do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1432/98 by Daniel VARELA SUANZES- CARPEGNA to the Commission. European cooperation in developing the fisheries sector in third countries
Date: 1998-05-11
Institutions: European Parliament, VARELA SUANZES-CARPEGNA
Subjects: ACP countries, EU financing, European Development Fund, West Africa, fisheries policy, fishery management, fishery research, fishery resources, international cooperation

11.12.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 386/127

(98/C 386/172)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1430/98

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: European cooperation in developing the fisheries sector in third countries

Will the Commission say what percentage of the funds earmarked for cooperation has been allocated by DG VIII
to the development of the fisheries sector in third countries over the past five years?

(98/C 386/173)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1431/98

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: European cooperation in developing the fisheries sector in third countries

Will the Commission say what percentage of the funds earmarked for cooperation has been allocated by DG VIII
to the development of the fisheries sector in West African countries over the past five years?

(98/C 386/174)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1432/98

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: European cooperation in developing the fisheries sector in third countries

Of the total number of projects financed from the funds earmarked for cooperation allocated by DG VIII to West
African countries, will the Commission say what percentage of the said funds has been assigned to projects to
develop the fisheries sector?

(98/C 386/175)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1433/98

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: European cooperation in developing the fisheries sector in third countries

Will the Comission indicate the nature and cost of the fisheries cooperation projects implemented or financed by
DG VIII over the past five years in the following countries: South Africa, Namibia, Gabon, Senegal, Equatorial
Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, C(cid:244)te d(cid:146)Ivoire, Gambia, Sierra Leone, Mauritania, Angola, Ghana and Cameroon?

(98/C 386/176)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1434/98

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: European cooperation in developing the fisheries sector in third countries

Will the Commission say which have been the 15 projects to develop the fisheries sector, implemented in West
African countries, to which DG VIII has allocated the most resources, and indicate the sum involved in each
instance?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1523/98 by Eva KJER HANSEN to the Commission. Arrangements for the lodging of guarantees in respect of agricultural products
Date: 1998-05-11
Institutions: European Parliament, KJER HANSEN
Subjects: agricultural product, common agricultural policy, guarantee













EUR-Lex - 91998E1523 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E1523

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1523/98 by Eva KJER HANSEN to the Commission. Arrangements for the lodging of guarantees in respect of agricultural products  


Official Journal C 013 , 18/01/1999 P. 0041 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-1523/98by Eva Kjer Hansen (ELDR) to the Commission(11 May 1998)Subject: Arrangements for the lodging of guarantees in respect of agricultural productsWill the Commission explain why a fine equivalent to precisely 15 % of the contract value is imposed if the time limit for lodging a guarantee is exceeded and whether 15 % fines are imposed in cases not involving agricultural products?Will it take steps to introduce more flexible arrangements under which the level of the fine depends on the length of time by which the time limit has been exceeded?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission(4 June 1998)Regulation (EEC) 2220/85(1) lays down common detailed rules for the application of the system of securities for agricultural products. In order to take account of the importance of the respective conditions for the release of a security, distinction is made between breaches of primary, secondary or subordinate requirements. The loss of 15 % of the security is a general flat rate which is considered to be a proportional and administrative feasible consequence for non-compliance with a subordinate requirement. The rules further provide for a flat rate forfeiture of 15 % increased by a percentage per day by which the time limit has been exceeded, only where an obligation to respect the time limit for fulfilling a primary requirement has not been complied with.The field of application of these rules is limited to the common agricultural policy.Since these rules already provide for the necessary proportionality the Commission sees no need for introducing further flexibility.(1) OJ L 205, 3.8.1985.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1431/98 by Daniel VARELA SUANZES- CARPEGNA to the Commission. European cooperation in developing the fisheries sector in third countries
Date: 1998-05-11
Institutions: European Parliament, VARELA SUANZES-CARPEGNA
Subjects: ACP countries, EU financing, European Development Fund, West Africa, fisheries policy, fishery management, fishery research, fishery resources, international cooperation

11.12.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 386/127

(98/C 386/172)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1430/98

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: European cooperation in developing the fisheries sector in third countries

Will the Commission say what percentage of the funds earmarked for cooperation has been allocated by DG VIII
to the development of the fisheries sector in third countries over the past five years?

(98/C 386/173)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1431/98

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: European cooperation in developing the fisheries sector in third countries

Will the Commission say what percentage of the funds earmarked for cooperation has been allocated by DG VIII
to the development of the fisheries sector in West African countries over the past five years?

(98/C 386/174)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1432/98

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: European cooperation in developing the fisheries sector in third countries

Of the total number of projects financed from the funds earmarked for cooperation allocated by DG VIII to West
African countries, will the Commission say what percentage of the said funds has been assigned to projects to
develop the fisheries sector?

(98/C 386/175)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1433/98

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: European cooperation in developing the fisheries sector in third countries

Will the Comission indicate the nature and cost of the fisheries cooperation projects implemented or financed by
DG VIII over the past five years in the following countries: South Africa, Namibia, Gabon, Senegal, Equatorial
Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, C(cid:244)te d(cid:146)Ivoire, Gambia, Sierra Leone, Mauritania, Angola, Ghana and Cameroon?

(98/C 386/176)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1434/98

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: European cooperation in developing the fisheries sector in third countries

Will the Commission say which have been the 15 projects to develop the fisheries sector, implemented in West
African countries, to which DG VIII has allocated the most resources, and indicate the sum involved in each
instance?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1412/98 by Graham MATHER to the Commission. Application of Directive 93/119/EC in France (Eid-El-Kebir)
Date: 1998-05-11
Institutions: European Parliament, MATHER
Subjects: France, Islam, animal welfare, customs and traditions, health legislation, meat processing industry, protection of animals, religious group, sheep, slaughter of animals













EUR-Lex - 91998E1412 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E1412

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1412/98 by Graham MATHER to the Commission. Application of Directive 93/119/EC in France (Eid-El-Kebir)  


Official Journal C 013 , 18/01/1999 P. 0032 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1412/98by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission(11 May 1998)Subject: Application of Directive 93/119/EC in France (Eid-El-Kebir)In reply to my written question of November 1997 on this matter (E-3925/97)(1) the Commission stated: "The Commission is not satisfied about the fact that France has permitted, in certain circumstances, the practice of ritual slaughter outside slaughterhouses. Therefore the Commission is preparing a request to the French authorities to confirm that next year this ritual slaughter will be organized completely according to the Community rules concerned.If this confirmation is not supplied, the Commission will open the infringement procedure provided for under Article 169 of the EC Treaty."This month, France has once again failed to enforce the provisions of Article 14 of Directive 93/119/EC(2) regarding the slaughter of animals.1. Has the Commission submitted the request referred to above to the French authorities?2. Have the French authorities replied?3. Will the Commission now open the infringement procedure provided for under Article 169 of the EC Treaty?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission(11 June 1998)1. The request was made by letter to France dated 17 December 1997.2. The French authorities replied on 8 April 1998 providing detailed observations on the recent developments which have occurred in relation to the problem and the various actions taken.3. The Commission will in due course examine what further action to take in the light of this reply.(1) OJ C 187, 16.6.1998, p. 92.(2) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 21.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 989/98 of 11 May 1998 amending for the second time Regulation (EC) No 370/98 adopting exceptional support measures for the market in pigmeat in Germany
Date: 1998-05-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Germany, animal plague, production aid, slaughter of animals, swine

L 140/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

12. 5. 98

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 989/98

of 11 May 1998

amending for the second time Regulation (EC) No 370/98 adopting exceptional
support measures for the market in pigmeat in Germany

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2759/75
of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the
market in pigmeat (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC)
No 3290/94 (2), and in particular Article 20 thereof,

Whereas, because of the outbreak of classical swine fever
in certain production regions in Germany, the Commis-
sion adopted Regulation (EC) No 370/98 (3), as amended
by Regulation (EC) No 743/98 (4), which introduces
exceptional support measures for the pigmeat market in
that Member State;

Whereas, because the veterinary and trade restrictions
continue to apply in the regions concerned, the number
of piglets and young piglets which may be delivered to

the competent authorities should be increased, so that the
exceptional measures can continue from 22 April 1998;

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 370/98 is replaced by the
Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its
publication in the Official Journal of the European
Communities.

It shall apply from 22 April 1998.

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

Done at Brussels, 11 May 1998.

For the Commission
Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

ANNEX

‘ANNEX I

Total maximum number of animals from 31 January 1998:

Piglets and young piglets

55 000 head'

(1) OJ L 282, 1. 11. 1975, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 349, 31. 12. 1994, p. 105.
(3) OJ L 47, 18. 2. 1998, p. 10.
(4) OJ L 103, 3. 4. 1998, p. 4.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1608/98 by Hiltrud BREYER to the Commission. Genetic databases
Date: 1998-05-11
Institutions: BREYER, European Parliament
Subjects: EU Member State, data collection, data transmission, database, genetics, police cooperation

C 354/116

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19. 11. 98

(98/C 354/186)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1600/98

by Ana Miranda de Lage (PSE) to the Council

(25 May 1998)

Subject: State of disrepair of former frontier posts

The  abolition  of  the  internal  frontiers  can  be  seen  as  one  of  the  great  achievements  of  the  European  Union.
The physical disappearance of barriers between countries, viewed at the outset with incredulity, is today seen as
something quite natural which helps to foster a greater sense of European citizenship.

However, at some former frontier posts (Puente de Santiago, Behobia, Biriatou, etc. between France and Spain)
the old buildings which used to house customs services are still standing. The state of disrepair into which these
have fallen because of lack of maintenance and neglect on the part of the authorities is offensive and disgraceful.
Windows have been broken, rubbish is piling up, doors have been torn from their hinges, and so on.

In  conclusion,  the  state  of  the  former  frontier  posts  could  hardly  be  more  deplorable,  undermining  the  most
high-profile political decision ever taken as part of the building of Europe.

What measures will the Council promote to remove the physical frontiers once and for all?

Should this prove impossible, who should be responsible for maintaining and looking after these buildings?

Is the Council aware of any other frontier posts in the same conditions as those described above?

Answer

(20 July 1998)

It is not for the Council to discuss the demolition or conversion of buildings previously used as frontier posts
between Member States; these are matters for national customs authorities.

(98/C 354/187)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1605/98

by Francisco Lucas Pires (PPE) to the Commission

(25 May 1998)

Subject: Rate of implementation of the various Community Support Frameworks

What, according to the Commission(cid:146)s latest assessment, is the rate of implementation of the Community Support
Frameworks by the various countries for which Community funding is organised in this way?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(19 june 1998)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the
Honourable Member and to Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat.

(98/C 354/188)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1608/98

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: Genetic databases

1. Which  EU  Member  States  have  DNA  databases  for  criminal  investigation  purposes,  and  on  what  legal
bases have they been set up?

For what offences, and at what stage (suspicion, reporting of offence to the police, prosecution, sentence or

2.
warning), is a genetic profile stored in the database?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1416/98 by Riitta MYLLER to the Commission. Equal treatment of citizens of the European Union as employees of businesses within the EU
Date: 1998-05-11
Institutions: European Parliament, MYLLER
Subjects: Berlin, European company, equal treatment, group of companies, parent company, share, subsidiary, worker participation

22.12.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 402/129

The intention is to produce BREFs covering all IPPC sectors by the year 2002. The first BREFs are expected to
appear early in 1999.

(98/C 402/170)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1416/98

by Riitta Myller (PSE) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: Equal treatment of citizens of the European Union as employees of businesses within the EU

Schering A.G., which operates in Berlin, Germany, has invited its employees to subscribe to a share issue.
The offer was open to employees of the parent company and of its German subsidiaries, but not to employees of
subsidiaries working in other EU Member States.

How will the Commission ensure that groups of enterprises › both parent companies and subsidiaries › in the
various EU Member States treat all citizens of the Union equally with regard to employee share issues?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 1998)

The Commission has already for a number of years worked on the general issue of financial participation of
employees. In 1991 the Commission published a study on the (cid:145)Promotion of employee participation in profits and
enterprise results(cid:146) known as the Pepper I report. On the basis of this report Council Recommendation
92/443/EEC (1) on the subject was adopted in 1992. The Commission undertook to present a report to the
Parliament, the Council and the Economic and social committee on the application of the recommendation on the
basis of information supplied by the Member States. This report, known as the Pepper II report, was adopted by
the Commission in January 1997 (2).

In the recently adopted social action programme 1998-2000 (3), the Commission has undertaken to launch an
initiative to encourage greater employee financial participation in companies by highlighting good practice and
identifying obstacles, building on the 1992 Recommendation. Identifying obstacles that multinational companies
face when introducing financial participation schemes in general and employee share ownership schemes in
particular will be one of the essential aims of this initiative.

(1) OJ L 245, 26.8.1992.
(2) COM(96) 697 final.
(3) COM(98) 256 final.

(98/C 402/171)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1417/98

by Gianni Tamino (V) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: Incompatibility with Community legislation of law No 30/97 and the hunting season calendar of the

Emilia-Romagna region.

The Emilia-Romagna (Italy) regional authority approved the new hunting season calendar on 31 March of this
year in connection with regional law No 30/97 which stipulates, among other things, that during the season
running from 20 September 1998 to 31 January 1999 it will be possible to hunt protected species such as sparrows
(up to 31 December) and starlings.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1413/98 by Phillip WHITEHEAD to the Commission. Timeshare Directive
Date: 1998-05-11
Institutions: European Parliament, WHITEHEAD
Subjects: acquisition of property, consumer protection, contract, national implementing measure, real property, time-sharing

19. 11. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 354/97

(98/C 354/153)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1407/98

by Maren Gu¤nther (PPE) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: EU research aid for Upper Bavaria in general and for the Munich Technical University in particular

Would the Commission kindly answer the following questions concerning EU research aid for Upper Bavaria:

1.  What was the total amount of R&D aid for Upper Bavaria in 1997?

2.  How was the aid allocated among the various contractors (large industrial undertakings and their research

institutes, SMUs, Munich University, independent research institutes, etc.)?

3.  What aid was allocated to the research institutes of the Munich Technical University (MTU) in Garching?

What amounts were allocated to what institutes within the MTU?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(15 July 1998)

Because of the length of the answer, which includes a number of tables, the Commission is sending it direct to the
Honourable Member and to Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat.

(98/C 354/154)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1413/98

by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission

(11 May 1998)

Subject: Timeshare Directive

How many, and which, Member States have not yet implemented the Timeshare Directive?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(4 June 1998)

Article  12  of  Directive  94/47/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  of  26  October  1994  on  the
protection  of  purchasers  in  respect  of  certain  aspects  of  contracts  relating  to  the  purchase  of  the  right  to  use
immovable properties on a timeshare basis (1) lays down 29 April 1997 as the deadline for transposition of the
Directive for all the Member States.

The  Member  States  that  so  far  have  not  incorporated  the  Directive  in  their  national  legislation  are  Belgium,
Greece, Spain, France, Italy and Luxembourg.

The Member States that have already notified the Commission of their national implementing measures are:

›  Denmark: Law No 234 of 2 April 1997;

›  Germany: Law of 20 December 1996 › BGB No 70 of 31 December 1996;

› 

Ireland: SI 204 1997 › Timesharing;

›  The Netherlands: Law of 26 March 1997 › SB No 147 1997;

›  Austria: Law TNG › BGB of 27 March 1997, I No 32/1997;

›  Portugal: Decreto-lei No 275/93 of 5.8.1993 › Diario de Republica No 182 of 5 August 1993, I Series-A;

›  Finland: Law No 1162 of 11 December 1997 (OJ p.4108);

›  Sweden: SFS 1997:218 of 3 June 1997;

›  United Kingdom: Timesharing regulations 1997, Consumer Protection 1997 › No 1081.

(1)  OJ L 280, 29.10.1994.
98/379/EC: Council Decision of 11 May 1998 on the provisional application of the Agreement between the European Community and the Russian Federation on trade in textile products
Date: 1998-05-11
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Russia, interim agreement (EU), textile product, trade agreement (EU)

15.6.98

EN

Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities

L 169/1

II

(Acts  whose  publication  is  not  obligatory)

COUNCIL

COUNCIL  DECISION

of  11  May  1998

on  the  provisional  application  of  the  Agreement  between  the  European  Community  and  the
Russian  Federation  on  trade  in  textile  products

(98/379/EC)

THE  COUNCIL  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  UNION,

HAS  DECIDED  AS  FOLLOWS:

Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  establishing  the  European
Community,  and  in  particular  Article  113  thereof,  in
conjunction  with  the  first  sentence  of  Article  228(2)
thereof,

Having  regard  to  the  proposal  from  the  Commission,

Article  1

The  Agreement  between  the  European  Community  and
the  Russian  Federation  on  trade  in  textile  products  shall
be  applied  on  a  provisional  basis  from  1  May  1998
pending  its  formal  conclusion  and  subject  to  reciprocal
provisional  application  of  the  Agreement  by  the  Russian
Federation.

The  text  of  the  Agreement  is  annexed  to  this  Decision.

Whereas  the  Commission  has  negotiated  on  behalf  of
the  Community  an  Agreement  between  the  European
Community  and  the  Russian  Federation  on  trade  in
textile  products,  initialled  on  28  March  1998;

Article  2

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of
the  European  Communities.

this  Agreement  should  be  applied  on  a
Whereas 
provisional  basis 
the
completion of the procedures necessary for its conclusion,
subject  to  reciprocal  provisional  application  of  the
Agreement  by  the  Russian  Federation,

from  1  May  1998  pending 

Done  at  Brussels,  11  May  1998.

For  the  Council

The  President

J.  BATTLE