do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1261/97 by Ursula STENZEL to the Commission. SOCRATES programme
Date: 1997-04-11
Institutions: European Parliament, STENZEL
Subjects: EU programme, education policy, educational exchange, higher education, organisation of teaching, student mobility, terms for aid













EUR-Lex - 91997E1261 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E1261

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1261/97 by Ursula STENZEL to the Commission. SOCRATES programme  


Official Journal C 367 , 04/12/1997 P. 0108 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1261/97 by Ursula Stenzel (PPE) to the Commission (11 April 1997)Subject: Socrates programmeThe application form for 'institutional contracts' within the Socrates programme had to be submitted before 1 July 1996 for the academic year 1997-98. Names of successful applicants will not be announced until May 1997. On account of the long waiting period between submission of the application and acceptance, the Socrates programme loses much of its appeal. The situation is further aggravated by the fact that, in colleges of fine art, the entrance examinations and/or deadlines for applications for 1997/98 fall before the announcement by Brussels of approved cooperation programmes. This means that study visits under the Socrates programme can hardly be carried out in the academic year 1997/98. Is it possible to reduce the waiting period for the authorization of the Socrates programme so that the students have the time to take entrance exams and/or make further applications, if authorization is not forthcoming?Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (27 May 1997)The Commission is aware of the fact that in the first year of implementation of the Socrates programme in higher education (Chapter I, Erasmus) there was a relatively long period between the date of application for 'institutional contracts' (1 July 1996) and the date of approval (May 1997).At the request of many universities in Europe and with the agreement of the programme committee, the Commission therefore decided to postpone the application date for the second year of the programme to 15 November 1997. The date of approval will be in time for the start of the academic year 1998/1999, but not earlier than May 1998. The delay between application and approval will thus be reduced.Entrance examinations for incoming students are not common practice under Socrates-Erasmus as there is already an understanding between the partner institutions on the level and quality of the students selected to be mobile.Partner institutions are free to organise the selection of mobile students in the way they consider appropriate and in most institutions this selection starts before the formal approval of the cooperation activity by the Socrates-Erasmus programme.The date of the formal approval itself cannot be advanced as the period for evaluating the many thousand proposals has already been substantially reduced at the request of the universities.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1317/97 by Mark WATTS to the Commission. Cruelty to animals in Spain
Date: 1997-04-11
Institutions: European Parliament, WATTS
Subjects: Spain, animal welfare, equidae, protection of animals













EUR-Lex - 91997E1317 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E1317

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1317/97 by Mark WATTS to the Commission. Cruelty to animals in Spain  


Official Journal C 373 , 09/12/1997 P. 0104 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1317/97 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission (11 April 1997)Subject: Cruelty to animals in SpainIs the Commission aware of an article in the Daily Mail of 12 February 1997 involving cruelty to a donkey in a ceremony in Spain? The ceremony referred to took place on Shrove Tuesday in the village of Villaneuva de la Vera and involved a donkey being paraded through the streets and plied with wine, cider and sangria over a period of two and a half hours.What action is being taken by the Commission to prevent such cruel ceremonies taking place?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (16 May 1997)The Commission deplores all cruelty towards animals. Although Community legislation has been adopted to protect the welfare of farm livestock, and transported animals, and to cover the killing of animals kept for the production of meat, skin, fur or other products and also for the protection of laboratory animals, no overall general anti-cruelty legislation at Community level exists.The question raised by the Honourable Member therefore falls within the sole responsibility of the Spanish authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1321/97 by Gary TITLEY to the Commission. EU legislation for the licencing of crane operators/drivers
Date: 1997-04-11
Institutions: European Parliament, TITLEY
Subjects: EC Directive, United Kingdom, application of EU law, driving licence, hoisting equipment, national implementing measure, traffic regulations, transport safety













EUR-Lex - 91997E1321 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E1321

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1321/97 by Gary TITLEY to the Commission. EU legislation for the licencing of crane operators/drivers  


Official Journal C 391 , 23/12/1997 P. 0069 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1321/97 by Gary Titley (PSE) to the Commission (11 April 1997)Subject: EU legislation for the licencing of crane operators/driversCan the Commission report which EU legislation requires crane operators/drivers to hold licences such as the UK Category C Licenced Goods Vehicle (LGV) qualification, which UK crane operators will have to possess from 1 January 1998, and what measures did the Commission take to consult with the industry in framing the legislation and assisting with any training costs incurred?Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (27 May 1997)A distinction has to be made between crane operators and mobile crane drivers. There is no Community legislation requiring crane operators to hold a category C driving licence.A requirement is however laid down for the driving of mobile cranes that travel on public roads between construction and building sites in Council Directive 91/439/EEC ((OJ L 237, 24.8.1991. )) on driving licences. Such cranes are capable of speeds well above the 25 kilometres per hour threshold usually applied for excluding certain vehicles from the definition of motor vehicle.Article 3.1 of Council Directive 91/439/EEC defines vehicles of category C as 'motor vehicles other than those in category D and whose maximum authorized mass is over 3.500 kilograms'. The weight of mobile cranes usually exceeds this. Therefore, a C licence is required by Directive 91/439/EEC for driving mobile cranes.In the past, the United Kingdom required only a B licence. However, the United Kingdom authorities decided to include mobile cranes within category C when implementing the Directive early this year. The draft Regulation was the subject of normal consultation procedures. Specific consultations are under way for clarifying the position of experienced mobile crane drivers in the United Kingdom.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1267/97 by Marjo MATIKAINEN-KALLSTRÖM to the Commission. Noise prevention research
Date: 1997-04-11
Institutions: European Parliament, MATIKAINEN-KALLSTROEM
Subjects: EU control, EU publication, environmental impact, impact study, noise, noise pollution, noise protection, road traffic, sound insulation













EUR-Lex - 91997E1267 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E1267

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1267/97 by Marjo MATIKAINEN-KALLSTRÖM to the Commission. Noise prevention research  


Official Journal C 391 , 23/12/1997 P. 0063 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1267/97 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE) to the Commission (11 April 1997)Subject: Noise prevention researchNoise is one of Europe's most significant local environmental problems. Future proposals for solutions to noise problems will have to take specific account of local circumstances and local needs. Noise caused by road and rail traffic can be prevented, for example, by means of infrastructure measures such as the building of embankments and noise screens. The various noise prevention alternatives should be studied at European level and compared in order to determine which is the most effective.What measures does the Commission plan to take in order to establish the noise-prevention benefits offered by embankments and noise screens?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (10 June 1997)Infrastructure measures to abate noise include those that limit the transmission of noise (such as noise protection walls, noise attenuation dams and passive protection of buildings through insulation) and those that contribute to the reduction of noise at source (such as the design of railway tracks and road surfaces).In its green paper on future noise policy ((COM(96) 540. )), the Commission has outlined possible actions to be taken at European level concentrating mainly on measures to limit the transmission of noise, since the use and effectiveness of measures to reduce noise at source can be best dealt with at local level. In the light of the comments received on the green paper the Commission will decide on the future actions to be taken. It will in this context also consider whether a study on the composition and effectiveness of various local infrastructure measures can be undertaken at Community level.Noise research is also being considered by the Commission for inclusion in its proposal for the fifth framework programme of research and development ((COM(97) 142 final. )). No specific details of the types of noise research can be given at this time, since the framework programme will be adopted by a co-decision procedure which has not yet started.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1264/97 by David THOMAS to the Commission. Directive 96/15/EC
Date: 1997-04-11
Institutions: European Parliament, THOMAS
Subjects: citrus fruit, parasitology, plant disease, plant health control, plant health legislation, protected area, protection of plant life













EUR-Lex - 91997E1264 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E1264

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1264/97 by David THOMAS to the Commission. Directive 96/15/EC  


Official Journal C 373 , 09/12/1997 P. 0095 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1264/97 by David Thomas (PSE) to the Commission (11 April 1997)Subject: Directive 96/15/ECThe recognition of protected zones for all citrus fruit, with the exception of grapefruit, through Community legislation has not been extended beyond 1 April 1996 by Commission Directive 96/15/EC ((OJ L 70, 20.3.1996, p. 35. )). This decision was taken on the grounds that a ban aimed at protection against unspecified harmful organisms has been considered inappropriate under internationally established principles.Against this background:Is the Commission aware that after more than six months, various Member States have not yet implemented this directive?What does the Commission intend to do to ensure that Commission Directive 96/15/EC is applied by all EU Member States?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (15 May 1997)The Commission is aware that some Member States have not yet implemented Commission Directive 96/15/EC amending Directive 92/76/EEC recognizing protected zones exposed to particular plant health risks in the Community ((OJ L 305, 21.10.1992. )).The Commission has launched the appropriate procedures which are available for such situations under the Treaty.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1315/97 by Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Breach of Community legislation on the environmental impact of the temporary pre-treatment and storage plant for dangerous toxic waste in Campolungo (Ascoli Piceno)
Date: 1997-04-11
Institutions: European Parliament, MUSCARDINI
Subjects: EU aid, EU control, European Commission, Marches, environmental impact, impact study, industrial waste, storage of waste, waste management













EUR-Lex - 91997E1315 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E1315

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1315/97 by Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Breach of Community legislation on the environmental impact of the temporary pre-treatment and storage plant for dangerous toxic waste in Campolungo (Ascoli Piceno)  


Official Journal C 391 , 23/12/1997 P. 0068 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1315/97 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (11 April 1997)Subject: Breach of Community legislation on the environmental impact of the temporary pre-treatment and storage plant for dangerous toxic waste in Campolungo (Ascoli Piceno)In the commune of Ascoli Piceno, a project for the temporary pre-treatment and storage of hazardous toxic waste has been accepted for funding under EEC Objective 2 without carrying out an environmental impact assessment in accordance with Directive 85/337/EEC ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.)).This project at present contradicts and contravenes all the provisions of the directive referred to above and the plant is to be built close to the River Tronto.Will the Commission say:1. what action it intends to take against the flagrant breach of the Community legislation on environmental impact assessment, having already allocated the funds which could be used to develop this waste plant?2. Whether it intends to ask the region of Marche to state the reasons for this clear breach of the criteria for applying Objective 2?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (5 June 1997)The single programming document (SPD) for Objective 2 1994-1996 for the Marche region includes a measure for the construction of industrial waste treatment infrastructure.The feasibility project will be submitted for evaluation by the region's technical bodies and will have to be approved by the government of the Marche region.In particular through the monitoring committee for the Marche SPD, the Commission will ensure compliance with Directive 85/337/EEC on the evaluation of the impact of certain public and private projects on the environment, ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. )) including compliance as regards the submission of this project to an environmental impact assessment before authorization is granted.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1291/97 by Bill MILLER to the Commission. EU Member States
Date: 1997-04-11
Institutions: European Parliament, MILLER
Subjects: Andorra, Channel Islands, EU law, Holy See, Isle of Man, Monaco, San Marino, customs regulations, customs territory (EU)













EUR-Lex - 91997E1291 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E1291

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1291/97 by Bill MILLER to the Commission. EU Member States  


Official Journal C 373 , 09/12/1997 P. 0103 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1291/97 by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission (11 April 1997)Subject: EU Member StatesDoes the Commission accept that the Isle of Man, Andorra, Monaco, Vatican City, San Marino and the Channel Islands are not EU Member States?Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (16 May 1997)The Member States of the Community are the fifteen mentioned in paragraph 1 of Article 227 of the EC Treaty. The relations between the Community and those territories and states cited by the Honourable Member are subject to the following special conditions:- the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are neither part of the United Kingdom nor are they colonies. They are part of the British Crown's dominions. The EC Treaty and Community secondary legislation apply to those islands only to the extent necessary to ensure the implementation of the arrangements for those islands set out in the Treaty of accession of the United Kingdom to the Community (Protocol No 3),- the Vatican City is neither a Member State nor does it belong to the customs territory of the Community,- Monaco is a principality which is integrated within the customs territory of the Community (Article 3 of Regulation 2913/92/EC ((OJ L 302, 19 October 1992.))) and is subject to certain Community secondary legislation (i.e. VAT),- San Marino is a republic which does not belong to the customs territory of the Community. Its relations with the Community are governed by Council Decision 92/561/EC ((OJ L 359, 9.12.1992.)) and by the cooperation agreement of 16 December 1991, which awaits ratification,- Andorra is a co-principality which does not belong to the customs territory of the Community. Relations between Andorra and the Community are governed by the trade agreement contained in Council Decision 680/90/EC ((OJ L 374, 31.12.1990.)).
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1259/97 by Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Globalization and democracy
Date: 1997-04-11
Institutions: European Parliament, MUSCARDINI
Subjects: budget policy, budgetary power, company with share capital, competition, economic policy, euro, financial institution, free movement of capital, free movement of goods, political power













EUR-Lex - 91997E1259 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E1259

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1259/97 by Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Globalization and democracy  


Official Journal C 367 , 04/12/1997 P. 0105 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1259/97 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (11 April 1997)Subject: Globalization and democracyThe EU is one of the forces which is serving to accelerate the globalization process. The terms 'flexibility', 'expertise', 'free trade', and 'globalism' have become watchwords for contemporary society.Capital is now moving without restrictions as well as without obstacles. Furthermore, as a result of the single currency, budgetary policies will cease to be a matter for the political authorities and be dealt with instead by financial authorities, in other words by bodies which have no responsibilities outside banking and are not accountable to the extent that they have a mandate from the people.Will the Commission draw up measures providing the means necessary to ensure that responsibility for exercising budgetary powers is transferred back to the political authorities?Will it also draw up measures which, by curbing the influence of financial institutions, will allow Member States to implement economic policies and prevent big business from taking decisions in the place of sovereign States?Joint answer to Written Questions E-1245/97 and E-1259/97 given by Mr de Silguy on behalf of the Commission (28 May 1997)Within the economic and monetary union, the different components of economic policy will be managed by different groups of 'decision-makers': monetary policy by the European Central Bank; budgetary policy by the national parliaments and governments; and the setting of wage levels by the two sides of industry.For the purpose of coordinating Member States' economic policies (as provided for in Article 103(1) of the EC Treaty), the sovereignty of the national authorities in the budgetary policy field will be exercised within the framework of the financial and budgetary provisions which are set out in the Treaty and other Community instruments and which have been freely accepted by the Member States. Article 103(1) also stipulates that 'Member States shall regard their economic policies as a matter of common concern and shall coordinate them within the Council'. For the Commission, the euro will allow the Member States to regain collectively the monetary sovereignty that they have lost individually as a result of the globalization of financial markets.With the framework of such coordination, national budgetary policies will be the sovereign responsibility of the national political authorities representing citizens.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1297/97 by Bárbara DÜHRKOP DÜHRKOP to the Commission. Fisheries agreements with New Zealand and other countries
Date: 1997-04-11
Institutions: DUEHRKOP DUEHRKOP, European Parliament
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Union, New Zealand, fishing agreement, international negotiations, third country













EUR-Lex - 91997E1297 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E1297

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1297/97 by Bárbara DÜHRKOP DÜHRKOP to the Commission. Fisheries agreements with New Zealand and other countries  


Official Journal C 391 , 23/12/1997 P. 0068 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1297/97 by Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop (PSE) to the Commission (11 April 1997)Subject: Fisheries agreements with New Zealand and other countriesIn order to preserve the fishing activity of the Community fleet and the jobs which depend on it, the European Union needs to sign new international fisheries agreements with countries with which it does not yet have such agreements.New Zealand offers potential in this regard and has indicated interest in such an agreement.Has the Commission contacted the New Zealand authorities with a view to negotiating a fisheries agreement? If so, what stage have the talks reached? With which countries does the Commission plan to conclude new fisheries agreements?Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (13 May 1997)The Commission identified the potential for a fisheries agreement with New Zealand in October 1995. New Zealand expressed an interest in further developing contacts and thus exploratory talks took place in March 1996 in New Zealand in order to assess whether a basis existed for a second generation fisheries agreement between the Community and New Zealand.The Commission during its mission to New Zealand met representatives of the public and private sector, both of which were positive about possible cooperation with Community fishing interests under joint ventures and joint enterprises. The initial reactions from Member States were also rather positive.The Commission requested from the Council in January 1997 a negotiating directive which would authorise the Commission to commence negotiations with New Zealand with a view to concluding a fisheries agreement. The matter is currently under discussion in the Council's external fisheries group.For 1997, the Commission is at present examining the possibility of fisheries agreements with Russia and Poland in the North, as well as with some countries in Southern Africa, namely, Namibia, South Africa and Mozambique. The conclusion of these agreements however is contingent upon, firstly, the reactions of the Community sector on the fishing possibilities offered and on the financial envelopes resulting from these possibilities and secondly, on the level of the financial commitment of the Community to such actions.