do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 338/98 of 11 February 1998 fixing the maximum export refunds for olive oil for the sixth partial invitation to tender under the standing invitation to tender issued by Regulation (EC) No 1978/97
Date: 1998-02-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, export refund, olive oil

L 38/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

12. 2. 98

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 338/98

of 11 February 1998

fixing the maximum export refunds for olive oil for the sixth partial invitation to
tender under the standing invitation to tender issued by Regulation (EC) No
1978/97

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation No 136/66/EEC of
22 September 1966 on the establishment of a common
organisation of the market in oils and fats (1), as last
amended by Regulation (EC) No 1581/96 (2), and in
particular Article 3 thereof,

Whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 1978/97 (3)
issued a standing invitation to tender with a view to
determining the export refunds on olive oil;

Whereas Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1978/97
provides that maximum amounts are to be fixed for the
export refunds in the light in particular of the current
situation
the
Community and world olive-oil markets and on the basis
of the tenders received; whereas contracts are awarded to
any tenderer who submits a tender at the level of the
maximum refund or at a lower level;

developments

foreseeable

and

on

Whereas, for the purposes of applying the abovemen-
tioned provisions, the maximum export refunds should
be set at the levels specified in the Annex;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are
in accordance with the opinion of
the Management
Committee for Oils and Fats,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The maximum export refunds for olive oil for the sixth
partial invitation to tender under the standing invitation
to tender issued by Regulation (EC) No 1978/97 are
hereby fixed in the Annex, on the basis of the tenders
submitted by 9 February 1998.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 12 February
1998.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member
States.

Done at Brussels, 11 February 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ 172, 30. 9. 1966, p. 3025/66.
(2) OJ L 206, 16. 8. 1996, p. 11.
(3) OJ L 278, 11. 10. 1997, p. 7.

12. 2. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 38/9

ANNEX

to the Commission Regulation of 11 February 1998 fixing the maximum export refunds for
olive oil for the sixth partial invitation to tender under the standing invitation to tender
issued by Regulation (EC) No 1978/97

Product code

Amount of refund

(ECU/100 kg)

1509 10 90 9100

1509 10 90 9900

1509 90 00 9100

1509 90 00 9900

1510 00 90 9100

1510 00 90 9900

9,00

(cid:190)

8,00

(cid:190)

(cid:190)

(cid:190)

NB: The product codes and the footnotes are defined in amended

Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87.
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 337/98 of 11 February 1998 fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar for the 26th partial invitation to tender issued within the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1408/97
Date: 1998-02-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, export refund, white sugar

12. 2. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 38/7

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 337/98

of 11 February 1998

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar for the 26th partial invitation
to tender issued within the framework of the standing invitation to tender
provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1408/97

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81
of 30 June 1981 on the common organization of the
markets in the sugar sector (1), as last amended by Regula-
tion (EC) No 1599/96 (2), and in particular the second
subparagraph of Article 17 (5)

(b) thereof,

Whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 1408/97 of 22
July 1997 on a standing invitation to tender to determine
levies and/or
refunds on exports of white sugar (3),
requires partial invitations to tender to be issued for the
export of this sugar;

Whereas, pursuant to Article 9 (1) of Regulation (EC) No
1408/97 a maximum export refund shall be fixed, as the
case may be, account being taken in particular of the
state and foreseeable development of the Community and
world markets in sugar, for the partial invitation to tender
in question;

following an examination of

Whereas,
the tenders
submitted in response to the 26th partial invitation to
tender, the provisions set out in Article 1 should be
adopted;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are
in accordance with the opinion of
the Management
Committee for Sugar,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the 26th partial invitation to tender for white sugar
issued pursuant
to Regulation (EC) No 1408/97 the
maximum amount of the export refund is fixed at ECU
43,436 per 100 kilograms.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 12 February
1998.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member
States.

Done at Brussels, 11 February 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 177, 1. 7. 1981, p. 4.
(2) OJ L 206, 16. 8. 1996, p. 43.
(3) OJ L 194, 23. 7. 1997, p. 16.
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 336/98 of 11 February 1998 altering the export refunds on white sugar and raw sugar exported in the natural state
Date: 1998-02-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: export refund, raw sugar, white sugar

12. 2. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 38/5

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 336/98

of 11 February 1998

altering the export refunds on white sugar and raw sugar exported in the natural
state

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81
of 30 June 1981 on the common organization of the
markets in the sugar sector (1), as last amended by Regula-
tion (EC) No 1599/96 (2), and in particular the second
subparagraph of Article 19 (4) thereof,

Whereas the refunds on white sugar and raw sugar
exported in the natural state were fixed by Commission
Regulation (EC) No 289/98 (3);

follows from applying the detailed rules
Whereas it
contained in Regulation (EC) No 289/98 to the informa-
tion known to the Commission that the export refunds at

present in force should be altered to the amounts set out
in the Annex hereto,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The export refunds on the products listed in Article 1 (1)
(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81, undenatured and
exported in the natural state, as fixed in the Annex to
Regulation (EC) No 289/98 are hereby altered to the
amounts shown in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 12 February
1998.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member
States.

Done at Brussels, 11 February 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 177, 1. 7. 1981, p. 4.
(2) OJ L 206, 16. 8. 1996, p. 43.
(3) OJ L 30, 5. 2. 1998, p. 5.

L 38/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

12. 2. 98

to the Commission Regulation of 11 February 1998 altering the export refunds on white
sugar and raw sugar exported in its unaltered state

ANNEX

Product code

1701 11 90 9100
1701 11 90 9910
1701 11 90 9950
1701 12 90 9100
1701 12 90 9910
1701 12 90 9950

Amount of refund

(cid:190) ECU/100 kg (cid:190)

37,00
34,66

37,00
34,66

(1)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(1)
(2)

(cid:190) ECU/1 % of sucrose (cid:253) 100 kg (cid:190)

1701 91 00 9000

0,4022

1701 99 10 9100
1701 99 10 9910
1701 99 10 9950

(cid:190) ECU/100 kg (cid:190)

40,22
40,35
40,35

(cid:190) ECU/1 % of sucrose (cid:253) 100 kg (cid:190)

1701 99 90 9100

0,4022

(1) Applicable to raw sugar with a yield of 92 %; if the yield is other than 92 %,
the refund applicable is calculated in accordance with the provisions of
Article 17a (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81.

(2) Fixing suspended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2689/85 (OJ L 255, 26.
9. 1985, p. 12), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3251/85 (OJ L 309, 21. 11.
1985, p. 14).
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 201/98 by Gerhard HAGER to the Commission. Tightening up the directive on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons
Date: 1998-02-11
Institutions: European Parliament, HAGER
Subjects: crime against individuals, personal weapon, public order, public safety

C 402/6

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

22.12.98

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 1998)

The Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter at issue. It does not enjoy access to files kept by the
Schengen information system in order to check whether the names of certain individuals appear. In accordance
with the provisions of the Schengen Convention, only the person concerned may have access to data concerning
him.

Notifications for purposes of non-admission are made by the Member State or Member States concerned on a
request from the judicial or administrative authority in accordance with domestic law.

(98/C 402/005)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0201/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(11 February 1998)

Subject: Tightening up the directive on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons

There have recently been dreadful examples of violence with weapons in several Member States.

In the light of these dreadful events, does the Commission have any plans to tighten up Council Directive
91/477/EEC (1) on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons?

(1) OJ L 256, 13.9.1991, p. 51.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 1998)

Directive 91/477/EEC on control of the acquisition and possession of arms was adopted as an accompanying
measure to the removal of controls at internal frontiers.

As to the facts referred to by the Honourable Member, the Commission is not aware that they have brought to
light any shortcomings in the control procedures and formalities introduced by the Directive for intra-Community
movements of weapons.

It would also point out that Article 3 of the Directive allows Member States to introduce in their legislation a more
stringent classification of weapons than that provided for in the Directive. Lastly, Article 2 stipulates that the
Directive is without prejudice to the application of national provisions concerning the carrying of weapons.

This being so, the Commission plans to examine, in the report it will draw up on the application of the Directive,
various aspects of the latter(cid:146)s operation and impact. The public order and public safety aspects will be covered by
the report.

(98/C 402/006)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0258/98

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission

(13 February 1998)

Subject: Occupational and general disability

All the EU Member States are naturally interested in maintaining their gross national product. This can only be
achieved if adequate precautions are taken in the field of health, consumer and labour protection.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 203/98 by Gerhard HAGER to the Council. Schengen task force
Date: 1998-02-11
Institutions: European Parliament, HAGER
Subjects: EU body for police and judicial cooperation, Schengen Agreement, border control, external border of the EU, free movement of persons, migration control

C 196/122

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

22. 6. 98

It should be added that it is not for the Council to comment on audiovisual media management appointments in a
Member State, on Government education policy in a Member State, on the rulings of a Member State(cid:146)s court or
indeed on statements made by a Commissioner in a personal capacity.

(98/C 196/170)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0203/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Council

(11 February 1998)

Subject: Schengen task force

Recently  there  have  been  reports  of  a  (cid:145)task  force(cid:146)  which  will  be  concerned  with  measures  to  improve  the
Schengen external frontiers. Accordingly, I should like to ask the Council the following questions:

1. What prompted the European Union to set up this task force?

2. Where does the Council feel there are shortcomings in existing checks at external borders?

3. What improvements does the Council expect the new task force to bring about?

4.

Does the Council believe that setting up a task force can ensure foolproof checks at land and sea borders?

Is  the  Council  of  the  opinion  that  the  current  difficulties  are  caused  solely  by  problems  in  national

5.
transposition or by shortcomings in the Schengen rules?

Does the Council regard the practice of some Member States (detecting illegal immigrants but not ensuring

6.
that they subsequently leave the territory of the Union) as running counter to the Union(cid:146)s acquis?

Answer

(7 April 1998)

The working party referred to by the Honourable Member (the (cid:145)Schengen Task Force(cid:146)) is not a European Union
but a Schengen working party. The Council is not competent to reply to the question posed.

(98/C 196/171)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0267/98

by Yiannis Roubatis (PSE) to the Council

(17 February 1998)

Subject: Tragic consequences of the sanctions policy for the population of Iraq

The sanctions policy imposed on the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq has had tragic consequences for the
population of the country, and particularly children who suffer from malnutrition and a lack of drugs.

Given that it is questionable how much the sanctions policy has produced the desired results and the plight of the
population is unbearable for any civilized state:

Will the Council say:

1.  What is its position on this matter?

2.  Does  it  intend  to  take  any  measures  to  relieve  the  plight  of  the  population  and  particularly  the  children

suffering from malnutrition and a lack of drugs?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 218/98 by Florus WIJSENBEEK to the Commission. New road toll in Poland
Date: 1998-02-11
Institutions: European Parliament, WIJSENBEEK
Subjects: EC Directive, EU law - national law, Poland, charges for use of infrastructure, road transport, tax harmonisation, toll, vehicle tax

9. 10. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 310/39

2.
The new market organisation provides for suitable machinery for overcoming these structural problems,
e.g. encouraging producers(cid:146) organisations that market their produce, creating operational funds and drawing up
operational programmes.

It is accordingly not the Commission(cid:146)s intention to embark on a reform of the present arrangements governing
fruit and vegetables.

(98/C 310/46)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0217/98

by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission

(11 February 1998)

Subject: Derogations granted by Italy for slaughterhouses

In its answer to my previous question (E-3274/97) (1), the Commission stated that it would (cid:145)contact the Italian
authorities with a request for further information on the subject(cid:146).

Article 56 of the law linked to the 1998 budget, containing (cid:145)measures to stabilize public finances(cid:146), which was
finally adopted by the Italian parliament on 23 December 1997, has further extended the deadline (the previous
deadline having been laid down in Law No 228/1997 on (cid:145)urgent provisions for preventing and tackling forest
fires in Italy, and measures in the spheres of civil protection, the environment and agriculture(cid:146)) to 31 December
1998 for slaughterhouses, which have already been granted an extension of more than three years beyond the
deadline laid down in Community law.

Is the Commission aware of this latest decision and does it consider that it complies with the relevant Directives?

(1)  OJ C 158, 25.5.1998, p. 75.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 1998)

The Commission has contacted the Italian authorities and has requested further information concerning the facts
mentioned in the written question. The answer has not yet been received.

The Commission will now request the information once again.

(98/C 310/47)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0218/98

by Florus Wijsenbeek (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 February 1998)

Subject: New road toll in Poland

Is it true that since 1 January 1998 Poland has been levying a toll on Polish roads and that the tariff are

1.
supposed to be in line with the Eurovignette?

2.

3.

Is it true that the tariffs for the Polish vignette are four times greater than the Eurovignette?

Is it true that it is harder for foreigners to obtain vignettes than for Poles?

Does the Commission intend to take action to nullify the consequences of the introduction of the new road

4.
toll in Poland?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 209/98 by Katerina DASKALAKI to the Commission. Problems facing citrus fruit producers
Date: 1998-02-11
Institutions: DASKALAKI, European Parliament
Subjects: GATT, Greece, Mediterranean third countries, citrus fruit, common organisation of markets, import, preferential agreement, production aid, trade policy













EUR-Lex - 91998E0209 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E0209

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 209/98 by Katerina DASKALAKI to the Commission. Problems facing citrus fruit producers  


Official Journal C 310 , 09/10/1998 P. 0038 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0209/98 by Katerina Daskalaki (UPE) to the Commission (11 February 1998)Subject: Problems facing citrus fruit producersGreek producers of citrus fruits are facing an increasing serious situation problems this year, both because of a massive increase in worldwide overproduction of oranges and owing to GATT commitments.Bearing in mind that the Community decisions of July 1996 in effect abolish withdrawal, reduce prices and cut production of fruit juice, and given the particular problems facing remote regions of the European Union, such as Crete, will the Commission say what measures it intends to take to ensure the survival of citrus fruit producers?In particular:1. Does it intend to revise the preferential agreements between the EU and third countries (Mediterranean and non-Mediterranean) countries?2. Does it intend to amend the existing Community arrangements regarding fruit and vegetables?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (11 March 1998)The Honourable Member's description of the new common organisation of the market (COM) is not in keeping with the actual situation.1. Citrus fruit imports from third countries - which, it is worth noting, are down on the preceding marketing year - are not responsible for the problems experienced by citrus growers in Greece. Theirs are structural problems such as poor diversification, a weak marketing structure and a processing industry that is ill-suited to producing competitive products.The Commission does not, therefore, intend to alter the policy in this sector as regards preferential agreements between the Community and third countries.2. The new market organisation provides for suitable machinery for overcoming these structural problems, e.g. encouraging producers' organisations that market their produce, creating operational funds and drawing up operational programmes.It is accordingly not the Commission's intention to embark on a reform of the present arrangements governing fruit and vegetables.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 204/98 by Gerhard HAGER to the Commission. Schengen task force
Date: 1998-02-11
Institutions: European Parliament, HAGER
Subjects: Schengen Agreement, border control, external border of the EU, foreign national, immigration













EUR-Lex - 91998E0204 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E0204

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 204/98 by Gerhard HAGER to the Commission. Schengen task force  


Official Journal C 354 , 19/11/1998 P. 0005 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0204/98 by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission (11 February 1998)Subject: Schengen task forceRecently there have been reports of a 'task force' which will be concerned with measures to improve the Schengen external frontiers. Accordingly, I should like to ask the Commission the following questions:1. What prompted the European Union to set up this task force?2. Where does the Commission feel there are shortcomings in existing checks at external borders?3. What improvements does the Commission expect the new task force to bring about?4. Does the Commission believe that setting up a task force can ensure foolproof checks at land and sea borders?5. Is the Commission of the opinion that the current difficulties are caused solely by problems in national transposition or by shortcomings in the Schengen rules?6. Does the Commission regard the practice of some Member States (detecting illegal immigrants but not ensuring that they subsequently leave the territory of the Union) as running counter to the Union's acquis?Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (5 May 1998)1. At its meeting on 15 December 1997, the Schengen Executive Committee approved a decision on measures to step up and make more effective checks at external frontiers. A task force is also to be set up to oversee the implementation of, and follow-up to, the measures adopted by the Executive Committee. This decision is an accompaniment to the action plan approved by the Council on 26 January 1998 as a response to the inflow of immigrants from Iraq and neighbouring regions.2 to 5. It is not for the Commission to comment either on the application of the arrangements under the Schengen Convention for external border checks by the Member States concerned or on the operation and achievements of the task force as long as Community or Union law is not infringed.6. The procedures for sending back third-country nationals are not as yet covered by any rules at Union level.