do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2809/96 by Johannes BLOKLAND to the Commission. Transaction between France Télécom and the French State
Date: 1996-10-25
Institutions: BLOKLAND, European Parliament
Subjects: Economic and Monetary Union, European accounting system, France, Treaty on European Union, budget deficit, capital transfer, national budget, pension scheme, private sector, telecommunications industry













EUR-Lex - 91996E2809 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2809

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2809/96 by Johannes BLOKLAND to the Commission. Transaction between France Télécom and the French State  


Official Journal C 091 , 20/03/1997 P. 0039 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2809/96 by Johannes Blokland (I-EDN) to the Commission (25 October 1996)Subject: Transaction between France Télécom and the French State1. The Financieel Dagblad of 20 September 1996 reported that the pension funds of the privatized France Télécom amounting to FF 37.5 billion were being transferred to the State and that a number of claims on funds were being collected prematurely. According to the report, this accounting jiggery-pokery is taking place to make France ready for EMU next year. Is this report true?2. Are the provisions of the Maastricht Treaty so flexible that a country can help itself to meet the convergence criterion concerning budget deficits by resorting to a transaction of this nature?3. To what extent does this accounting exercise contribute to real convergence, given that it entails an increase in government commitments?Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (27 November 1996)The French civil servants retirement scheme for civil servants employed by France Télécom works on a pay-as-you-go basis, therefore the exceptional payment by France Télécom to the French government involves no financial asset or liability and should be treated as a capital transfer. This exceptional payment of 37 500 million FF will reduce the net borrowing of the general government sector by approximately 0.5% in 1997.The accounting treatment of this exceptional payment as a capital transfer is in conformity with the EC Treaty, the protocol on the Excessive deficit procedure and Regulation 3605/93 which refers to the European system of integrated economic accounts (2nd edition) and which has to be applied for the statistics of the budgetary convergence.The decision on the accounting treatment underlined the exceptional character of this payment. The Commission, when adopting its annual forecast for 1997, stressed this exceptional character in the corresponding footnote.The Commission recalls that the EC Treaty insists on the durability of the convergence required for entry into the third stage of Economic and monetary union.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2831/96 by Gerhard SCHMID to the Commission. Redefinition of areas assisted as part of the joint task entitled 'Improvement of Regional Economic Structures'
Date: 1996-10-25
Institutions: European Parliament, SCHMID
Subjects: Bavaria, European Commission, Germany, eligibility criteria, eligible region, less-favoured region, regional aid













EUR-Lex - 91996E2831 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2831

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2831/96 by Gerhard SCHMID to the Commission. Redefinition of areas assisted as part of the joint task entitled 'Improvement of Regional Economic Structures'  


Official Journal C 072 , 07/03/1997 P. 0083 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2831/96 by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission (25 October 1996)Subject: Redefinition of areas assisted as part of the joint task entitled 'Improvement of Regional Economic Structures'According to the Bavarian Ministry of Economic Affairs, the Commission is planning to delete a third of the areas currently assisted in Bavaria when the areas assisted as part of the joint task are redefined.1. Does the Commission intend to delete the districts (Landkreise) of Rhön-Grabfeld, Wunsiedel, Tirschenreuth, Passau, Bad Kissingen, Hof, Schwandorf and Kronach and the boroughs (kreisfreie Städte) of Passau, Hof, Weiden, Amberg and Schwandorf from the list of areas assisted as part of the joint task? If so, on what criteria were the decisions based?2. Why are areas defined by European rules as 5b areas which are eligible for assistance no longer to receive national assistance?3. According to the Bavarian Government, the Commission is now trying to exercise more influence over the selection of assisted areas than in the past. Would it not be appropriate, given the subsidiarity principle, for the selection to be left to the Bavarian Government and for the Commission merely to establish the framework?Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (18 December 1996)The Commission is conducting a detailed investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member and will inform him of the outcome as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2928/96 by Yves VERWAERDE to the Commission. Action plan 16/9 by channel and category of programme
Date: 1996-10-25
Institutions: European Parliament, VERWAERDE
Subjects: EU aid, European Commission, action programme, communications industry, information technology, new technology, programmes industry, television, television equipment













EUR-Lex - 91996E2928 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2928

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2928/96 by Yves VERWAERDE to the Commission. Action plan 16/9 by channel and category of programme  


Official Journal C 083 , 14/03/1997 P. 0094 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-2928/96 by Yves Verwaerde (PPE) to the Commission (25 October 1996)Subject: Action plan 16/9 by channel and category of programmeBearing in mind that action plan 16/9 had to be drawn up by the Commission, I would like the Commission to provide me with an assessment of the implementation of plan 16/9 by channel and category of programme.Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (20 November 1996)The main barrier to the introduction of wide-screen television is the structural separation between the consumer electronics and television broadcasting sectors. According to a logic which evokes the vicious circle as to which came first: the chicken or the egg?, broadcasters refused to broadcast in line with the 'large-screen standards until receivers were sold in large numbers, whereas the manufacturers of receiving equipment refused to commit themselves to the mass production of receivers before broadcasting began. The first task of the action plan was to break this vicious circle by offering programme broadcasters and producers a financial contribution covering their extra costs. The number of hours that the channels had undertaken to broadcast on the basis of the 'large-screen' standards is 56 648 and the production of programmes (films, etc.) involves almost 20 000 hours. The details of broadcasting by channel and programme can be found in a document sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat-General of Parliament.Overall the action plan may be considered a success. Indeed, the vast majority of the operators in this area now feel that large-screen television is the format of the future. All of the major players in the television industry have invested considerable sums in order to adapt their production and broadcasting studios, while new television production lines have been set up. A large proportion of the new televisions placed on the market are of the wide-screen type and sales of large-screen television sets are growing by between 50 and 60% per year. Whether producers, broadcasters or television manufacturers, those involved have joined in agreement that this success is largely due to the financial support and confidence arising from the Commission's commitment.Despite these good results and some progress made the situation is still fragile. It is forecast that large-screen television will be represented in 1% of households at the end of the action plan. This is below the critical mass needed to ensure growth.
Resolution on the crisis in the EU salmon market
Date: 1996-10-25
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: Norway, import restriction, price stability, sea fish













EUR-Lex - 51996IP1115 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51996IP1115

Resolution on the crisis in the EU salmon market  


Official Journal C 347 , 18/11/1996 P. 0455 





B4-1115, 1116, 1206, 1209 and 1211/96Resolution on the crisis in the EU salmon marketThe European Parliament,- having regard to its resolutions of 15 December 1995 on the crisis in the salmon sector ((OJ C 17, 22.1.1996, p. 467.)) and 16 February 1996 on the crisis in the EU salmon market ((OJ C 65, 4.3.1996, p. 212.)),- having regard to Chapter 4, Articles 112 - 114 of the EEA Agreement entitled 'Safeguard Measures¨, which was the legal basis used for the introduction of a 'Minimum Import Price¨ (MIP) on 15 December 1995,A. whereas, due to an increase of 22% in Norwegian salmon exports to the Union over the last eight months and a consequent 21% reduction in the price of salmon on the Community market, the industry is again in crisis,B. whereas the dumping of Norwegian salmon on the European market, which has been going on since 1989, has resulted in price instability in the EU salmon market, with a knock-on effect on other fish products, especially the white fish market, throughout the European Union,C. whereas anti-dumping and anti-subsidy cases against Norway were opened by the Commission on 31 August 1996 at the request of the Association of Scottish Salmon Growers and this investigation will take a full nine months,D. whereas the market price of salmon is now well below the level at which a minimum price was introduced in December 1995,1. Regrets that the Fisheries Council of 14 October 1996 only covered the question of the crisis in the salmon market under ¨Any other business', and failed to reach any constructive agreement to achieve price stability in the EU salmon market;2. Deplores Member States' failure to propose constructive measures, such as quantitative restriction measures;3. Notes that the last quarter of the year is a particularly critical period in the salmon market, and that EU salmon producers are likely to incur substantial losses unless urgent action is taken;4. Notes that salmon production and processing, especially in Scotland and Ireland, is a vital source of employment, particularly in many rural peripheral maritime areas where there are few alternative job opportunities; points out that price stability is essential for the future of the industry;5. Calls on the Commission to take immediate action to safeguard the future of the salmon industry by reinstating minimum import prices for each specific presentation of salmon followed by quantitative restrictions if necessary;6. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the Norwegian Government.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2833/96 by Jannis SAKELLARIOU to the Commission. European Community Monitoring Mission (ECMM) in Zagreb
Date: 1996-10-25
Institutions: European Parliament, SAKELLARIOU
Subjects: Croatia, European Community, European official, arms trade, fact-finding mission, member country













EUR-Lex - 91996E2833 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2833

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2833/96 by Jannis SAKELLARIOU to the Commission. European Community Monitoring Mission (ECMM) in Zagreb  


Official Journal C 083 , 14/03/1997 P. 0076 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2833/96 by Jannis Sakellariou (PSE) to the Commission (25 October 1996)Subject: European Community Monitoring Mission (ECMM) in Zagreb1. Was the ECMM aware that the acting head of the German delegation, Christoph von Bezold, is paid by the Federal German Intelligence Agency?2. How does the ECMM view the employment of members of the secret service in the mission, given that it is meant to be playing an impartial role between the warring factions?3 a) What was the outcome of the ECMM's investigation following the discovery in the spring of 1994 of ammunition in a consignment of milk destined for the hospital in Bihac?b) Which EU monitors and EU officials were involved in this incident?c) Is the ECMM prepared to make the report on its investigation available to the European Parliament?Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (10 December 1996)The Commission invites the Honourable Member to address his questions to the European Community Monitoring Mission. The Member States provide staff for the Mission; its management is entirely the responsibility of the Council Presidency. The Commission official accredited to the Mission since 1993 was not involved in the incident referred to. The Commission is not in a position to comment on the identity and activities of the other observers.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2863/96 by Anita POLLACK to the Commission. Genetically modified herbicide-resistant plants
Date: 1996-10-25
Institutions: European Parliament, POLLACK
Subjects: environmental impact, genetically modified organism, harmful plant, herbicide, impact study, oil seed rape, plant propagation, scientific research













EUR-Lex - 91996E2863 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2863

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2863/96 by Anita POLLACK to the Commission. Genetically modified herbicide-resistant plants  


Official Journal C 096 , 24/03/1997 P. 0027 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2863/96 by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission (25 October 1996)Subject: Genetically modified herbicide-resistant plantsIs it true that Danish researchers have discovered that genetically engineered oilseed rape has spread its herbicide-resistant genes to a weed called brassica capestris? What is the view of the Commission about this kind of problem?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (13 January 1997)The Commission is aware of the results obtained by Danish researchers showing that genes (in particular herbicide resistance genes) can be transferred from genetically modified oilseed rape Brassica napus to its weedy relative Brassica campestris. The data produced by the Danish research team may also be valid for genetically modified oilseed rape released or marketed under Directive 90/220/EEC ((OJ L 117, 8.5.1990. )) on the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms. There is no evidence that such an event would constitute a risk for the environment, indeed the data produced by the researchers indicated that the plants resulting from such a cross would not be expected to compete successfully with either of the parental plants.It has long been known that B.napus and B.campestris can cross spontaneously in the field, and as such the Danish findings do not reveal new information that would not have been taken into account in the obligatory environmental risk assessment before a consent can be granted under the Directive.The Commission believes that Directive 90/220/EEC contains adequate provisions for the event that new information identifies any previously unforeseen risk arising from a deliberate release of a genetically modified organism. Article 6.6 and Article 16 give competent authorities the power to modify or terminate releases or to prohibit or restrict the sale or use of such products in such instances. However as indicated above, the Danish results do not provide new information not considered in the environmental risk assessment.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2806/96 by Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Anti-dumping procedure in respect of raw cotton fabrics
Date: 1996-10-25
Institutions: European Parliament, MUSCARDINI
Subjects: World Trade Organisation, anti-dumping legislation, import, natural fibre, primary product, third country, trade relations













EUR-Lex - 91996E2806 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2806

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2806/96 by Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Anti-dumping procedure in respect of raw cotton fabrics  


Official Journal C 072 , 07/03/1997 P. 0080 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2806/96 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (25 October 1996)Subject: Anti-dumping procedure in respect of raw cotton fabrics1. Can the Commission say whether it has initiated an anti-dumping procedure in respect of raw cotton fabrics produced in non-Community countries?2. If so:(a) would it not be more appropriate for the procedure to cover the finished fabric and not a product that is the basic material for most European producers of printed and finished fabrics?(b) is not the procedure out of step with an international economic climate in which markets are becoming more globalized and protectionist manoeuvres are being abandoned?Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (13 November 1996)An anti-dumping proceeding was initiated by the Commission on 21 February 1996, following the lodging of a complaint by the Community industry, concerning imports of flat unbleached cotton fabrics containing at least 85% in weight of cotton, originating in Egypt, China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey.The basic anti-dumping Regulation ((Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995. OJ L 56, 6.3.1996. )) only allows the Commission to initiate an investigation - and consequently to propose the imposition of measures - upon presentation of a properly documented complaint by the Community industry. In the absence of a complaint against finished fabrics, there is no legal ground for initiating an anti-dumping proceeding on that product. The only proceeding currently initiated concerning finished cotton fabrics is bedlinen originating in Egypt, India and Pakistan. This proceeding was initiated on 13 September 1996.Finally, the Commission would stress that dumping is an unfair trade practice which is actionable under the World trade organisation (WTO) agreement. The anti-dumping legislation of the Community, which is fully in line with the WTO agreement, is only intended to protect against unfair trade practices and not to disrupt trade relations between the third countries concerned and the Community.
96/634/EC: Commission Decision of 25 October 1996 amending the list of declining industrial areas concerned by Objective 2 as defined by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88
Date: 1996-10-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Investment Bank, Saarland, Structural Funds, aid to industry, declining industrial region, industrial restructuring













EUR-Lex - 31996D0634 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



31996D0634

96/634/EC: Commission Decision of 25 October 1996 amending the list of declining industrial areas concerned by Objective 2 as defined by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88  


Official Journal L 284 , 06/11/1996 P. 0019 - 0019 





COMMISSION DECISION of 25 October 1996 amending the list of declining industrial areas concerned by Objective 2 as defined by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 (96/634/EC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 of 24 June 1988 on the tasks of the Structural Funds and their effectiveness and on coordination of their activities between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (1), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2081/93 (2), and in particular Article 9 (3) thereof,Whereas a clerical error has crept into the Commission Decision 94/169/EC (3) with regard to the name of an industrial area eligible under Objective 2,HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:Article 1 The initial list of declining industrial areas concerned by Objective 2 established on the basis of Article 9 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 is hereby amended by replacing 'Am Staden` with 'Kaninchenberg` in the eligible area of the NUTS level III region of Saarbrücken, Stadtverband.Article 2 This Decision is addressed to the Member States.Done at Brussels, 25 October 1996.For the CommissionMonika WULF-MATHIESMember of the Commission(1) OJ No L 185, 15. 7. 1988, p. 9.(2) OJ No L 193, 31. 7. 1993, p. 5.(3) OJ No L 81, 24. 3. 1994, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2834/96 by Jannis SAKELLARIOU to the Commission. Return flow of EU assistance to the donor countries
Date: 1996-10-25
Institutions: European Parliament, SAKELLARIOU
Subjects: Central and Eastern Europe, EU Member State, EU aid, Germany, Structural Funds, economic and social cohesion, economic consequence, intra-EU trade, statistics













EUR-Lex - 91996E2834 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2834

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2834/96 by Jannis SAKELLARIOU to the Commission. Return flow of EU assistance to the donor countries  


Official Journal C 096 , 24/03/1997 P. 0023 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2834/96 by Jannis Sakellariou (PSE) to the Commission (25 October 1996)Subject: Return flow of EU assistance to the donor countriesAccording to the July 1996 edition of EU-Informationen published by the Commission's office in Germany, ECU 48 of every ECU 100 of European assistance paid to Portugal from 1986 to 1990 benefited the donor countries in the form of return flows.1. Is there any information on the return flow from Portugal to Germany?2. Is there any information on return flows to Germany from other EU recipient countries?3. Is there any information on return flows to Germany from recipient countries in Central and Eastern Europe?Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (19 December 1996)Available studies and evaluations, such as the cohesion report ((COM(96) 388. )), suggest that indirect benefits derived from structural assistance, in the form of imports from Member States which are net payers, are very substantial. However, they do not provide figures concerning the relative share for Germany and other individual Member States for these imports.It is estimated that more than a quarter of the amount transferred via the structural funds to the four cohesion Member States (Greece, Spain, Ireland, Portugal) over the period 1989-1993 returned to the other Member States in the form of imports, and that by 1999 this figure could rise to almost 35%. Concerning Portugal, induced imports from structural assistance represented about a third of the amount transferred in 1993. It is estimated that this will rise to 44% by the end of the 1994-1999 programming period.The Commission does not possess any precise figures concerning return flows to Germany from beneficiary countries in Central and Eastern Europe.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2840/96 by Manuel MEDINA ORTEGA to the Commission. Belgian aid for tomatoes
Date: 1996-10-25
Institutions: European Parliament, MEDINA ORTEGA
Subjects: Belgium, European Commission, State aid, aid to agriculture, application of EU law, fruit vegetable, glasshouse cultivation, production aid













EUR-Lex - 91996E2840 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2840

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2840/96 by Manuel MEDINA ORTEGA to the Commission. Belgian aid for tomatoes  


Official Journal C 096 , 24/03/1997 P. 0024 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2840/96 by Manuel Medina Ortega (PSE) to the Commission (25 October 1996)Subject: Belgian aid for tomatoesWhat measures does the Commission plan to take regarding the aid recently granted by the Belgian Government to its tomato producers?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (14 November 1996)The Commission assumes the Honourable Member refers to a state aid concerning the glasshouse sector for vegetable growers in financial difficulties, aid no N 1043/95. That aid was notified by the Belgian authorities in accordance with the provisions of Article 93(3) EC Treaty and subsequently accepted by the Commission, in July 1996, on the basis of Article 92(3)c.Commission policy for aid of this type, namely agricultural safeguard aid, is currently being examined. If on the basis of this work the Commission concludes that change is needed it would initiate the procedure under Article 93(1) EC Treaty. Until any such change is made the Commission has decided to maintain its current policy.