do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1668/97 by David BOWE to the Commission. VOC emissions from ships
Date: 1997-05-20
Institutions: BOWE, European Parliament
Subjects: International Maritime Organisation, air quality, harbour installation, organic chemical, organic pollution, petrol, pollution from ships, prevention of pollution













EUR-Lex - 91997E1668 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E1668

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1668/97 by David BOWE to the Commission. VOC emissions from ships  


Official Journal C 045 , 10/02/1998 P. 0075 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1668/97 by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission (20 May 1997)Subject: VOC emissions from shipsDoes the Commission think it is necessary to prepare a proposal for a Council Directive to limit the emission of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from ships when loading, unloading, ballasting and venting their cargoes in European ports?If not, why not?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (26 June 1997)The provisions of the seventh recital of Directive 94/63/EEC on the control of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions resulting from the storage of petrol and its distribution from terminals to service stations ((OJ L 365, 31.12.1994. )) indicate:- that standards must be drawn up at International maritime organization (IMO) level for the vapour control and recovery systems to apply to both loading installations and ships;- that the Community must therefore endeavour to ensure that the necessary provisions are introduced into the Marpol convention during its current revision (the International convention for the prevention of pollution from ships).Work is currently in progress to finalise the new Annex VI to Marpol 73/78, dealing with restrictions on air pollutants (nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulphur dioxide (SO2) and VOCs) generated from ships. The proposed annex will be presented for approval at a conference in September 1997. After ratification by a sufficient number of states these provisions will enter into force.In the light of the final agreement on the revision of the Marpol convention, the Commission will decide whether it is appropriate to propose an amendment to Directive 94/63/EEC, in accordance with the provisions of Article 9 of that Directive, including an extension of the scope of the Directive to include vapour control and recovery systems for loading installations and ships.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1667/97 by David BOWE to the Commission. Community strategy for integrated control of emissions
Date: 1997-05-20
Institutions: BOWE, European Parliament
Subjects: EU environmental policy, air quality, dangerous substance, industrial pollution, polluter pays principle, pollution control, pollution control measures, small and medium-sized enterprises













EUR-Lex - 91997E1667 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E1667

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1667/97 by David BOWE to the Commission. Community strategy for integrated control of emissions  


Official Journal C 391 , 23/12/1997 P. 0116 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1667/97 by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission (20 May 1997)Subject: Community strategy for integrated control of emissionsIs the Commission going to proceed with the drafting of a proposal for a Community strategy for the integrated control of emissions of dangerous substances from smaller installations? If not, why not?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (19 June 1997)The legislative programme of the Commission for 1997 mentions the preparation of a proposal for a framework directive for the integrated control of emissions of dangerous and long range effect substances from smaller installations. However, it has been decided that it is currently not opportune to proceed with the development of this proposal, for the following reasons:1. The aims of this initiative were to bring simplification and additional flexibility to the existing environmental rules and at the same time to provide for a more comprehensive and consistent approach to the control of pollution from the industrial installations not covered by Directive 96/61/EEC ((OJ L 257, 10.10.1996. )) on integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC).However, following extensive consultations organized by the Commission, it became clear that environmental control of industrial installations not covered by the IPPC Directive, a large part of which are small to medium sized installations, is a very complex issue. In particular, these installations are diverse in nature and size and give rise to several different environmental problems. It has proved very difficult to find common regulatory ground, which would properly address all the issues at stake.2. The consultations also showed that the issues at stake in relation to small installations and the environment need further clarification. Additional analysis as to the appropriate possible solutions is therefore necessary.3. A wide array of regulations, European and national, already apply to industrial installations not covered by the IPPC Directive. Many of the environmental problems these installations may cause are addressed by those regulations. The consultations have made clear that the model foreseen for the proposal would not have provided the environmental benefits originally expected of it.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 895/97 of 20 May 1997 on the country nomenclature for the external trade statistics of the Community and statistics of trade between Member States (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 1997-05-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, foreign trade, intra-EU trade, statistical nomenclature, statistics, third country













EUR-Lex - 31997R0895 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



31997R0895

Commission Regulation (EC) No 895/97 of 20 May 1997 on the country nomenclature for the external trade statistics of the Community and statistics of trade between Member States (Text with EEA relevance)  


Official Journal L 128 , 21/05/1997 P. 0001 - 0007 





COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 895/97 of 20 May 1997 on the country nomenclature for the external trade statistics of the Community and statistics of trade between Member States (Text with EEA relevance)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1172/95 of 22 May 1995 relating to the trading of goods by the Community and its Member States with non-member countries (1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 476/97 (2), and in particular Article 21 (1) thereof,Whereas in accordance with Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1172/95 the introduction of the country nomenclature is the responsibility of the Commission;Whereas the version thereof valid on 1 January 1996 was annexed to Commission Regulation (EC) No 68/96 (3); whereas from 1 January 1997 account should be taken of the inclusion of the French overseas departments and the Canary Islands in the statistical territories of France and Spain respectively; whereas minor amendments should be introduced to meet new statistical and technical requirements;Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Statistics relating to the trading of goods with non-member countries,HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:Article 1 The version valid on 1 January 1997 of the nomenclature of countries for the external trade statistics of the Community and statistics of trade between Member States is set out in Annex hereto.Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.It shall apply with effect from 1 January 1997.This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.Done at Brussels, 20 May 1997.For the CommissionYves-Thibault DE SILGUYMember of the Commission(1) OJ No L 118, 25. 5. 1995, p. 10.(2) OJ No L 75, 15. 3. 1997, p. 1.(3) OJ No L 14, 19. 1. 1996, p. 6.ANNEX COUNTRY NOMENCLATURE FOR THE EXTERNAL TRADE STATISTICS OF THE COMMUNITY AND STATISTICS OF TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES (version valid with effect from 1 January 1997) >TABLE>
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1692/97 by Daniel VARELA SUANZES- CARPEGNA to the Commission. Counting days at sea as actual fishing days
Date: 1997-05-20
Institutions: European Parliament, VARELA SUANZES-CARPEGNA
Subjects: Community fisheries, catch quota, conservation of fish stocks, fisheries policy, fishery management, fishery resources, fishing area, fishing grounds, fishing regulations, fishing vessel













EUR-Lex - 91997E1692 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E1692

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1692/97 by Daniel VARELA SUANZES- CARPEGNA to the Commission. Counting days at sea as actual fishing days  


Official Journal C 045 , 10/02/1998 P. 0082 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1692/97 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission (20 May 1997)Subject: Counting days at sea as actual fishing daysAs current Community law is applied, days at sea on the way to the various fishing grounds are counted as fishing days, which results in a substantial loss of actual fishing opportunities. For example, Spanish boats fishing in Zone VII of the ICES have to make an average journey of three days there and back, which means three licence days are lost on each trip.What urgent steps does the Commission propose to take to solve this unfair and serious problem?Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (17 June 1997)Fishing effort is governed by Council Regulation (EC) No 685/95 of 27 March 1995 ((OJ L 71, 31.3.1995 )). The objective is to maintain the balance of resources within each fishing zone by preventing overall fishing efforts from increasing or securing any reduction dictated by the resource trend.Fishing effort is defined as the product of a vessel's capacity and its activity and calculated by multiplying its power in kilowatts by the number of days spent in the zone.The time taken to reach the zone covered by a fishing effort restriction thus has no bearing on calculation of effort. Only the total number of days spent in the zone, irrespective of the actual duration of fishing activity, counts.The effort allowed for each fishery was assessed by Member States themselves and notified to the Commission. These assessments were published in Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/95 of 15 June 1995 ((OJ L 199, 24.8.1995 )).
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1812/97 by Karl HABSBURG-LOTHRINGEN to the Commission. Sensitive areas
Date: 1997-05-20
Institutions: European Parliament, HABSBURG-LOTHRINGEN
Subjects: Alpine Region, atmospheric pollutant, charges for use of infrastructure, commercial vehicle, environmental protection, pollution control measures, road network, road transport tariff, sensitive area, transport infrastructure













EUR-Lex - 91997E1812 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E1812

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1812/97 by Karl HABSBURG-LOTHRINGEN to the Commission. Sensitive areas  


Official Journal C 391 , 23/12/1997 P. 0137 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-1812/97 by Karl Habsburg-Lothringen (PPE) to the Commission (20 May 1997)Subject: Sensitive areasCan the Commission confirm that efforts are being made to designate certain Alpine regions such as the Brenner and St Gotthard as sensitive areas, with all that this will entail in the way of implications for the Road Charges Directive, for example?Does the Commission agree that this effective and necessary measure should be extended to other regions in which traffic density is extremely high and which include ecologically sensitive areas, such as the trans-Tauern route and other Alpine passes?Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (18 June 1997)The Commission proposal for a Council directive on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures ((COM(96) 331 final. )) does include appropriate provisions for charging for the use of sensitive routes in areas where the supply and use of road infrastructure entails costs which are greater than the average in the Community. It is envisaged that the areas that fall into that category would be characterised by a high environmental sensitivity that is likely to be adversely affected by heavy traffic.However, while awaiting Parliament's opinion, the progress to date of the examination of the Commisssion proposal in Council indicates that a considerable number of Member States have difficulties with the concept of sensitive routes and its implication of increased charges. Discussion is therefore concentrating on whether the charging scheme for heavily used Alpine routes should be different to that which would apply in the rest of the Community.The Commission would also add that Council Directive 96/62/EC on ambient air quality assessment and management ((OJ L 296, 21.11.1996. )) provides for Member States to identify zones and agglomerations in which air quality standards are exceeded or where there is a risk that they are exceeded. For these zones and agglomerations, action plans have to be drawn up and implemented, which may have to include, depending on the case, measures on road traffic.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1693/97 by Daniel VARELA SUANZES- CARPEGNA to the Commission. Reform of the COM in fisheries and aquaculture products
Date: 1997-05-20
Institutions: European Parliament, VARELA SUANZES-CARPEGNA
Subjects: aquaculture, common organisation of markets, economic analysis, economic and social cohesion, fishery product, food processing, impact study













EUR-Lex - 91997E1693 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E1693

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1693/97 by Daniel VARELA SUANZES- CARPEGNA to the Commission. Reform of the COM in fisheries and aquaculture products  


Official Journal C 045 , 10/02/1998 P. 0083 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1693/97 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission (20 May 1997)Subject: Reform of the COM in fisheries and aquaculture productsThe Commission is looking into a new proposal on the COM in fisheries and aquaculture products.Has the Commission assessed the impact the proposal is likely to make on the regions and on economic and social cohesion?What are likely to be its repercussions on employment?What would be the consequences for the European Union's fishing regions, and especially Galicia?Can the Commission say what budgetary amount it is proposed to allocate to the new COM?Can the Commission put forward an indicative timetable for adoption of the new COM?Whatever the legal form of the new text,XXXXX does the Commission intend to back up the new proposal with a study not only of the impact on the producers and processing industries but also on the expected growth of the market in fisheries and aquaculture products?Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (3 July 1997)The common organisation of markets in fishery and aquaculture products has the primary role of attaining the goals given in Article 39 of the EC Treaty in this particular sector.Basically, the market organisation provides encouragement to producers to organise their marketing and contains instruments for regulating the market to deal with cyclical fluctuations. The aim is to support producers' incomes by means of price stabilisation, in a market which is highly internationalised.The Commission believes that the efficiency of the market organisation in fishery products needs to be measured against the goals referred to above; such an analysis means taking into account forecast market trends in the products concerned.Accordingly, the Commission plans by the end of this year to launch discussions about the market in fishery products and the market organisation itself involving the Council, Parliament and other forums and relevant trade circles, on the basis of a discussion document which is now being prepared. The necessary studies have been or will be undertaken and the document will also contain budget estimates.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1684/97 by Franz LINSER to the Commission. EU contributions/volume of aid (SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER)
Date: 1997-05-20
Institutions: European Parliament, LINSER
Subjects: Austria, Community budget, EU aid, EU financing, EU programme, statistics

C 134/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30. 4. 98

Supplementary answer
given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 1998)

In  view  of  the  length  of  its  answer,  the  Commission  is  sending  it  direct  to  the  Honourable  Member  and  to
Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat.

(98/C 134/03)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1684/97

by Franz Linser (NI) to the Commission

(20 May 1997)

Subject: EU contributions/volume of aid

In  Austria  different  figures  are  circulating  in  the  media  on  the  actual  contribution  made  by  Austria  and  the
amount it receives from the various aid programmes.

1.  What was Austria(cid:146)s contribution as a Member State in 1996?

2.  What will the level of contributions be in 1997 and 1998?

3.  What was the level of funding planned by the Commission which could in theory have returned to Austria?

4.  What was the level of funding approved by the Commission which could in theory have returned to Austria?

5.  What funding (broken down by areas of support and budget titles) actually returned to Austria in 1996?

6.  What is the difference between the theoretical level of funding, the level of funding approved by the EU and

the funding which actually returned to Austria in 1996?

7.  What level of funding not taken up by Austria in 1996 can be transferred to 1997 without being lost?

8.  What funding not taken up by Austria in 1996 will be lost to Austria?

9.  What aid for 1997 has Austria so far applied for?

10.  What aid for 1997 (for Austria) has so far been approved by the Commission?

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 1997)

The  Honourable  Member  is  referred  to  the  study  on  contributions  to  the  Community  budget  which  was
transmitted to Parliament on 14 October 1997 (1).

(1)  SEC(97) 1918.

(98/C 134/04)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2267/97

by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission

(2 July 1997)

Subject: Information on funds used to develop the north-west region of Italy in 1995-1996

What funds were allocated by the European Union in 1995 and 1996 to the north-west region of Italy (Lombardy,
Piedmont, Liguria and Valle d(cid:146)Aosta) and for what purposes, with particular reference to:

1.  European Regional Development Fund;

2.  European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) › Guidance Section;
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1702/97 by Ulf HOLM to the Commission. Export subsidies for tobacco
Date: 1997-05-20
Institutions: European Parliament, HOLM
Subjects: EU production, common organisation of markets, export refund, export subsidy, suspension of aid, tobacco

10. 2. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 45/85

Answer given by Mr Fischler au nom de la Commission

(18 June 1997)

With a view to the completion of the internal market the rules of Directive 64/433/EEC (1) (fresh meat directive),
as amended by Council Directives 91/497/EEC (2) and 95/23/EC (3), were extended to the national markets of
fresh meat. In this Directive special requirements (derogations) were introduced for small artisanal establish-
ments  (up  to  a  production  volume  of  1000  livestock  units  per  year)  in  order  to  avoid  difficulties  in  the
implementation of the provisions. These derogations concern structural requirements.

In addition a derogation was introduced in the Directive for slaughter establishments which handle not more than
2000 livestock units per year taking specific geographical situations and infrastructure circumstances in Member
States into account. Member States may, at their request, be authorized to apply the structural requirements for
small  slaughterhouses  (1000  livestock  units  per  year)  to  these  establishments  if  they  are  situated  in  regions
suffering from special geographical constraints or affected by supply difficulties.

The Italian authorities have transmitted a list of slaughterhouses to the Commission with a request to make a
proposal for derogations to the standing veterinary committee. This list contained several points which have to be
clarified  before  further  action  can  be  initiated.  Therefore  the  Italian  authorities  were  asked  for  clarification.
Having received this the Commission will examine the request and initiate the necessary action.

(1)  OJ 121, 29.7.1964.
(2)  OJ L 268, 24.9.1991.
(3)  OJ L 243, 11.10.1995.

(98/C 45/104)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1702/97

by Ulf Holm (V) to the Commission

(20 May 1997)

Subject: Export subsidies for tobacco

How much has the Commission spent on subsidizing exports of EU-produced tobacco each year since 1990?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 June 1997)

The Commission can state that, since 1990, expenditure on export refunds (budget heading B1-170) has been as
follows:

Financial year

Expenditure

(ECU million (budget))

1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996

61.87
65.28
57.42
36.24
49.86
35.10
2.44

The Commission would also like to stress that, as it currently stands, the common organization of the market no
longer makes provision for export refunds. The last expenditure of note in this area relates to the 1995 budget
(1992 harvest or earlier).