do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2752/96 by Anita POLLACK to the Commission. Sierra Leone
Date: 1996-10-21
Institutions: European Parliament, POLLACK
Subjects: European Development Fund, Lomé Convention, Sierra Leone, Stabex, financial aid, food aid, humanitarian aid, non-governmental organisation













EUR-Lex - 91996E2752 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2752

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2752/96 by Anita POLLACK to the Commission. Sierra Leone  


Official Journal C 083 , 14/03/1997 P. 0062 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2752/96 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (21 October 1996)Subject: Sierra LeoneHow much aid does the EU give Sierra Leone and can the Commission provide a breakdown of what the aid is used for and who it is channelled through (i.e. NGOs or government)?Answer given by Mr Pinheiro on behalf of the Commission (15 November 1996)Community aid to Sierra Leone is granted essentially through the provisions of the Lomé Convention. Grants under the 7th European development fund (1990-1995) amounted to 77 MECU. In addition, Sierra Leone benefitted during the same period from the structural adjustment facility (12 MECU), Stabex transfers (some 11 MECU) for loss of earnings in the coffee and cocoa sectors, humanitarian aid (16.4 MECU since 1993) and food aid (World food programme regional operations).With the exception of humanitarian aid and food aid, the majority of grant assistance is channelled through government. Under the 7th European development fund, the main projects funded have concerned infrastructure (road and electricity rehabilitation), rural development (agriculture, water supply, sanitation and microprojects) and technical assistance. Aid has also been provided to support the holding of elections in February and March 1996.Due to the insecurity within Sierra Leone in recent years, increasing emphasis has been placed on the role and activities of non governmental organizations (NGOs). Through Community humanitarian aid funds (over6 MECU in 1996 alone), assistance has been provided to NGOs for medicine, food, shelter and sanitation to assist them in relieving the suffering of thousands of displaced communities. NGOs will continue to play an important role in Sierra Leone as aid is focussed less on emergency relief and more on resettlement, rehabilitation and development.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2784/96 by Eryl McNALLY to the Commission. Research into paedophilia
Date: 1996-10-21
Institutions: European Parliament, MCNALLY
Subjects: EU programme, child protection, medical research, psychology, public health, sexual violence













EUR-Lex - 91996E2784 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2784

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2784/96 by Eryl McNALLY to the Commission. Research into paedophilia  


Official Journal C 096 , 24/03/1997 P. 0019 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2784/96 by Eryl McNally (PSE) to the Commission (21 October 1996)Subject: Research into paedophiliaIn the light of the recent events in Belgium, does the Commission not agree that research should be carried out into what makes a paedophile?Answer given by Ms Gradin on behalf of the Commission (3 December 1996)The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that research into the causes and treatment of paedophilia might be useful to combat this problem. The new programme of targeted socioeconomic research, part of the Fourth Research Framework Programme, will include comparative educational research, for example into the psychological profiles of paedophiles, their psychological or medical treatment and methods of monitoring and rehabilitating them. As part of this programme, the Commission is also planning a seminar for researchers in the field of paedophilia, with a view to improving understanding of the subject and, ultimately, helping the Commission to define more clearly the details of its research activities in this area.Finally, the subject of paedophilia could be dealt with under two headings of the work programme of the biomedicine and health research programme, Biomed:- firstly, research into health services and public health. A project on the prevention of child abuse, involving 10 centres in 9 different Member States, is currently under way as part of the Biomed 2 programme (1994-98);- secondly, research into bioethics. A call for proposals for research in a number of areas, including this one, has been made.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2777/96 by Georges BERTHU to the Commission. IGC: reduction of costs for businesses as a result of monetary union
Date: 1996-10-21
Institutions: BERTHU, European Parliament
Subjects: EU Member State, cost analysis, currency convertibility, economic consequence, economic convergence, market stabilisation, monetary union, type of business













EUR-Lex - 91996E2777 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2777

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2777/96 by Georges BERTHU to the Commission. IGC: reduction of costs for businesses as a result of monetary union  


Official Journal C 072 , 07/03/1997 P. 0079 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2777/96 by Georges Berthu (I-EDN) to the Commission (21 October 1996)Subject: IGC: reduction of costs for businesses as a result of monetary unionWhen the Treaty on European Union was adopted, it was asserted that monetary union would reduce the costs borne by companies by an overall amount of FF 150 billion for all the participating Member States. This figure is still being quoted (for example, in the Commission information bulletin of December 1995 on a frontier-free Europe).Would the Commission state whether this estimate still holds true? What impact would a lower number of participants in monetary union have on this figure?Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (29 November 1996)In its publication 'One market, one money', ((European Economy, No 44, October 1990. )) the Commission took the view that, once in place, economic and monetary union (EMU) would alleviate the cost burden on firms via the following mechanisms:- elimination of the costs of converting one Community currency into another, making for estimated savings of over ECU 15 billion a year;- savings on transaction costs put at between 0.1% and 0.2% of gross domestic product (GDP) in the large Member States and at 0.9% of GDP in the smaller Member States, whose economies are more open;- removal of exchange-rate uncertainties; savings here are difficult to quantify but surveys among managements indicate that these uncertainties have a negative effect.All in all, potential savings are currently estimated at ECU 30 billion, or 0.5% of Community GDP.Then there are the gains - also difficult to quantify - stemming from the adoption of an improved economic policy framework. Stable prices and sound public finances will help to boost growth and employment.The savings that might accrue should some Member States not participate in the euro from the outset have not been quantified, However, the aforementioned study contains a chapter setting out in detail the gains for each Member State and so permits a more in-depth assessment to be made.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2744/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Leghold traps
Date: 1996-10-21
Institutions: AMADEO, European Parliament
Subjects: World Trade Organisation, animal product, environmental protection, hunting regulations, protection of animal life, protection of animals













EUR-Lex - 91996E2744 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2744

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2744/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Leghold traps  


Official Journal C 083 , 14/03/1997 P. 0060 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2744/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (21 October 1996)Subject: Leghold trapsWith reference to the proposal to amend Regulation 3254/91 on the use of leghold traps to catch certain species of wild animal (COM(95) 737 ((OJ C 58, 28.2.1996, p. 17. ))), can the Commission undertake to amend existing agreements with third countries and to negotiate future ones to include a clause containing a joint undertaking to cooperate in promoting environmental protection? Can it also draft, in the near future, a communication concerning the strategies which the EU should develop in the context of the WTO to ensure that the rules safeguarding the environment and public health with regard to the importation of goods are accompanied by the promotion of corresponding environmental protection in the producer countries?Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (29 November 1996)The Commission sees no direct link between the question put by the Honourable Member and the reference made to the proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91 prohibiting the use of leghold traps.As regards promoting environmental protection in the context of the World Trade Organisation, the Commission points out that on 8 March 1996 it presented a communication on trade and the environment to the Council and Parliament. ((COM(96) 54. ))
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2750/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. 1995 report on the internal market
Date: 1996-10-21
Institutions: AMADEO, European Parliament
Subjects: EU control, European treaties, application of EU law, national implementing measure, sanction (EU), single market













EUR-Lex - 91996E2750 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2750

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2750/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. 1995 report on the internal market  


Official Journal C 105 , 03/04/1997 P. 0024 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2750/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (21 October 1996)Subject: 1995 report on the internal marketDespite the progress made in 1995 in the adoption of new decisions concerning the internal market and the application of directives concerning the punishment of infringements by effective penalties and the fact that the guidelines laid down by the Commission are approved, could the Commission draw up a report in the near future on the actual situation in the various Member States?Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (10 January 1997)As stated in its communication of 3 May 1995, ((COM(95) 162 final. )) the Commission will see to it that, from now on, measures whose notification is expressly required by Community provisions stipulate the relevant penalties, and calls on the Member States to notify, within the context of monitoring the transposal and implementation of Community law, all relevant information regarding their systems of penalties. Such monitoring is designed among other things to verify that Member States have taken all the necessary steps to guarantee the scope and effectiveness of Community law, notably by ensuring that the penalty chosen is effective, proportionate and dissuasive.If the monitoring exercise reveals shortcomings in the national systems of penalties, the Commission may institute proceedings for failure to comply with the obligations resulting from the Treaty. Such proceedings, which are based on Article 169 of the Treaty, have already been referred to in the annual report on monitoring the application of Community law, the thirteenth edition of which - covering 1995 - has now been published. ((OJ C 303, 14.10.1996. ))The Commission is not planning to draw up a report that would duplicate the annual report on monitoring the application of Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2745/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Leghold traps
Date: 1996-10-21
Institutions: AMADEO, European Parliament
Subjects: Canada, Russia, United States, framework agreement, fur-bearing animal, hides and furskins industry, hunting regulations, protection of animals, third country













EUR-Lex - 91996E2745 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2745

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2745/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Leghold traps  


Official Journal C 072 , 07/03/1997 P. 0077 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2745/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (21 October 1996)Subject: Leghold trapsWith reference to the Council regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91 prohibiting the use of leghold traps in the Community and the introduction into the Community of pelts and manufactured goods of certain wild animal species originating in countries which catch them by means of leghold traps or trapping methods which do not meet international humane trapping standards (COM(95)737 ((OJ C 58, 28.2.1996, p. 17. ))), can the European Commission ensure that in its negotiations with the producer countries a 'transparency clause' will be included for the benefit of consumers, on the basis of which the skins and pelts imported will be accompanied by a statement concerning the hunting and/or killing methods, including reference to the places where the animals were caught and/or raised?Joint answer to Written Questions E-2743/96, E-2745/96 and E-2746/96 given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (27 November 1996)The Commission takes note of the Honourable Member's suggestions, which relate to the current negotiations with Canada, the United States and Russia for a framework agreement on humane trapping methods. In accordance with Article 228 of the Treaty, the Commission is negotiating for the Community on the basis of negotiating directives received from the Council in June, directives which draw heavily on the conclusions set out in the final report delivered by the expert working party on 20 June.The Commission would furthermore point out that it adopted, on 13 December last year, a proposal amending Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91 for transmission to the Council. ((COM(95) 737 final. )) This proposal contains provisions concerning the introduction into the Community of pelts and manufactured goods of certain species, including specific provisions on pelts and products obtained through trapping by indigenous peoples. The proposal also includes a timetable of measures to be taken by the Commission, measures which depend primarily on the progress made in the above negotiations.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2729/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Farm prices for 1996-1997
Date: 1996-10-21
Institutions: AMADEO, European Parliament
Subjects: GATT, agricultural guidance, aid per hectare, common organisation of markets, farm price support, farm prices, international market, reform of the CAP, set-aside













EUR-Lex - 91996E2729 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2729

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2729/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Farm prices for 1996-1997  


Official Journal C 096 , 24/03/1997 P. 0017 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2729/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (21 October 1996)Subject: Farm prices for 1996-1997The guiding principle of the farm price package is, above all, to continue, stabilize and simplify the reform of the CAP. The chief adjustments to be made concern: the set-aside rate for arable land, cereals, proteins, linseed, pulses, rice, sugar, olive oil, flax, wine, milk and milk products, beef and veal, lamb and mutton, goatmeat and tobacco.Whilst the Commission's proposals allow the EU's obligations under the GATT agreement to be met, they do not provide an adequate response to the problems experienced by producers.Will the Commission therefore supplement them, in the light of international market trends, the world food situation, the new Farm Bill, and recent or intended moves to open up markets to third country products which are in direct competition with some EU products, for which the proposed price freeze can no longer be conditional on implementing the reforms announced for products in the respective COMs in specific regions?Joint answer to Written Questions E-2729/96 and E-2844/96 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (12 December 1996)The points raised by the Honourable Member relate to the Commission's agricultural price proposals for 1996/97. Each year, these proposals review the decisions to be taken on agricultural products subject to a market organization in the light of the economic and commercial circumstances and the budgetary rules. These proposals have a smaller impact on agricultural prices as such than in the past since, in general, sectoral reforms have resulted in direct payments to producers.The Commission accepts that in future multi-annual programming may be more appropriate than annual revisions, as it stated in its study on alternative strategies on the future accession of the countries of central and eastern Europe. ((CSE(95) 607. )) A number of measures have been taken to encourage the non-food use of agricultural products, including the possibility of cultivating land set aside under Council Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops. ((OJ L 181, 1.7.1992. )) As a result of the experience gained, the Commission does not at present intend to consider substantially amending its scope.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2725/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. European Guarantee Fund for the audiovisual sector
Date: 1996-10-21
Institutions: AMADEO, European Parliament
Subjects: EU aid, EU financing, European Investment Fund, audiovisual industry, film industry, guarantee













EUR-Lex - 91996E2725 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2725

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2725/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. European Guarantee Fund for the audiovisual sector  


Official Journal C 083 , 14/03/1997 P. 0056 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2725/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (21 October 1996)Subject: European Guarantee Fund for the audiovisual sectorThe establishment of a European guarantee fund for the cinema and television industry will act as a catalyst for promoting the industry, with the loan guarantees triggering a chain reaction which will amplify the financial impact of the fund since the resources released will amount to several times the size of the fund's capital base.AS the level of funding earmarked is limited, will the Commission examine the possibility of establishing a margin of coverage for finance, ranging between 20% and 50& , so that the fund can be used for a larger number of productions, thereby spreading the financial risk of investment and providing an incentive for greater participation by banks?Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (29 November 1996)The risk cover provided by the Guarantee Fund will be up to 50% of the amount loaned by financial institutions to production and distribution companies. It may of course be less than that. The size of the contribution will be decided by the European Investment Fund (which manages the Guarantee Fund) on the basis of the type and degree of commercial risk involved in the project.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2741/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Quality wines produced in specified regions
Date: 1996-10-21
Institutions: AMADEO, European Parliament
Subjects: Council of the European Union, EU production, consumer protection, derogation from EU law, labelling, product designation, proposal (EU), sparkling wine, vinification, wine of superior quality













EUR-Lex - 91996E2741 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2741

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2741/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Quality wines produced in specified regions  


Official Journal C 096 , 24/03/1997 P. 0018 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2741/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (21 October 1996)Subject: Quality wines produced in specified regionsWith reference to the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 823/87 laying down special provisions relating to quality wines produced in specified regions (COM(95)744 ((OJ C 74, 14.3.1966, p. 12. ))) and the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 2332/92 on sparkling wines produced in the Community (COM(95)744 ((OJ C 74, 14.3.1966, p. 16. ))), whilst approving the Council proposal to establish a minimum period of time for fermentation, we would request, as a general rule, that in order to safeguard the consumer, quality wines p.s.r. or quality sparkling wines p.s.r. should contain exclusively viticultural products originating in the specific region whose name they bear and that, furthermore, with reference to the two proposals in question, the names should be included in a Commission list. The management committee should either decide to insert them in the list or decide that the transitional measures have expired.Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (6 November 1996)The Commission informs the Honourable Member that the Council has already adopted the proposals referred to in his written question.On 26 June 1996 the Council adopted Regulations (EC) No 1426/96, 1427/96, 1428/96 and 1429/96 ((OJ L 184, 24.7.1996. )) laying down special provisions relating to quality wines produced in specified regions (quality wines psr), laying down general rules for the description and presentation of wines, for sparkling wines produced in the Community, and laying down general rules for the description and presentation of sparkling and aerated sparkling wines.The Council has reasserted the Honourable Member's view that as a general rule, a quality wine psr or a quality sparkling wine psr should contain exclusively viticultural products originating in the specific region whose name they bear. It has therefore, exceptionally, extended a Member State's option to waive the general rule until 2003 - in very particular instances - provided that the legislation of the Member State so provided before 1 September 1995.Given that the derogation covers specific cases only, the Council has required Member States to draw up a list of quality wines psr and quality sparkling wines psr involved, and send it to the Commission for publication in the Official Journal.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2743/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Leghold traps
Date: 1996-10-21
Institutions: AMADEO, European Parliament
Subjects: Canada, Russia, United States, framework agreement, fur-bearing animal, hides and furskins industry, hunting regulations, protection of animals, third country













EUR-Lex - 91996E2743 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2743

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2743/96 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Leghold traps  


Official Journal C 072 , 07/03/1997 P. 0077 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2743/96 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (21 October 1996)Subject: Leghold trapsArticle 3 of Regulation No 3254/91 ((OJ L 308, 9.11.1991, p. 1. )) bans the importation of certain pelts and manufactured products, unless the Commission has established that a third country has banned the use of leghold traps or has used trapping methods for the thirteen species listed in Annex I which meet internationally agreed humane trapping standards.third countries concerned, tackle the problem of indigenous populations who hunt using traditional methods and the question of appropriate technical assistance to help these populations accept and develop humane trapping methods?Joint answer to Written Questions E-2743/96, E-2745/96 and E-2746/96 given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (27 November 1996)The Commission takes note of the Honourable Member's suggestions, which relate to the current negotiations with Canada, the United States and Russia for a framework agreement on humane trapping methods. In accordance with Article 228 of the Treaty, the Commission is negotiating for the Community on the basis of negotiating directives received from the Council in June, directives which draw heavily on the conclusions set out in the final report delivered by the expert working party on 20 June.The Commission would furthermore point out that it adopted, on 13 December last year, a proposal amending Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91 for transmission to the Council. ((COM(95) 737 final. )) This proposal contains provisions concerning the introduction into the Community of pelts and manufactured goods of certain species, including specific provisions on pelts and products obtained through trapping by indigenous peoples. The proposal also includes a timetable of measures to be taken by the Commission, measures which depend primarily on the progress made in the above negotiations.