do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1133/98 by Umberto BOSSI to the Commission. Financial instrument for the environment
Date: 1998-04-24
Institutions: BOSSI, European Parliament
Subjects: Emilia-Romagna, economic instrument for the environment, project management

C 402/78

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

22.12.98

As regards 1995, 1996 and 1997, imports have always been within the agreed limits. Shipments of the products
concerned are subject to a double checking system and, in particular, following its establishment, on 28 October
1996, also to an electronic link-up between the Chinese offices which issue export licences covering these
products and the Community system for the electronic issue of licences (SIGL). The Community authorities issue
import licences for the products in question only if requests by importers fall within the available quota for the
year in question.

(1) OJ L 67, 10.3.1994.

(98/C 402/096)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1133/98

by Umberto Bossi (NI) to the Commission

(24 April 1998)

Subject: Financial instrument for the environment

Council Regulation (EC) 1404/96 (1) of 15 July 1996 (amending Regulation (EEC) 1973/92) inserts in Articles 10,
11 and 12 of the latter a series of provisions concerning measures to verify that actions financed by the
Community have been carried out properly, and in accordance with the provisions of the regulation.

Can the Commission state how frequently on-the-spot checks are carried out, as stipulated in Article 10(2) of the
regulation, to ensure that the actions carried out by those receiving Community assistance are completed
successfully?

Can the Commission state whether checks have been carried out concerning the implementation of action
B-3200-94-778 (reconstruction of canals, mounds and sandbanks in the Pialassa Baiona)?

Is the Commission aware that, in addition to failing to complete the action by the prescribed deadline (which had
already been extended), the recipients of the financial assistance in question carried out this work in a careless and
slipshod manner?

Does the Commission intend to take measures to avoid the recurrence of cases of improper use of Community
funds?

(1) OJ L 181, 20.7.1996, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(10 June 1998)

Control missions are undertaken by the Commission on a regular basis. In the specific case of project
B-3200/94/778 (cid:145)Conservation programme of the geographic area of the Delta Po Park, second phase(cid:146) of which
the sub-project executed by the Provincia di Ravenna in the area of Piolassa Baiona is part, 4 missions have been
undertaken to verify the implementation and results of the project.

Those verifications as well as the documents submitted by the beneficiary do not raise evidence of any errors, if
compared to the contract conditions. The only exception refers to the execution deadline. This has been indeed
extended from 31 December 1996 to 20 February 1998. This extension was granted after an examination of the
justifications submitted by the beneficiary.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 872/98 of 24 April 1998 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 1998-04-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, import price, pip fruit

25. 4. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 124/1

I

(Acts whose publication is obligatory)

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 872/98

of 24 April 1998

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain
fruit and vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/
94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the applica-
the import arrangements for fruit and veget-
tion of
ables (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2375/
96 (2), and in particular Article 4 (1) thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3813/92
of 28 December 1992 on the unit of account and the
conversion rates to be applied for the purposes of the
common agricultural policy (3), as last amended by Regu-
lation (EC) No 150/95 (4), and in particular Article 3 (3)
thereof,

Whereas Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 lays down,
pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilat-
eral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commis-

sion fixes the standard values for imports from third
countries, in respect of the products and periods stipu-
lated in the Annex thereto;

Whereas, in compliance with the above criteria, the stand-
ard import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the
Annex to this Regulation,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of
Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in
the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 25 April 1998.

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

Done at Brussels, 24 April 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 337, 24. 12. 1994, p. 66.
(2) OJ L 325, 14. 12. 1996, p. 5.
(3) OJ L 387, 31. 12. 1992, p. 1.
(4) OJ L 22, 31. 1. 1995, p. 1.

L 124/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25. 4. 98

to the Commission Regulation of 24 April 1998 establishing the standard import values for
determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

ANNEX

CN code

0702 00 00

0709 90 70

0805 10 10, 0805 10 30, 0805 10 50

0805 30 10

0808 10 20, 0808 10 50, 0808 10 90

0808 20 50

Third country
code (1)

Standard import
value

(ECU/100 kg)

204
212
624
999
052
999
052
204
212
400
600
624
999
600
999
060
388
400
404
504
508
512
524
528
616
720
804
999
388
512
528
804
999

142,0
108,8
188,3
146,4
98,6
98,6
56,8
34,1
59,5
58,2
48,1
46,7
50,6
67,7
67,7
45,1
87,5
94,4
100,9
83,1
70,1
80,3
92,6
76,2
97,8
146,0
112,5
90,5
69,5
76,0
85,5
137,2
92,0

(1) Country nomenclature as fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2317/97 (OJ L 321, 22. 11. 1997, p. 19). Code

‘999' stands for ‘of other origin'.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1321/98 by Michael McGOWAN to the Commission. Damage to internal trade relations by actions of AB Volvo, Sweden
Date: 1998-04-24
Institutions: European Parliament, MCGOWAN
Subjects: Sweden, United Kingdom, company law, legal action, motor vehicle industry, multinational enterprise, private law, small and medium-sized enterprises













EUR-Lex - 91998E1321 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E1321

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1321/98 by Michael McGOWAN to the Commission. Damage to internal trade relations by actions of AB Volvo, Sweden  


Official Journal C 323 , 21/10/1998 P. 0125 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-1321/98 by Michael McGowan (PSE) to the Commission (24 April 1998)Subject: Damage to internal trade relations by actions of AB Volvo, SwedenIn view of the fact that AB Volvo, Sweden have failed to honour an agreement made with Synergy Dynamics UK based in my constituency, is the Commission aware of the damage that has been done to cooperative intra-European Union research and development programmes by the actions of AB Volvo, Sweden and will it investigate AB Volvo's handling of this matter?I refer specifically to the 'Lindholmen' project and the refusal of AB Volvo to meet the costs incurred by Synergy Dynamics UK in designing an International Knowledge Centre for Gothenburg on the instructions of an employee of AB Volvo who wrongly informed them that he was a Director for Management Leadership Development.AB Volvo, Sweden have refused to settle the debt of GBP 100 000. This has resulted in extreme difficulties for Synergy Dynamics and caused further expense and a huge usage of time for this SME. Further to this, AB Volvo have implied the use of their financial strength to repel any move to claim the money owed through legal procedures by Synergy Dynamics UK for work carried out in good faith and I would further ask the Commission:1. What protection is there presently or in proposed EU legislation for SMEs dealing with large and multinational corporations?2. Whether there is any current or proposed legislation to protect SMEs from being intimidated away from litigation in such instances by the financial might of such companies?Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission (12 June 1998)The dispute between the two firms mentioned by the Honourable Member is a question of private law. The Commission does not have any legal means to challenge a firm's behaviour under Community law. There is no legislation dealing specifically with the relationship between small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) and large, multi-national corporations.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1209/98 by José GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL to the Commission. Competitiveness
Date: 1998-04-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European industrial area, Japan, United States, competitiveness, distributive trades, economic analysis, market access, productivity, single market

11.12.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 386/93

What action is the Commission intending to take in order to eliminate such restrictions?

(98/C 386/124)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1209/98

by JosØ Garc(cid:237)a-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

(24 April 1998)

Subject: Competitiveness

Parliament(cid:146)s report (A-0113/97) on the Commission Communication to the Council on benchmarking the
competitiveness of European industry (COM(96) 0463 › C-0622/96) and the Commission staff working paper
concerning European quality promotion policy for improving European competitiveness (SEC(96) 2000) makes
the point that prices for key services are higher in Europe than in Japan and the USA and that, despite the progress
made since the establishment of the single market, there are still sectors, such as distribution, to which access is
restricted.

What action is the Commission intending to take in order to eliminate such restrictions?

(98/C 386/125)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1210/98

by JosØ Garc(cid:237)a-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

(24 April 1998)

Subject: Competitiveness

Parliament(cid:146)s report (A-0113/97) on the Commission Communication to the Council on benchmarking the
competitiveness of European industry (COM(96) 0463 › C-0622/96) and the Commission staff working paper
concerning European quality promotion policy for improving European competitiveness (SEC(96) 2000) makes
the point that prices for key services are higher in Europe than in Japan and the USA and that, despite the progress
made since the establishment of the single market, there are still sectors, such as energy, to which access is
restricted.

What action is the Commission intending to take in order to eliminate such restrictions?

(98/C 386/126)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1211/98

by JosØ Garc(cid:237)a-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

(24 April 1998)

Subject: Competitiveness

Parliament(cid:146)s report (A-0113/97) on the Commission Communication to the Council on benchmarking the
competitiveness of European industry (COM(96) 0463 › C-0622/96) and the Commission staff working paper
concerning European quality promotion policy for improving European competitiveness (SEC(96) 2000) makes
the point that prices for key services are higher in Europe than in Japan and the USA and that, despite the progress
made since the establishment of the single market, there are still sectors, such as public procurement, to which
access is restricted.

What action is the Commission intending to take in order to eliminate such restrictions?
Commission Regulation (EC) No 878/98 of 24 April 1998 fixing the maximum subsidy on exports of husked long grain rice to Réunion pursuant to the invitation to tender referred to in Regulation (EC) No 2094/97
Date: 1998-04-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Réunion, award of contract, export subsidy, rice

L 124/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25. 4. 98

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 878/98

of 24 April 1998

fixing the maximum subsidy on exports of husked long grain rice to R(cid:130)union
pursuant to the invitation to tender referred to in Regulation (EC) No 2094/97

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 of
22 December 1995 on the common organization of the
market in rice (1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No
192/98 (2), and in particular Article 10 (1) thereof,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No
2692/89 of 6 September 1989 laying down detailed rules
for exports of rice to R(cid:130)union (3), and in particular Article
9 (1) thereof,

Whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 2094/97 (4)
opens an invitation to tender for the subsidy on rice
exported to R(cid:130)union;

Whereas Article 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 2692/89 allows
the Commission to fix, in accordance with the procedure
laid down in Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95
and on the basis of the tenders submitted, a maximum
subsidy;

Whereas the criteria laid down in Articles 2 and 3 of
Regulation (EEC) No 2692/89 should be taken into
account when fixing this maximum subsidy; whereas
successful tenderers shall be those whose bids are at or
below the level of the maximum subsidy;

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

A maximum subsidy on exports to R(cid:130)union of husked
long grain rice falling within CN code 1006 20 98 is
hereby set on the basis of the tenders lodged from 20 to
23 April 1998 at ECU 298 per tonne pursuant to the
invitation to tender referred to in Regulation (EC) No
2094/97.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 25 April 1998.

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

Done at Brussels, 24 April 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 329, 30. 12. 1995, p. 18.
(2) OJ L 20, 27. 1. 1998, p. 16.
(3) OJ L 261, 7. 9. 1989, p. 8.
(4) OJ L 292, 25. 10. 1997, p. 14.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1131/98 by José SALAFRANCA SÁNCHEZ- NEYRA to the Commission. Human rights in China
Date: 1998-04-24
Institutions: European Parliament, SALAFRANCA SANCHEZ-NEYRA
Subjects: China, European Union, UNO, human rights, resolution (EU)

C 354/68

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19. 11. 98

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(4 June 1998)

The  Commission  would  refer  the  Honourable  Member  to  its  answer  to  written  question  E-762/98  by
Mr Jarzembowski (1).

(1)  OJ C 323, 21.10.1998, p. 68.

(98/C 354/111)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1131/98

by Jose· Salafranca  Sa·nchez-Neyra (PPE) to the Commission

(24 April 1998)

Subject: Human rights in China

Could the Commission explain the reasons why the European Union failed to support a resolution within the UN
Human Rights Committee on human rights in China and what views on the matter were expressed by Mr Wei
Jingsheng in his talks with the Commission?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 1998)

The  Union  is  engaged  in  what  it  hopes  will  prove  a  constructive  dialogue  with  China  on  human  rights.
The decision not to lodge or co-sponsor a resolution on China in the UN Human Rights Committee in 1998 was a
response  to  encouraging  signals  from  that  country.  China  was,  however,  mentioned  in  the  UK  Presidency(cid:146)s
opening speech on behalf of the Union, which stressed the need for this dialogue to produce material results.
The Union will be reviewing the results of its policy at regular intervals. At his meetings with the Commission,
Mr Wei Jingsheng expressed reservations at the Union(cid:146)s policy.

(98/C 354/112)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1134/98

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

(24 April 1998)

Subject: REGIS Community initiative

In view of the specific nature of Portugal(cid:146)s Azores region (an extremely remote region which, as such, has a
special status enshrined in the EU Treaty), how does the Commission account for its proposal to abolish the
REGIS initiative?

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

(20 May 1998)

So  that  future  Community  Initiatives  may  be  made  more  effective,  innovative  and  visible  in  the  public  eye,
Article 19 of the Commission proposal for a general Council Regulation on the Structural Funds (1) provides that
the Community Initiatives should concentrate on three topics genuinely reflecting the Community(cid:146)s interest in
cooperation and innovation. These are crossborder, transnational and interregional cooperation, rural develop-
ment and, lastly, transnational cooperation on new means of combating all forms of discrimination in access to
the labour market.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1333/98 by Lucio MANISCO to the Commission. Commission negotiation on the Helms-Burton Act
Date: 1998-04-24
Institutions: European Parliament, MANISCO
Subjects: United States, World Trade Organisation, application of the law, extra-territoriality, international law, offence

C 402/112

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

22.12.98

welfare provisions if the Community(cid:146)s welfare-based production standards are made a condition for imports from
third countries.

Such possible conflicts can be effectively avoided through the adoption of international welfare-based standards
in the framework of bilateral or multilateral agreements. Furthermore, given the fact that animal welfare is
becoming an increasingly relevant issue in terms of international trade, this issue may be raised in the WTO
context in the future. The possibility of amending WTO rules to address welfare concerns will be addressed in the
context of the determination of the Community negotiation objectives for the next stage of the WTO negotiations.

(98/C 402/145)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1333/98

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 April 1998)

Subject: Commission negotiation on the Helms-Burton Act

In reply to an earlier written question on this subject (H-108/98) (1), Commissioner Brittan fails to make it clear
whether or not the Commission has decided to let the WTO Panel lapse with regard to the violation of
international law resulting from the Helms-Burton Act.

As European firms are suffering considerable hardship because of the Helms-Burton Act, which is fully enforced,
de facto if not de jure, does Commissioner Brittan not consider that these delaying tactics, which in the final
analysis endorse the extraterritorial effects of the US legislation, should be brought to an end by immediately
referring the matter to the WTO Panel?

(1)

European Parliament Debates (February 1998).

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission

(18 May 1998)

The Community and the United States are currently engaged in intensive discussion and negotiations in pursuit of
a negotiated solution to the difficulties on the Helms-Burton and Iran and Libya sanctions Act (ILSA) legislation
as envisaged in the 11 April 1997 understanding.

Under the terms of this understanding, the Community agreed to suspend its World trade organisation (WTO)
case against the Helms-Burton Act for 12 months against a United States commitment to continue the partial
suspension of Title III of the Helms-Burton Act and to work towards a Title IV waiver and waivers under
ILSA (1).

If, however, a solution under the terms of the understanding is not found, the right to resume the WTO case
remains. The Council decided in April 1997 that if action is taken against Community nationals, or waivers as
described in the understanding are not granted, (cid:145)the Commission will request the WTO to restart, or to re-
establish the panel, which then will follow its normal course(cid:146). This possibility also covers the situation after the
lapse of the suspension of the WTO panel.

(1)

Iran Libya Sanctions Act.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1197/98 by Concepció FERRER to the Commission. Human rights in China
Date: 1998-04-24
Institutions: European Parliament, FERRER
Subjects: China, European Union, UNO, human rights, resolution (EU)

C 386/92

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.98

(98/C 386/121)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1197/98

by Concepci(cid:243) Ferrer (PPE) to the Commission

(24 April 1998)

Subject: Human rights in China

On 16 March 1998 Mr Brittan, Commissioner, met the Chinese dissident Wei Jingsheng in order to discuss
human rights in China. On that occasion he explained that the EU would not table or support any resolution
critical of China within the UN Commission on Human Rights.

Could Mr Brittan explain why the Commission has declined to support or table any kind of resolution calling for
human rights to be respected in China?

Does the Commission not consider that the European Union(cid:146)s human rights policy requires just such a
resolution?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question E-1131/98 by
Mr Salafranca SÆnchez-Neyra (1).

(1) OJ C 354, 19.11.1998.

(98/C 386/122)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1207/98

by JosØ Garc(cid:237)a-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

(24 April 1998)

Subject: Competitiveness

Parliament(cid:146)s report (A-0113/97) on the Commission Communication to the Council on benchmarking the
competitiveness of European industry (COM(96) 0463 › C-0622/96) and the Commission staff working paper
concerning European quality promotion policy for improving European competitiveness (SEC(96) 2000) makes
the point that prices for key services are higher in Europe than in Japan and the USA and that, despite the progress
made since the establishment of the single market, there are still sectors, such as communications, to which access
is restricted.

What action is the Commission intending to take in order to eliminate such restrictions?

(98/C 386/123)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1208/98

by JosØ Garc(cid:237)a-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

(24 April 1998)

Subject: Competitiveness

Parliament(cid:146)s report (A-0113/97) on the Commission Communication to the Council on benchmarking the
competitiveness of European industry (COM(96) 0463 › C-0622/96) and the Commission staff working paper
concerning European quality promotion policy for improving European competitiveness (SEC(96) 2000) makes
the point that prices for key services are higher in Europe than in Japan and the USA and that, despite the progress
made since the establishment of the single market, there are still sectors, such as transport networks, to which
access is restricted.