do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2640/96 by Iñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO to the Commission. Transfer from agricultural funds to finance the beef and veal sector
Date: 1996-10-15
Institutions: European Parliament, MENDEZ DE VIGO
Subjects: cereals, common organisation of markets, compensatory financing, export refund, export tax, intervention price, minimum price, production aid, restriction on competition, world market price













EUR-Lex - 91996E2640 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2640

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2640/96 by Iñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO to the Commission. Transfer from agricultural funds to finance the beef and veal sector  


Official Journal C 105 , 03/04/1997 P. 0017 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2640/96 by Iñigo Méndez de Vigo (PPE) to the Commission (15 October 1996)Subject: Transfer from agricultural funds to finance the beef and veal sectorA plan to reform the beef and veal sector is currently under discussion in the Agriculture Council. At the meeting of 16 September 1996 a large number of Member States came out against transferring some of the compensation destined for the cereal sector to finance the beef and veal sector.Could the Commission clarify its position on this matter, which is of great importance to European farmers, as they are facing the threat of competition from the American market and would suffer serious consequences were funding for the sector to be reduced?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (19 November 1996)The Commission considers that a cut in the compensatory allowances granted in the cereals sector as part of producer support for certain arable crops is not likely to alter the competitive position of Community farmers on the world market, in particular in relation to US production. This is particularly the case since new US legislation (Fair Act) has involved the replacement of the system of deficiency payments with an aid scheme completely decoupled from production with application of maximum ceilings.Compensatory allowances constitute a part of farmers' income in the form of direct aid and do not affect the formation of prices in the marketplace, which is primarily influenced by the laws of supply and demand. However, in order to guarantee Community price stability, the common organization of the market in cereals sets an intervention price for cereals which is a floor price within the Community; as regards exports, the market organisation provides for an offset mechanism in the form of refunds or levies to compensate for differences between the price on the Community market and the price on the world market.A reduction in compensatory payments would in any case not reduce the incomes of Community producers to a level where they could no longer produce, and so leave the market to US producers, because two thirds of this income comes from sales at market conditions, backed by the safety net of intervention.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2685/96 by José VALVERDE LÓPEZ to the Commission. Expansion of olive-growing in Spain
Date: 1996-10-15
Institutions: European Parliament, VALVERDE LOPEZ
Subjects: World Trade Organisation, agrarian reform, agricultural quota, aid to agriculture, common organisation of markets, environmental protection, olive oil, product quality, regional aid, welfare













EUR-Lex - 91996E2685 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2685

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2685/96 by José VALVERDE LÓPEZ to the Commission. Expansion of olive-growing in Spain  


Official Journal C 091 , 20/03/1997 P. 0022 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2685/96 by José Valverde López (PPE) to the Commission (15 October 1996)Subject: Expansion of olive-growing in SpainIn the light of a forthcoming reform of the COM for oils and fats, the olive-oil producing sector generally favours maintaining the status quo as regards prices, aid and reductions. However, one aspect of great importance for some regions such as Andalusia, with serious economic problems, is the fact that the Commission is preparing to increase the production quota for olive oil, given that olive-growing is particularly suited to the dry conditions to be found in many areas which are not sufficiently fertile for arable crops.In the light of the current situation and the future outlook, it would be important for the sector to know how many hectares of new olive-groves might be included in the new quota to be established, and at the same time it would be advantageous if the new olive groves could be integrated into the afforestation scheme.What ideas can the Commission put forward on these points?Joint answer to Written Questions E-2684/96, E-2685/96 and P-2946/96 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (20 November 1996)The Commission will be discussing the different possible options for a reform of the olive oil common market organisation in the very near future. A document will be transmitted to the Parliament and the Council for discussion before any concrete proposals are finalised.The Commission cannot pre-empt the outcome of its deliberations by answering specific questions on the options but will certainly take the Honourable Member's questions and remarks into account.It must be clear that the new olive oil common market organisation should be simple, more transparent and easier to control than the existing regime. Quality should be at a premium and producers should be targeted as directly as possible. Differences of a regional, social and environmental kind should be taken into account.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2641/96 by Leen van der WAAL to the Commission. Mackerel and horse mackerel catches in Ireland
Date: 1996-10-15
Institutions: European Parliament, VAN DER WAAL
Subjects: Ireland, agro-industry, animal nutrition, animal oil, catch of fish, export, fish product, food consumption, import, quantity of fish landed













EUR-Lex - 91996E2641 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2641

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2641/96 by Leen van der WAAL to the Commission. Mackerel and horse mackerel catches in Ireland  


Official Journal C 105 , 03/04/1997 P. 0018 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2641/96 by Leen van der Waal (I-EDN) to the Commission (15 October 1996)Subject: Mackerel and horse mackerel catches in IrelandIn the Dutch report of the ICES mackerel, horse mackerel, sardine and anchovy working group, Copenhagen, 13-22 August 1996 it is stated that the horse mackerel catch in Ireland in 1995 was about 200 000 tonnes. According to a letter sent to the Visserijnieuws paper on 13 September this figure appears not to be in line with that country's export and stocks figures. It was suggested that the Irish fishermen had registered a considerable part of their mackerel catch as horse mackerel.1. Can the Commission indicate for 1995 the quantities of mackerel or horse mackerel:- caught by the Irish fleet;- landed by Irish fishermen in the Republic of Ireland;- landed by Irish fishermen in other Member States;- exported from the Republic of Ireland;- sold in the Republic of Ireland for domestic consumption;- imported into the Republic of Ireland;- used for the production of fishmeal, fish oil and animal feeding stuffs?2. Can the Commission indicate how much fishmeal, fishoil and animal feeding stuffs using fish as a raw material was produced by Ireland in 1995?3. Can it indicate the quantities of other types of fish used for the production of fish meal, fish oil and animal feeding stuffs?4. Has the Commission undertaken inspections of horse mackerel or mackerel stocks in 1994, 1995 and the first half of 1996 and if so, what were its findings?5. What measures does it intend to take if official figures for catches, exports and stocks in fact indicate that there have been inaccurate catch registrations?Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (14 November 1996)The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat of the Parliament the information and data requested in so far as these are available to the Commission at present.The Commission is aware of apparent inconsistencies between data on landings of mackerel and horse mackerel on the one hand and the figures for imports and exports on the other. The Commission is making inquiries concerning catch registration, landing and transhipments of these species.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2632/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Protection against the dangers of radiation
Date: 1996-10-15
Institutions: AMADEO, European Parliament
Subjects: apparatus based on the use of rays, ionising radiation, medical diagnosis, medical training, public health, public safety, radiation protection













EUR-Lex - 91996E2632 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2632

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2632/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Protection against the dangers of radiation  


Official Journal C 083 , 14/03/1997 P. 0038 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2632/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (15 October 1996)Subject: Protection against the dangers of radiationWith reference to the draft proposal for a Council Directive on health protection of individuals against the dangers of ionizing radiation in relation to medical exposures, replacing Directive 84/466/Euratom (COM(95) 0560).The use of ionizing radiation has made it possible to make substantial progress in the medical field, not only in diagnosis, but also in treatment and prevention. Since the end of the last century, when the use of X-rays was introduced for diagnostic purposes, the increase in the number of radiological units and the many new uses of ionizing radiation have helped to ensure that for the citizens of the European Community medical exposures are the main source of exposure to artificial ionizing radiation.Whilst I agree that the 1984 Directive should be revised as a matter of urgency and that the provisions of the draft directive would soon effectively limit any exposure of the population not justified for medical purposes, could the Commission nevertheless say how it comes about that the above-mentioned Directive, twelve years after its adoption, has not yet been fully applied in all the Member States, in particular as regards the inventory of radiological equipment envisaged in Article 3?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (25 November 1996)Council Directive 84/466/Euratom of 3 September 1984 laying down basic measures for the radiation protection of persons undergoing medical examination or treatment ((OJ L 265, 5.10.1984. )) covers a wide range of matters (training of doctors, dentists and assistants, availability of qualified experts in radiophysics, technical standards, quality criteria and monitoring of installations). This has generally implied that the Member States had to amend or complete relevant national provisions adopted at various administrative levels, which modification and application involve the participation of several social sectors and administrative bodies.In the last years, the Commission has started infringement proceedings against several Member States, seeking a more complete implementation of the Directive. Some cases have been brought before the Court of justice and further proceedings could be instituted in the future on the basis of their outcome.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2664/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Concentration in the mass media
Date: 1996-10-15
Institutions: AMADEO, European Parliament
Subjects: EC Directive, approximation of laws, local media, mass media, national law, ownership, shareholding, single market, television, trade restriction













EUR-Lex - 91996E2664 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2664

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2664/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Concentration in the mass media  


Official Journal C 105 , 03/04/1997 P. 0019 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2664/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (15 October 1996)Subject: Concentration in the mass mediaGiven the implications of the concentration of the information media for the concept of a pluralist society, attention should be drawn to the differences between the various national rules applied and the increasingly obvious detrimental effects of such differences.Some Member States limit any one person's share in a radio service or television channel to 25 or 49%; some limit the number of such services that can be controlled by a single person to 1, 2 or, at the most, 3; others restrict the ability of a proprietor of a newspaper with a circulation above a specified level to control a radio station or television channel. This is a serious obstacle to transfrontier investment, as it leads firms to base their decisions on regulatory rather than economic considerations.Would the Commission introduce common rules at European level to encourage the development of the European information media industry, while guaranteeing an adequate level of protection for freedom of expression in a pluralist society?Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (2 December 1996)The work ((Green Paper on 'Pluralism and media concentration in the internal market: An assessment of the need for Community action' (COM(92) 480 final). Follow-up to the consultation process relating to the Green Paper on 'Pluralism and media concentration in the internal market: An assessment of the need for Community action' (OJ No C 323, 21.11.1994). )) in which the Commission has been engaged for several years on the rules governing media ownership is aimed precisely at finding ways of eliminating the obstacles to the proper functioning of the single market created by disparities between national rules in this area. The work is focusing chiefly on rules which put a maximum limit on the stake that can be acquired in the capital of a broadcasting company and rules limiting the number of media that can be controlled by a given individual. The Commission is now considering the possibility of presenting in the near future a proposal for a directive approximating Member States' rules on media ownership.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2670/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. The 'democratic deficit' in relation to BSE
Date: 1996-10-15
Institutions: AMADEO, European Parliament
Subjects: United Kingdom, agricultural policy, animal disease, consumer information, consumer protection, international sanctions, labelling, public health, scientific committee (EU)













EUR-Lex - 91996E2670 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2670

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2670/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. The 'democratic deficit' in relation to BSE  


Official Journal C 072 , 07/03/1997 P. 0071 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2670/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (15 October 1996)Subject: The 'democratic deficit' in relation to BSEThe 'mad cow' crisis has provided an alarming illustration of the distance between government and citizen; in particular, the Commission has done nothing to restore consumer confidence in relation to the potential threat represented by bovine spongiform encephalopathy.Would the Commission attempt to remedy this democratic deficit by taking emergency measures and introducing as soon as possible a new food policy based on respect for consumers' expectations and preferences with regard to production methods, labelling and monitoring?Answer given by Ms Bonino on behalf of the Commission (2 December 1996)Since the outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in the United Kingdom in 1986, numerous measures of various kinds have been taken at Community level by, or on a proposal from, the Commission for the purpose of safeguarding human health, eradicating BSE in the United Kingdom and preventing it from spreading to other countries.Following the announcement by the United Kingdom authorities on 20 March 1996 that a link between BSE and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease could not be ruled out, even more stringent measures were taken, such as the export ban on British beef products, increases in research grants, the setting-up of a multidisciplinary scientific committee to advise the Commission and coordinate the Commission's scientific committees already involved in consumer protection and the fight against BSE, consultation with consumers' organisations * particularly the Consumers' Committee * and the creation of an interdepartmental group within the Commission to provide better consumer information and restore consumer confidence. These measures will evolve in order to gradually restore confidence in the coming months. A return of consumer confidence is already becoming apparent in the pick-up in beef consumption in the Member States.The Commission is currently drawing up a Green Paper on Community foodstuffs legislation. This will look at production methods, labelling and monitoring, and the Commission will encourage comments and proposals from consumers' organisations.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2688/96 by Dominique BAUDIS to the Commission. Changes in regulations concerning beef and veal
Date: 1996-10-15
Institutions: BAUDIS DOMINIQUE, European Parliament
Subjects: agricultural guidance, agricultural productivity, aid per hectare, aid to agriculture, beef, common agricultural policy, common organisation of markets, policy on agricultural structures, production aid, regional aid













EUR-Lex - 91996E2688 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2688

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2688/96 by Dominique BAUDIS to the Commission. Changes in regulations concerning beef and veal  


Official Journal C 105 , 03/04/1997 P. 0019 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2688/96 by Dominique Baudis (PPE) to the Commission (15 October 1996)Subject: Changes in regulations concerning beef and vealA serious crisis is affecting the production of beef and veal, and swift, radical measures must be envisaged now to restore order to this sector in the European Union.The Council of Ministers of Agriculture has requested urgent consideration of the three-fold proposal for Regulations (COM(96)0422) to amend:1. Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 ((OJ L 148, 28.6.1968, p. 24. )) on the common organization of the market in beef and veal,2. Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 ((OJ L 181, 1.7.1992, p. 12. )) establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 1872/94, and3. Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91 ((OJ L 218, 6.8.1991, p. 1. )) on improving the efficiency of agricultural structures.In view of the situation affecting the farming industry, cannot the Commission split this three-fold proposal so as to put forward, as soon as possible, solely the measures concerning the common organization of the market in beef and veal?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (4 December 1996)In Luxembourg on 30 October 1996, the Council agreed to a compromise involving basically the beef sector, arable crops and agricultural structures pending the agreement of the Parliament.Afterwards the Council meeting on 18 November 1996 agreed a medium-term reform, designed to balance the beef market as a result of the reduction in beef consumption due to consumers' concerns ((OJ No L 296, 21.11.1996. )).Thus changes have been made in Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 separately from the other Regulations mentioned in the question. Therefore, there has been a practical split between the beef proposal and the other two proposals.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2687/96 by Carmen DÍEZ DE RIVERA ICAZA to the Commission. 'Moonlighting' at the Commission
Date: 1996-10-15
Institutions: DIEZ DE RIVERA ICAZA, European Parliament
Subjects: Belgium, European Commission, moonlighting, provision of services, servant (EU), working conditions













EUR-Lex - 91996E2687 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2687

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2687/96 by Carmen DÍEZ DE RIVERA ICAZA to the Commission. 'Moonlighting' at the Commission  


Official Journal C 072 , 07/03/1997 P. 0074 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2687/96 by Carmen Díez de Rivera Icaza (PSE) to the Commission (15 October 1996)Subject: 'Moonlighting' at the CommissionWith reference to the publication of articles in Le Soir on 3 August 1996 and Le Vif/L'Express on 7 June 1996, is it true that there are people actually 'moonlighting' on the Commission's premises in Brussels, or is the Commission able to issue a formal denial of these accusations?Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (3 Decembre 1996)The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question P-2814/96 by Mrs Dury ((See page 81. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2660/96 by Glyn FORD to the Commission. Framework Convention on the Protection of National Authorities
Date: 1996-10-15
Institutions: European Parliament, FORD
Subjects: EU Member State, agreement (EU), exchange of information, national minority, protection of minorities, ratification of an agreement













EUR-Lex - 91996E2660 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2660

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2660/96 by Glyn FORD to the Commission. Framework Convention on the Protection of National Authorities  


Official Journal C 096 , 24/03/1997 P. 0015 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2660/96 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission (15 October 1996)Subject: Framework Convention on the Protection of National AuthoritiesThe Framework Convention on the Protection of National Minorities was opened for signature on 1 February 1995, having been elaborated under the auspices of the Council of Europe. To date it has been signed by some 32 countries, but it has not yet entered into force as only four states have ratified the Convention. Twelve EU Member States have signed the Convention, though none have ratified it.Will the Council state why no EU Member State has yet ratified the Convention? Does it agree that the entry into force of this Convention is desirable, in order to reinforce protection of vulnerable minorities in many European States? Will it state whether the Member States intend to ratify the Convention in the foreseeable future?Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (6 November 1996)The Framework Convention on the Protection of National Minorities is open for signing by states which are members of the Council of Europe. Until its entry into force, it may also be signed by any other country invited to do so by the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers.It is therefore up to the countries concerned to explain why they have not yet ratified the Convention, or when they plan to do so.