do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2463/96 by Mary BANOTTI to the Commission. Radiation risk experiments
Date: 1996-09-23
Institutions: BANOTTI, European Parliament
Subjects: EU programme, animal experimentation, cancer, genetic engineering, project evaluation, radiation protection, radiobiology, research programme, scientific research













EUR-Lex - 91996E2463 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2463

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2463/96 by Mary BANOTTI to the Commission. Radiation risk experiments  


Official Journal C 083 , 14/03/1997 P. 0018 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2463/96 by Mary Banotti (PPE) to the Commission (23 September 1996)Subject: Radiation risk experimentsIs it correct to interpret the answer given to written question E-0560/96 ((OJ C185, 25.6.1996, p. 71. )) as suggesting that persons who were involved in formulating the EU policy of research objectives in this area also participated either directly or through their associated laboratories in receiving funding under the radiation protection programme?Is it also correct to interpret the answer given as suggesting that the same tumour suppressor genes (for example p53) are as important in inbred mice as in long-lived humans?Is it also correct to interpret the answer given as suggesting that similar specific genetic alterations in mice and humans produce tumours of comparable location and pathology?Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (20 November 1996)Those who advise the Commission on the choices of research priorities are not necessarily excluded from submitting research project proposals to Community research programmes provided there is no conflict of interest. For the selection of projects, the Commission is assisted by independent expert evaluators, whose task is to examine all competing proposals on strict quality criteria.It was not the intention to suggest that the same tumour suppressor genes are as important in imbred mice as in longer lived humans nor to suggest that similar specific genetic alterations in mice and humans produce tumours of comparable location and pathology. The research is based on the widely held assumption that the carcinogenic process, and the influence of radiation on it, is comparable in different mammalian species.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2503/96 by Stanislaw TILLICH to the Commission. Anti-competitive advertising of a public institution
Date: 1996-09-23
Institutions: European Parliament, TILLICH
Subjects: Italy, advertising, application of EU law, competition, public institution













EUR-Lex - 91996E2503 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2503

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2503/96 by Stanislaw TILLICH to the Commission. Anti-competitive advertising of a public institution  


Official Journal C 356 , 25/11/1996 P. 0126 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-2503/96 by Stanislaw Tillich (PPE) to the Commission (23 September 1996)Subject: Anti-competitive advertising of a public institutionIs the Commission aware that the firm of FERATEL Italia S.r.l. has filed a complaint against Tirol Werbung and its wholly-owned subsidiary TIS GmbH? This was done on the ostensible grounds that the business activities of Tirol Werbung / TIS as public bodies should be regarded as anti-competitive and as contravening the relevant EU standards.What is the current state of the proceedings, and when will they be completed?Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (30 September 1996)The Commission does not have sufficient details of the matter to be able to investigate the problem raised and is not therefore in a position to answer the question at the moment. It would ask the Honourable Member to provide more details.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2507/96 by Hugh KERR to the Commission. Commission reports on school provision for gypsy and traveller children and for children of occupational travellers
Date: 1996-09-23
Institutions: European Parliament, KERR
Subjects: European Commission, children's rights, education policy, itinerant trade, report, schooling, translation













EUR-Lex - 91996E2507 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2507

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2507/96 by Hugh KERR to the Commission. Commission reports on school provision for gypsy and traveller children and for children of occupational travellers  


Official Journal C 365 , 04/12/1996 P. 0118 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-2507/96 by Hugh Kerr (PSE) to the Commission (23 September 1996)Subject: Commission reports on school provision for gypsy and traveller children and for children of occupational travellersIn its report 'The Education of Migrants' Children in the European Union' COM(94)80 the Commission stated that it expected to publish the following reports in 1993:1. School Provision for Gypsy and Traveller Children ((OJ C 153, 21.6.1989, p. 3. ))2. School Provision for Children of Occupational Travellers ((OJ C 153, 21.6.1989, p. 1. )).Would the Commission explain the long delay in the publication of these reports and when can we finally expect these important reports to be published?Joint answer to Written Questions P-2505/96 and P-2507/96 given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (8 October 1996)In its answer to the written question P-90/96, the Commission informed the Honourable Member of the schedule for finalising the translations and the procedures for adopting and publishing the two reports, dealing respectively with school provision for gypsy and traveller children and school provision for children of occupational travellers. These reports, covering four years of intense work in this field (1991-94), analyse and evaluate the policies conducted by the Member States and the Commission, and contain proposals for developing Europe-wide cooperation in this connection.The translations are now ready and the two reports should be adopted shortly by the Commission. They will thus be presented to Parliament and the Council in the next few weeks.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2449/96 by Gian BONIPERTI , Antonio TAJANI , Carlo CASINI to the Commission. Sports check-ups
Date: 1996-09-23
Institutions: BONIPERTI, CASINI CARLO, European Parliament, TAJANI
Subjects: EU law, competence of the Member States, disease prevention, health control, health legislation, health policy, medical examination, professional sport, public health, sports body













EUR-Lex - 91996E2449 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2449

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2449/96 by Gian BONIPERTI , Antonio TAJANI , Carlo CASINI to the Commission. Sports check-ups  


Official Journal C 060 , 26/02/1997 P. 0147 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2449/96 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (23 September 1996)Subject: Sports check-upsIn view of the fact that the footballer Nwankwo Kanu, who played for the winning team in the Atlanta Olympics, had his life saved by a thorough medical check-up required by Inter Milan, an Italian sports club, for all its athletes before they undertake any sporting activity;since Kanu's serious heart irregularity had never been diagnosed previously because the Dutch club Ajax had not carried out adequate checks;given that there is no Community legislation to date which requires thorough and mandatory check-ups for all sports club members;does the Commission not feel that it should intervene to make it obligatory throughout the European Union for all sports club members, whether professional or amateur, to undergo check-ups for the benefit of all European citizens who engage in sporting activity?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (25 October 1996)The question of medical checks for sportsmen, whether professionals and or members of sports clubs, is for the Member States to address.It should be noted, however, that health surveillance for workers, and medical surveillance for certain categories of workers, is the object of Community provisions, pursuant to Article 118 of the EC Treaty and Articles 31 and 32 of the Euratom Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2468/96 by Johanna MAIJ-WEGGEN to the Commission. Support for the ILO's IPEC
Date: 1996-09-23
Institutions: European Parliament, MAIJ-WEGGEN
Subjects: EU Member State, European Commission, International Labour Office, International Labour Organisation, Pakistan, child labour, child protection, children's rights, international convention













EUR-Lex - 91996E2468 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2468

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2468/96 by Johanna MAIJ-WEGGEN to the Commission. Support for the ILO's IPEC  


Official Journal C 091 , 20/03/1997 P. 0006 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2468/96 by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Commission (23 September 1996)Subject: Support for the ILO's IPECIs the Commission supporting the ILO's very positive 'International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour' (IPEC) and, if so, how much money is involved?Which of the EU Member States support the IPEC, and how much money is involved?Is the Commission supporting any other projects aimed at outlawing child labour? If so, what projects, in what countries and how much money is involved in each project?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (21 November 1996)In its Communication on the link between the trading system and internationally recognised labour standards ((COM(96) 402 final. )), the Commission, with the aim of encouraging respect of fundamental social rights, including the elimination of child labour, advocates a strengthening of the role played by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) in monitoring the implementation of the international labour conventions and expresses its support for the ILO's technical assistance programmes and, in particular, the IPEC (International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour).In the framework of bilateral cooperation, the Commission, in collaboration with the ILO, is currently preparing a pilot project which will be co-financed under the IPEC in Pakistan and will aim to eliminate child labour in that country.On the question of the Member States' support for the IPEC, the report presenting the 1996-1997 schedule and budget, published by the ILO in October 1995, indicates that several Member States, including Belgium, Germany, Spain and France, have given financial support (p. 38).
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2466/96 by Francisca SAUQUILLO PÉREZ DEL ARCO to the Commission. Situation of children
Date: 1996-09-23
Institutions: European Parliament, SAUQUILLO PEREZ DEL ARCO
Subjects: EU aid, EU programme, child protection, children's rights, family policy, living conditions, marginalisation, marital status, report, social analysis













EUR-Lex - 91996E2466 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2466

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2466/96 by Francisca SAUQUILLO PÉREZ DEL ARCO to the Commission. Situation of children  


Official Journal C 060 , 26/02/1997 P. 0147 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2466/96 by Susan Waddington (PSE) to the Commission (23 September 1996)Subject: Situation of childrenThe Treaty on European Union (TEU) contains no provisions on the protection of Europe's 120 million children, a growing number of whom are at risk of social exclusion.Does the Commission have any plans to introduce programmes or adjust existing programmes with a view to ensuring acceptable living conditions for children, independently of the employment situation of their parents?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (16 October 1996)The communication from the Commission on family policies ((COM(89) 363 final. )) had proposed regular concertation at Community level which should cover the impact of other Community policies on the family, notably on child protection and take account of activities within the Council of Europe and other international organizations more particularly concerning the International Convention on the rights of the child.Under budget line B3-4100 (family policy), the Commission finances the European observatory on national family policies. This observatory's annual reports contain chapters on families under stress, which includes child abuse (mostly taking place within the family) and violence in the family. These reports are disseminated to key persons in the political and social fields in all Member States.Furthermore, a number of projects have been cofinanced under the same budget line, including research on the situation of children in Europe, and the support of non governmental organizations active in this field.Under budget line B3-4103 (poverty and social exclusion), the Commission has supported a number of model actions and projects aimed to help children affected by social exclusion.However, it is the Member State authorities which are mainly responsible both for combating social exclusion, and for promoting family policies.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1833/96 of 23 September 1996 amending Regulation (EC) No 1318/96 derogating from Regulation (EEC) No 2456/93 as regards public intervention
Date: 1996-09-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: average price, award of contract, beef, market prices, market support, price increase













EUR-Lex - 31996R1833 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



31996R1833

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1833/96 of 23 September 1996 amending Regulation (EC) No 1318/96 derogating from Regulation (EEC) No 2456/93 as regards public intervention  


Official Journal L 243 , 24/09/1996 P. 0023 - 0023 





COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1833/96 of 23 September 1996 amending Regulation (EC) No 1318/96 derogating from Regulation (EEC) No 2456/93 as regards public intervention THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 805/68 of 27 June 1968 on the common organization of the market in beef and veal (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1588/96 (2), and in particular Article 6 (7) thereof,Whereas the first sentence of Article 14 (1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2456/93 of 1 September 1993 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 as regards public intervention (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 307/96 (4), lays down the amount of the increase to be applied to the average market price in order to calculate the maximum buying-in price; whereas, given the current difficulties faced by the beef sector, the current increase should be adjusted to take account of the increased costs and reduced receipts affecting the sector; whereas the amount should be increased by ECU 3 for the second invitation to tender of September 1996;Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Beef and Veal,HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:Article 1 The following Article 1a is hereby added to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1318/96 (5):'Article 1aNotwithstanding the first sentence of Article 14 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2456/93, the increase applicable to the average market price shall be ECU 13 per 100 kg carcase weight.`Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.It shall apply to the second invitation to tender of September 1996.This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.Done at Brussels, 23 September 1996.For the CommissionFranz FISCHLERMember of the Commission(1) OJ No L 148, 28. 6. 1968, p. 24.(2) OJ No L 206, 16. 8. 1996, p. 23.(3) OJ No L 225, 4. 9. 1993, p. 4.(4) OJ No L 43, 21. 2. 1996, p. 3.(5) OJ No L 170, 9. 7. 1996, p. 26.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2455/96 by Nel van DIJK to the Commission. Lynx outlawed in the Netherlands
Date: 1996-09-23
Institutions: European Parliament, VAN DIJK
Subjects: Netherlands, environmental protection, exchange of information, national law, protected species, protection of animal life, protection of plant life, wildlife













EUR-Lex - 91996E2455 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2455

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2455/96 by Nel van DIJK to the Commission. Lynx outlawed in the Netherlands  


Official Journal C 011 , 13/01/1997 P. 0098 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2455/96 by Nel van Dijk (V) to the Commission (23 September 1996)Subject: Lynx outlawed in the NetherlandsIs the Commission aware that the lynx (Lynx lynx) is once again resident in the Netherlands? ((Algemeen Dagblad, 18.7.1996; Natuurhistorisch Maandblad of the 'Natuurhistorisch Genootschap in Limburg', September 1996 (being printed). ))Is the Commission aware that the Netherlands still has not adopted any measures to protect the lynx, even though the habitats directive ((Council Directive 92/43 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. )) provides for strict protection?Is the Commission prepared to call on the Netherlands government to provide statutory protection for the lynx?Is the Commission also prepared to call for statutory protection for the wildcat (Felis silvestris) which is found in the border region of Southern Limburg and Belgium and for which the habitats directive also provides for strict protection?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (16 October 1996)The Commission has approached the Dutch authorities for information on the possible presence in the Netherlands of Lynx lynx and Felis silvestris. It has also asked what strict measures have been taken, where necessary, to protect these two species in accordance with Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.The Commission will examine the matter in the light of the information it receives from the Dutch authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2502/96 by John IVERSEN to the Commission. BSE pronouncement
Date: 1996-09-23
Institutions: European Parliament, IVERSEN
Subjects: animal disease, beef, consumer protection, market prices, public health, scientific committee (EU), single market













EUR-Lex - 91996E2502 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2502

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2502/96 by John IVERSEN to the Commission. BSE pronouncement  


Official Journal C 091 , 20/03/1997 P. 0008 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-2502/96 by John Iversen (PSE) to the Commission (23 September 1996)Subject: BSE pronouncementWhat consequences does the Commission think should be drawn about Director-General Guy Legras for having said about BSE:- 'we should avoid a debate in the scientific committees as any discussion of BSE will inevitably create problems for the market in meat'? Does the Commission agree that, in saying that, he was placing greater importance on stable meat markets than on consumer health?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (11 November 1996)The matter to which the Honourable Member refers is presumably a letter from Mr Legras, Director General for agriculture to Mr Perissich, Director General for the internal market, dated 1 March 1993. At that time France had recently introduced a ban on the use of certain tissues of cattle and sheep in baby food, going beyond the advice of the scientific veterinary committee. The matter had been raised in a meeting of the heads of services of the Member States dealing with food safety. Delegates requested that the matter be referred to the scientific committee for food.The context of the letter was that the scientific veterinary committee had been giving advice consistently to the Commission on bovine spongiform encephalopathy matters since 1989 and, therefore, was the scientific committee with the greatest expertise. In fact the scientific committee for food had created a working party on the matter because the proposal for a directive on babyfood specifically referred to the use of offals. In the event, a joint working group of the two committees examined the matter and the scientific committee for food, at its meeting of 16 and 17 September 1993, confirmed the previous advice of the scientific veterinary committee to the effect that the measures currently in place gave sufficient protection to public health.While giving priority to the protection for public health, the Commission has at the same time a responsibility to manage the beef market. It must, therefore, ensure that measures are appropriate and necessary. It would be irresponsible if the Commission reacted to every new concern or information in a manner which created unnecessary public anxiety and caused serious repercussions for the market.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2460/96 by Gerard COLLINS to the Commission. Airport development in Ireland
Date: 1996-09-23
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: Cohesion Fund, European Regional Development Fund, Ireland, airport, project evaluation, transport infrastructure













EUR-Lex - 91996E2460 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2460

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2460/96 by Gerard COLLINS to the Commission. Airport development in Ireland  


Official Journal C 083 , 14/03/1997 P. 0016 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2460/96 by Gerard Collins (UPE) to the Commission (23 September 1996)Subject: Airport development in IrelandCan the Commission indicate the total amount of Regional Fund money it now expects to invest in the development of Dublin, Cork and Shannon Airports during the lifetime of the 1994-1999 Community Support Framework and the percentage of the total available being invested in each individual airport, furthermore can the Commission also indicate the total amount of Cohesion Fund money being made available to each airport over the same period?Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (15 October 1996)In the context of the Community support framework for Ireland (1994-1999) 23.89 MECU from the European regional development fund (ERDF) have been earmarked for investment in state airports in Ireland.This funding is included in the total ERDF support package of 888 MECU for transport infrastructure in Ireland. Substantial additional investment (in the order of 180 MECU), funded by Aer Rianta, will also take place during the period.No indicative amounts for ERDF support per airport have been established. Individual projects are assessed and considered on their merits. To date, three such projects have been funded, as follows:- Dublin: construction of a new taxiway and continued improvements to Pier A;- Shannon: upgrading of the runway lighting system;- Cork: purchase and fitting out of a new fire tender.Total expenditure on these projects amounted to 3.1 MECU in 1994 and 6.8 MECU in 1995 (50% of which came from the ERDF).There is no indicative a priori allocation of aid from the Cohesion fund to airport projects in Ireland. The aid granted depends firstly on requests for assistance for individual projects being submitted by the Irish government and secondly on the Commission's assessment of the economic merits of the proposals.From April 1993 to date, one project has been assisted by the Cohesion fund. This was the expansion of the cargo terminal at Dublin airport, to which 3.3 MECU in assistance was granted in 1993.