do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1142/97 by Richard HOWITT to the Commission. Adoption of children and possible discrimination in European law
Date: 1997-03-21
Institutions: European Parliament, HOWITT
Subjects: EU Member State, European convention, UN convention, adoption of a child, competence of the Member States, member country, national law, ratification of an agreement, third country













EUR-Lex - 91997E1142 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E1142

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1142/97 by Richard HOWITT to the Commission. Adoption of children and possible discrimination in European law  


Official Journal C 367 , 04/12/1997 P. 0086 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-1142/97 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (21 March 1997)Subject: Adoption of children and possible discrimination in European lawIn response to the experience of one of my constituents, can the Commission identify relevant areas of Community law and support in respect of the adoption of children? In particular, where a public authority in Europe has refused the opportunity for adoption to a woman on the grounds that she is overweight (which she strenuously denies), is it possible that such a decision could constitute unfair discrimination against women according to European law, or a breach of her human rights?Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (11 April 1997)In areas which do not fall within its exclusive powers, the Community takes action only where the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or impact of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community. Accordingly, no Community measure has been taken with regard to the civil law institution of adoption.In April 1967, the Council of Europe adopted a European Convention on the Adoption of Children, which came into force in April 1968. So far the Convention has been ratified by nine Member States of the Union (Denmark, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Austria, Portugal, Sweden and the United Kingdom) and signed by France and Luxembourg. It applies only to the legal adoption of a child who, at the time when the adopter applies to adopt him, has not attained the age of 18, is not and has not been married and is not deemed in law to have come of age.Article 21 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 20 November 1989 and has been ratified by all the Member States of the Union, pays special attention to inter-country adoption and lays down certain legal rules to ensure that 'the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration' in the event of (inter-country) adoption; in particular, States are encouraged to conclude 'multilateral arrangements or agreements' in order to pursue the objectives set out in that Article.Lastly, in the course of the year the European Observatory on National Family Policies will be publishing its sixth annual report (1996), which is expected to contain a comparative study of the various national laws.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1065/97 by Giulio FANTUZZI , Fiorella GHILARDOTTI , Rinaldo BONTEMPI to the Commission. Draft Regulation on the Cumulative Recovery System
Date: 1997-03-21
Institutions: BONTEMPI, European Parliament, FANTUZZI, GHILARDOTTI
Subjects: Community preference, EU control, EU production, GATT, customs duties, import, import policy, rice, tariff negotiations













EUR-Lex - 91997E1065 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E1065

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1065/97 by Giulio FANTUZZI , Fiorella GHILARDOTTI , Rinaldo BONTEMPI to the Commission. Draft Regulation on the Cumulative Recovery System  


Official Journal C 367 , 04/12/1997 P. 0073 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1065/97 by Giulio Fantuzzi (PSE), Fiorella Ghilardotti (PSE) and Rinaldo Bontempi (PSE) to the Commission (21 March 1997)Subject: Draft Regulation on the Cumulative Recovery SystemA draft Regulation on the granting of import rights, entitled 'Cumulative Recovery System', in the rice sector, has apparently reached an advanced stage of discussion.Will the Commission state:1. what preference it is granting Community products?2. whether this Regulation is compatible with WTO standards?3. how it intends to monitor the application of this system which, in the view of operators, will considerably facilitate fraud, to the detriment of the Community market in rice?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (21 April 1997)During the negotiations under Article XXIV-6 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) the Council undertook to set up a cumulative recovery system so that importers can receive compensation if they pay an excessively high import duty in relation to the quality of the rice they import.The purpose of the system is to maintain the level of Community preference because the maximum import price established in the Uruguay round agreements will always be complied with.There is provision for a system of checks which will cover at least 50% of the consignments imported under this system.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1097/97 by Jesús CABEZÓN ALONSO to the Commission. Viability of the proposal on protection of workers against chemical agents
Date: 1997-03-21
Institutions: CABEZON ALONSO, European Parliament
Subjects: chemical product, dangerous substance, health policy, health risk, occupational health, proposal (EU)













EUR-Lex - 91997E1097 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E1097

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1097/97 by Jesús CABEZÓN ALONSO to the Commission. Viability of the proposal on protection of workers against chemical agents  


Official Journal C 319 , 18/10/1997 P. 0229 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1097/97 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (21 March 1997)Subject: Viability of the proposal on protection of workers against chemical agentsThe 'specific' proposal on protection of workers against exposure to chemical agents has been held up since 1994. The new proposal, put forward during the Irish Presidency, although it lays down minimum standards and has been debated by the Social Affairs Council, has not obtained a broad enough consensus.When is it expected to be finally adopted? Will the new compromise text lay down mandatory indicative limit values?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (7 May 1997)The Commission can give no estimation of the exact date of the adoption of its proposal on chemical agents ((COM(94) 230. )).However the Commission is pleased that discussions are taking place in Council and it is possible that a common position could be reached in the near future.The Commission will do its utmost to ensure that its proposal for two types of limit values will be maintained.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1072/97 by Christine ODDY to the Commission. Eastern Zaire - Rwandan refugees
Date: 1997-03-21
Institutions: European Parliament, ODDY
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, EU aid, EU programme, Rwanda, UNHCR, World Food Programme, aid to refugees, civil war, humanitarian aid, repatriation grant













EUR-Lex - 91997E1072 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E1072

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1072/97 by Christine ODDY to the Commission. Eastern Zaire - Rwandan refugees  


Official Journal C 367 , 04/12/1997 P. 0074 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1072/97 by Christine Oddy (PSE) to the Commission (21 March 1997)Subject: Eastern Zaire - Rwandan refugeesHumanitarian aid to the refugees in Eastern Zaire has been cut off as a result of fighting between the Zairean military and Zairean Tutsi/Banyamolenge rebels. Hundreds of thousands of refugees are now without aid and unaccounted for.ECHO has drawn up an action plan to establish the aid programme but two essential preconditions are needed for its success:- access to victims and- protection for both refugees and humanitarian workers.What does the Commission propose to do to ensure that humanitarian aid reaches these refugees and that the necessary protection is guaranteed to enable their safe return to Rwanda?Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (13 May 1997)On 11 December 1996 the Commission granted ECU 10.65 million to back the UNHCR's efforts to help Rwandan refugees, including repatriation. The UNHCR and the World Food Programme (WFP) have set up a joint team to handle the logistical side of repatriation.In spite of the Alliance's promises to allow access to all the refugees, that access has not been facilitated in practice: it was early April before the first food aid got through to some refugees in desperate need.In addition to the aforementioned grant, the WFP has received ECU 10 million towards its airborne food supply programme. At the WFP's request, the Commission has authorized it to use some of this funding to fly refugees back home.The Alliance has agreed to the use of Kisangani airport to evacuate the most vulnerable refugees direct to Rwanda. However, negotiations concerning the airborne evacuation between the UNHCR and the Rwandan government were still under way on 7 April, with the latter refusing to let flights land at Kigali.Once the UNHCR has got the go-ahead to carry out the repatriation plan, the Commission will consider any requests for further financing in the light of logistical requirements.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1096/97 by Jesús CABEZÓN ALONSO to the Commission. Non-discrimination clause in the revised Treaty
Date: 1997-03-21
Institutions: CABEZON ALONSO, European Parliament
Subjects: EU law, anti-discriminatory measure, drafting of EU law, intergovernmental conference (EU), revision of the Treaty (EU), vote













EUR-Lex - 91997E1096 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E1096

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1096/97 by Jesús CABEZÓN ALONSO to the Commission. Non-discrimination clause in the revised Treaty  


Official Journal C 373 , 09/12/1997 P. 0066 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1096/97 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (21 March 1997)Subject: Non-discrimination clause in the revised TreatyWith regard to the wording of Article 62 of the Treaty, as proposed by the Irish Presidency at the Dublin European Council as part of the revision of the Treaty, does the Commission not think that requiring unanimity when dealing with issues of discrimination will present a huge obstacle to any efforts to introduce Union measures to combat this problem?Would qualified majority voting not make it easier to take Union measures to overcome all forms of discrimination?Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (20 May 1997)Article 6a of the draft reform of the Treaty on the European Union contained in the addendum prepared by the Dutch Presidency relates to the fight against all kinds of discrimination.At the Intergovernmental Conference, the Commission is urging that qualified majority voting be applied in all areas which are not constitutional in nature or content.While recognising the very sensitive nature of measures relating to the fight against discrimination, there can be no doubt that qualified majority voting would make it easier to take decisions in this area.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1105/97 by Jesús CABEZÓN ALONSO to the Commission. Support by the Commission for the event entitled 'First European meeting'
Date: 1997-03-21
Institutions: CABEZON ALONSO, European Parliament
Subjects: EU initiative, political group, political violence













EUR-Lex - 91997E1105 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E1105

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1105/97 by Jesús CABEZÓN ALONSO to the Commission. Support by the Commission for the event entitled 'First European meeting'  


Official Journal C 373 , 09/12/1997 P. 0068 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1105/97 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (21 March 1997)Subject: Support by the Commission for the event entitled 'First European meeting'What is the framework within which the event 'From the assertion of identity to political violence' is taking place, and on what grounds has the Commission decided to sponsor the 'First European meeting: from the assertion of identity to political violence' (Biarritz, Donostia/San Sebastian), which was recently cancelled but then arranged for 6 and 7 March 1997?Has it agreed to allow a political group of the European Parliament (ARE) to make capital out of the event and use the expression 'sous l'égide de la Commission européenne' (under the auspices of the Commission)?Which Commission department is responsible for this matter?Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (16 May 1997)No decision has been taken to lend the Commission's auspices to the meeting by the Paris-based 'Reunir', on the subject 'De la revendication identitaire à la violence politique'. The Commission has learned that the meeting has been postponed to an unspecified date.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1087/97 by Richard CORBETT to the Commission. EU job creation record
Date: 1997-03-21
Institutions: CORBETT, European Parliament
Subjects: EU employment policy, Structural Funds, investment aid, job creation, single market, transfer of businesses













EUR-Lex - 91997E1087 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E1087

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1087/97 by Richard CORBETT to the Commission. EU job creation record  


Official Journal C 373 , 09/12/1997 P. 0064 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1087/97 by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission (21 March 1997)Subject: EU job creation recordCould the Commission please list for each Member State an estimate of the number of jobs that have been created or saved since 1980 by Union policies (single market, structural funds, CAP, research, etc.)?Answer given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (5 June 1997)The Commission would point out that the main rôle of Community policies is to promote a favourable environment for job creation in Member States.Employment figures as published by the statistical institutes of the Member States and by the Commission reflect the net effect of all factors influencing the labour markets. To assess the employment effects of Community policies their impact must be separated from the impact of national policies, the business cycle and changes in general economic conditions which have taken place simultaneously. This can only be estimated on the basis of econometric model building.Concerning the employment effects of the structural funds, one of the models available to the Commission suggests, that for objective 1 regions in the period 1989-1993 up to a million jobs may have been dependent on the the structural funds investments and transfers, while a recent ex-post evaluation of the objective 2 regions estimates that 450 000 net jobs were created in the same period. In the period 1994-1999 it would be reasonable to expect an increase in employment effects commensurate with the doubling of funds (in real terms) made available.On the basis that there is no single, ideal, robust way to estimate the various impacts of the single market (including those on employment), several economic models have recently been used by the Commission. Although the estimates provided by these models vary, they all estimate the impact of the single market on employment to have been positive overall. A model for estimates that the employment level in 1994 (for the Community of 12) was about 300 000 higher than it would have been in the absence of the single market. A second model for Community of 12 estimates that the single market has led to the creation of an extra 600 000 jobs. A model for Community of 15 estimates that the single market has increased employment by around 900 000 additional jobs (0.7% of the total Community workforce).All three models therefore produce estimates of roughly the same order of magnitude, suggesting that so far the single market has had a positive impact of employment.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1086/97 by Michael ELLIOTT to the Commission. EU funding for reproductive health care programmes in 1996
Date: 1997-03-21
Institutions: ELLIOTT, European Parliament
Subjects: AIDS, EU financing, EU programme, aid recipient, births, developing countries, health care, sexually transmitted disease, use of aid













EUR-Lex - 91997E1086 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E1086

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1086/97 by Michael ELLIOTT to the Commission. EU funding for reproductive health care programmes in 1996  


Official Journal C 367 , 04/12/1997 P. 0077 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1086/97 by Michael Elliott (PSE) to the Commission (21 March 1997)Subject: EU funding for reproductive health care programmes in 1996What was the total funding committed in 1996 for reproductive health care programmes in developing countries?Can the Commission provide a comprehensive list of all EU-funded reproductive health programmes in developing countries in 1996 (administered by DG IB and DG VIII): by budget line, recipient, country and amount of funding?Answer given by Mr Marin on behalf of the Commission (5 May 1997)The estimated total funding committed in 1996 by the Commission for specific reproductive health care programmes in developing countries was 158 MECU. Substantial support (143 MECU) was provided for population and reproductive health programmes in the Mediterranean, Asia and Latin America.An important contribution to better reproductive health was also provided through support to sexually transmissible disease (STD), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) programmes in developing countries. In this context a total of 15 MECU has been committed in 1996 under the specific AIDS budget line to support intervention at international, regional and national levels in developing countries. An additional 0.3 MECU was also committed for support to mother and child health projects in developing countries under the mother and child health budget line (which was merged in 1997 with the population budget line).In addition to these amounts, European development fund (EDF) funds have been committed to assist African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries both in the field of STD/HIV/AIDS and in health sector support which includes the integration of family planning components in basic health services at primary level.Total amounts committed in 1996 for support to the health sector with priority to primary health care represent 83.6 MECU in terms of projects and 38 MECU in terms of budgetary support through the counterpart funds of the structural adjustement facility. It is impossible to isolate precisely the percentage of these amounts that directly relate to population and reproductive health.The table sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament's secretariat provides an overview of specific Community-funded reproductive health programmes in developing countries by budget line, recipient, country and amount of funding.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1099/97 by Jesús CABEZÓN ALONSO to the Commission. Aid to the fishing fleet
Date: 1997-03-21
Institutions: CABEZON ALONSO, European Parliament
Subjects: EU aid, EU programme, co-financing, fishing fleet, suspension of aid













EUR-Lex - 91997E1099 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E1099

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1099/97 by Jesús CABEZÓN ALONSO to the Commission. Aid to the fishing fleet  


Official Journal C 373 , 09/12/1997 P. 0066 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1099/97 by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (21 March 1997)Subject: Aid to the fishing fleetAre reports that the Commission has suspended aid to the fishing fleet true?If so, what are the Commission's grounds for taking this step?Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (12 May 1997)The Commission can confirm to the Honourable Member that Community assistance for the Community fishing fleet has been suspended with effect from 1 January 1997, for the following reasons.- The third generation of multiannual guidance programmes (MAGP III) expired on 31 December 1996. These multiannual guidance programmes are essential tools in programming structural aid. Without such multiannual guidance programmes, the current rules and regulations prohibit the granting of aid. All aid for the fleet (everything covered by Title II of Regulation (EC) No 3699/93 taken as a whole, i.e. assistance for modernization/new construction and aid to help adjust fishing effort) must be granted within the framework of an approved programme.- Member States are also still required to make sure that the fishing effort represented by their fleet does not exceed the targets set for the end of the MAGP III period. This obligation derives in particular from Article 1 of the Decision adopted by the Council at its meeting on 20 December 1993 (94/15/EC) and from Article 5 of the EC Treaty.Accordingly, all Community part-financing of the measures referred to in Articles 7 to 10 of Regulation (EC) No 3699/93 has been suspended as from 1 January 1997 for all the Member States and for all measures affecting the fleet.However, the Council had taken note that, if it could adopt the MAGP IV programmes by 30 April 1997 (but with effect of course from 1 January 1997), any measures undertaken by Member States after 1 January this year involving the restructuring of fishing fleets would qualify for part-financing by the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance.The suspension of the part-financing of national aid does not mean that the national aid schemes themselves are suspended, provided these are state aid schemes approved by the Commission under Article 92 of the EC Treaty. However, funding of new construction and the modernization of vessels is authorized only if the original targets under a country's MAGP III were attained by 31 December 1996 and provided that the new assistance contributes to meeting the targets of the MAGP IV programmes finally adopted by the Council on 15 April 1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1090/97 by Thomas MEGAHY to the Commission. Closure of Renault factory in Vilvoorde
Date: 1997-03-21
Institutions: European Parliament, MEGAHY
Subjects: Belgium, EC Directive, France, Province of Flemish Brabant, cessation of trading, motor vehicle industry, national implementing measure, worker consultation, worker information, works council













EUR-Lex - 91997E1090 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E1090

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1090/97 by Thomas MEGAHY to the Commission. Closure of Renault factory in Vilvoorde  


Official Journal C 367 , 04/12/1997 P. 0078 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1090/97 by Thomas Megahy (PSE) to the Commission (21 March 1997)Subject: Closure of Renault factory in VilvoordeIf a major car manufacturer is able to close a factory without warning with the loss of over 3,000 jobs, what use are existing European Union rules on the information and consultation of workers?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (14 May 1997)The decision taken by Renault to close its Vilvoorde factory falls under the scope of two Community directives, Directive 75/129/EEC (collective redundancies) ((OJ L 48, 22.2.1995. )) and Directive 94/45/EEC (European works councils) ((OJ L 254, 30.9.1994. )).These two Community instruments have been implemented in the relevant national laws (the Belgian law as regards the first and the French law as regards the second). These national laws contain machinery allowing for the enforcement of the obligations included therein.The Commission continuously monitors the adequacy of these enforcement mechanisms with a view to ensuring that corporate restructuring is done in a socially acceptable way, in particular after information and consultation of employees' representatives.