do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3027/96 by Ernesto CACCAVALE to the Commission. State aid for the Italian national airline, Alitalia
Date: 1996-10-31
Institutions: CACCAVALE, European Parliament
Subjects: Italy, State aid, air transport, control of State aid, transport company













EUR-Lex - 91996E3027 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E3027

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3027/96 by Ernesto CACCAVALE to the Commission. State aid for the Italian national airline, Alitalia  


Official Journal C 083 , 14/03/1997 P. 0111 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-3027/96 by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Commission (31 October 1996)Subject: State aid for the Italian national airline, AlitaliaThe Italian finance bill for 1997 includes proposals to allocate enormous sums of money to IRI, the Institute for Industrial Reconstruction, to fund the recapitalization of Alitalia.If carried through, this will be a flagrant breach of the provisions of the Treaty of Rome under Articles 92 to 94, governing state aid to public undertakings which distorts competition and affects trade between Member States.Will the Commission exercise its powers under Article 93(2) of the Treaty and notify the Italian Government that it should abandon this proposal?Will the Commission propose to the Council, after consulting Parliament, further regulations to enforce Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty of Rome?Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (28 November 1996)In late July 1996 the Italian authorities gave preliminary notification to the Commission of the main elements of the Alitalia restructuring plan.The Commission is currently examining the recapitalization programme of Alitalia within the context of the Article 93(2) EC Treaty procedure. The procedure was opened in this case on 9 October 1996 and the text of the opening of the procedure is being published to permit comments from interested third parties. In accordance with the procedure the Commission will assess whether the transactions between Italy and Alitalia conform with normal commercial practices. If the Commission reaches the conclusion that Alitalia has received state aid it will examine whether it may be considered as compatible with the common market under Article 92(3)(c) of the EC Treaty.The Commission has not decided whether or not to make proposals for regulations concerning the application of Articles 92 and 93. It will take a decision in the light of the debate on this subject that took place in the Industry Council on 14 November 1996.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2867/96 by Hiltrud BREYER to the Commission. Thermie 1993
Date: 1996-10-31
Institutions: BREYER, European Parliament
Subjects: aid system, budget appropriation, budgetary control, distribution of aid, energy technology, project management, research project, short-term monetary support













EUR-Lex - 91996E2867 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2867

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2867/96 by Hiltrud BREYER to the Commission. Thermie 1993  


Official Journal C 091 , 20/03/1997 P. 0046 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2867/96 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission (31 October 1996)Subject: Thermie 1993Follow-up question on point 2 of the answer of 29 April 1996 to Question E-0627/96 ((OJ C 217, 26.7.1996, p. 81. )).According to point 2, a total of ECU 174 m was made available, including ECU 31.6 m for associated measures under Article 5, Annex V and ECU 4.3 m for implementation measures under Article 11 of Regulation 2008/90, giving a total of ECU 35.9 m for associated measures.According to Annex V of Regulation (EEC) No 2008/90 ((OJ L 185, 17.7.1990, p. 1. )), an indicative amount of 10-15% of the total appropriation is estimated for associated measures, i.e. between ECU 17.4 and 26.1 m giving an overspend of between ECU 5.5 and 14.2 m above the indicative amount. There is no set indicative amount for implementation measures, so there may have been an overspend of up to ECU 18.5 m on associated measures.1. How have these costs come about?2. What is the legal basis for this overspend?Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (7 January 1997)1. Annex VI to Regulation (EEC) No 2008/90 (Thermie programme) ((OJ L 185, 17.7.1990. )) gives a percentage range of the total budget appropriation for associated measures for the full duration of the programme, and not for each year as the Honourable Member's question would seem to suggest.The appropriations used each year have fluctuated depending on the needs in each financial year. Table 1.4.1 in the report on the application of the Thermie programme ((COM(95) 665 final. )) shows that ECU 106 million has been spent on associated measures over the duration of the programme out of total available appropriations of ECU 707 million, i.e. 15%.2. The legal basis which allows the Commission to exceed these limits is Article 18(2) of the above Regulation, which stipulates that the indicative breakdown in the Regulation may be modified by decision of the Commission, once the committee has delivered a favourable opinion. The Commission has regularly informed and consulted the Member States on all aspects related to the application of the programme, in accordance with the procedures defined in Articles 9 and 10 of the Regulation. In view of the above overall results, it has not needed to make use of the possibility provided for in Article 18.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2110/96 of 31 October 1996 amending Regulation (EC) No 1832/96 setting export refunds for fruit and vegetables
Date: 1996-10-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: export licence, export refund, fruit, vegetable













EUR-Lex - 31996R2110 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



31996R2110

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2110/96 of 31 October 1996 amending Regulation (EC) No 1832/96 setting export refunds for fruit and vegetables  


Official Journal L 282 , 01/11/1996 P. 0058 - 0060 





COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2110/96 of 31 October 1996 amending Regulation (EC) No 1832/96 setting export refunds for fruit and vegetablesTHE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of 18 May 1972 on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables (1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1363/95 (2), and in particular Article 26 (11) thereof,Whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 1832/96 (3), fixes the quantities which may be covered by applications for export licences other than food and aid;Whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/95 of 28 June 1995 on implementing rules for export refunds on fruit and vegetables (4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2702/95 (5), lays down the criteria for establishing the quantities for which export licences may be issued; whereas those quantities should also be adjusted in the light of the situation on the market; whereas, in the interests of transparency, exporters should be informed of the updated position with regard to those quantities;Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fruit and Vegetables,HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:Article 1 Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1832/96 is hereby replaced by the Annex to this Regulation.Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.Done at Brussels, 31 October 1996.For the CommissionFranz FISCHLERMember of the Commission(1) OJ No L 118, 20. 5. 1972, p. 1.(2) OJ No L 132, 16. 6. 1995, p. 8.(3) OJ No L 243, 24. 9. 1996, p. 17.(4) OJ No L 145, 29. 6. 1995, p. 68.(5) OJ No L 280, 23. 11. 1995, p. 30.ANNEX 'ANNEX IIRATES AND QUANTITIES FOR LICENCES WITHOUT ADVANCE FIXING OF THE REFUND>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2898/96 by Jesús CABEZÓN ALONSO to the Commission. Cohesion Fund and Cantabria (Spain)
Date: 1996-10-31
Institutions: CABEZON ALONSO, European Parliament
Subjects: Cantabria, Cohesion Fund, Spain, action programme, co-financing, regional development













EUR-Lex - 91996E2898 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2898

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2898/96 by Jesús CABEZÓN ALONSO to the Commission. Cohesion Fund and Cantabria (Spain)  


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





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2898/96 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (31 October 1996)Subject: Cohesion Fund and Cantabria (Spain)What projects have been financed under the Cohesion Fund in the region of Cantabria (Spain)?In which projects, including those involving more than one region, has the Autonomous Community of Cantabria been included as a beneficiary of investment?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. 2889/96 by David BOWE to the Commission. Steel aid code
Date: 1996-10-31
Institutions: BOWE, European Parliament
Subjects: Belgium, ECSC Treaty, EU Member State, European Commission, State aid, aid to industry, application of EU law, control of State aid, exchange of information, iron and steel industry













EUR-Lex - 91996E2889 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2889

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2889/96 by David BOWE to the Commission. Steel aid code  


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





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2889/96 by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission (31 October 1996)Subject: Steel aid codeWould the Commission clarify its position as regards its recent investigation of the Forges de Clabecq iron and steelworks, and would it define what action it plans to take, if it is decided that the planned payment to the company from the Walloon Regional Government contravenes the steel aid code?Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (21 November 1996)The Commission decided on 18 September 1996 to open the procedure provided for in Article 6.4 of Commission Decision No 3855/91/ECSC of 27 November 1991 ((OJ L 362, 31.12.1991. )) (Steel aid code). This decision was published ((OJ C 301, 11.10.1996. )) to give other Member States and interested parties notice to submit their comments on the case within one month of the date of publication.When the Commission has gathered all the information necessary, it will take a final decision on the nature of the Belgian intervention in favour of Forges de Clabecq. If it constitutes state aid, it is likely to be considered incompatible and Belgium will be invited to conform with such a decision. Article 6.4 of the Steel aid code provides for Article 88 of the ECSC Treaty to apply in the event of a Member State's failing to comply with such a decision.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2912/96 by Salvador GARRIGA POLLEDO to the Commission. Integrated system of aid
Date: 1996-10-31
Institutions: European Parliament, GARRIGA POLLEDO
Subjects: animal disease, cattle, database, disease prevention, health legislation, livestock, veterinary inspection, veterinary legislation













EUR-Lex - 91996E2912 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2912

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2912/96 by Salvador GARRIGA POLLEDO to the Commission. Integrated system of aid  


Official Journal C 091 , 20/03/1997 P. 0049 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2912/96 by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE) to the Commission (31 October 1996)Subject: Integrated system of aidThe Commission's report (COM(96)0174) on the application of the integrated system of aid refers to a number of different systems for identifying live animals (especially bovines).The Commission provides for three types of identification, of which the most efficient is also the most expensive.The possible consequences at the present moment, in the midst of the 'mad cow' crisis, of an inadequate system of identification of bovine animals and controls over their movements, would be disastrous.Does the Commission intend to recommend to the Member States that they adopt the most efficient (although most expensive) system of identification?Has the additional cost of adopting this system been estimated?Would any recommendation or requirement in this sense be advisory or binding?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (25 November 1996)The Commission has submitted to the Council a proposal for a regulation obliging Member States to establish a comprehensive identification and registration system for bovine animals ((Doc. COM(96) 460 final. )). The proposed system provides for double tagging of animals, a central computerized data base in each Member State which records details of the animals as well as their movements, a passport for each animal and registers of animals kept on each holding. Whilst the type of system proposed in the regulation may be the most costly option identified in its report ((Doc. COM(96) 174. )) the Commission considers that such a complete system is necessary for the effective monitoring of premium payments, the control of diseases and the rapid tracing of animals in the event of an outbreak of diseases and for fraud prevention. Community co-cinancing of expenditure incurred in putting such systems into place is not foreseen.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2886/96 by Wolfgang KREISSL-DÖRFLER to the Commission. Milk exports from Great Britain
Date: 1996-10-31
Institutions: European Parliament, KREISSL-DOERFLER
Subjects: United Kingdom, economic statistics, export, milk product, trade volume













EUR-Lex - 91996E2886 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2886

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2886/96 by Wolfgang KREISSL-DÖRFLER to the Commission. Milk exports from Great Britain  


Official Journal C 011 , 13/01/1997 P. 0113 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2886/96 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (V) to the Commission (31 October 1996)Subject: Milk exports from Great BritainWhat milk products, and in what quantities, have1. entered the individual Member States,2. been exported to non-EU countries (please specify target countries)from Great Britain each year since 1988?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (14 November 1996)In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2903/96 by Jan SONNEVELD , Bartho PRONK to the Commission. 'Black' fishing in the United Kingdom
Date: 1996-10-31
Institutions: European Parliament, PRONK, SONNEVELD
Subjects: United Kingdom, catch of fish, common fisheries policy, fishing controls, fishing regulations













EUR-Lex - 91996E2903 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2903

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2903/96 by Jan SONNEVELD , Bartho PRONK to the Commission. 'Black' fishing in the United Kingdom  


Official Journal C 105 , 03/04/1997 P. 0036 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2903/96 by Jan Sonneveld (PPE) and Bartho Pronk (PPE) to the Commission (31 October 1996)Subject: 'Black' fishing in the United Kingdom1. Is the Commission aware of BBC news broadcasts of 7 October 1996, which included a report on fraud in fisheries in the UK?2. Is it aware that the report claimed that 25% of the fish trade is carried on outside the official channels?3. Can the Commission confirm these figures? If not, can it set up an inquiry into black fishing in the UK and report to Parliament on the result?4. Is the Commission prepared to assist the UK Government in curbing the problem of black fishing, particularly in the light of results achieved in the Netherlands in this area?Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (5 December 1996)1. The Commission is aware of the programme cited by the Honourable Member and of the report that up to 25 per cent of landings are sold outside official channels.2. The Commission is not in a position to confirm the quantity of fish reported in this programme as not being registered in accordance with Community rules. According to information available to the Commission the quantity may however be rather significant.Indeed, in the view of the Commission the control system applied is not fully efficient for coping with the situation where the fishing capacity largely exceeds the available fishing possibilities.3. The whole question of unregistered landings into United Kingdom ports and particularly in Scotland has been examined by both the Commission and the national control services in the past (1994-1995) and highlighted in the Commission's report on monitoring of the common fisheries policy ((Doc. COM(96) 100 final. )).4. The Commission, in the course of missions to the United Kingdom, continues to monitor the efforts of national control authorities to counteract this practice.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2879/96 by Alexandros ALAVANOS to the Commission. Delays in building the Athens metro
Date: 1996-10-31
Institutions: ALAVANOS, European Parliament
Subjects: Community support framework, EU financing, Greece, construction costs, large-scale construction, project management, underground railway













EUR-Lex - 91996E2879 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2879

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2879/96 by Alexandros ALAVANOS to the Commission. Delays in building the Athens metro  


Official Journal C 105 , 03/04/1997 P. 0032 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2879/96 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (31 October 1996)Subject: Delays in building the Athens metroThe current dispute between the government and Olympiako Metro, the consortium carrying out the work, over its demands for more state funding is continuing and threatens to delay the project further.1. What are the specific problems that have arisen in the construction of the Athens metro?2. Does the Commission know how much approximately the Olympiako Metro consortium is seeking in additional funds? and3. Under the contract agreed with the Greek State, which court has jurisdiction to settle the disputes?Joint answer to Written Questions E-2879/96 and E-2981/96 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (3 December 1996)The main construction problems have been caused by archeological discoveries and excavations, and by the failure of the boring machines, because of the soil conditions, to bore the tunnel at Syntagma Square and Karaïskaki Square, leading to the need to use more time-consuming tunneling methods there.The Commission understands that the 'Olympic Metro' consortium has not so far presented a figure for a possible new cost overrun for the project. The consortium has asked for a global renegotiation of the contract (which is a turnkey contract with a lump sum price), without indicating specific issues and figures at this stage. The contract provides that Greek courts are competent for resolving disputes between the contractor and the owner of the project.The delay has no direct effect on the other operations co-financed by the 1994-1999 Community support framework.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2892/96 by David BOWE to the Commission. Control of hormones in meat
Date: 1996-10-31
Institutions: BOWE, European Parliament
Subjects: consumer protection, fresh meat, health control, hormone, import, product quality, third country, veterinary inspection













EUR-Lex - 91996E2892 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2892

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2892/96 by David BOWE to the Commission. Control of hormones in meat  


Official Journal C 096 , 24/03/1997 P. 0032 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2892/96 by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission (31 October 1996)Subject: Control of hormones in meatIs the Commission satisfied that the residue sampling programme undertaken by third countries who are on the list of countries allowed to export fresh meat to the Union provides adequate safeguards to protect the health of European consumers?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (10 December 1996)The checks carried out to verify the guarantees which non-member countries can offer with regard to residue sampling in fresh meat exported to the Community are of three types.Since 1989 each non-member country has drawn up a plan for checks based on laboratory analyses which is submitted to the Member States for their views. This plan is compared with the results of the analyses for the year in question and alterations are requested if necessary.On-the-spot inspections are carried out to ensure that the plan and, where positive results are detected, the measures taken by the national authorities are being implemented. The Commission may take, and, in fact, has already taken, measures against non-member countries where certain shortcomings have been detected.In addition, the Member States check the quality of imported meat and undertake laboratory analyses as part of the physical checks carried out at frontiers. For several years, no Member State has reported to the Commission cases of positive tests or anomalies detected during these checks.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2872/96 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 - 91996E2872 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2872

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2872/96 by Hiltrud BREYER to the Commission. Thermie 1993  


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





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2872/96 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. Why was the Thermie committee not involved in the Commission's decision of 13 December 1993 pursuant to Articles 10(1) and 9(2)(c) of Regulation 2008/90 ((OJ L 185, 17.7.1990, p. 1. )), even though no ranking was fixed on the reserve list?Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (7 January 1997)At its meeting of 3 and 4 June 1993 the Thermie Committee approved setting aside a sum from the 1993 budget for targeted projects resulting from the call for proposals of 22 June 1993. ((OJ C 171, 22.6.1993. )) The Commission Decision of 13 December 1993 was taken with the backing of the Committee.In this regard the Commission refers the Honourable Member to the answer given to written question E-2871/96 ((See page 28. )).