do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1293/97 by Bill MILLER to the Commission. EU employment conditions
Date: 1997-04-11
Institutions: European Parliament, MILLER
Subjects: Andorra, Channel Islands, EU national, Holy See, Isle of Man, Monaco, San Marino, free movement of persons, free movement of workers, work permit













EUR-Lex - 91997E1293 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E1293

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1293/97 by Bill MILLER to the Commission. EU employment conditions  


Official Journal C 319 , 18/10/1997 P. 0247 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1293/97 by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission (11 April 1997)Subject: EU employment conditionsDo workers from the Isle of Man, Andorra, Monaco, Vatican City, San Marino and the Channel Islands have any special conditions applying to their employment which do not apply to EU citizens?Joint answer to Written Questions E-1292/97, E-1293/97 and E-1294/97 given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (16 May 1997)Andorra, Monaco, San Marino and the Vatican City are not part of the Community for the purpose of free movement of people. Consequently, citizens of these countries are not treated as Community nationals and hence do not enjoy the right of free movement conferred by Community law. Conversely, the EC Treaty free movement provisions do not apply to Community nationals in these countries, except in exceptional circumstances.The position as regards the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man is complex. The EC Treaty applies only 'to the extent necessary to ensure the implementation of the arrangements for these islands set out in the United Kingdom Accession Treaty' (Article 227 5c).Under Protocol 3 to the United Kingdom Accession Treaty, the Community rules on the free movement of workers are, in principle, not applicable on the territory of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. However, the authorities of those islands may not discriminate against natural and legal persons from the Member States. Concretely, this means that those authorities may, for example, require work permits of Community nationals provided that they do so in a way which does not discriminate according to the nationality of the person concerned.As regards rights enjoyed by people from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, Protocol 3 expressly provides that they do not benefit from the Community provisions relating to free movement of people, but without prejudice to the rights which they enjoy in the United Kingdom under British domestic law.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1276/97 by Marianne THYSSEN to the Commission. Halting of the translation of the European periodical 'Professional Training' into all the official languages of the European Union
Date: 1997-04-11
Institutions: European Parliament, THYSSEN
Subjects: Cedefop, EU Member State, EU publication, exchange of information, official language, operating cost, publishing, translation, use of languages, vocational training













EUR-Lex - 91997E1276 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E1276

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1276/97 by Marianne THYSSEN to the Commission. Halting of the translation of the European periodical 'Professional Training' into all the official languages of the European Union  


Official Journal C 367 , 04/12/1997 P. 0111 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1276/97 by Marianne Thyssen (PPE) to the Commission (11 April 1997)Subject: Halting of the translation of the European periodical 'Professional Training' into all the official languages of the European UnionSince January 1997 the European periodical 'Professional Training', which is published by the European Centre for the Development of Professional Training, has been translated only into English, French, German and Spanish. Previous volumes of the periodical appeared in all the official languages of the European Union.1. Can the Commission give the reasons why translation into all the official Community languages has been halted?2. Was this a Cedefop decision, or was the decision taken in conjunction with the Commission?3. Does the Commission have similar plans to restrict translation work in other institutions and/or the translation of other publications?4. Does the Commission not take the view that this decision represents a retrograde step with regard to the transparency of Cedefop's work and communication between the Centre and European citizens?Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (30 May 1997)1. and 4. The Honourable Member may wish to refer to the Commission's answer to the Written Question E-3398/96 of Mr Alavanos ((OJ C C 91, 20.3.1997. )).2. The reduction of the languages of the Journal was proposed by the Centre to the management board in the latter's decision concerning the approval of the work programme for 1997. The management board consists of 48 members, representing the 15 Member States'governments and social partners and three representatives of the Commission.3. The Commission cannot comment on the languages in which other institutions publish.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1266/97 by Clive NEEDLE to the Commission. Appraisal of Objective 5b programmes
Date: 1997-04-11
Institutions: European Parliament, NEEDLE
Subjects: EU Member State, EU body, EU programme, Structural Funds, project evaluation, regional policy, regions of the United Kingdom













EUR-Lex - 91997E1266 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E1266

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1266/97 by Clive NEEDLE to the Commission. Appraisal of Objective 5b programmes  


Official Journal C 367 , 04/12/1997 P. 0109 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1266/97 by Clive Needle (PSE) to the Commission (11 April 1997)Subject: Appraisal of Objective 5b programmesWould the Commission provide an appraisal of the operation of Objective 5b programmes to the mid-term point of the 1994-1999 allocation, and in particular comment on the operation of UK area programmes compared to those in other Member States?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (12 May 1997)The United Kingdom government, local partners and the Commission are currently engaged in the mid term evaluation of the objective 5b programmes. The Commission is therefore not carrying out a separate evaluation exercise.As the evaluations for the eleven United Kingdom objective 5b regions have yet to be completed, it is premature to comment on the operation of the United Kingdom programmes. Equally it is premature to make a comparative analysis with other Member States as their evaluations also remain to be completed.The Commission will prepare a summary of the conclusions of the mid-term review of the structural funds and will discuss operational consequences in each monitoring committee.Publication of the interim evaluation reports for individual regions will be at the discretion of each of the monitoring committees responsible for the implementation of the objective 5b programmes.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1272/97 by Roberta ANGELILLI to the Commission. Application in Italy of Directive 85/337/EEC on environmental impact assessment
Date: 1997-04-11
Institutions: ANGELILLI, European Parliament
Subjects: Italy, administrative transparency, environmental impact, impact study, infringement procedure (EU), urban construction













EUR-Lex - 91997E1272 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E1272

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1272/97 by Roberta ANGELILLI to the Commission. Application in Italy of Directive 85/337/EEC on environmental impact assessment  


Official Journal C 373 , 09/12/1997 P. 0099 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1272/97 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (11 April 1997)Subject: Application in Italy of Directive 85/337/EEC on environmental impact assessmentIn her answer to Written Question E-1508/96 ((OJ C 356, 25.11.1996, p. 48. )) Mrs Bjerregaard stated, on behalf of the Commission, that with regard to projects included in Annex II of Directive 85/337/EEC ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. )) there was no provision under Italian legislation for an environmental impact assessment, contrary to Article 2 of the Directive itself. She also stated that infringement proceedings had already been instituted against Italy on the basis of Article 169 of the EC Treaty.Can the Commission say what stage has been reached in these proceedings as regards the case referred to above and what, if any, the outcome has been?Can the Commission say whether the adoption of Directive 97/11/EC ((OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5. )), which amends Directive 85/337/EEC, will have any impact on these proceedings?Can the Commission also describe what, in general, is the outcome of infringement proceedings based on Article 169 of the EC Treaty?Answer given by Ms Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (21 May 1997)The infringement proceedings relating to Italy's transposition of Directive 85/337/EEC is at the stage where the decision has been taken to bring the matter before the Court of Justice. The adoption of Directive 97/11/EC has no effect on the proceedings.The outcome of infringement proceedings based on Article 169 of the EC Treaty may be a judgment of the Court of Justice to the effect that a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations under a Directive. The Member State must then comply with the Directive. If it does not do so, the Court may give a second judgment, after further infringement proceedings based on Article 171 of the EC Treaty, ordering the Member State to pay a fixed fine or a certain sum of money for each day of delay in complying with the first judgment of the Court.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1289/97 by Caroline JACKSON to the Commission. Set-aside of agricultural land
Date: 1997-04-11
Institutions: European Parliament, JACKSON CAROLINE
Subjects: EU Member State, United Kingdom, agricultural production policy, agricultural statistics, aid per hectare, cereals, oleaginous plant, policy on agricultural structures, set-aside, utilised agricultural area













EUR-Lex - 91997E1289 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E1289

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1289/97 by Caroline JACKSON to the Commission. Set-aside of agricultural land  


Official Journal C 373 , 09/12/1997 P. 0102 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1289/97 by Caroline Jackson (PPE) to the Commission (11 April 1997)Subject: Set-aside of agricultural land1. What is the total amount of agricultural land, by percentage of the whole and in hectares, set aside in the EU at present?2. What is the total amount of agricultural land, by percentage of the whole and in hectares, set aside in the UK at present?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (6 May 1997)The Honourable Member will find below the information requested for the marketing year 1995/1996:>TABLE>The total set-aside area includes areas set-aside under Regulation (EC) No 1765/92 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops ((OJ L 181, 1.7.1992. )), whether rotational, non-rotational or voluntary, and the 5-year set-aside scheme covered by Regulation (EC) No 2328/91 on improving the efficiency of agricultural structures ((OJ L 218, 6.8.1991. )).Total COP area includes all areas supported under Regulation (EC) No 1765/92, (cereals, oilseeds, proteins, non-textile linseed and set-aside), 5 years set-aside and fodder areas declared under Regulation (EC) No 805/68 on the common organization of the market in beef and veal ((OJ L 148, 28.6.1968. )).
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1295/97 by Richard HOWITT to the Commission. EC Energy Centre, Katowice
Date: 1997-04-11
Institutions: European Parliament, HOWITT
Subjects: EU financing, Poland, action programme, aid system, energy technology, international cooperation













EUR-Lex - 91997E1295 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E1295

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1295/97 by Richard HOWITT to the Commission. EC Energy Centre, Katowice  


Official Journal C 391 , 23/12/1997 P. 0067 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1295/97 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (11 April 1997)Subject: EC Energy Centre, KatowiceCan the Commission confirm that the EC Energy Centre in Katowice, Poland has secured further funding?The project is well received by local government and industries in Katowice. The restructuring problems facing regions such as Katowice, make such European Union efforts essential and should be supported and secured.Can the Commission supply details of the proposed funding in the forthcoming budget allocation?Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (2 June 1997)The Katowice centre created under the Thermie programme and later on (1996) supported under the Synergy programme is engaged in a transfer process to the State agency for restructuring of the hard coal industry. In the meantime, the Synergy contract which allowed the support to the centre to the end of 1996 has been extended to mid-1997 to ensure a smooth transfer.Future cooperation activity is envisaged in the framework of the 1997 Synergy programme. The final decision, which is subject to the completion of the procedures foreseen by Regulation (EC) No 701/97 amending a programme to promote international cooperation in the energy sector - Synergy programme ((OJ L 104, 22.4.1997. )), is to be expected in the second half of 1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1290/97 by Bill MILLER to the Commission. Bosman ruling
Date: 1997-04-11
Institutions: European Parliament, MILLER
Subjects: EU national, Monaco, free movement of workers, professional sport, sports body, transfer of businesses













EUR-Lex - 91997E1290 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E1290

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1290/97 by Bill MILLER to the Commission. Bosman ruling  


Official Journal C 319 , 18/10/1997 P. 0247 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1290/97 by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission (11 April 1997)Subject: Bosman rulingThe recent announcement by the Fédération Internationale de Football Association and the statement by a Commission official on the Bosman ruling as it applies to the football player John Collins of AS de Monaco, formerly of Glasgow Celtic Football Club, indicate that the Commission has been approached to rule on this issue.Can this be confirmed?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (16 May 1997)The Commission can confirm that it has been approached about the issue concerning the applicability of the Bosman ruling to the transfer of a football player from a Member State to Monaco.The Commission can only confirm that, as a matter of principle, Monaco is not part of the Community for the purpose of the free movement of workers.However, given that AS Monaco plays regularly in the French national football league and that a number of the club's matches are played on a regular basis on French territory, such a transfer would retain a sufficiently close link with the Community. Therefore, the Commission considers that it is possible to confirm that the Bosman ruling is applicable to such a transfer.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1262/97 by Franz LINSER to the Commission. Conformity of certain Austrian taxes and levies with Community legislation
Date: 1997-04-11
Institutions: European Parliament, LINSER
Subjects: Austria, Court of Justice of the European Union, EU law - national law, VAT, application of EU law, interpretation of the law, tax, tax harmonisation, tax system













EUR-Lex - 91997E1262 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E1262

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1262/97 by Franz LINSER to the Commission. Conformity of certain Austrian taxes and levies with Community legislation  


Official Journal C 391 , 23/12/1997 P. 0062 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1262/97 by Franz Linser (NI) to the Commission (11 April 1997)Subject: Conformity of certain Austrian taxes and levies with Community legislationOn 30 July 1996 Wolfgang Nußbaumer, MEP, addressed a question (P-2271/96 ((OJ C 60, 26.2.1997, p. 58. ))) to you regarding 'Article 33 of Directive 77/388/EEC ((OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1. )), the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment'.It follows from this directive that, apart from the turnover tax itself, no other taxes, duties or charges, which can be characterized as turnover taxes may be maintained or introduced.The Commission was not able at that time to answer the question as to how far the Austrian basic levy on compulsory members of the chamber of commerce, the beverage tax and the tourist tax in the province of Vorarlberg conformed with current Community law.According to the Commission, the information necessary for a detailed assessment of the taxes in question was requested from the Austrian authorities.I therefore ask you to inform me of the results of this assessment.Joint answer to Written Questions E-1262/97 and E-1281/97 given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (3 June 1997)The Commission is not yet in possession of the information it needs in order to decide definitively whether the taxes and levies in question are compatible with Community law.However, the Austrian legislation regarding the compulsory levy on membership of the chamber of commerce (KU1), to which the Honourable Member refers, is currently the subject of a reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice (Case C-318/96) on the interpretation of Article 33 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 concerning value added tax ((OJ L 145, 13.6.1977. )). Consequently, it is now for the Court of Justice to provide the Austrian courts with the criteria for interpreting Article 33 that will enable them to decide on the compatibility of the membership levy with Community law.As for the other two taxes referred to, the Commission is continuing its assessment.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1294/97 by Bill MILLER to the Commission. EU employment conditions
Date: 1997-04-11
Institutions: European Parliament, MILLER
Subjects: Andorra, Channel Islands, EU national, Holy See, Isle of Man, Monaco, San Marino, free movement of persons, free movement of workers, work permit













EUR-Lex - 91997E1294 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E1294

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1294/97 by Bill MILLER to the Commission. EU employment conditions  


Official Journal C 319 , 18/10/1997 P. 0247 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1294/97 by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission (11 April 1997)Subject: EU employment conditionsDo workers from the Isle of Man, Andorra, Monaco, Vatican City, San Marino and the Channel Islands have any special conditions applying to their employment which do not apply to workers from outwith the EU Member States?Joint answer to Written Questions E-1292/97, E-1293/97 and E-1294/97 given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (16 May 1997)Andorra, Monaco, San Marino and the Vatican City are not part of the Community for the purpose of free movement of people. Consequently, citizens of these countries are not treated as Community nationals and hence do not enjoy the right of free movement conferred by Community law. Conversely, the EC Treaty free movement provisions do not apply to Community nationals in these countries, except in exceptional circumstances.The position as regards the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man is complex. The EC Treaty applies only 'to the extent necessary to ensure the implementation of the arrangements for these islands set out in the United Kingdom Accession Treaty' (Article 227 5c).Under Protocol 3 to the United Kingdom Accession Treaty, the Community rules on the free movement of workers are, in principle, not applicable on the territory of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. However, the authorities of those islands may not discriminate against natural and legal persons from the Member States. Concretely, this means that those authorities may, for example, require work permits of Community nationals provided that they do so in a way which does not discriminate according to the nationality of the person concerned.As regards rights enjoyed by people from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, Protocol 3 expressly provides that they do not benefit from the Community provisions relating to free movement of people, but without prejudice to the rights which they enjoy in the United Kingdom under British domestic law.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1269/97 by Alessandro DANESIN to the Commission. Environmental impact assessment of the project for a waste tip at Spresiano (TV)
Date: 1997-04-11
Institutions: DANESIN, European Parliament
Subjects: Veneto, domestic waste, environmental impact, environmental protection, waste disposal, waste management













EUR-Lex - 91997E1269 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E1269

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1269/97 by Alessandro DANESIN to the Commission. Environmental impact assessment of the project for a waste tip at Spresiano (TV)  


Official Journal C 373 , 09/12/1997 P. 0096 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1269/97 by Alessandro Danesin (UPE) to the Commission (11 April 1997)Subject: Environmental impact assessment of the project for a waste tip at Spresiano (TV)The consortium for the collection and disposal of solid urban waste 'Priula' is the body responsible for the TV2 (Treviso 2) landfill for the disposal of solid urban waste (Veneto Regional Council provision No 785 of 28 October 1988). Via the company Contarina Spa (in which it is a majority shareholder) Priula submitted a project for the construction of a plant to treat solid urban waste and produce compost and RDF, which was approved on 29 November 1991 and is to be carried out in the urban district of Spresiano at an estimated cost of LIT 30 billion.In Decision No 6105 of 23 October 1992 the Veneto Region approved the project, after receiving a favourable opinion from the environment section of the Regional Technical Commission, on the basis of an environmental compatibility study submitted by Contarina Spa itself. However, this study contains data which do not correspond to the truth, as pointed out by the Major and Council of Spresiano. The data were essential to the approval of the project and described the plant as being:- at least 1.4 km from the nearest village, whereas in actual fact it is 420 metres from the hamlet of Lovadina (the Regional Plan for waste disposal specifies a distance of 500 metres);- approximately 100 metres from a motorway (the minimum distance laid down is 200 metres);- approximately 20 metres from isolated houses and approximately 30 metres from a group of four inhabited houses (the minimum laid down by the Region is 100 metres).Was this project forwarded to the Commission or does the Commission at least know about it?Does the Commission consider that the project complies with Directive 85/337/EEC ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. )) on environmental impact assessment and Directives 75/442/EEC ((OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39. )) and 91/156/EEC ((OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32. )) on waste?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (6 May 1997)It is not for the Commission to verify the information provided by the Honourable Member. The matter may be brought before the national courts, if appropriate.Works projects covered by Directive 85/337/EEC on the environmental impact assessment procedure are not automatically notified to the Commission.