstuffs  of  animal  origin (1).  Following  a  scientific
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2230/96 by Sérgio RIBEIRO , Honório NOVO to the Commission. Poseima-craft programme
Date: 1996-08-09
Institutions: European Parliament, NOVO, RIBEIRO
Subjects: Community support framework, EU aid, EU programme, Madeira, handicrafts, project evaluation, regional aid, report













EUR-Lex - 91996E2230 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2230

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2230/96 by Sérgio RIBEIRO , Honório NOVO to the Commission. Poseima-craft programme  


Official Journal C 083 , 14/03/1997 P. 0009 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2230/96 by Sérgio Ribeiro (GUE/NGL) and Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (9 August 1996)Subject: Poseima-craft programmeCouncil Decision 91/315/EEC ((OJ L 171, 29.6.1991, p. 5. )) of 26 January 1991 set up a programme of options specific to the remote and insular nature of Madeira and the Azores (Poseima).Section 16.1 of this programme makes provision for Community measures to assist small craft businesses (embroidery, rug-making, ceramics, basketry) - the Poseima-craft programme - which was approved at the end of 1992 for the three-year period 1992-94, with an allocation of ECU 6 million in addition to the CSF appropriations.Can the Commission confirm what specific measures were implemented over the three-year period 1992-94 in the autonomous region of Madeira under the Poseima-craft programme and what sums were disbursed in each of the measures carried out?Can the Commission say whether the Poseima-craft programme has been closed or whether it is to be extended?If it has been closed, has any independent financial provision been made to continue the measures introduced?Joint answer to Written Questions E-2229/96 and E-2230/96 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (16 October 1996)A number of measures were financed under the craft provisions of the Poseima programme for the Madeira and Azores autonomous regions to help local businesses making e.g. embroidery, tapestries, ceramics and baskework. Support took the form of training schemes, help with the introduction of new technology and access to new markets.The total earmarked for craft businesses under the programme approved by the Commission was ECU 6 million. The Commission has just received the Portuguese government's final report on the Poseima measures and will be studying it closely.The new operational programmes for the two autonomous regions approved as part of the Community support framework for Portugal 1994-99 reflect considerations similar to those underlying Poseima.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2238/96 by Anita POLLACK to the Commission. Helios II programme
Date: 1996-08-09
Institutions: European Parliament, POLLACK
Subjects: Community budget, EU financing, action programme, anti-discriminatory measure, disabled person, equal treatment













EUR-Lex - 91996E2238 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2238

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2238/96 by Anita POLLACK to the Commission. Helios II programme  


Official Journal C 365 , 04/12/1996 P. 0096 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2238/96 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (9 August 1996)Subject: Helios II programmeGiven the marked reluctance of some Member State governments to fund EU programmes under Article 235, how can the Commission ensure the Helios programme will be able to continue without a break in its funding?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (17 September 1996)In accordance with the Decision of 25 February 1993 establishing the third Community action programme to assist disabled people (Helios II, 1993-1996) ((OJ L 56, 9.3.1993. )), activities under that programme will end on 31 December 1996.In line with the Communication on non-discrimination and equality of opportunity for people with disabilities adopted by the Commission on 30 July 1996 ((COM(96) 406 final. )), which sets out a new Community approach to disability, the Commission is intending to continue its activities in this field, provided that the available budget adopted by the budget authorities allows it to do so.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2246/96 by Jens-Peter BONDE to the Commission. School milk
Date: 1996-08-09
Institutions: BONDE, European Parliament
Subjects: EU programme, aid programme, eating habits, educational institution, free service, milk, milk product













EUR-Lex - 91996E2246 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2246

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2246/96 by Jens-Peter BONDE to the Commission. School milk  


Official Journal C 011 , 13/01/1997 P. 0071 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2246/96 by Jens-Peter Bonde (NI) to the Commission (9 August 1996)Subject: School milkAt the present time, healthy milk products such as skimmed milk and buttermilk are not subsidized, whereas full cream milk, which has a higher fat content, receives a bigger subsidy than low-fat milk. Will the Commission submit a proposal for a flat-rate subsidy per litre of milk or, possibly, completely abolish the bureaucratic school milk system and leave subsidy schemes to the Member States?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (13 September 1996)It is not, in the Commission's view, sound policy to pay a flat-rate amount per litre of milk for the full range of milk products distributed under the Community school milk programme, regardless of the composition, and hence the price, of the individual products.The Commission believes the existing range of subsidized milk products is extensive and varied enough to form part of a healthy, varied and balanced diet for pupils.The rules for implementation of the school milk programme were radically streamlined by the reform in 1993, which also gives Member States considerable leeway in the organization of their domestic schemes.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2247/96 by Patricia McKENNA to the Commission. The extension of the working life of the nuclear power stations in Calder Hall at Sellafield and Chapelcross at Annan (both in Britain)
Date: 1996-08-09
Institutions: European Parliament, MCKENNA
Subjects: EAEC Treaty, European standard, United Kingdom, international standard, nuclear power station, nuclear safety, radiation protection, safety standard, technical regulations













EUR-Lex - 91996E2247 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2247

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2247/96 by Patricia McKENNA to the Commission. The extension of the working life of the nuclear power stations in Calder Hall at Sellafield and Chapelcross at Annan (both in Britain)  


Official Journal C 060 , 26/02/1997 P. 0136 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2247/96 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (9 August 1996)Subject: The extension of the working life of the nuclear power stations in Calder Hall at Sellafield and Chapelcross at Annan (both in Britain)On 3 July 1996 Britain's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) decided that the nuclear power stations in Calder Hall at Sellafield and Chapelcross at Annan were safe to operate for a further ten years. Both stations have Magnox reactors, which have a design life of 40 years.Have the NII or other relevant authorities in Britain provided any information to the Commission on what grounds the decision was made? Can the Commission supply details of any safety data relating to these plants which the NII or other relevant authorities have supplied to it? Can the Commission also give details of any inspections it has carried out in these facilities and can it state whether or not it is satisfied that the plants have complied with EU and international safety standards in the past?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (9 October 1996)The granting of authorization to operate nuclear facilities is the exclusive competence of the regulatory bodies in the Member States. The decision to extend the working life of the Calder Hall and the Chapelcross nuclear power stations belongs to the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate of the United Kingdom, a body whose task it is to ensure that the physical state and operating conditions of these facilities continue to comply with their design, with national safety requirements and with the operating limits and conditions laid down.The NII is not required to inform the Commission of the reasons for its decision; the only obligations in this sphere are those under Articles 37 (plans for the disposal of radioactive waste) and 41 (investment projects relating to new installations) of the EAEC (Euratom) Treaty.The inspection of nuclear facilities in order to assess their safety is outside the Commission's competence, the field of which is defined in the EAEC Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2228/96 by Sérgio RIBEIRO , Honório NOVO to the Commission. Poseima-agriculture programme - support for banana production in Madeira
Date: 1996-08-09
Institutions: European Parliament, NOVO, RIBEIRO
Subjects: Madeira, Structural Funds, aid to agriculture, common organisation of markets, compensatory financing, competitiveness, product quality, production aid, regional development, tropical fruit













EUR-Lex - 91996E2228 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2228

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2228/96 by Sérgio RIBEIRO , Honório NOVO to the Commission. Poseima-agriculture programme - support for banana production in Madeira  


Official Journal C 011 , 13/01/1997 P. 0066 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2228/96 by Sérgio Ribeiro (GUE/NGL) and Honório Novo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (9 August 1996)Subject: Poseima-agriculture programme - support for banana production in MadeiraBanana production is of particular importance to the economy of the autonomous region of Madeira, where banana growing has a long tradition and involves thousands of small farmers producing low yields.Can the Commission say whether the Community support measures for banana production in the autonomous region of Madeira are still being granted under the Poseima-agriculture programme or whether the support measures are now entirely derived from the implementation of the on-going provisions of the common organization of the market for bananas? In the latter case, can the Commission say whether there are any differences between the support measures provided under the COM for the various banana-producing regions in the Community? If so, what are the reasons for such differences?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (26 September 1996)Banana production in the autonomous region of Madeira benefits from two kinds of Community support measures, one of a structural nature, the other as part of the common organization of the market for bananas.The structural support measures are designed to increase competitiveness and quality and are granted under the regional development programme.The support measures provided for under the common organization of the market for bananas, notably the compensatory payments, are in principle identical to those granted to other Community production regions. However, pursuant to Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 404/93, ((OJ L 47 of 25.2.1993. )) production in Madeira benefited from additional support measures for 1993 and 1994 as earnings were significantly lower than the average for the Community.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2222/96 by Johanna MAIJ-WEGGEN to the Commission. Conditions in Romanian prisons
Date: 1996-08-09
Institutions: European Parliament, MAIJ-WEGGEN
Subjects: EU relations, Romania, accession to the European Union, cruel and degrading treatment, human rights, imprisonment, prison system, prisoner













EUR-Lex - 91996E2222 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2222

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2222/96 by Johanna MAIJ-WEGGEN to the Commission. Conditions in Romanian prisons  


Official Journal C 011 , 13/01/1997 P. 0065 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2222/96 by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission (9 August 1996)Subject: Conditions in Romanian prisons1. Is the Commission aware of what is in the report 'Ill-Treatment and Conditions of Detention in Romania' written by the Association for the Prevention of Torture, and is the Commission aware of the fact that this is not the first report on poor conditions in Romanian prisons and in the Romanian legal system?2. What are the Commission's views on the substance of the report and on the human rights violations in Romania, and what conclusions does it draw?Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (7 October 1996)1. Yes.2. Romania has ratified the United Nations convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and the European convention for the prevention of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. As a signatory Romania is obliged to comply with the standards set out in those conventions.The Commission follows with particular attention the human rights situation in Romania, including the question of prison conditions, particularly in the light of the visit to Romania by the committee for the prevention of torture of the Council of Europe at the end of 1995. The findings of the committee are the subject of confidential discussions between the government of Romania and the Council of Europe. The Commission will closely follow the outcome of these discussions.The protection of human rights is one of the criteria for membership of the Union established by the Copenhagen European Council in 1993. In its opinion on Romania's application for membership of the Union, the Commission will pay particular attention to Romania's ability to take on the rights and obligations of membership in this regard.