do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2064/98 by Anne ANDRÉ-LÉONARD to the Commission. ECVAM (European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods)
Date: 1998-07-07
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: Community body, Joint Research Centre, advisory committee (EU), animal experimentation, appointment of staff, contract

C 135/8

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.5.1999

(1999/C 135/008)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1979/98

by Jaak Vandemeulebroucke (ARE) to the Commission

(30 June 1998)

Subject: Appointment of the director of the European Centre for the Validation of Alternatives

I have recently heard that the director of the European Centre for the Validation of Alternatives has been
appointed for a period of only two years, whereas his term of office should normally be five years, as was
recommended by the ECVAM’s advisory committee.

What is the Commission’s opinion of this, and what academic credibility does it think a director can have
who only holds his post for two years?

(1999/C 135/009)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2033/98

by Philippe Monfils (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: Duration of the ECVAM director’s contract

(7 July 1998)

The European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods established by the EU plays an important
role in carrying out long-term validation studies.

It would appear that the most recent contract for the post of director is not for the standard period of five
years but is for two years only.

Clearly, if managerial staff are replaced too frequently the continuity of work and the Centre’s scientific
credibility are likely to be undermined.

Does the Commission not consider that, in view of the above, it would be advisable to confirm the
appointment of the Centre’s director for a period of 5 years?

(1999/C 135/010)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2064/98

by Anne André-Léonard (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 July 1998)

Subject: ECVAM (European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods)

The ECVAM Director’s term of office, which is normally five years, has been renewed only for a period
of two years.

Is such a decision on the part of certain authorities not likely to pose a threat to the future of this
institution?

Moreover, a two-year term of office is apparently inadequate for completing long-term validation studies.
As a result the Centre will have limited credibility in scientific circles.

At present the ECVAM comprises prominent experts in the field of validation of alternative methods. It
would be regrettable to deprive the Centre of their experience and thus to jeopardize its very existence.

Will the Commission inform us of the latest developments in this respect?
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1452/98 of 7 July 1998 determining to what extent import right applications submitted for live bovine animals weighing between 80 and 300 kilograms as part of a tariff quota provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1149/98 may be accepted
Date: 1998-07-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: CCT duties, cattle, import, live animal, tariff quota

L 192/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

8. 7. 98

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1452/98

of 7 July 1998

determining to what extent import right applications submitted for live bovine
animals weighing between 80 and 300 kilograms as part of a tariff quota provided
for in Regulation (EC) No 1149/98 may be accepted

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1149/
98 of 2 June 1998 laying down, for the period 1 July
1998 to 30 June 1999, certain detailed rules for the
application of a tariff quota for live bovine animals
weighing from 80 to 300 kilograms and originating in
certain third countries (1), and in particular Article 4(1)
thereof,

Whereas Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1149/98 lays
down the number of head of
live bovine animals
weighing between 80 and 300 kilograms originating in
certain third countries which may be imported under
special conditions in the period 1 July 1998 to 30 June
1999;

Whereas the quantities for which import right applica-
tions have been submitted exceed the quantities available;
whereas, pursuant to Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No
1149/98, a single percentage reduction in the quantities
applied for should be fixed,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

right applications

Import
to the
import arrangements referred to in Regulation (EC) No
1149/98 shall be reduced by 99,1837 %.

submitted pursuant

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 8 July 1998.

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

Done at Brussels, 7 July 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 159, 3. 6. 1998, p. 40.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2079/98 by Magda AELVOET to the Commission. European Centre for the Validation of Alternatives
Date: 1998-07-07
Institutions: AELVOET, European Parliament
Subjects: Community body, Joint Research Centre, advisory committee (EU), animal experimentation, appointment of staff, contract

14.5.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 135/9

(1999/C 135/011)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2079/98

by Magda Aelvoet (V) to the Commission

(7 July 1998)

Subject: European Centre for the Validation of Alternatives

We have heard that there are problems regarding the continuity of the work of the European Centre for the
Validation of Alternatives, which develops alternatives to tests on animals. We are convinced that the
ECVAM carries out valuable work.

Is it true that the Director of the ECVAM, Mr Balls, was appointed for only two years rather than the

1.
customary five?

2.

Is this situation jeopardizing the survival and efficient operation of the Centre?

Does the Commission agree that the ECVAM has done important work and must be able to continue

3.
it?

(1999/C 135/012)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2134/98

by Philippe De Coene (PSE) and Anne Van Lancker (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Length of the ECVAM Director’s term of office

(10 July 1998)

The term of office of the Director of the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods
(ECVAM) has recently been renewed. The usual term is five years, but this time an extension of only two
years has been granted.

Limiting the term of office in this way will seriously jeopardize any research that is launched during the
period concerned. Many research projects can obviously not be completed in such a time, and two years is
also too short to draw any well-founded long-term conclusions.

Scientific centres will not attach much credibility to the ECVAM when they realize that the Director has
barely two years to carry out his research.

Does the Commission not agree that it makes scientific sense to grant a full term of five years? What are
the reasons for choosing a shorter term?

(1999/C 135/013)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2452/98

by Paul Lannoye (V) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: ECVAM

The appointment of Mr Balls, the director of ECVAM (the European Centre for the Validation of
Alternative Methods), a body set up by the EU, has been extended by two years.

Since the director is normally appointed for a period of five years, the associations working for the
protection of laboratory animals are concerned for the future of the institution.

As ECVAM is one of the rare organisations bringing together experts in the validation of alternative
methods, it would be regrettable if its existence were to be placed in jeopardy.

Can the Commission tell me what the future prospects of ECVAM are?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2186/98 by Marie-Noëlle LIENEMANN to the Commission. Implementation of the directive on wild birds
Date: 1998-07-07
Institutions: European Parliament, LIENEMANN
Subjects: application of EU law, bird, environmental protection, hunting regulations, protection of animal life, wildlife













EUR-Lex - 91998E2186 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E2186

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2186/98 by Marie-Noëlle LIENEMANN to the Commission. Implementation of the directive on wild birds  


Official Journal C 013 , 18/01/1999 P. 0151 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-2186/98by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission(7 July 1998)Subject: Implementation of the directive on wild birdsWhat contacts and proposals for dialogue does the Commission intend to establish with hunting associations, nature conservation bodies and the Member States chiefly concerned with a view to seeking a more widely accepted compromise with regard to clarifying or modifying Council Directive 79/409/EEC on wild birds(1) in order to ensure both the conservation of migratory birds and the preservation of historic rights in relation to hunting, an activity which the Commission recognises as lawful?It would be regrettable if the European Union proved incapable of adopting a balanced, negotiated approach to this subject, particularly as Europe does not always appear capable of guaranteeing citizens' fundamental rights in other essential areas (child labour, social protection, etc.).Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission(30 July 1998)The Commission has drawn up a proposal for a Council Directive(2) with the aim of finding a means of definitely settling the closing dates for the migratory-bird shooting season.Since its proposal did not receive a qualified majority the Commission has maintained informal contacts with hunters and nature-conservancy organisations, and with the Member States concerned, in order to find solutions that could enable a qualified majority to be obtained within the Council on a proposal enabling migratory birds to be protected.Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(3) has been unanimously accepted by the Council and supported by Parliament. As guardian of the Treaties, the Commission must ensure compliance with that Directive, more especially since there is a broad consensus on the need to abide by the principles underlying this legislation. That principle applies without exception to all of the laws involving Community powers that have been adopted by the Council. The Commission is of course still readily available for any useful contacts and is prepared to examine any proposal enabling the various legitimate differences to be reconciled.It is here a matter of principle concerning the rule of law.(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.(2) OJ C 100, 9.4.1994.(3) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1451/98 of 7 July 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 1324/96 establishing the supply balance for the Azores and Madeira in the rice products sector
Date: 1998-07-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Azores, Madeira, aid system, rice, supply balance sheet

L 192/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

8. 7. 98

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1451/98

of 7 July 1998

amending Regulation (EC) No 1324/96 establishing the supply balance for the
Azores and Madeira in the rice products sector

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92
of 15 June 1992 concerning specific measures for the
Azores and Madeira relating to certain agricultural prod-
ucts (1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC)
No 562/98 (2), and in particular Article 10 thereof,

Whereas common detailed rules for the implementation
of the specific arrangements for the supply of certain
agricultural products to the Azores and Madeira are laid
down in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1696/92 (3), as
last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2596/93 (4);

Whereas, for the purposes of applying Article 2 of Regu-
lation (EEC) No 1600/92, the forecast supply balance for
the Azores and Madeira should be drawn up for rice-
sector products on the basis of the islands’ requirements;
whereas the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No
1324/96 (5), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2468/

97 (6), should accordingly be replaced by the Annex
hereto;

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

The Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1324/96 is hereby
replaced by the Annex hereto.

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 with effect from 1 July 1998.

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

Done at Brussels, 7 July 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 173, 27. 6. 1992, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 76, 13. 3. 1998, p. 6.
(3) OJ L 179, 1. 7. 1992, p. 6.
(4) OJ L 238, 23. 9. 1993, p. 24.
(5) OJ L 171, 10. 7. 1996, p. 3.

(6) OJ L 341, 12. 12. 1997, p. 6.

8. 7. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 192/11

ANNEX

‘ANNEX

Supply balance for rice for the Azores and Madeira for the marketing period 1 July 1998 to
30 June 1999

Product (CN code)

Milled rice

1006 30

Azores

2 500

(tonnes)

Madeira

5 000'
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2048/98 by Jean-Claude PASTY to the Commission. Tax harmonization in the EU Member States
Date: 1998-07-07
Institutions: European Parliament, PASTY
Subjects: France, Luxembourg, business tax, tax authorities, tax convention, tax harmonisation

C 13/140

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.1.1999

To that end, the Commission keeps a close watch on the situation of the country(cid:146)s journalists. As for the two
journalists specifically mentioned by the Honourable Member, both have almost fully resumed their professional
activities. Their physical protection is outside the Commission(cid:146)s sphere of competence.

The Commission will continue conveying to its Turkish partners the Community(cid:146)s concerns in such matters, and
in particular those raised by the Honourable Member.

(1999/C 13/197)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2032/98

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

Subject: US tariff on tinned tuna in oil

(7 July 1998)

In its answer to Written Question E-1201/98 (1), the Commission points out that (cid:145)it cannot be excluded that the
higher rate of duty applied for canned tuna in oil in the United States makes the Community a more attractive
market for third countries given its lower duty(cid:146). Likewise, it states that (cid:145)as the United States is respecting its
obligations under the GATT World Trade Organization (WTO) regarding its tariff bindings, the Community has
no basis under the WTO to contest this tariff(cid:146) and ends by asserting that (cid:145)however, it will be possible to pursue
this issue in the context of the next multilateral tariff negotiation(cid:146).

Can the Commission say when the next multilateral tariff negotiation will take place?

Will the Commission take that opportunity to raise the problem posed by the higher tariff applied for tinned tuna
in oil in the United States, given that the Community duty is lower?

(1) OJ C 354, 19.11.1998, p. 77.

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 1998)

The Community is in favour of a new round of multilateral trade negotiations. However, the setting up of such a
round, which the Community would wish to see include negotiations on tariff reductions, can only be decided by
the contracting parties to the World trade organisation (WTO). It is the Commission(cid:146)s hope that this will be done
at the 1999 WTO ministerial meeting.

Once such negotiations are agreed, and provided that negotiations on tariff reductions are included, the issue
raised by the Honourable Member could be included.

(1999/C 13/198)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2048/98

by Jean-Claude Pasty (UPE) to the Commission

(7 July 1998)

Subject: Tax harmonization in the EU Member States

Will the Commission state whether a branch office situated in France, legally defined as a non-permanent
establishment and declared, recognized and taxed as such by the French tax authorities (limited to a professional
tax amounting to what is in effect a token payment of approx. FF 150 per annum), can legally be considered as a
fixed base within the meaning of Article 15 of the Franco-Luxembourg tax convention of 1 April 1958?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2038/98 by Klaus HÄNSCH to the Commission. Allocation of EU resources to the city of Oberhausen, North Rhine-Westphalia (SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER)
Date: 1998-07-07
Institutions: European Parliament, HAENSCH
Subjects: EU aid, EU initiative, EU programme, North Rhine-Westphalia, Structural Funds, distribution of aid, job creation, research body, type of business, university

C 31/114

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.2.1999

Outside the scope of these complaints, the Commission is unaware of any other obstacles to the import and
registration of used cars.

(1) OJ C 143, 15.5.1996.

(1999/C 31/155)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2037/98

by Klaus H(cid:228)nsch (PSE) to the Commission

(7 July 1998)

Subject: Allocation of EU resources to the district (Kreis) of Mettmann, North Rhine- Westphalia

Regarding the allocation of EU resources to the district (Kreis) of Mettmann in North Rhine-Westphalia, can the
Commission indicate:

1.

the sum of EU structural resources received and their breakdown by Funds and the various Community
programmes and initiatives and of EU resources allocated to the district (Kreis) of Mettmann from other
budget lines since 1994 for pilot projects, measures or › as direct allocations › universities, research
establishments, undertakings and other bodies,

2.

the number of jobs created or preserved with the aid of these resources?

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 1998)

Further to its answer of 6 July 1998 (1), the Commission is now able to provide the following additional
information.

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-2036/98 (2).

(1) OJ C 354, 19.11.1998, p. 129.
(2) OJ C 386, 11.12.1998.

(1999/C 31/156)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2038/98

by Klaus H(cid:228)nsch (PSE) to the Commission

(7 July 1998)

Subject: Allocation of EU resources to the city of Oberhausen, North Rhine-Westphalia

Regarding the allocation of EU resources to the city of Oberhausen in North Rhine-Westphalia, can the
Commission indicate:

1.

the sum of EU structural resources received and their breakdown by Funds and the various Community
programmes and initiatives and of EU resources allocated to Oberhausen from other budget lines since 1994
for pilot projects, measures or › as direct allocations › universities, research establishments, undertakings
and other bodies,

2.

the number of jobs created or preserved with the aid of these resources?

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 1998)

Further to its answer of 6 July 1998 (1), the Commission is now able to provide the following additional
information.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2071/98 by Gerardo FERNÁNDEZ-ALBOR to the Commission. The 'Camino Europa' project
Date: 1998-07-07
Institutions: European Parliament, FERNANDEZ ALBOR
Subjects: EU employment policy, EURES, European citizenship, free movement of persons, job access, job mobility, job vacancy, monetary union, sample survey, student













EUR-Lex - 91998E2071 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E2071

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2071/98 by Gerardo FERNÁNDEZ-ALBOR to the Commission. The 'Camino Europa' project  


Official Journal C 013 , 18/01/1999 P. 0144 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2071/98by Gerardo Fernández-Albor (PPE) to the Commission(7 July 1998)Subject: The "Camino Europa" projectA recently conducted survey of 1 300 students at the University of Madrid entitled "Camino Europa" (Road to Europe) has shown that seven out of ten would be willing to work in another EU country, 78 % of them consider themselves "European", and 75 % are in favour of the single currency.Such enthusiastic commitment to Europe should be taken on board so as to avoid any possible disappointment for those who took part in the survey once they have left university. Hence the need to open up flexible channels to provide young pro-European university students from the various Member States with access to jobs in countries other than their own.Does the Commission believe that this heartening survey should encourage the creation in the various Member States of the aforementioned contact channels listing employment opportunities, as a means of promoting employment mobility across all the Member States for university graduates who have completed their studies in their home countries?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission(3 August 1998)The Commission appreciates the fact that young people with qualifications are among the people most willing to make use of geographical mobility in order to work in another Member State.It attaches considerable importance to arrangements which allow European citizens to exercise the right of freedom of movement granted to them by the EC Treaty. This is why, for instance, it supports the EURES network of public employment services, social partners and other local-level partners. The task of this network, which makes use of more than 500 Euroadvisers and modern information technologies, is to inform and advise jobseekers (or employers) in the context of geographical mobility. It helps people find a job abroad, through a database containing around 100 000 specially selected vacancies. Details of some of these vacancies are now available on the EURES Internet site (http://europa.eu.int/jobs/eures), which also offers links to the sites of many public employment services throughout Europe.A detailed presentation of EURES activities may be found in the report(1) adopted by the Commission on 3 July 1998 and transmitted to the European Parliament.(1) COM(98) 413 final.