do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2376/97 by Gianni TAMINO to the Commission. Second report pursuant to Article 26 of Directive 86/609/EEC
Date: 1997-07-10
Institutions: European Parliament, TAMINO
Subjects: access to information, animal experimentation, application of EU law, approximation of laws, data collection, dissemination of information, protection of animals, statistical method, statistics













EUR-Lex - 91997E2376 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E2376

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2376/97 by Gianni TAMINO to the Commission. Second report pursuant to Article 26 of Directive 86/609/EEC  


Official Journal C 076 , 11/03/1998 P. 0102 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2376/97 by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission (10 July 1997)Subject: Second report pursuant to Article 26 of Directive 86/609/EECArticle 26 of Directive 86/609/EEC ((OJ L 358, 18.12.1986, p. 1. )) of 24 November 1986 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes states that 'at regular intervals not exceeding three years (...) Member States shall inform the Commission of the measures taken in this area and provide a suitable summary of the information collected under the provisions of Article 13. The Commission shall prepare a report for the Council and the European Parliament'. The first report, COM (94) 195 final, was issued on 27 May 1994.Since the 'regular interval not exceeding three years' has passed, is it possible to be informed about the second report?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (11 September 1997)The Commission invites the Honorable Member to refer to the answers given to written questions E-547/96 ((OJ C 280, 26.9.1996. )), E-173/97 ((OJ C 217, 17.7.1997. )), E-1419/97 ((OJ C 373, 9.12.1997, p. 124. )) by Mrs Pollack and to oral question H-208/97 during question time at Parliament's April 1997 part session by Sir Stewart Clark ((Debates of the Parliament (April 1997). )).At the present time, the Commission is proceeding with the introduction of the agreed statistical tables at Community level reporting the number of animals used in experiments and is examining the necessity of using an appropriate computerized system to achieve this task.The Member States have committed themselves, on a voluntary basis, to implement the agreed statistical tables by the year 1999.
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Fredrikstad byrett by decision of that court of 16 May 1997 in the case of Mag Instrument Inc. v California Trading Company Norway, Ulsteen (Case E-2/97)
Date: 1997-07-10
Institutions: Norway
Subjects: European Economic Area, trade mark













EUR-Lex - E1997P0002 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



E1997P0002

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Fredrikstad byrett by decision of that court of 16 May 1997 in the case of Mag Instrument Inc. v California Trading Company Norway, Ulsteen (Case E-2/97)  


Official Journal 209 , 10/07/1997 P. 0024 - 0024 





Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Fredrikstad byrett by decision of that court of 16 May 1997 in the case of Mag Instrument Inc. v California Trading Company Norway, Ulsteen (Case E-2/97) (97/C 209/06)A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 16 May 1997 of Fredrikstad byrett (Fredrikstad City Court), Norway, which was received at the Court Registry on 21 May 1997, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Mag Instrument Inc. v California Trading Company Norway, Ulsteen, on the following questions:1) Is Article 7, paragraph 1 of Council Directive 89/104/EEC to be understood as conferring a right on a trade mark proprietor to prevent an import from a third country outside the EEA, when the said import takes place without the consent of the trade mark proprietor?2) In other words, is the same provision to be understood to the effect that exhaustion of the trade mark right may neither be limited to national exhaustion nor expanded to include international
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2408/97 by Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Dogfights
Date: 1997-07-10
Institutions: European Parliament, MUSCARDINI
Subjects: EU law, animal show, domestic animal, organised crime, protection of animals

C 60/130

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25. 2. 98

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 1997)

The Commission supported the creation of a Conference on international trade in endangered species (CITES)
working  group  on  marine  fish  species  on  the  condition  that  it  would  consider  CITES  aspects  of  marine  fish
conservation  and  not  become  active  in  areas  that  fall  within  the  competence  of  the  Food  and  agriculture
organization and regional fisheries agreements. A working group of the CITES conference of the parties drafted
a version of the proposal that took full account of the above and the resulting new proposal was supported by the
Community.

It should be pointed out that the proposal aimed to avoid CITES involvement in marine fish species rather than
the other way around. In spite of this, the proposal was rejected by the conference of the parties.

(98/C 60/217)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2408/97

by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission

(10 July 1997)

Subject: Dogfights

For some time now it has been fashionable both in the European Union and other parts of the world to organize
fights between animals.

A  complex  network  of  criminal  associations  has  been  reaping  substantial  profits  by  organizing  large-scale
gambling on fights between animals, particularly dogs trained to kill each other.

The turnover during the last year for fights of this kind has been calculated at more than 1000 billion lire, with
some 5000 dogs being killed in Italy alone by being torn to pieces in the course of these criminal displays.

In addition, mafia and criminal organizations are springing up with all the consequences this entails.

Will the Commission draw up a directive imposing a total ban on dog fights and call on the Member States to
punish severely anyone organizing brutal exhibitions of this kind?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 1997)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to her Written Question E-2995/92 (1).

(1)  OJ C 86, 26.3.1993.

(98/C 60/218)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2415/97

by Edward Kellett-Bowman (PPE) to the Commission

(11 July 1997)

Subject: Draft  Commission  Directive  adapting  to  technical  progress  for  the  4th  time  Annex  I  to  Council

Directive 76/769/EEC

The  text  of  the  above  draft  states  in  paragraph  3  that  it  has  become  known  that  certain  of  these  dangerous
substances and preparations in the form of oils classified as presenting an aspiration hazard, when coloured, pose
a risk to human health and specifically to the health of young children. Can the Commission please indicate how,
when and where such a statement became known, and by whom?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2400/97 by Monica BALDI to the Commission. Freedom of education
Date: 1997-07-10
Institutions: BALDI, European Parliament
Subjects: Italy, academic freedom, competence of the Member States, education policy, fundamental rights, human rights, private education, public education

C 102/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

3. 4. 98

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-2394/97 and E-2422/97
given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 1997)

The Commission endorses the Honourable Member’s view that implementation of the recommendation of the
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) asking the contracting parties to ban
imports of bluefin tuna from Belize and Honduras is a matter for the Community, since the measures would be
adopted by Member States.

The Commission intends to table proposals for the Community to adopt ICCAT’s recommendations on bluefin
tuna as soon as possible.

(98/C 102/55)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2400/97

by Monica Baldi (UPE) to the Commission

(10 July 1997)

Subject: Freedom of education

Italy is the only country in Europe which has maintained a serious form of discrimination, depriving its citizens
of educational freedom. Italians are not allowed to choose freely between public and private schooling, given the
cost of the latter and the lack of funds available to support it.

1.

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

2.
In the light of the fundamental principles on which the Treaty on European Union is based, the statements
and  conventions  of  international  organizations  and,  in  particular,  the  European  Parliament  resolution  of
14  March  1984  on  freedom  of  education  in  the  European  Community,  does  the  Commission  agree  that  this
constitutes a violation of basic human rights?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 1997)

The Court of Justice protects human rights through application of the general principles of Community law and
bases  its  positions  in  particular  on  the  European  Convention  for  the  Protection  of  Human  Rights  and
Fundamental Liberties and its Protocols.

Within  the  Member  States  human  rights  and  fundamental  liberties  are  well  protected  by  efficient  regulating
systems, involving appeal against abuse within the country concerned and/or outside the country through the
mechanisms established by the above Convention, which has long been ratified by all the Member States.

However, under Article 126 of the EC Treaty the organisation of educational systems and the content of teaching
programmes is the exclusive responsibility of the Member States.

(98/C 102/56)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2405/97

by Hartmut Nassauer (PPE) to the Council

(18 July 1997)

Subject: Joint actions adopted by the Council under Article K.3(2) of the TEU

1. Will the Council set out all the joint actions adopted under Article K.3(2) of the TEU during the recent Irish
and Dutch presidencies, giving for each

(a)  the initiator of the joint action (Member State or Commission),

(b)  the way in which Parliament was informed and consulted prior to adoption,
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2383/97 by Nikitas KAKLAMANIS to the Commission. Via Ignatia railway line
Date: 1997-07-10
Institutions: European Parliament, KAKLAMANIS
Subjects: Cohesion Fund, EU aid, European Regional Development Fund, Greece, Western Balkans, development plan, modernisation aid, rail network, rail transport, transport infrastructure













EUR-Lex - 91997E2383 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E2383

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2383/97 by Nikitas KAKLAMANIS to the Commission. Via Ignatia railway line  


Official Journal C 102 , 03/04/1998 P. 0036 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2383/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (10 July 1997)Subject: Via Ignatia railway lineIt is well known that Greece is one of the EU Member States with a very difficult geographical situation, a fact compounded by its remoteness and the absence of common frontiers with other Member States of the Union. As a result, considerable attention needs to be given to transport infrastructures in the country in order to overcome its isolation as far as possible.How does the Commission view the possibility of promoting the construction of a railway line along the Via Ignatia starting from the port of Igoumenitsa and stretching as far as the Turkish border, which would also allow transport from the Middle East to pass through the port Volus, so as to give fresh impetus to trade in the Balkan region, a development which would undoubtably benefit EU interests in this area?Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (23 September 1997)Investments in rail infrastructure in Greece part-financed by the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund in the period 1994-99 focus on adding a second track to and electrifying the Athens-Thessaloniki line. Improvements to the Thessaloniki-Alexandroupoli line are also being part-financed.As regards the possible construction of a new link to Igoumenitsa to create a 'Via Ignatia railway line', in principle this should be examined and analysed with the Greek authorities when the dossiers for infrastructure investments to be part-financed in the period 2000-06 are prepared.
Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 39/97 of 10 July 1997 amending Protocol 47 to the EEA Agreement, on the abolition of technical barriers to trade in wine
Date: 1997-07-10
Institutions: EEA Joint Committee
Subjects: European Economic Area, agreement (EU), common organisation of markets, distillation, viticulture, wine








L_1997290EN.01002401.xml










23.10.1997   


EN


Official Journal of the European Communities


L 290/24





DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE
No 39/97
of 10 July 1997
amending Protocol 47 to the EEA Agreement, on the abolition of technical barriers to trade in wine
THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,
Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as adjusted by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,
Whereas Protocol 47 to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 4/96 (1);
Whereas Council Regulation (EC) No 1544/95 of 29 June 1995 amending Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 on the common organization of the market in wine (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement;
Whereas it follows from the adaptation texts to Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 that only Article 1 (1), (2), (6) and (7) of the amending Regulation shall, for the purposes of the Agreement, apply,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The following indent shall be added in point 15 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87) in Appendix 1 of Protocol 47 to the Agreement:






‘—



395 R 1544: Council Regulation (EC) No 1544/95 of 29 June 1995 (OJ L 148, 30. 6. 1995, p. 31).’




Article 2
The texts of Regulation (EC) No 1544/95 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, which are annexed to the respective language versions of this Decision, are authentic.
Article 3
This Decision shall enter into force on 1 August 1997, provided that all the notifications under Article 103 (1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee.
Article 4
This Decision shall be published in the EEA section of, and in the EEA supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Done at Brussels, 10 July 1997.


For the EEA Joint Committee


The President

E. BULL




(1)  OJ L 102, 25. 4. 1996, p. 45.

(2)  OJ L 148, 30. 6. 1995, p. 31.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2350/97 by Roberta ANGELILLI to the Commission. European legislation on waste disposal
Date: 1997-07-10
Institutions: ANGELILLI, European Parliament
Subjects: Italy, application of EU law, environmental protection, infringement procedure (EU), waste disposal, waste management

C 117/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16. 4. 98

Will the Commission give its response to this European Parliament resolution and say what measures it intends to
take to protect the individual and civil rights of citizens in the European Union?

(1)  Minutes of 11.3.1997, Part II, p. 11.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 1997)

The Honourable Member’s attention is drawn to the observations made by the Commission during the debate on
the draft Resolution on the functioning and future of Schengen at the March 1997 part-session of Parliament (1).

(1)  Report of Proceedings (March 1997).

(98/C 117/15)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2350/97

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(10 July 1997)

Subject: European legislation on waste disposal

In its answers to written questions E-1409/97 (1) and E-1410/97 (2) on compliance with European waste disposal
legislation in Italy, the Commission mentioned that it would remind the Italian authorities of the need to respect
Article 4 of Directive 91/156/EEC (3).

Can the Commission say which authority it actually dealt with and what exactly it said to this authority?

Can the Commission also provide a general picture outline of the way Community waste disposal legislation, in
particular Directive 91/156/EEC, is applied in Italy?

(1)  OJ C 373, 9.12.1997, p. 120.
(2)  OJ C 373, 9.12.1997, p. 120.
(3)  OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32.

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 1997)

The Commission always deals with Member States’ Permanent Representation to the European Communities.

The Permanent Representation forwards the letter from the Commission to the relevant ministry, in this case the
Ministry for the Environment. The action taken by the Commission consists of outlining the allegations in the
complaint,  petition  or  written  question,  reminding  the  national  authorities  of  the  Community  environmental
legislation applicable to the case drawn to the Commission’s attention and requesting them to obtain information
and comments on the allegations within two months.

As  regards  the  Italian  legislation  applying  the  Directives  on  waste,  certain  aspects  still  fail  to  comply  with
Directive 91/156/EEC. Infringement procedures have also been initiated in a number of specific cases.
Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 44/97 of 10 July 1997 amending Protocol 47 to the EEA Agreement, on the abolition of technical barriers to trade in wine
Date: 1997-07-10
Institutions: EEA Joint Committee
Subjects: European Economic Area, agreement (EU), carriage of goods, fruit product, preparation for market, wine








L_1997290EN.01003001.xml










23.10.1997   


EN


Official Journal of the European Communities


L 290/30





DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE
No 44/97
of 10 July 1997
amending Protocol 47 to the EEA Agreement, on the abolition of technical barriers to trade in wine
THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,
Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as adjusted by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,
Whereas Protocol 47 to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 4/96 (1);
Whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 692/96 of 17 April 1996 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3201/90 laying down detailed rules for the description and presentation of wines and grape musts (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,
HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The following indent shall be added in point 26 (Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3201/90) in Appendix 1 of Protocol 47 to the Agreement:






‘—



396 R 0692: Commission Regulation (EC) No 692/96 of 17 April 1996 (OJ L 97, 18. 4. 1996, p. 15).’




Article 2
The texts of Regulation (EC) No 692/96 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, which are annexed to the respective language versions of this Decision, are authentic.
Article 3
This Decision shall enter into force on 1 August 1997, provided that all the notifications under Article 103 (1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee.
Article 4
This Decision shall be published in the EEA section of, and in the EEA supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Communities.


Done at Brussels, 10 July 1997.


For the EEA Joint Committee


The President

E. BULL




(1)  OJ L 102, 25. 4. 1996, p. 45.

(2)  OJ L 97, 18. 4. 1996, p. 15.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2388/97 by Kirsi PIHA to the Commission. Ratification of the European Agreements
Date: 1997-07-10
Institutions: European Parliament, PIHA
Subjects: Baltic States, accession to the European Union, agreement (EU), enlargement of the Union, free-trade agreement, ratification of an agreement

C 76/106

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

11. 3. 98

(98/C 76/208)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2388/97

by Kirsi Piha (PPE) to the Commission

(10 July 1997)

Subject: Ratification of the European Agreements

The European Agreements concluded between the former socialist countries of Eastern Europe and the European
Union in 1995 laid the foundations for the next enlargement of the Union. The earliest possible ratification of the
agreements  in  all  the  present  Member  States  of  the  Union  would  facilitate  the  development  of  more
institutionalized  cooperation  between  the  new  applicant  countries  and  the  Union.  Thus  it  is  of  fundamental
importance  to  preparations  for  the  EU  accession  negotiations  in  the  applicant  countries  that  the  European
Agreements should function well, helping to pave the way. It is therefore astonishing that Belgium and France
have not yet ratified the European Agreements with all the Baltic States.

In view of the above, what will the Commission do to ensure that Belgium and France › the foot-draggers ›
ratify the agreements with the Baltic States without delay?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 1997)

The Commission has taken every opportunity to encourage the rapid ratification by Member States of the Europe
agreements  with  the  Baltic  states.  Although  a  significant  part  of  the  cooperation  foreseen  under  the  Europe
agreements is already in place with these countries today, on the basis of the existing free trade agreements, and
notwithstanding the fact that these countries are already fully participating in the pre-accession process, the entry
into force of these Europe agreements would give an important signal of the extent of the Community(cid:146)s relations
with these countries.

The Commission continues to encourage the speedy ratifications of the Europe agreements.

(98/C 76/209)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2399/97

by Jean-Yves Le Gallou (NI) to the Commission

(10 July 1997)

Subject: Community subsidies

On  2  June  1997  in  Luxembourg,  EU  foreign  ministers  gave  their  agreement  to  the  creation  of  a  European
monitoring centre on racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism.

What are the budgetary consequences of the creation of this centre?

Will it have an equivalent status to the specialist European agencies and on what budget line will it operate?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 1997)

On 2 June 1997 the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 1035/97 (1) establishing a European Monitoring Centre
on Racism and Xenophobia.

Article 12 (4) if this Regulation states that the revenue of the Centre shall include a subsidy from the Community,
entered under a specific heading in the general budget of the European Communities ((cid:145)Commission’ section).