do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Decision of the Court of Justice amending Annex II to the Rules of Procedure (extensions of time limits on account of distance)
Date: 1997-03-11
Institutions: Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union, accession to the European Union, administrative procedure, institutional activity, residence













EUR-Lex - 31997D0419(01) - EN






Avis juridique important




|



31997D0419(01)

Decision of the Court of Justice amending Annex II to the Rules of Procedure (extensions of time limits on account of distance)  


Official Journal L 103 , 19/04/1997 P. 0003 - 0003 





DECISION OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE amending Annex II to the Rules of Procedure (extensions of time limits on account of distance)THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES.Having regard to Article 81 (2) of the Rules of Procedure,Whereas, by reason of the accession to the European Communities of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, it is necessary to provide for the extension of time limits on account of distance as regards parties habitually resident in the new Member States;Whereas Annex II to the Rules of Procedure, as adopted on 19 June 1991, must therefore be amended,DECIDES:Article 1The third indent of Article 1 of Annex II to the Rules of Procedure shall be replaced by the following:'- for the European territory of the Kingdom of Denmark, for the Kingdom of Spain, for Ireland, for the Hellenic Republic, for the Italian Republic, for the Republic of Austria, for the Portuguese Republic (with the exception of the Azores and Madeira), for the Republic of Finland, for the Kingdom of Sweden and for the United Kingdom: 10 days.`Article 2This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.It shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.Done at Luxembourg on 11 March 1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 909/97 by Wilfried TELKÄMPER to the Council. Worsening human rights violations in Mexico
Date: 1997-03-11
Institutions: European Parliament, TELKAEMPER
Subjects: Mexico, corruption, freedom of expression, human rights, terrorism, trade union freedom













EUR-Lex - 91997E0909 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E0909

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 909/97 by Wilfried TELKÄMPER to the Council. Worsening human rights violations in Mexico  


Official Journal C 391 , 23/12/1997 P. 0028 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0909/97 by Wilfried Telkämper (V) to the Council (11 March 1997)Subject: Worsening human rights violations in MexicoIn the run-up to the mid-1997 elections in Mexico, in which the ruling PRI is threatened with heavy losses, a disturbing upsurge is being recorded in grave violations of democratic principles and human rights, in particular the right of freedom of expression and trade-union rights, that poses a threat to society at every level.- Journalists who file reports on government corruption, the complicity of government departments in drug-dealing or even on simple social injustices, have been threatened, persecuted, beaten up, tortured, abducted, and even shot. An recent extreme case is the murder of journalist Yolanda Figuerra, her husband F. Balderas and their children early in December (see Observer for 8.12.1996). As testimony to numerous other cases, I enclose the letter from Human Rights Watch to President Zedillo of 14.11.1996.- Human Rights Watch has also established that the government tacitly, and indeed overtly, supports acts of violence by PRI groups, and fails to prosecute acts of terrorism against its critics.- Lawful social movements are being suppressed and threatened, and workers' rights continuously violated under the corporatist political system, which seeks all the more ruthlessly to prevent independent trade unions from being formed.- Human-rights defenders have received death threats, in particular the acknowledged PRODH Centre.1. Is the Council informed of these developments and has it consulted on this situation (e.g. in the context of CFSP)?2. Has the Council made representations to Mexico on the basis of the appropriate preamble to the existing Convention with Mexico and the Paris Solemn Declaration?3. Is the Council prepared in these circumstances to issue a binding declaration stipulating that in any new Convention with Mexico, the human rights clause, as provided for by the Council for all conventions, will be an essential requirement?Answer (14 July 1997)The Council was unaware of the incidents raised by the Honourable Member and has therefore not had an opportunity to discuss them.In its mandate to the Commission to negotiate a new agreement with Mexico, the Council included a clause on human rights. In that clause, respect for human rights is considered an essential element of the future agreement. In this respect the draft agreement with Mexico is being treated in the same way as all new agreements concluded with third countries.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 893/97 by Johanna MAIJ-WEGGEN to the Council. Openness of Council proceedings and the Internet
Date: 1997-03-11
Institutions: European Parliament, MAIJ-WEGGEN
Subjects: Council of the European Union, access to EU information, computer network, dissemination of EU information, document, information network, rules of procedure













EUR-Lex - 91997E0893 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E0893

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 893/97 by Johanna MAIJ-WEGGEN to the Council. Openness of Council proceedings and the Internet  


Official Journal C 367 , 04/12/1997 P. 0056 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0893/97 by Johanna Maij-Weggen (PPE) to the Council (11 March 1997)Subject: Openness of Council proceedings and the InternetWhich Member States have protested against the publication of various reports of Council proceedings on the Internet, and what was the precise reason for their complaints?Does the Council President not think it would be useful to launch a thoroughgoing debate in the Council on the subject of transparency, since the current lack of openness and moves to close the relevant pages of the Internet can only add to the European public's distrust of the European Union?Answer (5 June 1997)The Honourable Member is apparently referring to the fact that at the beginning of 1997 certain information on the activities of the Council Working Party on Research was broadcast on the Internet.This was not authorized by the Council or by its General Secretariat. Indeed, disclosure of such information is in breach of the Council's Rules of Procedure, except where the latter or other relevant rules specifically allow it.The Council notes that the information has since been withdrawn.On the subject of the transparency of the Council's work, the Honourable Member's attention is drawn to the measures already in place, particularly those on the disclosure of votes and explanations of vote, on open debates, access by the public to statements and minutes, and on public access to Council documents in general under Council Decision 93/731/EC.Moreover, the Council would point out that the issue of the institutions' transparency is being discussed by the Intergovernmental Conference on the revision of the Treaties.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 921/97 by Ian WHITE to the Council. Procedure for urgent consideration of legislation in the Council
Date: 1997-03-11
Institutions: European Parliament, WHITE
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European Parliament, common position, consultation procedure, institutional cooperation, proposal (EU)













EUR-Lex - 91997E0921 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E0921

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 921/97 by Ian WHITE to the Council. Procedure for urgent consideration of legislation in the Council  


Official Journal C 391 , 23/12/1997 P. 0030 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0921/97 by Ian White (PSE) to the Council (11 March 1997)Subject: Procedure for urgent consideration of legislation in the CouncilIn its reply to Question E-2153/96 ((OJ C 72, 7.3.1997, p. 16. )), the Council pointed out that it cannot take a decision at first reading until it has obtained the opinion of the European Parliament (and that this justified the fact that Parliament, in its rules, allows Council to request urgency from Parliament).As it is similarly the case that Parliament cannot take a decision in its second reading until Council has completed its first reading, should there not be a similar provision allowing Parliament to request urgency from Council?Answer (14 July 1997)The purpose of the European Parliament's second reading is to give it the opportunity to state its views on the common position adopted by the Council. The EC Treaty imposes a time limit on Parliament for doing this, which does not begin to run until the Council has forwarded its position to it. On the other hand, the Treaty lays down no time limits concerning first reading by the two Institutions.However, as stated in reply to Question No E-2153/96, there is nothing to prevent the European Parliament, when delivering its Opinion, from calling upon the Council to take a decision or adopt its common position swiftly.