do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3583/97 by Alfonso NOVO BELENGUER to the Commission. Cut in subsidies to olive oil production
Date: 1997-11-06
Institutions: European Parliament, NOVO BELENGUER
Subjects: EU aid, aid system, common organisation of markets, farmers' income, olive oil, production aid, production policy

C 158/156

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25. 5. 98

However, information does exist which points to the ecological value of the site (scientific inventories, a recent
review of important areas for the conservation of birds). Furthermore, a coastal area proposed by Greece as a site
of Community importance is located in the immediate vicinity.

The Commission will be contacting the Greek authorities for further information regarding nature conservation
at the site in question. If appropriate, it will take action under the procedure provided for in Article 169 of the EC
Treaty.

(1)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(2)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(98/C 158/207)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3581/97

by Jose· Apolina·rio (PSE) to the Commission

(13 November 1997)

Subject: Periodic Annual Report on the implementation of Article 10 of the ERDF Regulation

In response to my Question E-0850/97 (1) the Commission announced that a report on the implementation of
Article 10 of the ERDF would be published by the end of the summer. Has it been published yet?

If not, when is it due to be published?

(1)  OJ C 373, 9.12.1997, p. 32.

Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 1997)

The Commission published in June 1997 an Inforegio on the mid-term assessment of operations under Article 10
of  the  European  regional  development  fund  regulation (1).  A  copy  is  forwarded  directly  to  the  Honourable
Member and to Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat.

Detailed information on innovative actions under Article 10 in 1996 is presented in the 8th annual report on the
implementation of the structural funds (2), which was recently published and forwarded to the Parliament.

(1)  OJ L 193, 31.7.1993.
(2)  COM(97) 526 final.

(98/C 158/208)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3583/97

by Alfonso Novo Belenguer (ARE) to the Commission

(6 November 1997)

Subject: Cut in subsidies to olive oil production

The European Union Committee on Oils and Fats recently submitted a draft text in which it proposes that aid to
olive oil production be reduced by 34%.

The proposed aid scheme for the oil sector provides for payments to be effected at the end of the season, so that
whereas the original estimates in Spain, and in the Community of Valencia in particular, set the level of aid at
235 pesetas per kilo of oil, it will be as low as 148 pesetas per kilo taking into account the cut in aid proposed by
the Committee on Oils and Fats, a cut which poses a serious threat to the income of oil producers.

In view of the fact that the cut in aid would affect the 1996/97 season and taking account of the loss of revenue
this entails,

1.  Can the Commission say on what criteria the Committee on Oils and Fats based its decision to propose a

34% cut in aid to olive oil production?
Decision on the common position adopted by the Council with a view to adopting a Council Directive setting up a harmonized safety regime for fishing vessels of 24 metres in length and over (C4-0360/97 96/0168(SYN))
Date: 1997-11-06
Institutions: Committee on Transport and Tourism, European Parliament
Subjects: fishing vessel, international convention, maritime safety, protective equipment, protocol to an agreement, quality label, safety standard, shipbuilding













EUR-Lex - 51997AP0336 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51997AP0336

Decision on the common position adopted by the Council with a view to adopting a Council Directive setting up a harmonized safety regime for fishing vessels of 24 metres in length and over (C4-0360/97 96/0168(SYN))  


Official Journal C 358 , 24/11/1997 P. 0018 





A4-0336/97Decision on the common position adopted by the Council with a view to adopting a Council Directive setting up a harmonized safety regime for fishing vessels of 24 metres in length and over (C4-0360/97 - 96/0168(SYN))(Cooperation procedure: second reading)The European Parliament,- having regard to the common position of the Council, C4-0360/97 - 96/0168(SYN),- having regard to its opinion at first reading ((OJ C 150, 19.5.1997, p. 30.)) on the Commission proposal to the Council, COM(96)0255 ((OJ C 292, 4.10.1996, p. 29.)),- having been consulted by the Council pursuant to Article 189c of the EC Treaty,- having regard to Rule 67 of its Rules of Procedure,- having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A4-0336/97),1. Approves the common position;2. Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3584/97 by Ilona GRAENITZ to the Commission. Slaughter premium
Date: 1997-11-06
Institutions: European Parliament, GRAENITZ
Subjects: application of EU law, beef, calf, market stabilisation, production policy, protection of animals, slaughter of animals, slaughter premium, transitional period (EU), transport of animals













EUR-Lex - 91997E3584 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E3584

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3584/97 by Ilona GRAENITZ to the Commission. Slaughter premium  


Official Journal C 158 , 25/05/1998 P. 0157 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-3584/97 by Ilona Graenitz (PSE) to the Commission (6 November 1997)Subject: Slaughter premiumThe Council of Ministers of Agriculture, meeting in Luxembourg, agreed to extend the slaughter premium for young calves up to the age of three weeks until the beginning of December 1998, despite ethical reservations on the part of Germany, Austria, Denmark and Sweden.What is the Commission's view regarding this premium?Is the slaughter premium, which has resulted in many calves being transported from Germany to France, compatible with the Directive on the transport of live animals?Does the Commission see any possibility of prohibiting the transport of such calves, which is done in order to collect the premium?What measures are under consideration as an alternative to the slaughter premium?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (15 December 1997)The Council agreed on the introduction of the calf processing premium as part of the reform of the beef market organisation in 1992, to help control the surpluses that threatened to accumulate in the beef sector. However, the measure was only activated, for a transitional period of two years, when the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) problem emerged in March 1996. On an already saturated beef market these calves will not unfortunately find buyers. The Commission does not believe that fattening these calves and building up beef mountains, for which the taxpayer is then asked to pay, is a realistic alternative.The calf processing premium is fully compatible with Directive 91/628/EEC on the protection of animals during transport ((OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, as amended by Directive 95/29/EC, OJ L 148, 30.6.1995. )) if the transport of the animals is done in accordance with the provisions of the Directive.The Commission has examined in depth the possibility of stopping the transport of these calves and the conclusion is that such a measure would encounter serious objections under the concept of free movement of goods if all the Community provisions regarding the transport of animals are respected.When Member States agreed in October 1996 to measures to redress the beef balance, an early marketing premium was introduced which was designed to reduce red meat production by encouraging veal producers to reduce the final weight of calves used for veal production while at the same time increasing the actual number of calves used. Each Member State can choose to apply either the calf processing or the early marketing premium.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3614/97 by Elisabeth SCHROEDTER to the Commission. Environmental impact evaluation in connection with the implementation of structural assistance in the Land of Brandenburg
Date: 1997-11-06
Institutions: European Parliament, SCHROEDTER
Subjects: Brandenburg, EU aid, European Investment Bank, European Regional Development Fund, Structural Funds, environmental impact, impact study, terms for aid













EUR-Lex - 91997E3614 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E3614

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3614/97 by Elisabeth SCHROEDTER to the Commission. Environmental impact evaluation in connection with the implementation of structural assistance in the Land of Brandenburg  


Official Journal C 158 , 25/05/1998 P. 0163 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-3614/97 by Elisabeth Schroedter (V) to the Commission (6 November 1997)Subject: Environmental impact evaluation in connection with the implementation of structural assistance in the Land of Brandenburg1. Is the Commission aware that, in the Land of Brandenburg, the requirements concerning the evaluation of the environmental impact listed in relation to Objective 1 in Article 8(4), third indent of the Structural FundRegulation No 2081/93 ((OJ L 193, 31.7.1993, p. 5. )) are interpreted so that it is sufficient, when ERDF funds are allocated, for the environmental impact to be checked by the Land investment bank, which fills in the notifications of assistance?2. If so, does the Commission consider that the procedure applied in the Land of Brandenburg adequately fulfils the provisions of the Regulation to the effect that arrangements be made to associate the competent environmental authorities?3. Does the Commission consider that the Brandenburg Land investment bank is sufficiently qualified to make a proper expert assessment of the environmental impact of projects?Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (11 December 1997)According to information supplied to the Commission by the Brandenburg Ministry of economics, which is responsible for the management in Brandenburg of European regional development fund (ERDF) funding, the Investment bank (Landes-investitionsbank - ILB) is not responsible for the evaluation of the environmental impact of ERDF cofunded actions.This function is in fact carried out by the Land environmental authorities. In the case of large projects (those with a total eligible cost over 15 or 25 MECU as the case may be), the written agreement of the Regional department of environment (Landesumweltamt) is required befor ERDF support can be given. In the case of smaller projects the ILB may only approve project payments on the basis of prior written approval by the environmental authorities (Landesumweltamt, Bauamt).