do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 380/97 by Katerina DASKALAKI to the Commission. Commission draft directive on limiting exhaust emissions
Date: 1997-02-13
Institutions: DASKALAKI, European Parliament
Subjects: EC Directive, air quality, anti-pollution device, motor vehicle, motor vehicle pollution, pollution control measures













EUR-Lex - 91997E0380 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E0380

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 380/97 by Katerina DASKALAKI to the Commission. Commission draft directive on limiting exhaust emissions  


Official Journal C 319 , 18/10/1997 P. 0063 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0380/97 by Katerina Daskalaki (UPE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)Subject: Commission draft directive on limiting exhaust emissionsThe European Parliament is currently studying a draft directive on restricting exhaust emissions from vehicles, which sets new limits for new motor vehicles from 1 January in the Year 2000. This scheme provides for 'green box' technology for On-Board Diagnostics (OBD) - in principle a very positive measure. Access to OBD will be provided by a special device which is compatible with it.Will the Commission say why no provision has been made for a standardized method of access to OBD - as occurs in the USA, for instance - so as to ensure the freedom of choice of consumers regarding vehicle repair and maintenance work and to avoid sharp increases in repair and maintenance costs? Does the Commission intend to amend the draft directive in order to increase consumer protection?Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (2 April 1997)The Commission would ask the Honourable Member to refer to Appendices 3 and 4 to Annex XI to the proposal for a Parliament and Council Directive on measures to be taken against air pollution by emissions from motor vehicles and amending Council Directives 70/156/EEC and 70/220/EEC ((Doc. COM(97) 61. )).Appendix 3 standardizes the interface between garage equipment and 'on-board diagnostics' (OBD), in order to make use of the data stored by the on-board computer, whereas Appendix 4 standardizes the default codes.Precisely the aim of those appendices is to avoid access to the information stored in the OBD requiring special equipment depending upon which model of vehicle is involved.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 335/97 by José GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL to the Commission. CMO for olive oil: expenditure on consumption aid in Spain
Date: 1997-02-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EAGGF Guarantee Section, European Court of Auditors, Spain, agricultural expenditure, common organisation of markets, market support, marketing, olive oil, sales promotion













EUR-Lex - 91997E0335 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E0335

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 335/97 by José GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL to the Commission. CMO for olive oil: expenditure on consumption aid in Spain  


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





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0335/97 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)Subject: CMO for olive oil: expenditure on consumption aid 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.Of this expenditure, consumption aid accounted for ECU 268.6 million and ECU 166 million in 1995 and 1996 respectively.What is the figure for total expenditure on consumption aid for olive oil 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. 303/97 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Eligible areas
Date: 1997-02-13
Institutions: AMADEO, European Parliament
Subjects: EU regional policy, Structural Funds, declining industrial region, eligibility criteria, eligible region, geographical distribution, regional statistics













EUR-Lex - 91997E0303 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E0303

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 303/97 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Eligible areas  


Official Journal C 367 , 04/12/1997 P. 0011 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0303/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (13 February 1997)Subject: Eligible areasThe identification of eligible regions and areas is affected by a variety of factors, including the variable dimensions of administrative territorial units, the lack of homogeneous statistics, the obsolete nature of some of the data, the basis for calculating GDP and the flexibility of some of the criteria used.With regard to determining eligible areas for Objective 2, the Commission's role has been very limited and the basic criteria have been overlooked in favour of secondary criteria that are less transparent, and difficult to quantify or compare.This situation, which has seen a considerable increase in the number of eligible areas, as well as overlapping between them, is affecting the planning, management, monitoring and assessment of the activities as a whole.Does the Commission intend to play a greater role in determining eligible areas under Objective 2?Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (7 April 1997)The eligibility criteria for declining industrial areas under Objective 2 do indeed fall into two groups, with basic criteria on the one hand and supplementary criteria, which can be applied by the Member States, on the other.With regard to the basic criteria, the statistics used are harmonized by the Commission and can, as a result, be used for comparisons between Member States down to level III of the Nomenclature of Territorial Statistical Units (NUTS), or even in some cases below that level.The role of the Commission in drawing up the list of eligible areas for Objective 2 has been reduced since the Council's 1993 reform of the Structural Fund regulations. This largely explains the greater geographical spread of eligible areas. On the other hand, the Commission has ensured that there is no overlapping between eligible areas, in accordance with the regulations in force.As far as the future role of the Commission in this matter is concerned, this is to be addressed during preparatory negotiations for adoption of the future Structural Fund regulations.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 290/97 by Noël MAMERE to the Commission. Policy of 'controlled use' of asbestos
Date: 1997-02-13
Institutions: European Parliament, MAMERE
Subjects: asbestos, health risk, occupational health, occupational safety













EUR-Lex - 91997E0290 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E0290

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 290/97 by Noël MAMERE to the Commission. Policy of 'controlled use' of asbestos  


Official Journal C 319 , 18/10/1997 P. 0052 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0290/97 by Noël Mamère (V) to the Commission (13 February 1997)Subject: Policy of 'controlled use' of asbestosEach year, all the countries in northern Europe devote sizeable budgets to the gradual removal of asbestos from buildings lined with the substance. In other EU countries prevention policy is still, in many cases, applied in a rather timid manner.Has the European Union adopted legislation on the risks arising from the use of asbestos?What action has the Commission taken to promote a total ban on the use of asbestos in the building sector?Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (25 April 1997)Workers have been protected from risks related to exposure to asbestos since 1983 by Council Directive on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to asbestos at work (83/477/EEC ((OJ L 263, 24.9.1983. )) as amended by 91/382/EEC ((OJ L 206, 29.7.1991. ))).This Directive already requires preventive measures and in particular makes activities in which workers may be exposed subject to a notification system administered by the Member State. The Directive prohibits the application of asbestos by means of the spraying process as well working procedures using low-density insulating or soundproofing materials which contain asbestos.A communication of the Commission on the protection of workers from asbestos ((COM(96) 426 final. )) has been sent to the Council and the Parliament. Comments are awaited and the Commission intends to continue its effort towards a strengthened protection of workers.The Commission understands the concerns of the Honourable Member about the dangers to health from asbestos fibres. It recalls that the Community has controlled the marketing of asbestos-containing products since the mid-1980's. Accordingly, all but one of the asbestos fibres are totally banned and fourteen categories of products containing the last remaining fibre, known as chrysotile, are also banned. Other product categories containing chrysotile fall outside the scope of the Community harmonization and should be allowed to circulate freely provided they are properly labelled and subject to Articles 30-36 of the EC Treaty.In 1993 the Commission prepared a draft proposal for a directive to ban asbestos with exemptions. However, no qualified majority could be obtained for the draft proposal. The Commission relaunched discussions on the asbestos question with Member State experts in 1996. The most recent meetings were on 26th July 1996 and 7th November 1996. The Commission intends to examine, as quickly as possible, all the most recent scientific, technical and economical analyses in order to review the policy with regard to asbestos.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 331/97 by José GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL to the Commission. CMO for olive oil: expenditure on production aid in France
Date: 1997-02-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community budget, EAGGF Guarantee Section, European Court of Auditors, France, agricultural expenditure, common organisation of markets, olive oil, production aid













EUR-Lex - 91997E0331 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E0331

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 331/97 by José GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL to the Commission. CMO for olive oil: expenditure on production aid in France  


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





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0331/97 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)Subject: CMO for olive oil: expenditure on production aid 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, 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 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. 247/97 by Hiltrud BREYER to the Council. Transposition of the flora and fauna habitats directive into German law
Date: 1997-02-13
Institutions: BREYER, European Parliament
Subjects: Germany, directive (EU), environmental protection, national implementing measure, protection of animal life, protection of plant life













EUR-Lex - 91997E0247 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E0247

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 247/97 by Hiltrud BREYER to the Council. Transposition of the flora and fauna habitats directive into German law  


Official Journal C 319 , 18/10/1997 P. 0045 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0247/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (13 February 1997)Subject: Transposition of the flora and fauna habitats directive into German law1. How does the Council consider it can prevent further delays in the transposition of the flora and fauna habitats directive into German law?2. Will the Council initiate proceedings for infringement of the Treaty against the Federal Republic of Germany?3. What has been the Council's response to the complaints from the German environment and nature protection association and the Bienwald association?4. Why has the Council not yet succeeded in suspending or breaking off the planning approval procedures for upgrading the B9 road to become the A65 through the Bienwald?5. What other action does the Council plan to take to protect the Bienwald against the planned intervention?Answer (16 May 1997)It is the Commission's responsibility to ensure implementation of the provisions of the Treaties and of the provisions adopted by the institutions pursuant thereto and to initiate the appropriate proceedings if it considers it necessary.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 410/97 by Manuel MEDINA ORTEGA to the Commission. Community environment protection programmes
Date: 1997-02-13
Institutions: European Parliament, MEDINA ORTEGA
Subjects: Canary Islands, Cohesion Fund, Community support framework, EU initiative, EU programme, European Regional Development Fund, coastal protection, environmental protection, operational programme, water treatment













EUR-Lex - 91997E0410 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E0410

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 410/97 by Manuel MEDINA ORTEGA to the Commission. Community environment protection programmes  


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





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0410/97 by Manuel Medina Ortega (PSE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)Subject: Community environment protection programmesWhat Community environment protection programmes has the Commission approved for the Canaries in the past year and what contribution have the Spanish national and regional authorities agreed to make, with particular reference to the protection of beaches and coastlines?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (7 April 1997)The assistance provided by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the Canaries for the period 1994-99 was defined as part of the Community's objective assistance to Spain, No 1, and was approved by means of Commission Decision 94/624/EC of 26 June 1994 ((OJ L 250, 26.9.1994. )). That assistance was granted by approving the operational programme for the Canaries via the Decision 7 November 1994 and via the Regis II Community Initiative Programme for Spain-Canaries via the Decision of 21 December 1995.Under those programmes the intention is that the ERDF will jointly finance activities concerning the protection and improvement of the environment by means of a Community contribution of ECU 52.21 million and ECU 22.57 million respectively.The environmental section of the Cohesion Fund has financed a desalination plant at Santa Cruz de Tenerife, improvements to the beach at Icod de los Vinos on Tenerife, restoration of the seashore at Pozillos Matagorda on Lanzarote and physical and environmental improvements to the beaches at El Fraile and Las Arenas, and Buenavista del Norte on Tenerife.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 234/97 by Glenys KINNOCK to the Council. Transnational companies operating in developing countries in conflict
Date: 1997-02-13
Institutions: European Parliament, KINNOCK
Subjects: Council of the European Union, code of conduct, developing countries, international conflict, transnational corporation













EUR-Lex - 91997E0234 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E0234

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 234/97 by Glenys KINNOCK to the Council. Transnational companies operating in developing countries in conflict  


Official Journal C 319 , 18/10/1997 P. 0044 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0234/97 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Council (13 February 1997)Subject: Transnational companies operating in developing countries in conflictDoes the Council consider that it would be appropriate to devise a code of conduct for the operation of transnational companies in developing countries where there is conflict?Does the Presidency consider that the position of the Dutch brewery Amstel in Burundi is a case in point, since 80% of the government revenues are derived from this company?Answer (16 May 1997)The specific matter raised by the Honourable Member, of devising a code of conduct for the operation of transnational companies in developing countries where there is conflict, has never been formally referred to the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 332/97 by José GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL to the Commission. CMO for olive oil: expenditure on production aid 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, olive oil, production aid













EUR-Lex - 91997E0332 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E0332

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 332/97 by José GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL to the Commission. CMO for olive oil: expenditure on production aid in Greece  


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





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0332/97 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)Subject: CMO for olive oil: expenditure on production aid 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, 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 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. 328/97 by José GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL to the Commission. CMO for olive oil: expenditure on refunds 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, export refund, olive oil













EUR-Lex - 91997E0328 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E0328

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 328/97 by José GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL to the Commission. CMO for olive oil: expenditure on refunds in Italy  


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





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0328/97 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)Subject: CMO for olive oil: expenditure on refunds 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, 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 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>