do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2897/96 by Juan COLINO SALAMANCA , Jesús CABEZÓN ALONSO to the Commission. Cohesion Fund and Castile and Leon (Spain)
Date: 1996-10-31
Institutions: CABEZON ALONSO, COLINO SALAMANCA, European Parliament
Subjects: Cohesion Fund, Spain, action programme, co-financing, regional development













EUR-Lex - 91996E2897 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2897

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2897/96 by Juan COLINO SALAMANCA , Jesús CABEZÓN ALONSO to the Commission. Cohesion Fund and Castile and Leon (Spain)  


Official Journal C 091 , 20/03/1997 P. 0048 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2897/96 by Juan Colino Salamanca (PSE) and Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (31 October 1996)Subject: Cohesion Fund and Castile and Leon (Spain)What projects have been financed under the Cohesion Fund in the region of Castile and Leon (Spain)?In which projects, including those involving more than one region, has the Autonomous Community of Castile and Leon been included?What are the sums involved in the cofinancing of each individual project?Joint answer to Written Questions E-2897/96, E-2898/96 and E-2965/96 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (28 November 1996)Applications for finance submitted to the Commission are managed by Member State, with the result that there are no regional data on projects financed by the Cohesion Fund.The Commission would ask the Honourable Members to refer to the annual reports of the Cohesion Fund which are sent direct to them and to Parliament's General Secretariat. Annex I to these Reports contains the main points of projects financed by the Cohesion Fund under Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 ((OJ L 130, 25.5.1994. )) and a description of the project and its objectives, its location and the amounts financed.Data on the projects approved in 1996 will be available at the end of this year.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2883/96 by Maartje van PUTTEN , Philippe DE COENE to the Commission. Alternatives to tests on animals
Date: 1996-10-31
Institutions: DE COENE, European Parliament, VAN PUTTEN
Subjects: animal experimentation, monkey, protection of animals, research method













EUR-Lex - 91996E2883 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2883

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2883/96 by Maartje van PUTTEN , Philippe DE COENE to the Commission. Alternatives to tests on animals  


Official Journal C 091 , 20/03/1997 P. 0047 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2883/96 by Maartje van Putten (PSE) and Philippe De Coene (PSE) to the Commission (31 October 1996)Subject: Alternatives to tests on animalsIn its reply to Written Questions E-2174/96 and E-2243/96 ((OJ C 11, 13.1.1997, p. 58. )), the Commission refers to a comprehensive strategy concerning the use of primates as laboratory animals. The Commission also mentions 'a much stronger justification for the use of primates in laboratories'.1. Is the Commission aware of the recent report by the Species Survival Commission of the World Conservation Union (IUCN) which concluded that the most endangered species are the anthropoid apes and apes?2. Can the Commission clarify whether there are any factors at all which are sufficient to justify the use of primates, in view of the IUCN's research findings?3. Where alternatives to tests on animals exist, would it not be true to say that there are no grounds whatsoever for performing tests on primates (animals which are both exotic and specially reared)?4. Is it not, therefore, of the first importance to press on with the further development and validation of those alternatives?5. What extra resources and methods will the Commission use to improve the performance of the European Communities Validation of Alternative Methods Centre?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (19 December 1996)1. - 2. The Commission has not been informed of the report by the Species survival commission of the World conservation union (IUCN) and therefore cannot take position on its conclusions.3. The Commission agrees that tests should not be performed on primates where alternatives exist. However, in spite of considerable efforts which have been put into the development of alternative methods to animal testing, few satisfactory results have been obtained. As a result, when substantial scientific justification is given, tests on primates can be performed.4. The Commission considers it important to press on with the development and validation of alternative methods and will make every effort in this direction.5. The Commission is committed to the support of the European centre for the validation of alternative methods (ECVAM). This is a new activity and it should be given time to develop. Furthermore, it should be stressed that validation is a very advanced discipline, in the forefront of the scientific field, and the expertise available around the world is very limited. Therefore, it is taking some time for ECVAM to reach its full scientific capacity.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2876/96 by Hiltrud BREYER to the Commission. Thermie 1993
Date: 1996-10-31
Institutions: BREYER, European Parliament
Subjects: European Court of Auditors, budgetary control, carry-over of appropriations, distribution of aid, energy technology, fuel, hydrocarbon, renewable energy, research project, short-term monetary support













EUR-Lex - 91996E2876 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2876

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2876/96 by Hiltrud BREYER to the Commission. Thermie 1993  


Official Journal C 105 , 03/04/1997 P. 0031 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2876/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (31 October 1996)Subject: Thermie 1993Follow-up question on the answer of 29 April 1996 to E-0627/96 ((OJ C 217, 26.7.1996, p. 81. )).1. What projects with what regulatory objectives are specifically covered by Project SF 423/93, which is shown on the 1993 list of approved projects with maximum funding of ECU 11 015 539 m for Phases 3 and 4?2. What was the figure for Phases 1 and 2?3. What other phases have been supported or could be supported in the future and with what amounts?Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (7 January 1997)1. Project SF/423/93 is concerned with the operation of a combined cycle of a 250MW gas turbine and the largest circulating fluidized bed burner in the world at the Gardanne thermal power station in France. The circulating fluidized bed allows fuel with a high sulphur content to be burnt while respecting the highest environmental protection standards and without the need for complex auxiliary equipment to remove pollutants.This project meets the objectives of seeking balanced solutions for energy and the environment by combining the best existing technology which can be justified economically. The Chinese authorities recently asked the Commission for technical cooperation in this specific area.2. The Commission allocated ECU 2,26 million for Phase 1 in 1991 and ECU 3,82 million for Phase 2 in 1992.3. A final sum of ECU 2,36 million was allocated to this project in 1995 for the fifth phase. The project is now complete and the thermal power station has been operational since the end of 1995. The cost eligible for a Community grant is about ECU 97 million out of a total cost of ECU 230 million. The Community grant amounts to nearly ECU 20 million.The brochure on this project is being sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat-General of Parliament.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2890/96 by David BOWE to the Commission. Packaging
Date: 1996-10-31
Institutions: BOWE, European Parliament
Subjects: Denmark, EU law - national law, European Commission, application of EU law, beverage, packaging, preparation for market, waste, waste disposal, waste management













EUR-Lex - 91996E2890 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2890

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2890/96 by David BOWE to the Commission. Packaging  


Official Journal C 083 , 14/03/1997 P. 0085 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2890/96 by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission (31 October 1996)Subject: PackagingA recent life cycle analysis undertaken for the Danish Government came to the conclusion that aluminium beverage cans might be considered acceptable for use, whilst steel cans would not. However, an independentstudy reached the opposite conclusion. In the light of this, does the Commission have any plans to re-examine the evidence which is being used to support the Danish ban on aluminium and steel beverage cans, and if not, why not?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (16 December 1996)Since 1 July 1996 Member States have to comply with the requirements set out in Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste ((OJ L 365, 31.12.1994. )).The Commission is in the process of examining the national legislation communicated by the Member States. As regards Denmark, the Commission has not yet completed this process. However, the Commission is of the opinion that in principle, Directive 94/62/EC does not allow Member States to implement a total ban of certain kinds of packaging provided that they comply with the essential requirements laid down in Articles 9, 11 and Annex II to this Directive. Such requirements may in principle be met both by aluminium and steel beverage cans. Therefore the Commission does not consider that, as regards the legal implications of Directive 94/62/EC, the two materials should be treated differently.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3039/96 by Bernd LANGE to the Commission. Protective clothing for motorcyclists - test procedure for protectors
Date: 1996-10-31
Institutions: European Parliament, LANGE
Subjects: European standard, accident prevention, protective equipment, technical standard, testing, two-wheeled vehicle













EUR-Lex - 91996E3039 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E3039

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3039/96 by Bernd LANGE to the Commission. Protective clothing for motorcyclists - test procedure for protectors  


Official Journal C 091 , 20/03/1997 P. 0064 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-3039/96 by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission (31 October 1996)Subject: Protective clothing for motorcyclists - test procedure for protectorsAs a means of improving protective clothing for motorcyclists, what are known as protectors are increasingly being incorporated into such clothing. In accordance with the EC 1995 standard, these protectors undergo testing.1. Is such a static test, entailing the impact of metal on metal, a suitable way of simulating possible accident scenarios?2. Does the sole criterion for protectors (hardness) not also give rise to injury risks for the wearer?3. Should a test and a standard not cover a body-related impact absorption area and be based on a more comprehensive simulation of possible accident scenarios?Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (28 November 1996)When protectors are incorporated into clothing to protect certain parts of the body (elbows, shoulders, knees, etc.), they must be regarded as personal protective equipment and must therefore conform to the amended Directive 89/686/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to such equipment. ((Directive 89/686/EEC (OJ L 399, 30.12.1989), as amended by Directives 93/68/EEC (OJ L 220, 30.8.1993), 93/95/EEC (OJ L 276, 9.11.1993) and 96/58/EC (OJ L 236, 18.9.1996). ))1. Protectors are generally made of plastic and are intended to disperse impact over the body. To the Commission's knowledge they are not made of metal. They are subject to EC-type examination, conducted by a notified body. Appropriate tests are carried out taking account of possible accident scenarios to verify that they conform to the relevant provisions of Directive 89/686/EEC. If it is shown that they meet the essential requirements of this Directive, then they bear the CE marking.2. Protectors have rounded edges and are designed to minimise risks of injury. Furthermore, they are made of materials which disperse impact or absorb energy so as to mitigate the consequences of accidents.3. It is extremely difficult to predict which areas of the body will absorb kinetic energy resulting from accident impact. Together with the parties concerned, in particular the manufacturers and the notified bodies, the Commission will consider the possibility of simulating accidents with a view to improving protectors.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3031/96 by José APOLINÁRIO to the Commission. Fishing in South Africa
Date: 1996-10-31
Institutions: APOLINARIO, European Parliament
Subjects: Portugal, South Africa, association agreement (EU), fishing agreement, negotiation of an agreement (EU)













EUR-Lex - 91996E3031 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E3031

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3031/96 by José APOLINÁRIO to the Commission. Fishing in South Africa  


Official Journal C 096 , 24/03/1997 P. 0051 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-3031/96 by José Apolinário (PSE) to the Commission (31 October 1996)Subject: Fishing in South AfricaPortuguese owners of long-range fishing vessels are firmly convinced that the association agreement between the EU and South Africa should be linked to fishing opportunities. Can the Commission give a progress report on this matter, particularly in the context of the commitments given to Portuguese shipowners by Members of the Commission?Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (29 November 1996)In September 1995, the Commission received authorisation from the Council to negotiate a fisheries agreement with South Africa. The Commission is therefore ready to discuss with the South African authorities the real possibilities that exist for reaching an agreement of benefit to both sides.When visiting South Africa in May this year, the Commissioner for fisheries stressed that there were very clear negotiating instructions from the Council, which had indicated on the subject of liberalising trade in fishery products that this should depend on progress made in the parallel talks on a separate fisheries agreement.The Commissioner's meetings at political level in South Africa confirmed that the South African authorities will need to pursue a policy in this field which is essential for this matter to be settled. The South African authorities are in fact preparing to publish a White Paper by the end of this year.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2873/96 by Hiltrud BREYER to the Commission. Thermie 1993
Date: 1996-10-31
Institutions: BREYER, European Parliament
Subjects: EU financing, carry-over of appropriations, closing of accounts, distribution of aid, energy technology, energy use, fuel, project evaluation, renewable energy, research project













EUR-Lex - 91996E2873 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2873

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2873/96 by Hiltrud BREYER to the Commission. Thermie 1993  


Official Journal C 096 , 24/03/1997 P. 0029 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2873/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (31 October 1996)Subject: Thermie 1993Follow-up question on the answer of 29 April 1996 to E-0627/96 ((OJ C 217, 26.7.1996, p. 81.)).Were 'targeted projects' proposed and/or approved pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation 2008/90 ((OJ L 185, 17.7.1990, p. 1.))? If so:1. what measures are involved?2. what reasons are put forward?Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (7 January 1997)Targeted projects in the field of solid fuels were approved by the Commission in 1993 pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 2008/90 (the Thermie Regulation). ((OJ L 185, 17.7.1990. ))1. Following the call for proposals of 22 June 1993, ((OJ C 171, 22.6.1993. )) the Commission approved two targeted projects on hot-gas cleaning.2. The two projects selected comply fully with the terms of the call for proposals, which was made with the backing of the Thermie Committee.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2894/96 by David BOWE to the Commission. Control of hormones in meat
Date: 1996-10-31
Institutions: BOWE, European Parliament
Subjects: animal breeding, animal production, application of EU law, health control, hormone, livestock farming, meat, veterinary legislation













EUR-Lex - 91996E2894 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2894

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2894/96 by David BOWE to the Commission. Control of hormones in meat  


Official Journal C 105 , 03/04/1997 P. 0034 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2894/96 by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission (31 October 1996)Subject: Control of hormones in meatCould the Commission explain the reasons behind the decision taken by the Agriculture Council on 29 April 1996 to re-enact the ban on hormonal growth promoters and to extend the ban on ß-agonists?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (16 December 1996)Council Directive 96/22/EC ((OJ L 125, 23. 5.1996, p. 3. )) concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and of beta-agonists was adopted on the basis of Commission proposals in October 1993 ((COM(93) 441, OJ C 302, 9.11.1993. )). These proposals were a follow-up to a communication from the Commission to the Council and to Parliament which drew attention to anabolic substances being widely available and illegally used and to Member States' difficulties and deficiencies in taking effective measures. The report highlighted the fact that new and more effective substances were continually being developed and dwelled particularly on beta-agonists, the cause of several serious cases of human poisoning, and their illegal use on a massive scale. The Commission therefore considered it necessary to clarify and consolidate existing Directives as regards the prohibition on the use of hormones as growth promoters and to add beta agonists to the list of prohibited substances (except for certain therapeutic purposes in the case of horses and pets).It should be pointed out to the Honourable Member that Parliament has on several occasions declared itself in favour of a total ban on growth promoters in stockfarming and of such a ban being more closely monitored and checked and of stiffer penalties being imposed in the event of non-compliance. On 18 January 1996, Parliament asked the Commission and the Council to continue opposing the importation into the Community of meat treated with hormones, requested the maintenance of the total ban on the use of growth promoters in stockfarming and, to this end, asked the Council to adopt without delay the Commission proposal on which it had delivered its opinion on 19 April 1994.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2875/96 by Hiltrud BREYER to the Commission. Thermie 1993
Date: 1996-10-31
Institutions: BREYER, European Parliament
Subjects: aid system, eligibility criteria, energy technology, research project













EUR-Lex - 91996E2875 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2875

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2875/96 by Hiltrud BREYER to the Commission. Thermie 1993  


Official Journal C 091 , 20/03/1997 P. 0047 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2875/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (31 October 1996)Subject: Thermie 1993Follow-up question on the answer of 29 April 1996 to E-0627/96 ((OJ C 217, 26.7.1996, p. 81. )).Do projects on the reserve list have priority over new projects previously not classed as eligible for support or which have received support even though they were not on the reserve list?Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (7 January 1997)The projects on a priority list have priority over those on a reserve list under the same or any previous Decision.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2891/96 by David BOWE to the Commission. Control of hormones in meat
Date: 1996-10-31
Institutions: BOWE, European Parliament
Subjects: EC Directive, European standard, export, hormone, meat, meat processing industry, third country, veterinary inspection













EUR-Lex - 91996E2891 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2891

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2891/96 by David BOWE to the Commission. Control of hormones in meat  


Official Journal C 105 , 03/04/1997 P. 0033 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2891/96 by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission (31 October 1996)Subject: Control of hormones in meatCould the Commission list the number, dates and places of checks undertaken in the last three years of third country slaughterhouses which are authorized to produce meat for export to the Union, under the requirements of Directive 86/469/EEC ((OJ L 275, 26.9.1986, p. 36. ))?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (18 December 1996)The Commission has been conducting regular inspection visits since 1980 to slaughterhouses in non-Community countries which export their beef and veal, pigmeat, sheepmeat and horsemeat to the Community.Over the last three years, these visits have followed the schedule given in the table which is being sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.The visits are carried out in principle every year by veterinary inspectors, who check that the establishments concerned meet the requirements of Directive 72/462/EEC ((OJ L 302, 31.12.1972. )) and Directive 86/469/EEC concerning the examination of animals and fresh meat for the presence of residues
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2907/96 by Mihail PAPAYANNAKIS to the Commission. Hygienic disposal of waste on Aegina
Date: 1996-10-31
Institutions: European Parliament, PAPAYANNAKIS
Subjects: Aegean Islands, EU aid, Structural Funds, balance of payments assistance, maritime transport, mode of transport, waste management













EUR-Lex - 91996E2907 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2907

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2907/96 by Mihail PAPAYANNAKIS to the Commission. Hygienic disposal of waste on Aegina  


Official Journal C 083 , 14/03/1997 P. 0087 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2907/96 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (31 October 1996)Subject: Hygienic disposal of waste on AeginaOne of the problems of the island of Aegina is the management of its waste. To the present day, the waste has to be transported by the ferry linking the island with Athens to be buried on landfill sites in Attica. The situation is unsavoury, particularly during the summer months, and there are a great many complaints both from the residents themselves and from tourists travelling with the refuse.1. Do the Commission's plans for funding hygienic landfill sites for waste disposal include such a site for Aegina? and2. if so, has a location been chosen for the site which meets all the necessary criteria?Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (3 December 1996)The Greek authorities have not submitted any scheme under the Structural Funds, or more particularly the regional programme for Attica, to include financing of hygienic landfill sites on Aegina. No funding can be provided in the absence of such a proposal.