do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2714/96 by Patricia McKENNA to the Commission. Mutton Island sewage treatment plan in Galway, Ireland
Date: 1996-10-16
Institutions: European Parliament, MCKENNA
Subjects: EC Directive, Ireland, application of EU law, legal action, protected area, protection of animal life, water treatment













EUR-Lex - 91996E2714 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2714

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2714/96 by Patricia McKENNA to the Commission. Mutton Island sewage treatment plan in Galway, Ireland  


Official Journal C 096 , 24/03/1997 P. 0016 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2714/96 by Patricia McKenna (V) to the Commission (16 October 1996)Subject: Mutton Island sewage treatment plan in Galway, IrelandOn 20 February 1996 Commissioner Wulf Mathies wrote to the Irish Minister for the Environment, Mr Brendan Howlin, informing him that no support under the cohesion funds could be provided for the proposed sewage treatment plant at Mutton Island, Galway, as its location was unsuitable from an environmental point of view. However, the Irish authorities have announced that they intend to pursue the project with funding from the Irish exchequer.Mutton Island has been designated a special protection area (SPA) under Council Directive 79/409/EEC ((OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1. )) on the conservation of wild birds. Article 6 of that directive states that no adverse development should be undertaken within an SPA unless there is an alternative solution.In the case of Galway, a report prepared for the Commission by Water Research Consultants (WRC) in Britain, identified the old isolation hospital site at Lough Atalia as environmentally preferable to Mutton Island.In order to ensure that Galway's needs for adequate sewage treatment are met by a plant located at an environmentally appropriate site and the EU directives on nature protection are adhered to, what further action will the Commission be taking to ensure that the Irish authorities' decision to proceed with the Mutton Island project is reversed and that a more suitable site is chosen?Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (14 November 1996)In its decision granting assistance towards a first phase of this project, the Commission expressed reservations concerning the proposed location of the treatment plant on Mutton Island. The Commission has so far received no application in respect of an alternative site.The Commission is aware that the Mutton Island location has been challenged before an Irish court. While this case is pending the Commission will not be making further comments.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2718/96 by Annemarie KUHN to the Commission. The bovine growth hormone rBST
Date: 1996-10-16
Institutions: European Parliament, KUHN
Subjects: animal experimentation, cattle, hormone, import, livestock, marketing restriction, milk, milk product, third country, veterinary legislation













EUR-Lex - 91996E2718 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2718

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2718/96 by Annemarie KUHN to the Commission. The bovine growth hormone rBST  


Official Journal C 091 , 20/03/1997 P. 0025 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2718/96 by Annemarie Kuhn (PSE) to the Commission (16 October 1996)Subject: The bovine growth hormone rBSTIn the EU the use and sale of rBST is prohibited until 31 December 1999. The use of rBST is permitted in a number of non-EU countries.1. Is the Commission aware of instances of milk and dairy products being imported into the EU from countries where rBST is permitted?2. If so, from which countries are milk and dairy products imported?3. What quantities of milk and dairy products are to the Commission's knowledge being imported into the EU from countries where rBST is permitted, and in which Member States are they marketed?Under the terms of decision 90/218/EEC ((OJ L 116, 8.5.1990, p. 27. )), Member States are permitted to carry out limited field tests with rBST.4. To what extent are field tests carried out in the Member States with recombinant growth hormones? Is the marketing of food suffs rules out after each test prohibited? If not, what foodstuffs are permitted to be marketed following these tests?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (11 November 1996)1. Council Decision 94/936/EC ((OJ L 366, 31.12.1994. )) concerning the placing on the market and administration of Bovine Somatotrophin (BST) does not prohibit the import of milk products from non-member countries where the administration of rBST to cattle is authorized.2. Since non-member countries are not required to officially declare whether they authorize the use of BST in cattle, the Commission does not have information indicating all the countries which do so. To its knowledge, the following non-member countries authorize the use of BST: the United States of America, Mexico, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Algeria, Brazil, Costa Rica, Honduras, Jamaica, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, India and Pakistan.3. All Member States import milk products from some of the abovementioned countries. In 1995, the Community imported 5 283 tonnes of milk products from the United States, 5 636 tonnes from the Czech Republic, 2 264 tonnes from Slovakia and 1 810 tonnes from Bulgaria. Imports from the other non-member countries listed in paragraph 2 are non-existent or insignificant.4. To date, no Member State has decided to carry out the limited practical tests on the use of BST provided for in Article 2 of Council Decision 24/936/EC.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2827/96 by Antoni GUTIÉRREZ DÍAZ to the Commission. Privatization of public enterprises
Date: 1996-10-16
Institutions: European Parliament, GUTIERREZ DIAZ
Subjects: competition law, privatisation, public debt, public sector, redemption of public debt













EUR-Lex - 91996E2827 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2827

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2827/96 by Antoni GUTIÉRREZ DÍAZ to the Commission. Privatization of public enterprises  


Official Journal C 072 , 07/03/1997 P. 0082 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-2827/96 by Antoni Gutiérrez Díaz (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (16 October 1996)Subject: Privatization of public enterprisesIs there any legislation, recommendation or guideline of the Commission prohibiting, limiting or laying down conditions regarding the privatization/sale of public enterprises in a Member State for the purpose of reducing the public debt of that State?Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (21 November 1996)With the exception of the competition rules, there are no Community rules prohibiting, limiting or laying down conditions regarding the privatization or sale of public enterprises by a Member State.Transactions linked to the privatization of public enterprises are recorded as financial transactions in accordance with European economic accounting standards and principles (European System of Accounts). Accordingly, privatization receipts have no impact on the general government deficit, but they do reduce the public debt.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2719/96 by Nikitas KAKLAMANIS to the Commission. Conversion of a museum into a mosque
Date: 1996-10-16
Institutions: European Parliament, KAKLAMANIS
Subjects: Christianity, Islam, Türkiye, church, museum, religion













EUR-Lex - 91996E2719 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2719

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2719/96 by Nikitas KAKLAMANIS to the Commission. Conversion of a museum into a mosque  


Official Journal C 083 , 14/03/1997 P. 0055 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2719/96 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (16 October 1996)Subject: Conversion of a museum into a mosqueThe Greek press reports that the Islamic government of Turkey is planning to convert yet another Christian monument into a mosque. The Museum of Maritime Antiquities in Bodrum is housed in a church built by the Knights of St. John in 1415 which was converted into a museum in 1962.How does the Commission intend to respond to this further provocation by the Turkish Government, the latest in a long line of acts of contempt for the Christian tradition in Asia Minor (the most recent being plans to convert Aghia Sofia in Istanbul into a mosque) and what sanctions will it impose to persuade Turkey to comply with rules of conduct befitting a civilized state?Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (26 November 1996)As far as the Commission is aware the Turkish Minister for Cultural Affairs did recently propose converting the church housing the Museum of Maritime Antiquities in Bodrum into a mosque.However, the proposal was abandoned in the wake of vehement opposition in Turkey to the project.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2828/96 by Honor FUNK to the Commission. Trend in producer prices for milk and the trade in milk quota
Date: 1996-10-16
Institutions: European Parliament, FUNK
Subjects: EU Member State, agricultural quota, common agricultural policy, dairy production, producer price, quantitative restriction, reform of the CAP













EUR-Lex - 91996E2828 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2828

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2828/96 by Honor FUNK to the Commission. Trend in producer prices for milk and the trade in milk quota  


Official Journal C 091 , 20/03/1997 P. 0041 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-2828/96 by Honor Funk (PPE) to the Commission (16 October 1996)Subject: Trend in producer prices for milk and the trade in milk quotaThe milk quota provisions apply until the year 2000. The Commissioner responsible has announced that proposals for the reform of the milk sector will be made at the beginning of 1997. In order to assess future measures it is necessary to assess the effects of the 1992 reform on the milk sector. The Commission is therefore asked:1. What has been the trend in producer prices for milk in the Member States since the 1992 agricultural reform?2. How much milk quota has been sold or leased each year since the marketing year 1992/1993 in the individual Member States and what percentage does it represent in terms of the total quota of the Member State concerned?3. Since the 1992/1993 financial year, in the individual Member States, what has been the price trend for the sale or leasing of milk quota?Joint answer to Written Questions P-2828/96 and P-2829/96 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (31 October 1996)1. The producer price for milk with a 3.7% fat content paid in each Member State since 1992 (in national currency per 100 kg) is as follows:>TABLE>2. The Community rules state that, where a farm is sold or let, the reference quantity for that farm has to be transferred with the farm to the purchaser or tenant. Exceptionally, and subject to certain conditions, Member States may authorize reference quantities to be transferred without the corresponding land changing hands. Member States do not inform the Commission of such transfers, with or without land, and the Commission therefore does not have the figures requested by the Honourable Member. For temporary transfers the figures are as follows (in tonnes):>TABLE>Member States not shown in this list do not allow the temporary leasing of milk quotas.3. As Member States do not pass this information on to the Commission, it cannot answer the Honourable Member's question.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2829/96 by Lutz GOEPEL to the Commission. Trend in producer prices for milk and the trade in milk quota
Date: 1996-10-16
Institutions: European Parliament, GOEPEL
Subjects: EU Member State, agricultural quota, common agricultural policy, dairy production, producer price, quantitative restriction, reform of the CAP













EUR-Lex - 91996E2829 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2829

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2829/96 by Lutz GOEPEL to the Commission. Trend in producer prices for milk and the trade in milk quota  


Official Journal C 091 , 20/03/1997 P. 0042 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-2829/96 by Lutz Goepel (PPE) to the Commission (16 October 1996)Subject: Trend in producer prices for milk and the trade in milk quotaThe milk quota provisions apply until the year 2000. The Commissioner responsible has announced that proposals for the reform of the milk sector will be made at the beginning of 1997. In order to assess future measures it is necessary to assess the effects of the 1992 reform on the milk sector. The Commission is therefore asked:1. What has been the trend in producer prices for milk in the Member States since the 1992 agricultural reform?2. How much milk quota has been sold or leased each year since the marketing year 1992/1993 in the individual Member States and what percentage does it represent in terms of the total quota of the Member State concerned?3. Since the 1992/1993 financial year, in the individual Member States, what has been the price trend for the sale or leasing of milk quota?Joint answer to Written Questions P-2828/96 and P-2829/96 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (31 October 1996)1. The producer price for milk with a 3.7% fat content paid in each Member State since 1992 (in national currency per 100 kg) is as follows:>TABLE>2. The Community rules state that, where a farm is sold or let, the reference quantity for that farm has to be transferred with the farm to the purchaser or tenant. Exceptionally, and subject to certain conditions, Member States may authorize reference quantities to be transferred without the corresponding land changing hands. Member States do not inform the Commission of such transfers, with or without land, and the Commission therefore does not have the figures requested by the Honourable Member. For temporary transfers the figures are as follows (in tonnes):>TABLE>Member States not shown in this list do not allow the temporary leasing of milk quotas.3. As Member States do not pass this information on to the Commission, it cannot answer the Honourable Member's question.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2612/96 by Peter CRAMPTON to the Council. Closure of Florence and Pisa airports
Date: 1996-10-16
Institutions: CRAMPTON, European Parliament
Subjects: European Council, Tuscany, air safety, airport, cessation of trading, competence of the Member States, head of State, head of government, public safety, transport safety













EUR-Lex - 91996E2612 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2612

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2612/96 by Peter CRAMPTON to the Council. Closure of Florence and Pisa airports  


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





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2612/96 by Peter Crampton (PSE) to the Council (16 October 1996)Subject: Closure of Florence and Pisa airportsWhy was it necessary to close Florence and Pisa airports for the whole of Friday 21 and Saturday 22 June because of the European Council in Florence? I understand it caused a lot of inconvenience to other travellers.Would it not be possible to make sections of the airports secure without closing them to all other passengers?Answer (17 January 1997)Measures taken to ensure airport security are a matter for the authorities of the Member State concerned. The question should therefore be put to those authorities.The fact is that the practical arrangements for European Council meetings are the sole responsibility of the Member State concerned. For European Councils, the authorities of the host Member State naturally take all the measures they deem necessary to ensure the complete safety of the Heads of State and Government and of others attending such meetings.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2830/96 by Bill MILLER to the Commission. UK Private Finance Initiative and its relationship with structural funds
Date: 1996-10-16
Institutions: European Parliament, MILLER
Subjects: EU programme, European Community, European Regional Development Fund, United Kingdom, aid system, application of EU law, co-financing, private sector













EUR-Lex - 91996E2830 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2830

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2830/96 by Bill MILLER to the Commission. UK Private Finance Initiative and its relationship with structural funds  


Official Journal C 096 , 24/03/1997 P. 0022 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-2830/96 by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission (16 October 1996)Subject: UK Private Finance Initiative and its relationship with structural fundsIs the Commission aware that a scheme known as the Private Finance Initiative is being considered as matching resources for the European Regional Development Fund? The implications of this would be the transfer of ownership of assets part-financed through the ERDF from the public to the private sector and a dislocating impact that private-sector matching may have on public sector capacity to resource projects and programmes. Under the scope of the single programming documents to include private-sector matching funding are the necessary eligibility checks carried out?Has the Commission fully investigated the use of the Private Finance Initiative as a matching resource to ERDF and what guidelines if any it has produced?Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (11 November 1996)The Commission is aware that the private finance initiative (PFI) in the United Kingdom might be considered as matching funding for the European regional development fund (ERDF). The question of transfer of ownership seems not to arise in this case, as the asset part-financed by the ERDF would begin and remain in private sector ownership. This is not inconsistent with the principles of the structural funds, where the private sector has the possibility to be involved. Nevertheless, the circumstances need to be carefully examined when approving the project, defining the grant rate and issuing the offer letter. In particular, compliance with the structural funds regulations and Community policies (e.g. competition) has to be ensured. Moreover, eligibility checks have to be carried out for each project presented for cofinancing by the ERDF.Private sector matching funding cannot result in a modification of the programme (strategy, objectives, priorities, measures, financial plans and conditions of additionality) agreed between the Commission and the Member State and defined in the single programming document.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2814/96 by Raymonde DURY to the Commission. Moonlighting at the Commission
Date: 1996-10-16
Institutions: DURY, European Parliament
Subjects: Belgium, European Commission, labour tribunal, moonlighting, provision of services













EUR-Lex - 91996E2814 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2814

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2814/96 by Raymonde DURY to the Commission. Moonlighting at the Commission  


Official Journal C 072 , 07/03/1997 P. 0081 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-2814/96 by Raymonde Dury (PSE) to the Commission (16 October 1996)Subject: Moonlighting at the CommissionWith more than 18 million unemployed in the European Union, any unemployed person is a potential prey to unscrupulous employers who do not care to comply with the rules on social security payments, particularly since the absence of tax harmonization has encouraged Member State Governments gradually to transfer taxation to captive labour revenue. In some countries the practice of moonlighting now accounts for 20% or more of GDP. It affects employers in all sectors of society, including firms which work for the public authorities - and even for the European public authorities, as witness press reports such as the Carte Blanche' which appeared in the Belgian newspaper 'Le Soir' on 3 and 4 August 1996 under the title 'Moonlighting at the Commission?'What is the Commission's reaction to the state of affairs described in this 'Carte Blanche'?Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (3 December 1996)The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that, in the case referred to in 'Le Soir', the party concerned had been engaged by the Commission as the supplier of a service against payment of a fee.The nature of the employment relationship between the Commission and the party concerned is now being examined by the relevant Belgian courts, for which reason the Commission feels obliged to reserve its position pending their decision.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2591/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Council. Disabled
Date: 1996-10-16
Institutions: AMADEO, European Parliament
Subjects: European social policy, anti-discriminatory measure, disabled person, equal treatment, intergovernmental conference (EU), right to work, social assistance, social rehabilitation, vocational retraining, worker with disabilities













EUR-Lex - 91996E2591 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2591

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2591/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Council. Disabled  


Official Journal C 105 , 03/04/1997 P. 0013 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2591/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Council (16 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 Council 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 (13 February 1997)The Council attaches the greatest importance to the problem raised by the Honourable Member.The Council cannot however comment on the discussions under way in the Intergovernmental Conference, in which it is not a participant.