do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 342/97 by José GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL to the Commission. CMO for olive oil: expenditure on storage measures in Greece
Date: 1997-02-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EAGGF Guarantee Section, European Court of Auditors, Greece, agricultural expenditure, common organisation of markets, market intervention, olive oil, storage













EUR-Lex - 91997E0342 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E0342

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 342/97 by José GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL to the Commission. CMO for olive oil: expenditure on storage measures in Greece  


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





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0342/97 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)Subject: CMO for olive oil: expenditure on storage measures 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, 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 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. 389/97 by Ian WHITE to the Commission. Bit tax
Date: 1997-02-13
Institutions: European Parliament, WHITE
Subjects: VAT, communications policy, data transmission, information policy, micro-computer, tax system, telecommunications, telematics, transmission network













EUR-Lex - 91997E0389 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E0389

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 389/97 by Ian WHITE to the Commission. Bit tax  


Official Journal C 319 , 18/10/1997 P. 0064 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0389/97 by Ian White (PSE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)Subject: Bit taxWould the Commission advise whether it is considering any proposals on a possible bit tax which would affect computer users, particularly involving information sent via the Internet?Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (2 April 1997)The question of a 'bit tax' is mentioned in the first interim report of January 1996 of the high level expert group on the social and societal aspects of the information society called 'Building the European information society for us all'. The Commission is also aware of the document 'The bit and tax: the case for further research' which was sent out by the chairman of the group for further comments and reactions.The Commission points out that Community legislation on indirect taxation (VAT) makes no discrimination between traditional commercial transactions and transactions via the new electronic media. Any new tax, such as a 'bit tax', on cyberspace activities would therefore mean an extra charge on these activities. It is not clear on what grounds such a tax could be based. On the contrary, many activities and initiatives, with support from the Commission, are directed at stimulating and promoting these new developments.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 325/97 by José GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL to the Commission. CMO for olive oil: expenditure on refunds 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, export refund, olive oil













EUR-Lex - 91997E0325 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E0325

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 325/97 by José GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL to the Commission. CMO for olive oil: expenditure on refunds in Spain  


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





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0325/97 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)Subject: CMO for olive oil: expenditure on refunds 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, 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 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. 275/97 by Daniel VARELA SUANZES- CARPEGNA to the Commission. Agreements with third countries covering canned fish
Date: 1997-02-13
Institutions: European Parliament, VARELA SUANZES-CARPEGNA
Subjects: Central and Eastern European countries, Morocco, association agreement (EU), fish, generalised preferences, preserved product, tariff reduction













EUR-Lex - 91997E0275 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E0275

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 275/97 by Daniel VARELA SUANZES- CARPEGNA to the Commission. Agreements with third countries covering canned fish  


Official Journal C 319 , 18/10/1997 P. 0050 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0275/97 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)Subject: Agreements with third countries covering canned fishThe EU is currently negotiating or re-negotiating a series of agreements with third countries covering canned fish.Will the Commission say what stage has been reached in these negotiations with each of the countries concerned?Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (2 April 1997)At present only the Association Agreement with Morocco contains provisions on canned fish but under the Generalized Scheme of Preferences the Community unilaterally grants developing countries, including Morocco, preferential customs duty reductions on a number of fish preparations and preserves. The agreements in force are not being renegotiated at the moment.Exploratory talks are currently being held with certain central and eastern European countries under the Europe Agreements. The possible results might include a limitation in the quantities of canned fish producers.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 279/97 by Yvan BLOT to the Commission. Protection of tobacco retailers in the Bas-Rhin department (France)
Date: 1997-02-13
Institutions: BLOT, European Parliament
Subjects: Alsace, competition, excise duty, frontier region, restriction on competition, small retailer, tax harmonisation, tax system, tobacco













EUR-Lex - 91997E0279 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E0279

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 279/97 by Yvan BLOT to the Commission. Protection of tobacco retailers in the Bas-Rhin department (France)  


Official Journal C 319 , 18/10/1997 P. 0050 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0279/97 by Yvan Blot (NI) to the Commission (13 February 1997)Subject: Protection of tobacco retailers in the Bas-Rhin department (France)There are currently 490 tobacco retailers in the Bas-Rhin department, accounting for some 1 500 jobs. They serve as local shops providing a wide range of services, including the sale of, not only tobacco, but also road tax stickers and other tax stamps, phone cards, postage stamps and public transport tickets.Tobacco retailers are faced with a whole series of problems: falling profits, rural depopulation, closure owing to the dangers they face in problem areas and illegal imports.As a result of the increase in tobacco prices in France (+80% in 4 years owing to taxes), many customers buy their supplies over the border.In view of these problems which are likely to become more serious and lead to bankruptcy for many tobacco retailers, what action does the Commission intend to take, in terms of indirect tax on tobaccoes and harmonization of excise duties, to prevent distortions of competition, especially in frontier regions?Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (14 March 1997)Current Community legislation on excise duties lays down minimum rates of duty for tobacco products. Member States are free to apply rates of their choosing provided that they respect these minima. In adopting this system, the Council considered that the combination of minimum rates and market forces would produce convergence of duty levels. It follows that Member States have considerable flexibility in relation to the taxation of tobacco products.Under the relevant legislation, the minimum rates of excise duty must be reviewed every two years, taking account of the functioning of the internal market, the real value of the rates of duty and the wider Treaty objectives, on the basis of a report and, where appropriate, a proposal of the Commission. The first such report was presented to Parliament and the Council in 1995 ((COM(95) 285. )). However, proposals were deferred pending a wide-ranging consultation process. Parliament has since adopted an opinion on the report. The Commission's next report to Parliament and Council is due this year, and will, once again, take account of the operation of the internal market. It is important to note, however, that under the internal market a balance has to be struck between the desire to prevent distortions of competition and the right of the consumer to purchase goods in another Member State.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 338/97 by José GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL to the Commission. CMO for olive oil: expenditure on consumption aid in Italy
Date: 1997-02-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EAGGF Guarantee Section, European Court of Auditors, Italy, agricultural expenditure, common organisation of markets, market support, marketing, olive oil, sales promotion













EUR-Lex - 91997E0338 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E0338

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 338/97 by José GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL to the Commission. CMO for olive oil: expenditure on consumption aid in Italy  


Official Journal C 367 , 04/12/1997 P. 0017 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0338/97 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)Subject: CMO for olive oil: expenditure on consumption 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, 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 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>
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 245/97 by Hiltrud BREYER to the Council. Meadow ecosystem between Straubing and Vilshofen
Date: 1997-02-13
Institutions: BREYER, European Parliament
Subjects: Bavaria, directive (EU), ecosystem, environmental protection, humid zone, protected area, protection of animal life, protection of plant life













EUR-Lex - 91997E0245 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E0245

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 245/97 by Hiltrud BREYER to the Council. Meadow ecosystem between Straubing and Vilshofen  


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





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0245/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (13 February 1997)Subject: Meadow ecosystem between Straubing and VilshofenIs the Council willing to propose that the meadow ecosystem between Straubing and Vilshofen, in particular the Isar confluence area, the nature reserves of Staatshaufen, Winzerer Letten and the Mühlhammerschleife, should be designated a protected area within the meaning of the wild bird directive and the flora and fauna habitat directive, given that for years the Federal Republic of Germany and the Free State of Bavaria have refused to fulfil their obligations in designating protected areas under the wild bird directive and the flora and fauna habitat directive?Answer (20 May 1997)None of the Directives mentioned by the Honourable Member enables the Council to propose that a specific ecosystem should be designated as a protected area.However, the Council has made clear in general the importance it attaches to the protection of wetlands by adopting its conclusions oon the wise use and management of such areas.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 244/97 by Hiltrud BREYER to the Council. Labelling of genetically modified soya and maize
Date: 1997-02-13
Institutions: BREYER, European Parliament
Subjects: EU law, European Union, application of EU law, foodstuffs legislation, genetically modified organism, human nutrition, labelling, maize, marketing, soya bean













EUR-Lex - 91997E0244 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E0244

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 244/97 by Hiltrud BREYER to the Council. Labelling of genetically modified soya and maize  


Official Journal C 373 , 09/12/1997 P. 0010 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0244/97 by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Council (13 February 1997)Subject: Labelling of genetically modified soya and maize1. Will the recently adopted novel food regulation be applied to Ciba Geigy's genetically modified maize, which has already been approved for marketing and cultivation within the EU?2. If not, what is the Commission's view of the legal situation where two transgenic useful plants and thousands of novel foods are not covered by the novel foods regulation?3. If the genetically modified maize and soya are not covered by the novel food regulation, does the Commission agree that in this case national labelling of the genetically modified organisms is possible, since this question was deliberately left open in directive 90/220/EEC ((OJ L 117, 8.5.1990, p. 15. ))?Answer (16 June 1997)The legislation on novel foods came into force on 14 May 1997 ((OJ L 43, 14.2.1997. )). Certain implementing rules have still to be adopted. It is thus not possible, at this stage, to answer the specific questions put by the Honourable Member. It is, in any case, for the Commission, under the supervision of the Court of Justice, to ensure the correct application of the provisions of Community law.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 399/97 by Mihail PAPAYANNAKIS to the Commission. Community tobacco subsidies
Date: 1997-02-13
Institutions: European Parliament, PAPAYANNAKIS
Subjects: EU production, Greece, agricultural guidance, product quality, production quota, tobacco













EUR-Lex - 91997E0399 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E0399

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 399/97 by Mihail PAPAYANNAKIS to the Commission. Community tobacco subsidies  


Official Journal C 319 , 18/10/1997 P. 0067 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0399/97 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (13 February 1997)Subject: Community tobacco subsidiesIn its report to the Council, the Commission has proposed that Community policy towards tobacco should be based on the following two principles:- improving the quality of Community production by a graded system of higher premiums for quality produce;- voluntary withdrawal from the sector.If it is finally implemented, the second proposal will have an adverse effect on Greek tobacco producers. According to the Commission report, this proposal will mean principally that the Community will buy up quotas from producers with bonds covering a period of between seven and ten years. This will result in an overall reduction in national quotas and the abandonment of 'unviable' varieties, such as Basma, since they are grown on small areas of land, whereas it is in the interests of producers to maintain them and increase their production.Given the importance of tobacco growing for Greece, will the Commission say:1. how it intends to address the likely adverse consequences of its proposal, and in particular the scenario that growers of 'noble' varieties of tobacco that are cultivated on small areas of land sell up first, thus depriving Greece of quality crops and reducing opportunities for young farmers, owing to the absence of a national quota reserve?2. whether it intends to implement its proposal for a graded increase in premiums gradually so as to avoid causing turmoil in this sector?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (20 March 1997)1. The Commission would point out that its proposal to facilitate voluntary departure from the tobacco sector must not be taken in isolation. It is also proposing that transfer of quotas to higher value varietal groups be made easier and permanent transfer of quotas between growers allowed. In consequence voluntary departure from the sector would be a safety net for all those unable to continue their activities for reasons of holding viability or even to meet the new qualitative rules, and who have been unable to benefit from quota transfer possibilities.The Commission has no intention of promoting reduced production of the high-value Oriental varieties. On the contrary it considers that production of them should be boosted by transfers from lower value varietal groups.2. The Commission is ready to examine all factors contributing to differential premiums and will take due account of the Member States' concrete proposals on the extent and phasing-in of such differentiation in order that any disturbance of the sector may be avoided.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 326/97 by José GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL to the Commission. CMO for olive oil: expenditure on refunds 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, export refund, olive oil













EUR-Lex - 91997E0326 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E0326

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 326/97 by José GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL to the Commission. CMO for olive oil: expenditure on refunds in France  


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





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0326/97 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission (13 February 1997)Subject: CMO for olive oil: expenditure on refunds 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, 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 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>