do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2363/96 by Thomas MEGAHY to the Commission. Human rights in the United States
Date: 1996-08-27
Institutions: European Parliament, MEGAHY
Subjects: United States, civil rights, cooperation agreement, death penalty, human rights, international relations, penal code, political rights, trade relations













EUR-Lex - 91996E2363 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2363

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2363/96 by Thomas MEGAHY to the Commission. Human rights in the United States  


Official Journal C 060 , 26/02/1997 P. 0144 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2363/96 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (27 August 1996)Subject: Human rights in the United StatesIn an answer to a question I put to the Commission earlier in the year (No. E-0681/96 ((OJ C 185, 25.6.1996, p. 79. )), Mr Marin stated that 'cooperation agreements must explicitly invoke a basis in respect for human rights and... penal law, particularly the procedural aspects, has an obvious bearing on these fundamental issues'.In view of the fact that the International Commission of Jurists has found the exercise of the death penalty in the United States to be 'arbitrary and racially discriminatory' will the Commission raise the issue of this serious breach of human rights during future trade negotiations, or are such interventions considered appropriate only for poorer third countries?Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (4 October 1996)The Commission agrees that the death penalty is a serious matter, and that the guarantees laid down in the International pact of civil and political rights and other international instruments have to be respected.It does not however consider the matter requires to be raised with the United States, where justice is guaranteed in particular by the right of defence and the existence of appeal procedures.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2265/96 by Pervenche BERES to the Commission. Cross-border transfers
Date: 1996-08-27
Institutions: BERES, European Parliament
Subjects: Austria, France, bank charges, credit transfer, market economy, promotion of the European idea













EUR-Lex - 91996E2265 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2265

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2265/96 by Pervenche BERES to the Commission. Cross-border transfers  


Official Journal C 072 , 07/03/1997 P. 0021 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2265/96 by Pervenche Berès (PSE) to the Commission (27 August 1996)Subject: Cross-border transfersUntil 1995 postal transfers from an account in France to one in Austria were free of charge.However, since 24 January 1996, when France joined EUROGIRO, a 1% charge has been levied with a minimum fee of FF 50.For countries not belonging to EUROGIRO the charge is only FF 20.Is it usual for charges to be higher within the European Union?Is the Commission aware that practices of this kind damage the Union's image in the eyes of public opinion?Can the Commission offer any explanation for this state of affairs?Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (18 November 1996)The Commission has enquired into the situation outlined by the Honourable Member. Following contacts with EuroGiro, it would appear that postal transfers from an account in France to an account in Austria have never been free of charge. Until the end of 1995, a fee of 20 FF was applied to all paper-based payment transactions, and also to transactions executed through the new EuroGiro network during its experimental phase. At the end of 1995, paper-based transactions were replaced, for all giro-payments to EuroGiro countries, by innovative EuroGiro transactions which offer enhanced quality of service, in particular faster execution. The fee for EuroGiro transfers is 0,1% of the transferred amount, with a minimum of 50 FF. Paper-based transactions continue to be sent to some French speaking African countries and countries (excluding the vast majority of Member States) which are not yet connected to the new EuroGiro payment facilities. For these transactions the fee remains at 20 FF.The Commission concludes that this situation reflects normal business decisions, in accordance with the principle of an open market economy with free competition. It does not consider therefore, that these decisions, taken by a group of postal banks, damage the Community's image in the eyes of the public.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2277/96 by Glyn FORD to the Commission. Aid to Bhutan
Date: 1996-08-27
Institutions: European Parliament, FORD
Subjects: Bhutan, European Commission, aid system, development aid, economic cooperation, exchange of information, food aid, non-governmental organisation













EUR-Lex - 91996E2277 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2277

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2277/96 by Glyn FORD to the Commission. Aid to Bhutan  


Official Journal C 060 , 26/02/1997 P. 0137 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2277/96 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (27 August 1996)Subject: Aid to BhutanCan the Commission detail aid and assistance given to Bhutan over each of the last five years?Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission (25 September 1996)The aid to Bhutan over each of the last five years was as follows:in ECU>TABLE>(1) Human resources development project 5 500 000 ECU Integrated pest management 2 600 000 ECU Cultivation of medicinal plants 3 500 000 ECU (2) Plant protection project: supplementary funding (3) Development of agricultural support activities: supplementary funding (4) Export diversification project
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2344/96 by Richard HOWITT to the Commission. Commission representatives at national Structural Fund monitoring committees
Date: 1996-08-27
Institutions: European Parliament, HOWITT
Subjects: Coreper, EU financial instrument, European Investment Bank, European official, Structural Funds, management committee (EU)













EUR-Lex - 91996E2344 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2344

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2344/96 by Richard HOWITT to the Commission. Commission representatives at national Structural Fund monitoring committees  


Official Journal C 011 , 13/01/1997 P. 0082 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2344/96 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (27 August 1996)Subject: Commission representatives at national Structural Fund monitoring committeesHow would the Commission describe the role of its representatives at Structural Fund monitoring committees within individual Member States, and precisely which regulations and policy guidelines (with reference numbers) govern the conduct of Commission staff in this capacity?In accordance with the principles of parliamentary accountability, will the Commission ensure its representatives provide full information regarding project selection, selection criteria as well as the effective use of the funds?Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (23 September 1996)Article 25 of Council Regulation (EEC) n° 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) n° 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different structural funds between themselves and with the operations of the European investment bank and the other existing financial instruments (as amended) ((OJ L 193, 31.7.1993. )) provides for the setting up of monitoring committees, within the framework of the partnership, by agreement between the Commission and the Member States.The composition, duties, procedures and responsibilities of these committees are detailed in the provisions forming an integral part of each Commission decision approving the individual operational programmes. These provisions include the participation of the Commission as a full member of such committees.Apart from this formal participation, the Commission representatives also have an important role to play in providing regular help and guidance to the authorities concerned, notably where questions of project eligibility or the respect for Community legislation and policies are concerned.However, according to the rules governing structural funds interventions, and reflecting the principle of subsidiarity, it is the Member States responsible for programme implementation which have primary responsibility for assuring project eligibility and for defining criteria to prioritise their choice of projects for approval. In establishing these criteria they are assisted by the Commission, which seeks to ensure thereby that the projects selected will be compatible with the overall objectives of the programme and that Community resources will be used effectively and efficiently, Community law respected and financial errors and irregularities avoided.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2366/96 by Thomas MEGAHY to the Commission. EMU and unemployment in construction
Date: 1996-08-27
Institutions: European Parliament, MEGAHY
Subjects: Economic and Monetary Union, European Commission, borrowing, building industry, cyclical unemployment, economic recession, exchange of information, public debt, redundancy













EUR-Lex - 91996E2366 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2366

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2366/96 by Thomas MEGAHY to the Commission. EMU and unemployment in construction  


Official Journal C 011 , 13/01/1997 P. 0087 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2366/96 by Thomas Megahy (PSE) to the Commission (27 August 1996)Subject: EMU and unemployment in constructionDoes the Commission accept the conclusion of the recent report from the European Construction Industry Federation (ECIF) that over a quarter of a million jobs will be lost in the EU construction industry before the end of 1997 as a result of the application of limits on public borrowing and debt imposed by the EMU convergence criteria?If not, could it give the arguments upon which it bases its denial of the ECIF assertion, and the data upon which those arguments are based?Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (15 November 1996)The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2305/96 by Joan VALLVÉ to the Commission. Eradication of 'Caulerpa taxifolia'
Date: 1996-08-27
Institutions: European Parliament, VALLVE
Subjects: Mediterranean Sea, algae, co-financing, ecological balance, environmental impact, exchange of information, natural disaster, report, scientific research, tropical plant













EUR-Lex - 91996E2305 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2305

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2305/96 by Joan VALLVÉ to the Commission. Eradication of 'Caulerpa taxifolia'  


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





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2305/96 by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission (27 August 1996)Subject: Eradication of 'Caulerpa taxifolia'Since 1992 the presence has been detected in Majorca of 'Caulerpa taxifolia', a pantropical seaweed originating in Chinese and Philippine waters, which has a particularly destructive effect on the environmental equilibrium of the Mediterranean coastal ecosystems and has spread to affect the coasts of all of southern France, part of Italy and areas of Croatia. According to certain reports, there are expanding growths of 'Caulerpa taxifolia' off various eastern parts of Majorca, colonizing over 60 000 m2.Can the Commission provide information on the present situation concerning 'Caulerpa taxifolia' in the Mediterranean and, especially, the Balearic Islands?Can it state whether a plan exists for the eradication of 'Caulerpa taxifolia'?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (14 November 1996)The Community co-funded from 1992 to 1995 an international action, in the framework of the LIFE instrument, to study the problem of the proliferation of caulerpa taxifolia in the Mediterranean. This action concluded with an international workshop in Barcelona, on 15th-17th December 1994, which established the state of the proliferation and the latest knowledge about the algae. The report of the workshop and further information can be obtained from the action coordinator (name and address communicated direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat general).A follow-up action began in 1996, also co-funded by the Community through the LIFE instrument, to establish a mathematical model of the proliferation, to test and improve eradication techniques in order to allow the design of an efficient eradication plan, and to train scientists from the southern Mediterranean, which the algae is expected to reach in a few years.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2332/96 by Amedeo AMADEO , Gianfranco FINI to the Commission. Frozen embryos
Date: 1996-08-27
Institutions: AMADEO, European Parliament, FINI
Subjects: EU programme, bio-ethics, biotechnology, competence of the Member States, embryo and foetus, freezing, national law, research and development













EUR-Lex - 91996E2332 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2332

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2332/96 by Amedeo AMADEO , Gianfranco FINI to the Commission. Frozen embryos  


Official Journal C 011 , 13/01/1997 P. 0081 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2332/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) and Gianfranco Fini (NI) to the Commission (27 August 1996)Subject: Frozen embryosAt the end of July, 3 300 human embryos frozen at the request of their parents, who then abandoned them, are to be destroyed. Under UK law, embryos may be kept in a frozen for no more than five years; this limit may be extended only at the specific request of the parents.The couples who had asked for the 3 300 embryos to be frozen have disappeared without trace and decline all responsibility. It has proved impossible to contact 650 of the 910 couples concerned, while the remaining 260 have not replied to letters from the EFEA asking them to take a decision on the matter. It would be 'unacceptable' to continue to store the embryos without the consent of the parents and beyond a fixed limit. The authorities maintain that a limit is necessary in order to safeguard the integrity of frozen embryos, since it is still not known how long they can be maintained in that state without jeopardizing their future development.In the light of what amounts to a massacre, would the Commission take legislative action to harmonize the existing laws and regulations in this extremely sensitive area, with due regard to the fact that natural laws may not be overturned by scientists, who have all too often shown their limitations, or by some visionary or other?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (16 October 1996)The matters raised by the Honourable Members fall within the competence of the Member States. The Commission has no intention to bring forward proposals to harmonise laws and regulations in this field.The Commission is, however, well aware of the ethical issues linked to the applications of biotechnology. Under the fourth Community programme on research and technological development, a working group has been set up to deal with the ethical and legal issues of the protection of the human embryo and foetal tissue. The scope of this group is limited to Community research projects and does not cover United Kingdom legislation.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2377/96 by Gianfranco DELL'ALBA to the Commission. 1997 Preliminary draft budget
Date: 1996-08-27
Institutions: DELL'ALBA, European Parliament
Subjects: administrative expenditure (EU), aid to disadvantaged groups, community facilities, fight against unemployment, occupational health, public administration, public building, public health, social policy, social services













EUR-Lex - 91996E2377 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2377

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2377/96 by Gianfranco DELL'ALBA to the Commission. 1997 Preliminary draft budget  


Official Journal C 011 , 13/01/1997 P. 0090 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2377/96 by Gianfranco Dell'Alba (ARE) to the Commission (27 August 1996)Subject: 1997 Preliminary draft budgetIn the 1977 preliminary draft budget there are appropriations of ECU 13 270 000 for item A-238 (operating expenditure related to technical and administrative assistance) including ECU 11 451 000 for the 'social area'. Can the Commission explain what is included in this social area, and can it provide reasons for the appropriations (breakdown of expenditure by building, equipment and function)?Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (7 October 1996)The appropriations requested for budget article A-238 are mainly intended to meet the expenditure of the Directorates-Generals concerned with the 'social area', namely DG V (Employment, Industrial Relations and Social Affairs) and DG XXII (Education, Training and Youth).This heading covers the administrative expenses of the technical assistance bureaus with which the Commission has contracts for the implementation of programmes in the following fields:- employment (Miser, Sysdem, European employment survey, post Essen);- equal opportunities for women and men;- social welfare (the elderly, the handicapped, social security survey, the family, and action against poverty);- public health and health and safety at work (Safe);- Socrates, Leonardo, and Youth for Europe.On the basis of the likely expenditure for 1996, the breakdown of appropriations can be expected to be 25% for buildings, 10% for equipment and 65% for administrative expenses. The nature of these administrative expenses can be very different according to the contract; they consist largely of publishing costs, and the costs of organizing conferences and meetings, and to a lesser extent of real administrative expenditure such as telephone and fax charges and consumables.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2347/96 by Peter SKINNER to the Commission. Spouse's portion of the married couple's pension in the UK
Date: 1996-08-27
Institutions: European Parliament, SKINNER
Subjects: United Kingdom, application of EU law, gender equality, married person, national law, pension scheme, sexual discrimination, social security, social-security contribution













EUR-Lex - 91996E2347 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2347

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2347/96 by Peter SKINNER to the Commission. Spouse's portion of the married couple's pension in the UK  


Official Journal C 365 , 04/12/1996 P. 0110 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2347/96 by Peter Skinner (PSE) to the Commission (27 August 1996)Subject: Spouse's portion of the married couple's pension in the UKCan the Commission please comment on the fact that under present UK legislation, under the UK pension scheme a person is required to pay contributions towards their pension from which they may benefit at the age of 60 or 65 depending on when they may draw a pension. However, if married, upon one spouse reaching the appropriate retirement age the couple is only entitled to a married couple's pension, this being calculated on the contributions of the spouse who has most contributions. This means that the other spouse's contributions are lost and a married couple receives less than two individuals with the same contributions.Considering that the vast majority of spouses who lose these contributions are women, owing to the traditional structure of the labour market, is this not against EU law in terms of equal treatment of mean and women under social security systems? Effectively, men are entitled to their pension rights as their contributions are normally used to calculate a couple's pension and women are denied their pension rights as these are usually not taken into account as the structure of the labour market has traditionally discriminated against women working.Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (16 October 1996)It is true to say that under the statutory scheme in force in the United Kingdom a married couple in receipt of a married couple's old age pension will receive less than two unmarried people having paid the same contributions.However, the Community legislation in force in the area of statutory social security schemes, namely Directive 79/7/EEC on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security ((OJ L 6, 10.1.1979. )), does not impinge on the right of Member States to decide on the organisation of their systems, and in particular does not require them to split a married couple's pension into separate components or to treat a married couple as if they were not married.Consequently, the Commission does not take the view that the situation as described by the Honourable Member infringes Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2333/96 by Anita POLLACK to the Commission. Timeshares
Date: 1996-08-27
Institutions: European Parliament, POLLACK
Subjects: Spain, United Kingdom, acquisition of property, competence of the Member States, consumer protection, contract, firm governed by commercial law, real property, time-sharing













EUR-Lex - 91996E2333 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2333

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2333/96 by Anita POLLACK to the Commission. Timeshares  


Official Journal C 365 , 04/12/1996 P. 0109 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2333/96 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (27 August 1996)Subject: TimesharesWhat can be done to protect consumers against unscrupulous companies selling timeshares in Spain which are not registered as companies either in Spain or the UK? There do not seem to be any provisions in the timeshare Directive to guard against such companies.Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (3 October 1996)Directive 94/47/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 26 October 1994 on the protection of purchasers in respect of certain aspects of contracts relating to the purchase of the right to use immovable properties on a timeshare basis ((OJ L 280, 29.10.1994. )), sometimes known as the 'Timeshare Directive', aims, as its name implies, to regulate certain aspects of contracts relating to timeshare. It does not deal with general sales and marketing methods, which is an area going far beyond the question of timeshare alone. There is as yet no European legislation covering these issues, which remain within the competence of the individual Member States.