do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
98/494/EC: Commission Decision of 22 July 1998 approving the monitoring plan for the detection of residues or substances in live animals and animal products presented by Denmark (notified under document number C(1998) 2166/3) (Only the Danish text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 1998-07-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Denmark, animal product, health risk, hormone, live animal, veterinary legislation

11. 8. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 223/9

COMMISSION DECISION

of 22 July 1998

approving the monitoring plan for the detection of residues or substances in live
animals and animal products presented by Denmark

(notified under document number C(1998) 2166/3)

(Only the Danish text is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(98/494/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April
1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and res-
idues thereof in live animals and animal products and
repealing Directives 85/358/EEC and 86/469/EEC and
Decisions 89/187/EEC and 91/664/EEC (1), and in par-
ticular the first and second subparagraphs of Article 8(1)
thereof,

Whereas Denmark forwarded to the Commission, in a
document dated 30 June 1997, a plan specifying the
national measures to be implemented during 1998 for the
detection of certain substances and residues thereof in live
animals and animal products; whereas that plan was
amended by a document dated 2 March and 4 June 1998,
in accordance with the Commission’s request, bringing it
into line with the requirements of Directive 96/23/EC;

Whereas examination of
it
complies with Directive 96/23/EC, and in particular
Articles 5 and 7 thereof;

this plan has shown that

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in
accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary
Committee,

Article 1

The monitoring plan for the detection of the residues and
substances referred to in Annex I to Directive 96/23/EC
in live animals and animal products presented by
Denmark is hereby approved.

Article 2

Denmark shall adopt the laws, regulations and adminis-
the plan
trative provisions necessary to implement
referred to in Article 1.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Denmark.

Done at Brussels, 22 July 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 125, 23. 5. 1996, p. 10.
98/496/EC: Commission Decision of 22 July 1998 approving the monitoring plan for the detection of residues or substances in live animals and animal products presented by Portugal (notified under document number C(1998) 2166/5) (Only the Portuguese text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 1998-07-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Portugal, animal product, health risk, hormone, live animal, veterinary legislation

11. 8. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 223/11

COMMISSION DECISION

of 22 July 1998

approving the monitoring plan for the detection of residues or substances in live
animals and animal products presented by Portugal

(notified under document number C(1998) 2166/5)

(Only the Portuguese text is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(98/496/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April
1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and res-
idues thereof in live animals and animal products and
repealing Directives 85/358/EEC and 86/469/EEC and
Decisions 89/187/EEC and 91/664/EEC (1), and in par-
ticular the first and second subparagraphs of Article 8(1)
thereof,

Whereas Portugal forwarded to the Commission,
in a
document dated 26 November 1997, a plan specifying the
national measures to be implemented during 1998 for the
detection of certain substances and residues thereof in live
animals and animal products; whereas that plan was
amended by a document dated 4 March and 6 May 1998,
in accordance with the Commission’s request, bringing it
into line with the requirements of Directive 96/23/EC;

Whereas examination of
it
complies with Directive 96/23/EC, and in particular
Articles 5 and 7 thereof;

this plan has shown that

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in
accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary
Committee,

Article 1

The monitoring plan for the detection of the residues and
substances referred to in Annex I to Directive 96/23/EC
in live animals and animal products presented by Portugal
is hereby approved.

Article 2

Portugal shall adopt the laws, regulations and adminis-
the plan
trative provisions necessary to implement
referred to in Article 1.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Portuguese Republic.

Done at Brussels, 22 July 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 125, 23. 5. 1996, p. 10.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2311/98 by Monica BALDI to the Commission. Schengen Agreement and airport safety
Date: 1998-07-22
Institutions: BALDI, European Parliament
Subjects: Schengen Agreement, air transport, airport, border control, customs inspection, harbour installation, maritime transport, police checks, safety standard, transport safety













EUR-Lex - 91998E2311 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E2311

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2311/98 by Monica BALDI to the Commission. Schengen Agreement and airport safety  


Official Journal C 135 , 14/05/1999 P. 0041 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2311/98by Monica Baldi (PPE) to the Commission(22 July 1998)Subject: Schengen Agreement and airport safetyIn view of the Schengen Agreement and the abolition of systematic customs checks within the Single Market, how does the Commission consider that an adequate level of safety for citizens at airports can be ensured, especially with reduced staffing levels and high volumes of traffic, as at Florence airport?Can the Commission check or take steps to ensure that the applicable safety regulations are being complied with?Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission(23 October 1998)The Commission has always taken the view that the abolition of controls on persons and goods at internal frontiers as provided for by Article 7a of the EC Treaty concerns only the elimination of frontier controls, in other words controls which are carried out in connection with or on the occasion of the crossing of an internal frontier. On the other hand, checks carried out by Member States or by carriers during embarkation on aircraft or ships with a view to ensuring the safety and security of individuals and property during transport should not be affected by the creation of an area without internal frontiers. Such checks are carried out at airports regardless of whether the flight is domestic, intra-Community or international.Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) 3925/91 of 19 December 1991 concerning the elimination of controls and formalities applicable to the cabin and hold baggage of persons taking an intra-Community flight and the baggage of persons making an intra-Community sea crossing(1) thus provides that "this Regulation shall apply without prejudice to the safety and security checks carried out on baggage by the authorities of the Member States, port or airport authorities or carriers". In its proposal for a Council Directive on the elimination of controls on persons crossing internal frontiers(2), the Commission has followed the same approach.The Commission does not have any evidence suggesting that the creation of a frontier-free area has led to lower standards of safety and security in air or sea transport.(1) OJ L 374, 31.12.1991.(2) OJ C 289, 31.10.1995.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2271/98 by Bill MILLER to the Commission. Excise duty
Date: 1998-07-22
Institutions: European Parliament, MILLER
Subjects: customs cooperation, customs fraud, customs regulations, excise duty, single market, tax harmonisation, tax law

29.4.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 118/49

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 October 1998)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the matters raised in his question fall
completely within the area of competence of the Greek supervisory authorities, so that there is no action
that Commission can usefully take.

(1999/C 118/058)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2271/98

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: Excise duty

Does the Commission consider that the present regime of excise duties in the different Member States is
satisfactory or does it believe that further coordination in this area is necessary?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(2 October 1998)

With regard to the harmonisation of excise duty rates and structures the Honourable Member is referred to
the first paragraph of the reply to his written question E-1898/98 (1).

With regard to the question of co-ordination in respect of the control of movements of goods subject to
excise duty, the Commission believes that greater co-operation is necessary and is actively working with
the Member States to achieve this. In this context, it would refer the Honourable Member to its 1998/1999
work programme on the fight against fraud (2) which sets out several measures which the Commission
intends to initiative in order to reinforce co-ordination.

(1) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999, p. 111.
(2) COM(98) 278 final.

(1999/C 118/059)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2272/98

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: Strengthening of the Sefton Coast Road bridges in Southport

Can the Commission confirm that it has instituted a pre-Article 169 investigation into the proposed
strengthening of the Sefton Coast Road bridges in order to ascertain whether it constitutes an upgrading of
the road without the environmental assessment required under the Habitats Directive to ensure that there is
no negative impact on the Sefton Coast candidate Special Area of Conservation?

Has there been a response to this investigation from the relevant UK authorities?

If not, would the Commission agree to press for the issue to be resolved as soon as possible in view of the
projected start of the works in September 1998?

Does the Commission agree that it would be desirable either to stop the works before then if they are
illegal or, if they are not illegal, to ensure that they can go ahead without fear of subsequent legal action?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2267/98 by Rainer WIELAND to the Commission. Cost of the parliamentary system
Date: 1998-07-22
Institutions: European Parliament, WIELAND
Subjects: European Parliament, administrative expenditure (EU), administrative transparency, costing, institutional structure, operation of the Institutions

22.2.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 50/141

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-2251/98, E-2252/98, E-2253/98, E-2254/98,
E-2255/98, E-2256/98, E-2257/98, E-2258/98, E-2259/98, E-2260/98, E-2261/98, E-2262/98,
E-2263/98, E-2264/98 and E-2265/98
given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(1 September 1998)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to
Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat.

(1999/C 50/212)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2267/98

by Rainer Wieland (PPE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: Cost of the parliamentary system

Sector IV of the German Bundestag(cid:146)s research service produced a document on 24 February 1998 under reference
number WF IV › 4/98 which calculated (cid:145)the cost of the parliamentary systems of the USA and the Federal
Republic of Germany(cid:146).

Is the Commission able to make a similar comparison of the cost of the parliamentary system of the European
Union itself, on the one hand with, and on the other hand without, inclusion of the language services, on the basis
of the figures available from 1993 onwards for the relevant financial years?

If so, what is the outcome of this comparison?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-1660/98 (1).

That answer is still valid.

(1) OJ C 386, 11.12.1998, p. 154.

(1999/C 50/213)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2274/98

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: Hypermarkets and the decline of city centres

Is the Commission aware of the increasing number of local shops in inner city areas (such as those in Liverpool)
which are closing because of the growth of supermarkets and out-of-town shopping centres?

Is it aware that old people and people who have no cars find it difficult to travel to these hypermarkets to make
their essential purchases?

Does the Commission consider that such social costs should be taken into account when deciding whether to
allow such hypermarkets?

What steps is the Commission taking to find out the facts concerning this problem and to propose means by which
the difficulties can be alleviated?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2273/98 by Richard CORBETT to the Commission. 'Presidency of the Union'
Date: 1998-07-22
Institutions: CORBETT, European Parliament
Subjects: Austria, EU institution, European Union, president of an institution, press, press release

C 31/136

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.2.1999

(1999/C 31/188)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2245/98

by Allan Macartney (ARE) to the Commission

(16 July 1998)

Subject: Horse medication and welfare

Is the Commission aware that under legislation banning the use of certain medicines widely used to treat horses
which comes into effect in January 2000, horses used solely for sports and leisure purposes will be subject to
exactly the same regulations as horses bred for food purposes?

Has the Commission considered that no alternative medicine is available for certain afflictions common in horses
used for sport and leisure and that the implementation of the new legislation could pose a significant threat to the
welfare of these animals?

Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission

(25 August 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question no E-1495/98 by
Mr Kindermann (1).

(1) See page 42.

(1999/C 31/189)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2273/98

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: (cid:146)Presidency of the Union(cid:146)

The publication (cid:145)The Week in Europe(cid:146) of the European Commission(cid:146)s London office on 25 June refers to Austria
taking over (cid:145)the EU Presidency(cid:146).

Could the Commission explain what this new position is? Since when does the EU have a President? Which
article of the Treaty provides for this? What happened to the old system whereby each Institution had its own
President (Presidency of the Council, President of the Commission, President of Parliament etc.)?

Or is this just an indication that the Commission services know as little as the press about the structure of the
European Union and attribute to the Presidency of the Council a wider responsibility, which it does not have?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(14 September 1998)

The week in Europe is intended to be an informal publication, setting out in brief fashion some of the more
notable events in the Community over the past week. In this context shorthand versions of terms and titles are
often used, not least because readers are familiar with them.

in Britain the government referred to the
Member State governments themselves use similar terms:
(cid:145)UK Presidency of the European Union(cid:146) in many documents. During the Austrian Presidency, the official media
handbook produced by the Federal Chancellery and Federal ministry for Foreign Affairs refers to the (cid:145)Austrian
EU Presidency(cid:146) on the front cover.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2293/98 by John McCARTIN to the Commission. Lamb prices
Date: 1998-07-22
Institutions: European Parliament, MCCARTIN
Subjects: EU Member State, average price, sheepmeat













EUR-Lex - 91998E2293 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E2293

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2293/98 by John McCARTIN to the Commission. Lamb prices  


Official Journal C 297 , 15/10/1999 P. 0010 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2293/98by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission(22 July 1998)Subject: Lamb pricesCan the Commission state what the average market price for lamb was, as paid to farmers in the different states of the EU, last month (or the most recent month for which the figures are available)?Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission(16 September 1998)The average price in ECU per 100 kilogramme paid in each Member State to farmers for lamb carcasses in May 1998(1) is as follows:>TABLE>(1) Latest definitive figures.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2319/98 by José APOLINÁRIO to the Commission. ERDF Article 10/Portugal's inland areas
Date: 1998-07-22
Institutions: APOLINARIO, European Parliament
Subjects: EU aid, EU financing, European Regional Development Fund, Portugal, Structural Funds

28.6.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 182/5

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

(9 October 1998)

The terms and conditions for financing the Alqueva reservoir arise from the general regulations governing the
implementation of the Structural Funds and the specific conditions peculiar to this major project, as defined
and approved by the Commission and the beneficiary Member State.

The terms and conditions for financing the Interreg drought programme for Spain are those that apply to any
Community programme and are subject to the same general regulations with regard to the arrangements for
granting and implementing Community assistance, the rules on the combining of different types of such
assistance and the de minimis rules.

If a comparison is made with the ERDF funding of the Alqueva reservoir, the Honourable Member will find
that the ERDF contributes to the Interreg-II-C Spain programme, which concerns seven Objective 1 regions
(i.e. 344 189 km2 and 18,7 million inhabitants), the sum of ECU 56,65 million.

The Commission is forwarding directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat a copy of
the press release, summary information sheet and programme, as approved, to which the decision taken by the
Commission on 29 June 1998 relates.

(1999/C 182/006)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2319/98

by José Apolinário (PSE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: ERDF Article 10 9 Portugal’s inland areas

With reference to the significant size of Portugal’s interior, could the Commission say how much Community
support it will receive under Article 10 of the ERDF during the 1994-99 period and how much it is likely to
receive during the 2000-06 financial period?

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

(15 October 1998)

Portugal is participating in 31 pilot projects under Article 10 of the European regional development fund
(ERDF) Regulation (1) for the 1994-99 period. The total cost of these projects is ECU 39,4 million and ERDF
support is ECU 22,5 million. A table giving further details is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to the
Secretariat General of the Parliament.

In addition, in the context of the selection procedure for the Recite II call for proposals for the 1994-99 period,
the Commission intends to approve around 25 projects involving Portuguese partners. The corresponding
financial contribution for the Portuguese parties concerned would be about ECU 9 million.

For the 2000-06 financial period, the Commission proposes to allocate 1 % of structural fund resources to
innovative measures and pilot actions, of which 0,7 % would be allocated to innovative actions and 0,3 % for
technical assistance. The themes have not yet been proposed. Furthermore it is not envisaged to make an ex
ante allocation by Member State.

(1) OJ L 193, 31.7.1993.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2272/98 by Richard CORBETT to the Commission. Strengthening of the Sefton Coast Road bridges in Southport
Date: 1998-07-22
Institutions: CORBETT, European Parliament
Subjects: United Kingdom, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, application of EU law, engineering structure, environmental impact, environmental protection, road building, road network

29.4.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 118/49

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 October 1998)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the matters raised in his question fall
completely within the area of competence of the Greek supervisory authorities, so that there is no action
that Commission can usefully take.

(1999/C 118/058)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2271/98

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: Excise duty

Does the Commission consider that the present regime of excise duties in the different Member States is
satisfactory or does it believe that further coordination in this area is necessary?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(2 October 1998)

With regard to the harmonisation of excise duty rates and structures the Honourable Member is referred to
the first paragraph of the reply to his written question E-1898/98 (1).

With regard to the question of co-ordination in respect of the control of movements of goods subject to
excise duty, the Commission believes that greater co-operation is necessary and is actively working with
the Member States to achieve this. In this context, it would refer the Honourable Member to its 1998/1999
work programme on the fight against fraud (2) which sets out several measures which the Commission
intends to initiative in order to reinforce co-ordination.

(1) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999, p. 111.
(2) COM(98) 278 final.

(1999/C 118/059)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2272/98

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(22 July 1998)

Subject: Strengthening of the Sefton Coast Road bridges in Southport

Can the Commission confirm that it has instituted a pre-Article 169 investigation into the proposed
strengthening of the Sefton Coast Road bridges in order to ascertain whether it constitutes an upgrading of
the road without the environmental assessment required under the Habitats Directive to ensure that there is
no negative impact on the Sefton Coast candidate Special Area of Conservation?

Has there been a response to this investigation from the relevant UK authorities?

If not, would the Commission agree to press for the issue to be resolved as soon as possible in view of the
projected start of the works in September 1998?

Does the Commission agree that it would be desirable either to stop the works before then if they are
illegal or, if they are not illegal, to ensure that they can go ahead without fear of subsequent legal action?