do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3623/97 by Pierluigi CASTAGNETTI to the Commission. Residence permits in Germany
Date: 1997-11-13
Institutions: CASTAGNETTI, European Parliament
Subjects: EU national, form, income, migrant worker, migration policy, residence permit, unification of Germany













EUR-Lex - 91997E3623 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E3623

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3623/97 by Pierluigi CASTAGNETTI to the Commission. Residence permits in Germany  


Official Journal C 310 , 09/10/1998 P. 0003 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-3623/97 by Pierluigi Castagnetti (PPE) to the Commission (13 November 1997)Subject: Residence permits in GermanyA number of non-German Community nationals resident in Germany have complained that residence permits for that country are issued on the basis of applications sent in to the relevant local authority on printed forms dating back to the 70s. In order to receive a residence permit, non-German Community nationals must inter alia declare that they have an income in excess of DM 1 200.Many nationals of other Member States working in Germany wish to continue to reside in the country following their retirement.What should be the attitude of local authorities when pensioners with a pension of less than DM 1 200 apply for a residence permit?Similarly, what attitude should they take to nationals of other Member States who, having been elected as local councillors, do not meet all the requirements for an extension of their residence permits?Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (3 February 1998)The Commission is not aware of the form to be used by Union citizens living in Germany when applying to the relevant local authorities for a residence permit.Under Community law, only employees and self-employed persons who, on retirement, settle in a Member State other than the one in which they previously worked and persons not in active employment may be required to have a minimum level of resources as a condition for the issue of a residence permit. This requirement is provided for by Directive 90/365/EEC on the right of residence for employees and self-employed persons who have ceased their occupational activity ((OJ L 180, 13.7.1990. )) and by Directive 90/364/EEC on the right of residence. These Directives were transposed into German law by the Verordnung of 17 July 1997, published in the Bundesgesetzblatt on 22 July 1997. Under Article 8(2) of this instrument, the resources of a retired person or a person not in active employment are deemed sufficient if they amount to DEM 1 170 per month.Member States may, when processing applications for residence permits, check the level of available resources only in the case of the retired people and non-active persons covered by the above two Directives.The Commission is not aware of any cases in which German local authorities require, in breach of Community law, other categories of citizens to provide evidence of their resources.As far as the second point is concerned, the Commission does not normally answer hypothetical questions.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3641/97 by David MARTIN to the Commission. Experimentation on wild animals
Date: 1997-11-13
Institutions: European Parliament, MARTIN DAVID
Subjects: animal experimentation, drafting of EU law, exchange of information, monkey, protection of animals, wildlife

C 158/166

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25. 5. 98

It is, furthermore, the intention of the Commission to examine the issue of whether or not breeding pigs should be
unloaded at staging points and, if appropriate, to present proposals which provide for the animals concerned
welfare conditions at least equivalent to those foreseen in Council Directive 91/628/EEC on the protection of
animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC (3).

(1)  OJ L 74, 19.3.1988.
(2)  OJ L 340, 31.12.1993.
(3)  OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, Directive as last amended by Directive 95/29/EC, OJ L 148, 30.6.1995.

(98/C 158/222)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3641/97

by David Martin (PSE) to the Commission

(13 November 1997)

Subject: Experimentation on wild animals

Would the Commission please detail any factors which it considers would prevent the inclusion of a ban on the
use  of  wild-caught  primates  for  experiments  in  the  EU  in  the  (cid:145)Community  Policy  Statement  on  the  use  of
Primates as Laboratory Animals(cid:146) currently being drafted?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 1997)

The  draft  Community  policy  statement  on  the  use  of  primates  as  laboratory  animals  is  a  working  document
which will be used as a basis for discussions on the use of non-human primates.

The measures covered by this working document together with other issues concerning the use of non-human
primates will be discussed at the next meeting of the national authorities responsible for the implementation of
Directive  86/609/EEC  concerning  the  protection  of  animals  used  for  experimental  and  other  scientific
purposes (1),  scheduled  to  take  place  on  4  December  1997.  In  the  light  of  the  outcome  of  this  meeting  the
Commission will then consult representatives of industry and non-governmental organisations.

At  this  stage  it  is  not  yet  possible  to  present  a  position  on  possible  options  concerning  a  ban  on  the  use  of
wild-caught primates.

(1)  OJ L 358, 18.12.1986.

(98/C 158/223)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3646/97

by Angela Sierra Gonza·lez (GUE/NGL)
and Laura Gonza·lez A· lvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 November 1997)

Subject: Referendum on independence in the Sahara

In September 1997, an agreement was reached in Houston between Morocco and the Polisario Front to hold a
referendum to decide on the sovereignty of the Sahara.

Hitherto, Morocco has blocked the holding of this consultation of the Saharan citizens of the area, but the date
proposed by Morocco appears to have removed any doubts as to whether the referendum would be held.

Through  its  humanitarian  aid  programmes,  the  EU  repeatedly  donated  materials  to  help  cover  the  basic
necessities of the Saharan people, whose situation during a 22-year exile has been precarious.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3581/97 by José APOLINÁRIO to the Commission. Periodic Annual Report on the implementation of Article 10 of the ERDF Regulation
Date: 1997-11-13
Institutions: APOLINARIO, European Parliament
Subjects: EU publication, European Regional Development Fund, access to EU information, activity report, dissemination of EU information, exchange of information, report

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?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3577/97 by Hedwig KEPPELHOFF-WIECHERT to the Commission. Involvement of organizations in the selection of FFH zones
Date: 1997-11-13
Institutions: European Parliament, KEPPELHOFF-WIECHERT
Subjects: European Commission, application of EU law, competence of the Member States, non-governmental organisation, protected area, protected species, protection of animal life, protection of plant life, wildlife













EUR-Lex - 91997E3577 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E3577

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3577/97 by Hedwig KEPPELHOFF-WIECHERT to the Commission. Involvement of organizations in the selection of FFH zones  


Official Journal C 158 , 25/05/1998 P. 0153 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-3577/97 by Hedwig Keppelhoff-Wiechert (PPE) to the Commission (13 November 1997)Subject: Involvement of organizations in the selection of FFH zonesThe primary objective of the Flora-Fauna-Habitat Directive (92/43/EEC) ((OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. )) is to preserve and promote bio-diversity. The selection of FFH zones is aimed at creating a European environmental network of zones encompassing certain habitats of specific plant and animal species. Article 2(3) provides that measures adopted pursuant to this Directive must take account of economic, social, cultural, regional and local considerations.1. Can the Commission say to what extent groups such as nature and environmental associations can be involved in the selection of FFH zones?2. The FHH Directive contains no provisions regarding national arrangements for the selection of such zones. Can the Commission say what provisions there are in the various Member States for the involvement of social groups, if such associations may be involved in the selection of FFH zones?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (1 December 1997)In Article 3 and 4 and Annex III of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora ((OJ L 206, 22.07.92, p. 7. )), the process of the creation of the European network Natura 2000 is described.In Annex III the 'Criteria for selecting sites eligible for identification as sites of Community importance and designation as special areas of conservation' are given and here a division into two stages is foreseen. Stage 1 is an assessment at national level and ends with a list of proposed sites of Community importance. Stage 2 is an assessment at Community level and ends with an agreed list of the sites of Community importance (SCI).Stage 1 falls completely into the competence of the Member State. Therefore questions for non-governmental organisations (NGOs) or regional governments (such as Bundesländer) are also under the responsibility of the Member State.In Stage 2, the Commission assesses the Community importance and the coherence of the proposals, following recommendations from scientific meetings specific to the biogeographical regions. In these meetings, the European habitat forum takes part, as a qualified umbrella NGO in the field of protection of species and habitats, as well as experts from the Member States and the Community and independent scientists.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3591/97 by Yves VERWAERDE to the Commission. Films with the biggest box office receipts in Spain
Date: 1997-11-13
Institutions: European Parliament, VERWAERDE
Subjects: Spain, disclosure of information, film production, nationality, revenue

C 196/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

22. 6. 98

(98/C 196/13)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3591/97

by Yves Verwaerde (PPE) to the Commission

(13 November 1997)

Subject: Films with the biggest box office receipts in Spain

I should like to be provided with a list of the films, by nationality, which achieved the biggest box office receipts
in Spain in 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995.

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(2 February 1998)

The Commission is sending the information requested direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament(cid:146)s
Secretariat.

(98/C 196/14)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3648/97

by Armelle Guinebertie‘re (UPE) to the Commission

(19 November 1997)

Subject: Unfair competition because of the VAT system

A  French  supplier  of  material  for  rabbit  breeders  is  disadvantaged  by  the  VAT  system  which  is  applied
differently depending on whether the supplier is French or a national of another state of the Union.

In the latter case the material is sold tax-free for delivery at the beginning of 1998; the breeder will not declare his
VAT until the beginning of 1999 and will not pay the 20.6% VAT for 12 to 18 months, the French state acting as
intermediary.

If, however, the material is bought from a French supplier the breeder must pay the VAT on acquisition.

There then arises a situation of unfair competition caused by the French tax authorities to the disadvantage of
French contractors.

How  will  the  Commission  ensure  more  favourable  conditions  of  competition,  specifically  as  regards  the
application of VAT?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 1998)

The situation described by the Honourable Member is the result of differences between the rules that apply to
intra-Community trade and those that apply to sales effected within the territory of a Member State.

Although, in accordance with the basic principles underlying the operation of the VAT system, only the taxable
person selling goods or services assumes the charges and obligations necessary to ensure proper application of
the  system,  the  transitional  VAT  arrangements  provide  for  a  derogation  from  those  principles  in  the  case  of
intra-Community sales of goods and render the buyer liable for the VAT payable in the Member State of arrival
of the goods. In certain extreme situations, the resulting difference in tax treatment is prejudicial to domestic
sales within a Member State.

In its report on the transitional VAT arrangements for intra-Community trade (1), the Commission drew attention
to the damage done by those arrangements to the essential features of VAT. In its communication A common
system  of  VAT:  A  programme  for  the  single  market (2),  the  Commission,  after  describing  the  limitations
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3595/97 by Cristiana MUSCARDINI , Gastone PARIGI , Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Eradication of swine fever in Holland
Date: 1997-11-13
Institutions: AMADEO, European Parliament, MUSCARDINI, PARIGI
Subjects: Netherlands, animal plague, decontamination, epidemic, health control, health risk, slaughter of animals, swine













EUR-Lex - 91997E3595 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E3595

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3595/97 by Cristiana MUSCARDINI , Gastone PARIGI , Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Eradication of swine fever in Holland  


Official Journal C 223 , 17/07/1998 P. 0008 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-3595/97 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI), Gastone Parigi (NI) and Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (13 November 1997)Subject: Eradication of swine fever in HollandThe outbreak of an epidemic of classic swine fever in the Netherlands has undoubtedly had a major impact on that country and repercussions on the rest of Europe, with continuing risks for the countries of the European Union. Evidence of this are the outbreaks in Italy, Spain, Belgium and in the north of the Netherlands (the original outbreaks were in the southern regions of the country).Six regulations have successively modified the exceptional market support measures for the pigmeat market.In view of the complexity and scale of the problem, can the Commission:1. say whether the results achieved are commensurate with the volume of resources (both human and financial) employed and whether the technical measures carried out were effective and of impeccable quality;2. confirm whether the administration of the holding registration numbers is really compatible with the spirit and the letter of Directive 92/102 ((OJ L 355, 5.12.1992, p. 32.))?3. say, with reference to Directive 80/217 ((OJ L 47, 21.2.1980, p. 11.)), what it thinks about the absence of an accurate census of the holdings infected, suspected of being infected or situated in protection and surveillance areas?Joint answer to Written Questions E-3595/97 and E-3596/97 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (12 January 1998)During 1997 the Commission has carefully analyzed the evolution of classical swine fever in the Netherlands. The epidemiological situation has been constantly reviewed with representatives of the Member States during the monthly meetings of the standing veterinary committee.The Commission has sent a number of missions to the Netherlands to assist the Dutch authorities and to ascertain the effectiveness of the measures taken to eradicate the disease.During missions it has been noted that great efforts have been made by the Dutch authorities to curtail the epidemic length but problems have also been identified in the management of the epidemics.These problems concerning the correct use of the uniek bedrijfsnummer (UBN) numbers, the census of the holdings, the efficacy of the audit system used, and the compensation assessment for the pigs slaughtered because infected or suspected of infection, are being carefully examined and they are at present matter for a discussion between the Commission and the Dutch authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3580/97 by Mihail PAPAYANNAKIS to the Commission. Wetlands of Nea Fokaia in Khalkidiki
Date: 1997-11-13
Institutions: European Parliament, PAPAYANNAKIS
Subjects: European Commission, Macedonia, biotope, building industry, environmental protection, exchange of information, humid zone, island, tourism, wildlife













EUR-Lex - 91997E3580 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E3580

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3580/97 by Mihail PAPAYANNAKIS to the Commission. Wetlands of Nea Fokaia in Khalkidiki  


Official Journal C 158 , 25/05/1998 P. 0155 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-3580/97 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (13 November 1997)Subject: Wetlands of Nea Fokaia in KhalkidikiThe community of Nea Fokaia in Khalkidiki comprises two important coastal wetlands which are surrounded by woodland. Much of this region has already been built on with licences issued by the state, and pressure has been mounting since 1961 to develop the land.These two wetlands have been registered as such by a number of bodies (the Ministry of Agriculture in 1988, the National Centre for Biotopes and Wetlands/ the Goulandris Museum of Natural History in 1994, the Kassandra Forestry Authority in 1996 and 1997 and the Environmental Department of the Prefecture of Khalkidiki in 1997).However, on 4 April 1995, the Government decided to cede 181.1 hectares of one of the two wetlands to the Greek Tourist Board for the construction of a golf course, basing its decision on the fact that the Greek Tourist Board has characterized the region as a dried-up marsh.The local authorities have called for the wetlands to be preserved, but at the same time to be promoted for tourism; they have also demanded a stop to the illegal seizure of land and violations of national and Community legislation which bring Greece into disrepute internationally.Will the Commission say whether it is aware of the above allegations and whether it intends to call on the Greek authorities to explain this state of affairs?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (12 December 1997)The Commission is already aware of the facts referred to by the Honourable Member. An initial investigation has revealed that at the moment the site in question is not designated as a special protection area under Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds ((OJ L 103, 25.4.1979. )), nor has it been proposed by Greece as a site of Community importance for the Natura 2000 network under Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora ((OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. )).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.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3640/97 by David MARTIN to the Commission. Experimentation on wild animals
Date: 1997-11-13
Institutions: European Parliament, MARTIN DAVID
Subjects: animal experimentation, application of EU law, competence of the Member States, monkey, protection of animals, wildlife













EUR-Lex - 91997E3640 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E3640

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3640/97 by David MARTIN to the Commission. Experimentation on wild animals  


Official Journal C 187 , 16/06/1998 P. 0035 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-3640/97 by David Martin (PSE) to the Commission (13 November 1997)Subject: Experimentation on wild animalsWould the Commission please detail the steps which it, and Member States, are currently taking to ensure that wild-caught primates are not used for experimentation when other animals would 'suffice for the aims of the experiment'?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (18 December 1997)It is the responsibility of the Member States to ensure that the provisions of Directive 86/609/EEC concerning the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes ((OJ L 358, 18.12.1986. )) are adhered to in their territory. An exemption to use non-purpose bred animals can be obtained 'under arrangements determined by the authority' (Article 19(4) of the Directive) and it is at the discretion of the Member States that the applicant sufficiently justifies that 'other animals would not suffice for the aims of the experiment' (Article 7(3)).The responsibility of the Commission is to examine that the Directive has been correctly transposed and applied by the Member States. With regard to the provisions relating to the use of non-purpose bred animals, defined in Articles 7(3), 19(4) and 21, the Commission has opened four infringement proceedings which partly cover either one or more of the above mentioned Articles. Only one of these relates to a wrong application, the others concern technical aspects of the implementation in national legislation.