do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Regulation (EC) No 907/98 of 29 April 1998 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 1998-04-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, import price, pip fruit

30. 4. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 128/21

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 907/98

of 29 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 30 April 1998.

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

Done at Brussels, 29 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 128/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30. 4. 98

to the Commission Regulation of 29 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)

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

115,9
188,3
152,1
76,4
76,4
39,4
35,2
55,3
58,2
48,1
46,0
47,0
66,8
83,0
74,9
43,8
87,0
92,0
96,8
78,2
93,5
76,6
75,0
146,0
109,1
89,8
70,5
72,4
86,4
76,4

(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. 1189/98 by John CUSHNAHAN to the Commission. Staff deployment
Date: 1998-04-29
Institutions: CUSHNAHAN, European Parliament
Subjects: European official, administrator, assistant, discrimination on the basis of nationality, equal treatment, personnel administration, servant (EU)

C 50/16

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

22.2.1999

(1999/C 50/022)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1185/98

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Producer responsibility (packaging waste) legislation

Is the Commission aware of the difficulties surrounding the application of the directive on packaging and
packaging waste in the United Kingdom caused by the criteria laid down for registering accredited reprocessors
entitled to issue packaging waste recovery notes?

Does the Commission agree with the exclusion of independent waste paper processors from consideration as
accredited reprocessors?

Is this not a restriction of trade which is not justified by the terms of the Directive?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 1998)

The Commission is aware of the difficulties surrounding the application of Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and
packaging waste (1) in the United Kingdom concerning the registration of accredited reprocessors.

The Commission is currently examining the conformity of the United Kingdom(cid:146)s transposing measures in
relation to this Directive. Within this examination the internal market implications of the United Kingdom(cid:146)s
implementation of Directive 94/62/EC will be considered.

The Honourable Member may wish to send any further information on this matter directly to the Commission so
that it can be considered within this examination.

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

(1999/C 50/023)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1189/98

by John Cushnahan (PPE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Staff deployment

How many of the staff of all categories in DG XVII have the same nationality as the Commissioner responsible
for that Directorate-General? How does this compare with the number of staff having the Commissioner(cid:146)s
nationality in the Commission as a whole?

How many staff who have the Commissioner(cid:146)s nationality have been recruited to DG XVII since the beginning of
1995, and how does this compare with the overall level of recruitment of staff having the Commissioner(cid:146)s
nationality since 1995?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 1998)

On 1 April 1998, the number of staff of the Directorate general for energy who were of the nationality referred to
in the Honourable Member(cid:146)s Written Question was as follows:

Category A

24 out of 191 posts occupied;

Category B

10 out of 183 posts occupied;

Category C

7 out of 133 posts occupied;

Total

41 out of 507 posts occupied;

In the Commission as a whole the situation of this nationality is as follows:

Category A

341 out of 6 007 posts occupied;

Category B

131 out of 3 564 posts occupied;
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1214/98 by José GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL to the Commission. Competitiveness
Date: 1998-04-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European industrial area, Japan, United States, beverage industry, competitiveness, economic analysis, market access, productivity, single market

C 386/94

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.98

(98/C 386/127)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1212/98

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

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Competitiveness

In 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), the
Commission is asked to submit conclusions explaining why certain European sectors, such as food, drink,
tobacco and furniture, outperform their US and Japanese counterparts in terms of industrial added value.

How do these sectors perform by comparison with the USA?

(98/C 386/128)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1213/98

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

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Competitiveness

In 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), the
Commission is asked to submit conclusions explaining why certain European sectors, such as food, outperform
their US and Japanese counterparts in terms of industrial added value.

When is it intending to submit these conclusions?

(98/C 386/129)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1214/98

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

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Competitiveness

In 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), the
Commission is asked to submit conclusions explaining why certain European sectors, such as drink, outperform
their US and Japanese counterparts in terms of industrial added value.

When is it intending to submit these conclusions?

(98/C 386/130)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1215/98

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

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Competitiveness

In 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), the
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1224/98 by Roberta ANGELILLI to the Commission. Further information on the subway and high- speed tramway and application of Directive 85/337/EEC in Italy
Date: 1998-04-29
Institutions: ANGELILLI, European Parliament
Subjects: European Investment Bank, Latium, application of EU law, competence of the Member States, environmental impact, infringement procedure (EU), underground railway, urban construction

5.2.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 31/23

(1999/C 31/028)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1198/98

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

(24 April 1998)

Subject: Forestry aid programmes

In recent years the forestry sector has been the subject of a range of EU programmes including the Fair
Programme, the programme to protect Community forests against fire and Leader II.

In view of the commercial and environmental importance of forests, the diversity of forests within the EU and the
need to combat desertification, what is the Commission(cid:146)s view to date of the European Union(cid:146)s forestry policy?
What are the Commission(cid:146)s plans for the existing forestry programmes for the 2000-2006 period?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-1196/98 and E-1198/98
given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 June 1998)

The Commission is aware of the important role of forests in the context of rural development, employment, the
safeguarding of ecological balance, the fight against erosion and desertification in rural areas.

The Commission intends to respect the deadline of 31 January 1999 in Parliament(cid:146)s resolution and to submit a
communication on the Community(cid:146)s forestry strategy before the end of 1998. The Commission, moreover, has
already responded to the request by Parliament to integrate forestry measures in a more coherent way in
Community policies by devoting special attention to sylviculture within rural development policy in Agenda
2000 (1).

(1) COM(97) 2000.

(1999/C 31/029)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1224/98

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Further information on the subway and high-speed tramway and application of Directive 85/337/EEC in

Italy

With reference to my previous Written Questions: P-0141/97 (1) on the construction of the Casaletto/ Largo
Argentina high-speed tramway by Rome City Council, E-1273/97 (2) seeking further information, E-1270/97 (3)
on Rome City Council(cid:146)s project to build a subway under the Castel Sant(cid:146) Angelo and Directive 97/11/EC (4), E-
2632/97 (5), E-3001/97 (6), P-3740/97 (7) and E-3409/97 (8) on the same subject, E-1971/97 (9) and, in particular,
E-3410/97 (10) seeking clarification on the application of Directive 85/337/EEC (11) on the Environmental Impact
Assessment of the works in question, will the Commission say:

1. Whether it is aware that construction of the subway has been cancelled in favour of a different and far inferior

scheme for an (cid:145)underpass(cid:146)?

2. Whether it intends to use the same EIB funding for this scheme which is different from the first one?

3. Whether the Environmental Impact Assessment has been completed for this project?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1167/98 by Graham WATSON to the Commission. General aviation
Date: 1998-04-29
Institutions: European Parliament, WATSON
Subjects: air transport, airport, civil aviation, common transport policy, competition, market access, transport capacity

22.12.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 402/85

(98/C 402/106)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1167/98

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: General aviation

General aviation constitutes by far the largest sector of European aviation, with more aircraft, more flyers and
more operating sites than any other area.

How does general aviation fit into the Commission(cid:146)s air transport strategy, and what work is the Commission
doing to ensure that general aviation is provided with a level playing field compared with commercial air
transport?

(98/C 402/107)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1353/98

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 May 1998)

Subject: General aviation aircraft and an integrated transport policy

Does the Commission recognize the inclusion of general aviation as a necessary element within an EU integrated
transport policy?

Joint answer to Written Questions
E-1167/98 and E-1353/98
given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(10 June 1998)

Because it has a commercial character, general aviation is fully covered is fully by the third package of air
transport liberalisation measures. Consequently, it benefits from full access to the Community internal market on
an equitable basis like other commercial air transport.

In view of the importance of general aviation, the Commission also tries to ensure that operators have the right to
as much access as possible at congested airports. Council Regulation (EEC) 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common
rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports (1) is applicable to this sector.

(1) OJ L 14, 22.1.1993.

(98/C 402/108)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1168/98

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: General aviation

In recent years, the number of aerodromes throughout the EU being closed or sold for other industrial purposes
has increased. This has left general aviation increasingly dependent on fewer airfields.

While seeking to apply reasonable environmental and noise pollution standards, does the Commission recognize
that there is considerable pressure on general aviation and on the ever-dwindling numbers of aerodromes with
appropriate facilities to serve it?
Commission Regulation (EC) No 915/98 of 29 April 1998 fixing the production refund for olive oil used in the manufacture of certain preserved foods
Date: 1998-04-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: olive oil, preserved product, production refund

30. 4. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 128/43

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 915/98

of 29 April 1998

fixing the production refund for olive oil used in the manufacture of certain
preserved foods

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 20a thereof,
Whereas Article 20a of Regulation No 136/66/EEC
provides for the granting of a production refund for olive
oil used in the preserving industry; whereas under para-
graph 6 of that Article, and without prejudice to para-
graph 3 thereof, the Commission shall fix this refund
every two months;
Whereas by virtue of Article 20a (2) of the abovemen-
tioned Regulation, the production refund must be fixed
on the basis of the gap between prices on the world
market and on the Community market, taking account of
the import charge applicable to olive oil falling within
CN subheading 1509 90 00 and the factors used for fixing
the export refunds for those olive oils during the refer-

ence period; whereas it is appropriate to take as a refer-
ence period the two-month period preceding the begin-
ning of the term of validity of the production refund;
whereas the above amount
is to be increased by an
amount equal to the consumption aid in force on the day
that the said refund is applied;

Whereas the application of the above criteria results in
the refund being fixed as shown below,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the months of May and June 1998, the amount of the
production refund referred to in Article 20a (2) of Regula-
tion No 136/66/EEC shall be ECU 60,07 per 100 kilo-
grams.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 May 1998.

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

Done at Brussels, 29 April 1998.

For the Commission

Hans VAN DEN BROEK

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ 172, 30. 9. 1966, p. 3025/66.
(2) OJ L 206, 16. 8. 1996, p. 11.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1231/98 by Marie-Paule KESTELIJN- SIERENS to the Commission. Reduction of noise pollution in areas around airports
Date: 1998-04-29
Institutions: European Parliament, KESTELIJN-SIERENS
Subjects: European standard, air transport, airport, approximation of laws, environmental protection, noise, residential area, restriction on competition

C 402/98

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

22.12.98

(98/C 402/125)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1230/98

by Marie-Paule Kestelijn-Sierens (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Planning of aiports on the basis of noise pollution caused to the surrounding area

In its resolution A-0183/97 (1), adopted on 10 June 1997, on the Commission Green Paper on future noise policy,
the European Parliament calls on the Commission (cid:145)to submit a proposal for a directive on obligatory standards
and the planning of airports on the basis of a European noise pollution system(cid:146) (para. 30).

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Does a uniform method exist for measuring noise pollution around airports? If not, is the Commission in

favour of introducing such a method?

2. Does the Commission favour the planning of airports on the basis of a European noise pollution system as a
way of clearly mapping the noise pollution of European airports, and as a basis for applying further measures
to the airports which cause the greatest level of noise pollution to the surrounding area?

(1) OJ C 200, 30.6.1997, p. 28.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(29 May 1998)

1.
In the Community, there is currently no uniform method for the calculation of noise nuisance around
airports. In preparing a forthcoming legislative initiative on environmental noise, the Commission, in close
cooperation with Member States and specialist organisations, will assess the feasibility of a common noise unit of
measurement and methodology. Any future proposal by the Commission would be based on the outcome of this
technical assessment.

The Commission will similarly consider the issue of drawing up maps of effects of noise nuisance,

2.
including noise nuisance caused by aircraft around airports.

(98/C 402/126)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1231/98

by Marie-Paule Kestelijn-Sierens (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Reduction of noise pollution in areas around airports

In its resolution A-0183/97 (1), adopted on 10 June 1997, on the Commission Green Paper on future noise policy,
the European Parliament calls on the Commission (cid:145)to lay down and standardize obligatory standards for aviation
to limit aircraft noise and noise levels in the areas around airports(cid:146) (para. 29).

The Commission:

1. What measures or initiatives has it taken since then to follow up this request?

2. Does it consider that European obligatory standards to limit noise pollution are the only way to prevent
certain regional airports from having a less strict noise pollution policy in order to strengthen their
competitive position against the major airports?

(1) OJ C 200, 30.6.1997, p. 28.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1235/98 by Allan MACARTNEY to the Commission. Subsidies for goat farming
Date: 1998-04-29
Institutions: European Parliament, MACARTNEY
Subjects: distribution of aid, goatmeat, production aid, sheepmeat

C 354/82

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19. 11. 98

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 1998)

The Commission does not generally have national figures broken down by region. However, since 1997 Spain
has been declaring expenditure by autonomous region for those regions which have approved paying agencies.
The  Commission  can  therefore  provide  the  information  required  for  Catalonia:  ESP  41  000  million  (roughly
ECU 250.3 million) in 1997.

(98/C 354/131)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1235/98

by Allan Macartney (ARE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Subsidies for goat farming

Can the Commission confirm that agricultural subsidies for goats are only on a par with sheep subsidies in those
Member  States  which  have  a  tradition  of  eating  goat  meat  under  the  European  Union  Sheep  and  Goat  Meat
Regime?

Has the Commission investigated the possible disparities that may result from this policy and the effect it has on
goat breeding in countries which are not classified as having a tradition of eating goat meat?

Does the Commission foresee a change in the future which would ensure an equal distribution of subsidies for
goats in all Member States?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 1998)

The Commission can confirm that the payment of the premium for goats is restricted to those regions in the
Community where the rearing of goats for meat is a traditional practice comparable to sheep farming.

The  Commission  does  not  consider  that  the  present  regime  creates  disparities.  The  purpose  of  the  annual
premium payable in the framework of the sheep and goatmeat regime is to support meat producers. To be eligible
for  such  payments  the  rearing  of  goats  must  therefore  be  mainly  directed  towards  meat  production  and  the
techniques for rearing goats and sheep must be similar in nature. In Member States where there is no tradition of
eating goat meat this is not the case, as goats are principally reared for the production of wool or dairy products.

The Commission does not foresee extending the premium regime to include goat producers whose main activity
is not the production of meat.

(98/C 354/132)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1236/98

by Allan Macartney (ARE) to the Commission

(29 April 1998)

Subject: Inspections under the Suckler Cow Premium Scheme and the Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance

With regard to the requirements for the status of premium producers under the Suckler Cow premium Scheme
and the Hill Livestock Compensatory Scheme, is the Commission aware whether there is any discretion on the
rule (cid:145)visits for inspection purposes will occur without notice(cid:146) (SCP 1997/HCLA 1998)?

Can an inspection be refused where there are mitigating circumstances, such as insufficient staff to handle the
animals?