do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 334/97 by José GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL to the Commission. CMO for olive oil: expenditure on production aid in Portugal
Date: 1997-02-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community budget, EAGGF Guarantee Section, European Court of Auditors, Portugal, agricultural expenditure, common organisation of markets, olive oil, production aid













EUR-Lex - 91997E0334 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E0334

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 334/97 by José GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL to the Commission. CMO for olive oil: expenditure on production aid in Portugal  


Official Journal C 367 , 04/12/1997 P. 0016 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0334/97 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)Subject: CMO for olive oil: expenditure on production aid in PortugalThe Court of Auditors' annual report for the financial year 1995 shows that the 1996 budget provided for EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure on olive oil totalling ECU 1781 million. Even though this figure is in line with expenditure between 1991 and 1993, expenditure was far lower in 1995, when it stood at only ECU 812.5 million.Of this expenditure, production aid accounted for ECU 566.5 million and ECU 1547 million in 1995 and 1996 respectively.What is the total figure for expenditure on production aid for olive oil in Portugal?Joint answer to Written Questions E-0320/97, E-0321/97, E-0322/97, E-0323/97, E-0324/97, E-0325/97, E-0326/97, E-0327/97, E-0328/97, E-0329/97, E-0330/97, E-0331/97, E-0332/97, E-0333/97, E-0334/97, E-0335/97, E-0336/97, E-0337/97, E-0338/97, E-0339/97, E-0340/97, E-0341/97, E-0342/97, E-0343/97 and E-0344/97 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (6 March 1997)The Honourable Member will find the figure he requests in the table below. Total Community expenditure under the 1995 and 1996 budgets was 812.5 and 2007.7 million ecus respectively. The discrepancy with the totals in the table largely relates to payments for olive oil promotion action. The 1995 budget is much lower than for 1996 (and 1994) because the 1994/95 prices package included a decision to move the payment date. This meant that the 1995 budget made no provision for 1994/95 marketing year payments but only for outstanding ones from 1993/94.(in MECU)>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 329/97 by José GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL to the Commission. CMO for olive oil: expenditure on refunds in Portugal
Date: 1997-02-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community budget, EAGGF Guarantee Section, European Court of Auditors, Portugal, agricultural expenditure, common organisation of markets, export refund, olive oil













EUR-Lex - 91997E0329 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E0329

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 329/97 by José GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL to the Commission. CMO for olive oil: expenditure on refunds in Portugal  


Official Journal C 367 , 04/12/1997 P. 0015 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0329/97 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)Subject: CMO for olive oil: expenditure on refunds in PortugalThe Court of Auditors' annual report for the financial year 1995 shows that the 1996 budget provided for EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure on olive oil totalling ECU 1781 million. Even though this figure is in line with expenditure between 1991 and 1993, expenditure was far lower in 1995, when it stood at only ECU 812.5 million.Of this expenditure, refunds on olive oil accounted for ECU 38.2 million and ECU 40 million in 1995 and 1996 respectively.What is the total figure for expenditure in respect of refunds on olive oil in Portugal?Joint answer to Written Questions E-0320/97, E-0321/97, E-0322/97, E-0323/97, E-0324/97, E-0325/97, E-0326/97, E-0327/97, E-0328/97, E-0329/97, E-0330/97, E-0331/97, E-0332/97, E-0333/97, E-0334/97, E-0335/97, E-0336/97, E-0337/97, E-0338/97, E-0339/97, E-0340/97, E-0341/97, E-0342/97, E-0343/97 and E-0344/97 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (6 March 1997)The Honourable Member will find the figure he requests in the table below. Total Community expenditure under the 1995 and 1996 budgets was 812.5 and 2007.7 million ecus respectively. The discrepancy with the totals in the table largely relates to payments for olive oil promotion action. The 1995 budget is much lower than for 1996 (and 1994) because the 1994/95 prices package included a decision to move the payment date. This meant that the 1995 budget made no provision for 1994/95 marketing year payments but only for outstanding ones from 1993/94.(in MECU)>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 341/97 by José GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL to the Commission. CMO for olive oil: expenditure on storage measures in France
Date: 1997-02-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EAGGF Guarantee Section, European Court of Auditors, France, agricultural expenditure, common organisation of markets, market intervention, olive oil, storage













EUR-Lex - 91997E0341 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E0341

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 341/97 by José GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL to the Commission. CMO for olive oil: expenditure on storage measures in France  


Official Journal C 367 , 04/12/1997 P. 0018 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0341/97 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)Subject: CMO for olive oil: expenditure on storage measures in FranceThe Court of Auditors' annual report for the financial year 1995 shows that the 1996 budget provided for EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure on olive oil totalling ECU 1781 million. Even though this figure is in line with expenditure between 1991 and 1993, expenditure was far lower in 1995, when it stood at only ECU 812.5 million.Of this expenditure, storage measures had a negative value in 1995, standing at ECU * 94.9 million.What is the total figure for expenditure on storage measures in respect of olive oil in France?Joint answer to Written Questions E-0320/97, E-0321/97, E-0322/97, E-0323/97, E-0324/97, E-0325/97, E-0326/97, E-0327/97, E-0328/97, E-0329/97, E-0330/97, E-0331/97, E-0332/97, E-0333/97, E-0334/97, E-0335/97, E-0336/97, E-0337/97, E-0338/97, E-0339/97, E-0340/97, E-0341/97, E-0342/97, E-0343/97 and E-0344/97 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (6 March 1997)The Honourable Member will find the figure he requests in the table below. Total Community expenditure under the 1995 and 1996 budgets was 812.5 and 2007.7 million ecus respectively. The discrepancy with the totals in the table largely relates to payments for olive oil promotion action. The 1995 budget is much lower than for 1996 (and 1994) because the 1994/95 prices package included a decision to move the payment date. This meant that the 1995 budget made no provision for 1994/95 marketing year payments but only for outstanding ones from 1993/94.(in MECU)>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 302/97 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Structural Funds
Date: 1997-02-13
Institutions: AMADEO, European Parliament
Subjects: EU aid, Structural Funds, eligibility criteria, eligible region, less-favoured region













EUR-Lex - 91997E0302 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E0302

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 302/97 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Structural Funds  


Official Journal C 319 , 18/10/1997 P. 0056 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0302/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (13 February 1997)Subject: Structural FundsThe Court of Auditors' annual report for the financial year 1995 ((OJ C 340, 12.11.1996. )) stressed that the criteria taken into account for determining the regions and areas eligible for Objective 1, 2 and 5b and for Community initiatives mean that more than 50% of the Community population is affected by one or other objective.As a consequence, Community aid measures are to a certain extent spread over a large number of eligible areas. The percentage of the Community population concerned by Objective 1 has risen from 21.7% to 26.6%. For Objective 2 regions, this percentage is 16.8, whereas the limit set by the framework regulation is 15%.What does the Commission intend to do about the fact that coordination between loans and subsidies under the Structural Funds is far from satisfactory?Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (20 March 1997)The areas eligible under the Structural Funds do indeed cover slightly more than half the population of the Community. This reflects an extension of the eligible areas compared with the 1989-93 programming period. It is the result of an appreciably enlarged list of less-developed areas eligible for Objective 1, due in particular to German unification, and of the poor performance of the economy when the lists for Objectives 2 and 5(b) were being drawn up. These circumstances led the Member States to propose a large number of industrial and rural areas in difficulty as eligible for structural funding.On Objective 2, the 15% mentioned is not a set limit but a target. It should be noted in this regard that the percentage geographical cover of the eligible areas remained unchanged between the 1989-93 and 1994-96 periods.The Commission feels that geographical concentration should be increased in future so that assistance from the Structural Funds might be limited to areas affected by the most serious development or conversion problems. This is a necessary condition if Community assistance is to increase in effectiveness.As regards coordination between loans and subsidies, there are improvements which could be made in future. There is, however, no link between the percentage of geographical cover of the areas eligible under the Structural Funds and the choice of loans or subsidies.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 306/97 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Research and technological development
Date: 1997-02-13
Institutions: AMADEO, European Parliament
Subjects: European standard, action programme, financing plan, high-definition television













EUR-Lex - 91997E0306 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E0306

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 306/97 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Research and technological development  


Official Journal C 319 , 18/10/1997 P. 0057 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0306/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (13 February 1997)Subject: Research and technological developmentAccording to the chapter on research and technological development in the Court of Auditors' annual report for the financial year 1995 ((OJ C 340, 12.11.1996. )), the action plan for the introduction of advanced television services, adopted in 1993, is designed to promote the introduction of the wide format with a width/height ratio of 16:9 in normal definition or high definition. A budget of ECU 228 million was provided for this purpose over a period of four years. The appropriations may be allocated to broadcasters who provide television services in the 16:9 format and to producers of television programmes in this format.The action plan will conclude in June 1997. If it is extended, it will be increasingly difficult to speak of start-up aid and clearly permanent financing must be avoided, as it may paralyse rather than mobilize the economic agents concerned.What steps will the Commission take and how will it provide support for independent producers?Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (1 April 1997)The action plan for the introduction of advanced television services in Europe will indeed end on 30 June 1997, as stipulated in Council Decision 93/424/EEC of 22 July 1993 ((OJ L 196, 5.8.1993. )).The Commission will in due course examine the full and independent evaluation of the programme results, one purpose of which is to determine whether it would be useful to extend the plan for a limited period. The Commission will take full account of the observations of the Court of Auditors and of considerations such as those raised by the Honourable Member, particularly the participation of independent programme producers.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 409/97 by Manuel MEDINA ORTEGA to the Commission. URBAN programme
Date: 1997-02-13
Institutions: European Parliament, MEDINA ORTEGA
Subjects: Canary Islands, EU programme, town planning













EUR-Lex - 91997E0409 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E0409

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 409/97 by Manuel MEDINA ORTEGA to the Commission. URBAN programme  


Official Journal C 319 , 18/10/1997 P. 0070 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0409/97 by Manuel Medina Ortega (PSE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)Subject: URBAN programmeWhat will be the sphere of application of the URBAN programme in the Canaries?Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (3 April 1997)In the Canary Islands the Urban Community Initiative is, in line with the Commission's original communication ((OJ C 180, 1.7.1994. )), being implemented in the framework of the Regis Community Initiative. The towns selected are Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (La Isleta district) and Santa Cruz de Tenerife (historic centre).In response to the Commission's communication on prolongation of Urban ((OJ C 200, 10.7.1996. )) the Spanish authorities on 10 January 1997 presented a proposal for a programme now being examined. A decision should be taken in the course of the spring.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 320/97 by José GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL to the Commission. CMO for olive oil: EAGGF expenditure in Spain
Date: 1997-02-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community budget, EAGGF Guarantee Section, European Court of Auditors, Spain, agricultural expenditure, common organisation of markets, olive oil













EUR-Lex - 91997E0320 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E0320

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 320/97 by José GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL to the Commission. CMO for olive oil: EAGGF expenditure in Spain  


Official Journal C 367 , 04/12/1997 P. 0013 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0320/97 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)Subject: CMO for olive oil: EAGGF expenditure in SpainThe Court of Auditors' annual report for the financial year 1995 shows that the 1996 budget provided for EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure on olive oil totalling ECU 1781 million. Even though this figure is in line with expenditure between 1991 and 1993, expenditure was far lower in 1995, when it stood at only ECU 812.5 million.What is the total figure for expenditure in Spain?Joint answer to Written Questions E-0320/97, E-0321/97, E-0322/97, E-0323/97, E-0324/97, E-0325/97, E-0326/97, E-0327/97, E-0328/97, E-0329/97, E-0330/97, E-0331/97, E-0332/97, E-0333/97, E-0334/97, E-0335/97, E-0336/97, E-0337/97, E-0338/97, E-0339/97, E-0340/97, E-0341/97, E-0342/97, E-0343/97 and E-0344/97 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (6 March 1997)The Honourable Member will find the figure he requests in the table below. Total Community expenditure under the 1995 and 1996 budgets was 812.5 and 2007.7 million ecus respectively. The discrepancy with the totals in the table largely relates to payments for olive oil promotion action. The 1995 budget is much lower than for 1996 (and 1994) because the 1994/95 prices package included a decision to move the payment date. This meant that the 1995 budget made no provision for 1994/95 marketing year payments but only for outstanding ones from 1993/94.(in MECU)>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 411/97 by Manuel MEDINA ORTEGA to the Commission. REGIS programme
Date: 1997-02-13
Institutions: European Parliament, MEDINA ORTEGA
Subjects: EU initiative, EU programme, European integration, peripheral region, regional cooperation, single market, vocational training













EUR-Lex - 91997E0411 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E0411

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 411/97 by Manuel MEDINA ORTEGA to the Commission. REGIS programme  


Official Journal C 319 , 18/10/1997 P. 0071 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0411/97 by Manuel Medina Ortega (PSE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)Subject: REGIS programmeWhy has the REGIS programme for the outermost regions not been extended in the way that other Community initiatives have?Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (2 April 1997)The Regis II Community Initiative for the outermost regions of the Community has as its specific objective accelerated adjustment of the economies of these regions to improve their integration into the European internal market, by means of economic diversification, consolidation of links with the rest of the Community, stimulation of cooperation between them and with neighbouring countries, and aid for vocational training. A further aim is where appropriate to increase their capacity to cope with natural disasters.Regis II incorporates some activities formerly covered by the Poseidom, Poseima, Poseican and Regis I programmes and also action under other Community Initiatives carried out in the outermost regions in order to enable them to participate fully in trans-national cooperation networks.The Member States have submitted six operational programmes, all of which have been approved. They are for the Canary Islands, the Azores and Madeira, Martinique, French Guiana, Guadeloupe and Réunion.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 327/97 by José GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL to the Commission. CMO for olive oil: expenditure on refunds in Greece
Date: 1997-02-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community budget, EAGGF Guarantee Section, European Court of Auditors, Greece, agricultural expenditure, common organisation of markets, export refund, olive oil













EUR-Lex - 91997E0327 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E0327

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 327/97 by José GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL to the Commission. CMO for olive oil: expenditure on refunds in Greece  


Official Journal C 367 , 04/12/1997 P. 0014 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0327/97 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)Subject: CMO for olive oil: expenditure on refunds in GreeceThe Court of Auditors' annual report for the financial year 1995 shows that the 1996 budget provided for EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure on olive oil totalling ECU 1781 million. Even though this figure is in line with expenditure between 1991 and 1993, expenditure was far lower in 1995, when it stood at only ECU 812.5 million.Of this expenditure, refunds on olive oil accounted for ECU 38.2 million and ECU 40 million in 1995 and 1996 respectively.What is the total figure for expenditure in respect of refunds on olive oil in Greece?Joint answer to Written Questions E-0320/97, E-0321/97, E-0322/97, E-0323/97, E-0324/97, E-0325/97, E-0326/97, E-0327/97, E-0328/97, E-0329/97, E-0330/97, E-0331/97, E-0332/97, E-0333/97, E-0334/97, E-0335/97, E-0336/97, E-0337/97, E-0338/97, E-0339/97, E-0340/97, E-0341/97, E-0342/97, E-0343/97 and E-0344/97 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (6 March 1997)The Honourable Member will find the figure he requests in the table below. Total Community expenditure under the 1995 and 1996 budgets was 812.5 and 2007.7 million ecus respectively. The discrepancy with the totals in the table largely relates to payments for olive oil promotion action. The 1995 budget is much lower than for 1996 (and 1994) because the 1994/95 prices package included a decision to move the payment date. This meant that the 1995 budget made no provision for 1994/95 marketing year payments but only for outstanding ones from 1993/94.(in MECU)>TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 412/97 by Manuel MEDINA ORTEGA to the Commission. POSEICAN programme
Date: 1997-02-13
Institutions: European Parliament, MEDINA ORTEGA
Subjects: Canary Islands, agricultural product, aid system, cereals, common price policy, supply, world market price













EUR-Lex - 91997E0412 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E0412

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 412/97 by Manuel MEDINA ORTEGA to the Commission. POSEICAN programme  


Official Journal C 367 , 04/12/1997 P. 0021 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0412/97 by Manuel Medina Ortega (PSE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)Subject: POSEICAN programmeWhat progress has been made with the review of the special supply arrangements for the Canaries provided for in the POSEICAN programme?Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (14 April 1997)The Commission is very much alive to the impact of the special supply arrangements laid down by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3763/91 of 16 December 1991 introducing specific measures in respect of certain agricultural products for the benefit of the French overseas departments ((OJ L 356, 24.12.1991. )), Council Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 of 15 June 1992 concerning specific measures for the Azores and Madeira relating to certain agricultural products ((OJ L 173, 27.6.1992. )) and Council Regulation (EEC) No 1601/92 of 15 June 1992 concerning specific measures for the Canary Islands with regard to certain agricultural products. It is aware of the operational difficulties caused throughout 1996 by the relationship between world prices and Community prices for cereals. The Commission would point out, however, that the situation has been improving in recent months.The Commission is carrying out an in-depth study in order to find long-term solutions which, given the complexity of the system, would enable the existing arrangements to be adjusted and which would prevent such situations from arising in the future.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 333/97 by José GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL to the Commission. CMO for olive oil: expenditure on production aid in Italy
Date: 1997-02-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community budget, EAGGF Guarantee Section, European Court of Auditors, Italy, agricultural expenditure, common organisation of markets, olive oil, production aid













EUR-Lex - 91997E0333 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E0333

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 333/97 by José GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL to the Commission. CMO for olive oil: expenditure on production aid in Italy  


Official Journal C 367 , 04/12/1997 P. 0016 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0333/97 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)Subject: CMO for olive oil: expenditure on production aid in ItalyThe Court of Auditors' annual report for the financial year 1995 shows that the 1996 budget provided for EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure on olive oil totalling ECU 1781 million. Even though this figure is in line with expenditure between 1991 and 1993, expenditure was far lower in 1995, when it stood at only ECU 812.5 million.Of this expenditure, production aid accounted for ECU 566.5 million and ECU 1547 million in 1995 and 1996 respectively.What is the total figure for expenditure on production aid for olive oil in Italy?Joint answer to Written Questions E-0320/97, E-0321/97, E-0322/97, E-0323/97, E-0324/97, E-0325/97, E-0326/97, E-0327/97, E-0328/97, E-0329/97, E-0330/97, E-0331/97, E-0332/97, E-0333/97, E-0334/97, E-0335/97, E-0336/97, E-0337/97, E-0338/97, E-0339/97, E-0340/97, E-0341/97, E-0342/97, E-0343/97 and E-0344/97 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (6 March 1997)The Honourable Member will find the figure he requests in the table below. Total Community expenditure under the 1995 and 1996 budgets was 812.5 and 2007.7 million ecus respectively. The discrepancy with the totals in the table largely relates to payments for olive oil promotion action. The 1995 budget is much lower than for 1996 (and 1994) because the 1994/95 prices package included a decision to move the payment date. This meant that the 1995 budget made no provision for 1994/95 marketing year payments but only for outstanding ones from 1993/94.(in MECU)>TABLE>