do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2592/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Disabled
Date: 1996-10-11
Institutions: AMADEO, European Parliament
Subjects: anti-discriminatory measure, disabled person, employment policy, equal treatment, marginalisation, social policy













EUR-Lex - 91996E2592 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2592

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2592/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Disabled  


Official Journal C 072 , 07/03/1997 P. 0060 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2592/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (11 October 1996)Subject: DisabledThe disabled account for 10% of the population in the European Union, but the Maastricht Treaty makes no specific reference to disability and the forms of social, cultural, occupational, and economic discrimination arising from it. Bearing in mind that the Intergovernmental Conference to revise the Treaties is now in progress, will the Commission ensure that:1. the Maastricht Treaty harmonizes economic and financial matters in the narrow sense by laying down a provision aimed first and foremost at upgrading social policies, especially for more vulnerable groups, the necessary basis for which already exists in Article 2 of the Agreement on social policy annexed to the Treaty;2. the Treaty is amended with a view to guaranteeing equal opportunities by means of specific references to the disabled in the relevant legislation, especially as regards to the right to care, work, rehabilitation, and reintegration into society;3. the Agreement on social policy is incorporated into the body of the Treaty in order to enhance the credibility of the European institutions and create an appropriate social climate for European integration and economic development?Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (5 November 1996)The Commission supports the inclusion in the EC Treaty of general provisions banning all forms of discrimination, including that based on disability, in areas where the Treaties are applicable.To that end, it feels that the Protocol (No 14) on social policy annexed to the Treaty should be incorporated into the Treaty and strengthened, in particular by:- including special clauses banning all forms of discrimination with regard to employment, working conditions and the fight against social exclusion;- improving the decision-making process in order to make Community action more effective and more democratic in these areas.The Commission will continue to defend these causes throughout the negotiations for amendments in the Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2569/96 by Ernesto CACCAVALE to the Commission. Problems facing tomato producers in Basilicata
Date: 1996-10-11
Institutions: CACCAVALE, European Parliament
Subjects: Basilicata, EU aid, agricultural quota, agro-industry, cannery, fruit vegetable, production aid, vegetable product













EUR-Lex - 91996E2569 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2569

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2569/96 by Ernesto CACCAVALE to the Commission. Problems facing tomato producers in Basilicata  


Official Journal C 083 , 14/03/1997 P. 0029 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2569/96 by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Commission (11 October 1996)Subject: Problems facing tomato producers in BasilicataIn Palazzo San Gervasio and the surrounding area, tomato crops covering approximately 600 hectares which are now ripe cannot be harvested because the processing industry is unwilling to accept them on the grounds that they are not covered by the quota.The Community aid earmarked for tomatoes is allocated directly to the processing industry, which, with a view to achieving full capacity, draws up special preliminary contracts with producers' associations. Such associations, most of which have direct links with the canning industry, tend to conclude contracts over and above the quotas allocated. As a result, it is sometimes impossible to find a market outlet for entire crops, which is what has happened in the case in point.There is obviously something wrong here. There is good reason to assume that either the relevant Community legislation has not been properly transposed into Italian law or the quotas - and, thereby, the aid provided by the Community - are aimed at industry rather than at producers.Would the Commission carry out a check at Community level on the allocation of aid to the canning industry,and can it guarantee that the aid itself will be allocated fairly in the light of the quotas theoretically allocated to producers by means of preliminary contracts?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (25 October 1996)The Community aid scheme for processed tomato products is laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) No 668/93. ((OJ L 72, 25.3.1993. )) Based on a quota scheme per undertaking and product, the Regulation does not apply to quantities produced over and above those laid down; these are directly negotiated between producers and processing undertakings, and do not qualify for Community aid.It is up to the Member State to grant quotas to processing undertakings, verify their registers, check aid requests and then examine the undertakings themselves.For its part, and where the availability of personnel permits, the Commission can carry out checks on the payment of Community aid and the allocation of quotas to processing undertakings.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2575/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Community intervention in the fisheries sector
Date: 1996-10-11
Institutions: AMADEO, European Parliament
Subjects: EU financial instrument, Structural Funds, aquaculture, common fisheries policy, financing policy, fishing fleet, market intervention













EUR-Lex - 91996E2575 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2575

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2575/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Community intervention in the fisheries sector  


Official Journal C 072 , 07/03/1997 P. 0058 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2575/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (11 October 1996)Subject: Community intervention in the fisheries sectorThe proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 3699/93 laying down the criteria and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries and aquaculture sector and the processing and marketing of its products ((OJ C 49, 20.2.1996, p. 9. )) states that, on the basis of an estimate of costs previously recorded by the services for operations of this type, it appears sensible to limit the cost of these measures for each calendar year to ECU 200 000 or 0.5% of the funds provided for in the financial plan for each Member State for the year in question.The proposed limit of 0.5% would appear to be based on experience gained over an extremely short period and does not provide the flexibility required to adjust to the fluctuations which occur from one year to the next.Would the Commission not agree, therefore, that the overall ceiling for FIFG aid for each Member State should be raised to the higher of the following amounts: ECU 400 000 or 1% of the funds provided for in the financial plan for each Member State for the year in question?Answer given by Emma Bonino on behalf of the Commission (28 October 1996)The original proposal amending Council Regulation (EC) No 3699/93 ((OJ L 346, 31.12.1993. )) referred to by the Honourable Member was in fact changed by the Commission after in-depth talks with the Council.This led to the Commission raising the maximum for each calendar year to ECU 350 000, 0.85% of the funds provided for in each Member State's financial plan for the year in question, as provided for in Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 965/96 of 28 May 1996 amending Regulation (EC) No 3699/93 laying down the criteria and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries and aquaculture sector and the processing and marketing of its products. ((OJ L 131, 1.6.1996. ))
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2604/96 by Daniel VARELA SUANZES- CARPEGNA to the Commission. European City of Culture in the year 2000
Date: 1996-10-11
Institutions: European Parliament, VARELA SUANZES-CARPEGNA
Subjects: Community budget, capital city, cultural event, financial aid













EUR-Lex - 91996E2604 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2604

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2604/96 by Daniel VARELA SUANZES- CARPEGNA to the Commission. European City of Culture in the year 2000  


Official Journal C 083 , 14/03/1997 P. 0034 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2604/96 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission (11 October 1996)Subject: European City of Culture in the year 2000Although the choice of European Cities of Culture is a matter for the Council of Ministers and the administration thereof is a matter for the Member States concerned, the Commission has always made a symbolic financial contribution.Because the year 2000 is regarded as special, for the first time a number of cities have been chosen, including - also for the first time - cities in States which are not at present members of the European Union.Given the exceptional nature of this event, which can and should serve to unite Europe further and to disseminate and project Europe's age-old culture on the threshold of a new millennium, and given the new supranational character of the project, involving nine European states, does not the Commission believe that there is every reason for it to take part in this exceptional event and support it with a significant financial contribution?Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (4 December 1996)The Community has contributed, as far as its resources allowed, to the 'European City of Culture', an intergovernmental event, since it began, but it should be emphasized that no Council decision designating the cities refers to any Community support.Moreover, the Commission recalls that, as they stand, the financial perspectives of the Community budget offer little prospect of a substantial increase for Community cultural action.However, the Commission keenly hopes that the Community will give this event all the attention it deserves on account of the symbolic importance of the year 2000.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2579/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Public health monitoring
Date: 1996-10-11
Institutions: AMADEO, European Parliament
Subjects: EU policy, action programme, data collection, data processing, health policy, principle of subsidiarity, public health













EUR-Lex - 91996E2579 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2579

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2579/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Public health monitoring  


Official Journal C 011 , 13/01/1997 P. 0106 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2579/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (11 October 1996)Subject: Public health monitoringThe general purpose of the five-year action programme on health monitoring is to set up a high quality system geared to the establishment of a properly planned health policy. This system is intended to provide Member States with background data and indicators for use in their own health policies and to facilitate the planning, monitoring and assessment of Community programmes and measures, in accordance with the subsidiarity principle.Would the Commission not agree that, with a view to implementing this programme, it should cooperate with the WHO (World Health Organization), the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) and the EMCDDA (European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction), as well as with other European organizations including the European Environment Agency, and that it would be useful to obtain comparable data from non-Community countries?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (7 November 1996)The Commission shares the view of the Honourable Member that it is essential to establish cooperation between the Community and the World health organization, the Organization of economic cooperation and development and other relevant organisations, such as the European monitoring centre for drugs and drug addiction and the European environment agency. The Commission has included relevant provisions in its proposal for a decision adopting a health monitoring programme ((COM(95) 449 final; modified proposal COM(96) 222 final. )).The Commission wishes to emphasize that cooperation in this area already exists with the aforementioned international organisations, as well as with a number of third countries, and it would be further encouraged under the proposed programme.
96/605/EC: Commission Decision of 11 October 1996 amending Council Decision 79/542/EEC drawing up a list of third countries from which the Member States authorize imports of bovine animals, swine, equidae, sheep and goats, fresh meat and meat products (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 1996-10-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: health control, import, livestock, meat, meat product, third country













EUR-Lex - 31996D0605 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



31996D0605

96/605/EC: Commission Decision of 11 October 1996 amending Council Decision 79/542/EEC drawing up a list of third countries from which the Member States authorize imports of bovine animals, swine, equidae, sheep and goats, fresh meat and meat products (Text with EEA relevance)  


Official Journal L 267 , 19/10/1996 P. 0029 - 0029 





COMMISSION DECISION of 11 October 1996 amending Council Decision 79/542/EEC drawing up a list of third countries from which the Member States authorize imports of bovine animals, swine, equidae, sheep and goats, fresh meat and meat products (Text with EEA relevance) (96/605/EC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Directive 72/462/EEC of 12 December 1972 on health and veterinary inspection problems upon importation of bovine, ovine and caprine animals and swine, fresh meat or meat products from third countries (1), as last amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, and in particular Article 3 thereof,Whereas by Council Decision 79/542/EEC (2), as last amended by Commission Decision 96/279/EC (3), a list of third countries from which Member States authorize imports of bovine animals, swine, equidae, sheep and goat, fresh meat and meat products has been established;Whereas the authorities of Tunisia gave guarantees that live equidae to be exported to the Community for immediate slaughter have never been treated with substances having a thyrostatic, oestrogenic, androgenic or gestagenic action;Whereas, it is necessary to modify the Decision 79/542/EEC accordingly;Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:Article 1 Part 1 of the Annex of Decision 79/542/EEC is amended as follows:- in the line concerning Tunisia and in the column for residues, the reference O is replaced by (d).Article 2 This Decision is addressed to the Member States.Done at Brussels, 11 October 1996.For the CommissionFranz FISCHLERMember of the Commission(1) OJ No L 302, 31. 12. 1972, p. 28.(2) OJ No L 146, 14. 6. 1979, p. 15.(3) OJ No L 107, 30. 4. 1996, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2593/96 by Paul RÜBIG to the Commission. Budget for participants in the social dialogue (UNICE, CEEP and ETUC)
Date: 1996-10-11
Institutions: European Parliament, RUEBIG
Subjects: Community budget, allowances and expenses, parental leave, social dialogue (EU), social partners, social policy













EUR-Lex - 91996E2593 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2593

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2593/96 by Paul RÜBIG to the Commission. Budget for participants in the social dialogue (UNICE, CEEP and ETUC)  


Official Journal C 072 , 07/03/1997 P. 0061 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2593/96 by Paul Rübig (PPE) to the Commission (11 October 1996)Subject: Budget for participants in the social dialogue (UNICE, CEEP and ETUC)When the Social Protocol annexed to the Treaty of Maastricht came into force, the role of the European social partners (UNICE, CEEP and ETUC) was redefined. Accordingly, European collective agreements may now be concluded which subsequently acquire the force of law through a decision of the Council of Ministers. In that event, the costs incurred in attendance at meetings are refunded to the social partners.1. What is the amount of these refunds?2. Apart from these refunds, do UNICE, CEEP and ETUC receive other payments from the Community budget?Please specify the budget lines involved.Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (28 November 1996)1. As part of the application of the Agreement on Social Policy annexed (in Protocol No 14) to the EC Treaty, the Commission regularly consults a wide range of organisations (approximately 30) about Community social proposals.Only one set of negotiations has been concluded so far on the basis of these consultations and concerns the reconciliation of family and working life: the Union of Industries of the European Community (UNICE), the European Confederation of Public Enterprises (CEEP) and the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) began negotiations, which, after seven meetings held between July and November 1995 with an average of 40 participants, led to an agreement on "parental leave¨.The allowances for participants who came from places other than Brussels covered the costs of travel in economy class and a flat-rate daily allowance of ECU 110.92.2. Apart from these allowances, the Community budget makes no provision for specific payments for UNICE, CEEP and ETUC to cover participation in the above-mentioned meetings.The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that the existing budget headings (in 1996) for promoting the social dialogue, training or informing the social partners are B3-4000, B3-4001, B3-4002, B3-4003, B3-4004 and B3-4005.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2574/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Sweeteners for use in foodstuffs
Date: 1996-10-11
Institutions: AMADEO, European Parliament
Subjects: EC Directive, drafting of EU law, food inspection, foodstuff, foodstuffs legislation, sweetener













EUR-Lex - 91996E2574 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2574

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2574/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Sweeteners for use in foodstuffs  


Official Journal C 072 , 07/03/1997 P. 0058 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2574/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (11 October 1996)Subject: Sweeteners for use in foodstuffsThe proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive amending Council Directive 95/35/EC on sweeteners for use in foodstuffs (COM(95)0482) seeks to update the two earlier directives adopted in 1994 and adapt them in the light of recent technical and scientific developments.Given that the proposal merely seeks to allow already authorized sweeteners to be used in certain new categories of foodstuffs, would the Commission not agree that, in future, when legislation is simply being amended, it would be advisable first to consult the Standing Committee on Foodstuffs - whose opinions must anyway be adopted by a qualified majority - and only resort to the use of a directive in cases where such a majority is not forthcoming?Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (24 October 1996)The Commission shares the views expressed by the Honourable Member.The matter is currently under consideration within the Commission. Parliament will be associated with any proposed decision in due course.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2558/96 by Riccardo GAROSCI to the Commission. Clashes between events organized by the Commission and part-sessions in Strasbourg
Date: 1996-10-11
Institutions: European Parliament, GAROSCI
Subjects: European Commission, European Parliament, European official, Member of the European Parliament, exchange of information, parliamentary session













EUR-Lex - 91996E2558 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2558

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2558/96 by Riccardo GAROSCI to the Commission. Clashes between events organized by the Commission and part-sessions in Strasbourg  


Official Journal C 072 , 07/03/1997 P. 0056 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2558/96 by Riccardo Garosci (UPE) to the Commission (11 October 1996)Subject: Clashes between events organized by the Commission and part-sessions in StrasbourgThe calendar of the activities and meetings of the European Parliament is drawn up and distributed one year in advance. Despite this, some Directorates-General organize events and conferences - mainly in Brussels - to which Members of the European Parliament are invited (or could be invited) during part-sessions in Strasbourg.Would the Commission state whether the European Parliament's calendar is distributed to its officials and, if so, can it explain exactly why they continue to organize events during the one week of each month when the European Parliament moves to Strasbourg, thus preventing MEPs from taking part in the activities of the Commission?Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (30 October 1996)The Commission can assure the Honourable Member that it circulates to its services the dates of Parliament's plenary sessions in Strasbourg and Brussels as soon as they have been approved by Parliament.The Commission understands the difficulty raised by the Honourable Member and will draw once more the attention of its services to the need to try and avoid organising in Brussels during plenary session weeks activities in which MEPs might have a major interest. However, no absolute guarantee can be given because some activities may well be planned before the sessions calendar has been approved by Parliament and the scheduling requirements of other participants may make the choice of a session week unavoidable.