do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Regulation (EC) No 81/1999 of 13 January 1999 fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar for the 22nd partial invitation to tender issued within the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1574/98
Date: 1999-01-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, export refund, white sugar

14. 1. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 8/7

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 81/1999

of 13 January 1999

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar for the 22nd partial invitation
to tender issued within the framework of the standing invitation to tender
provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1574/98

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81
of 30 June 1981 on the common organization of the
markets in the sugar sector (1), as last amended by Regula-
tion (EC) No 1148/98 (2), and in particular the second
subparagraph of Article 17 (5) (b) thereof,

Whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 1574/98 of 22
July 1998 on a standing invitation to tender to determine
refunds on exports of white sugar (3),
levies and/or
requires partial invitations to tender to be issued for the
export of this sugar;

Whereas, pursuant to Article 9 (1) of Regulation (EC) No
1574/98 a maximum export refund shall be fixed, as the
case may be, account being taken in particular of the state
the Community and
and foreseeable development of
world markets in sugar, for the partial invitation to tender
in question;

following an examination of

the tenders
Whereas,
submitted in response to the 22nd partial invitation to
tender, the provisions set out in Article 1 should be
adopted;

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the 22nd partial invitation to tender for white sugar
to Regulation (EC) No 1574/98 the
issued pursuant
maximum amount of the export refund is fixed at EUR
48,465 per 100 kilograms.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 14 January
1999.

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

Done at Brussels, 13 January 1999.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 177, 1. 7. 1981, p. 4.
(2) OJ L 159, 3. 6. 1998, p. 38.
(3) OJ L 206, 23. 7. 1998, p. 7.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 4059/98 by Anita POLLACK Health effects of cramped seating on long-haul flights
Date: 1999-01-13
Institutions: European Parliament, POLLACK
Subjects: accident prevention, air transport, carriage of passengers, public health, transport accident, transport safety













EUR-Lex - 91998E4059 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E4059

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 4059/98 by Anita POLLACK Health effects of cramped seating on long-haul flights  


Official Journal C 341 , 29/11/1999 P. 0031 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-4059/98by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission(13 January 1999)Subject: Health effects of cramped seating on long-haul flightsIs the Commission aware that serious concerns are being raised about cramped seating on long-haul flights causing thrombosis to some passengers? Has there been any research conducted or gathered by the Commission on this matter?Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission(10 March 1999)The Commission is aware of concerns expressed about the possible consequences for the health of certain air passengers through the risk of insufficient seat space in economy class. An increasing number of complaints from passengers has been received and several expert studies have been funded by the Commission in response to those concerns. Results received so far do not identify a clear need to impose a wider seat pitch. They do tend to demonstrate, however, that lengthening distance between seats increases the risk of injury in case of accident.The Commission is conducting an inquiry on this matter within the relevant Joint aviation authorities (JAA) working group and will consider whether the results should lead to further specific initiatives which could ease discomfort whilst maintaining safety.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 27/99 by Marco FORMENTINI to the Commission. Increased charges introduced by TIM and OMNITEL for fixed- to-mobile telephone traffic
Date: 1999-01-13
Institutions: European Parliament, FORMENTINI
Subjects: Italy, advertising malpractice, consumer protection, economic survey, infringement of EU law, liberalisation of the market, radio telecommunications, restriction on competition, telephone charges













EUR-Lex - 91999E0027 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91999E0027

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 27/99 by Marco FORMENTINI to the Commission. Increased charges introduced by TIM and OMNITEL for fixed- to-mobile telephone traffic  


Official Journal C 207 , 21/07/1999 P. 0168 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-0027/99by Marco Formentini (NI) to the Commission(13 January 1999)Subject: Increased charges introduced by TIM and OMNITEL for fixed-to-mobile telephone trafficIn light of the new charges introduced on 6 January 1999 by the two mobile telephone companies (TIM and OMNITEL), which entail substantial increases (up to 153 %) for calls from fixed to mobile telephones, can the Commission say:- whether it considers that the agreement between the two operators to introduce equivalent price rises was drawn up in accordance with the rules on free competition on the market;- whether it does not consider that, by virtue of this agreement, a cartel has been set up to manage the market, an unlawful practice as far as free competition is concerned and detrimental to the interests of the consumer;- whether the agreement could be seen as taking advantage of consumers' good faith, since it was implemented immediately after the Christmas holidays, when a large number of new mobile telephone contracts were concluded, in particular "family" contracts;- whether it does not consider, in the light of this latest event, that the Italian economy is still dominated by monopolies or, at best, duopolies, which end up acting much like rigid monopolies;- what steps it intends to take to safeguard free competition on the market and, above all, the interests of users?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 4046/98 by Ian WHITE to the Commission. Levels of MHS supervision in licensed slaughterhouses
Date: 1999-01-13
Institutions: European Parliament, WHITE
Subjects: United Kingdom, infringement of EU law, meat, veterinary inspection

15.10.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 297/127

Can the Commission provide a breakdown, if necessary through annual reports, of the activities carried

2.
out by these partners in Belgium in the last five years?

Can the Commission state whether it regularly evaluates the effectiveness of the activities subsidised? If

3.
so, can I see the evaluation reports?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 1999)

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’s Secretariat.

(1999/C 297/174)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4046/98

by Ian White (PSE) to the Commission

(13 January 1999)

Subject: Levels of MHS supervision in licensed slaughterhouses

Would the Commission please specify why implementation regulations enacted in 1995 in full accordance
with Directive 64/433/EEC (1) have been regarded by the Commission as failing to comply with the level of
official veterinary supervision in licensed British slaughterhouses?

(1) OJ 121, 29.7.1964, p. 2012.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 1999)

The Commission has issued a reasoned opinion under Article 169 of the EC Treaty in respect of this matter.
The principal infringement noted in this document concerns the level of supervision by qualified official
veterinarians of United Kingdom meat plants. In particular the Commission has questioned the apparent
inadequate frequency of veterinary controls in certain categories of establishment and the use of meat hygiene
inspectors who are not qualified veterinarians to perform duties which under Community law must be carried
out or adequately supervised by qualified veterinarians.

The United Kingdom has admitted that it currently has difficulties in recruiting sufficient veterinary staff. It
recently submitted to the Commission its proposals for resolving this problem.

(1999/C 297/175)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4065/98

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NG) to the Council

(15 January 1999)

Subject: The Wassenaar regulations

The Wassenaar organisation, which continues the work carried out by COCOM during the Cold War, has
decided to agree, in accordance with the interests of the USA and its secret services, that the export of
confidential technology should be subject to restrictions. This decision infringes the principle of the freedom
to purchase services within the EU. How will the regulation on the licensing of exports of confidential
technology agreed at Wassenaar be prepared in the EU? On what legal basis does the Council justify approving
this kind of restriction on free trade?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 4064/98 by Laura GONZÁLEZ ÁLVAREZ , Pedro MARSET CAMPOS Report of the European Ombudsman on the Itoiz dam (Spain)
Date: 1999-01-13
Institutions: European Parliament, GONZALEZ ALVAREZ, MARSET CAMPOS
Subjects: Spain, bird, complaint to the Commission, engineering structure, environmental impact, environmental protection, protected species, protection of animal life, protection of plant life, wildlife













EUR-Lex - 91998E4064 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E4064

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 4064/98 by Laura GONZÁLEZ ÁLVAREZ , Pedro MARSET CAMPOS Report of the European Ombudsman on the Itoiz dam (Spain)  


Official Journal C 325 , 12/11/1999 P. 0051 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-4064/98by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) and Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission(13 January 1999)Subject: Report of the European Ombudsman on the Itoiz dam (Spain)In his report of 20 November 1998 the European Ombudsman criticised the decision to take no further action on complaint P/92/4758 concerning the Itoiz dam and concluded his remarks by noting that the fact that the Commission could give no proper justification for its decision (to consider the matter closed) constituted a case of maladministration.The Itoiz dam is damaging two Special Bird Conservation Areas (ZEPA) and three nature reserves.1. Does the Commission know about the above-mentioned report by the Ombudsman?2. What steps will it take to remedy this case of maladministration?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission(24 March 1999)The Commission is aware of the Ombudsman's decision in this matter.The Ombudsman's critical remarks solely concern the extent to which the Commission had given adequate reasons for not accepting a legal argument put forward by the complainants (which essentially related to whether Spain could rely on a development consent process set out in Directive 92/43/EEC(1) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna as against an earlier process set out in Directive 79/409/EEC(2) of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds).However, the Commission considers that the information it provided was sufficient to address this legal argument, since it could be logically deduced from this information why the legal argument was not accepted. In particular, the Commission made quite clear the date from which it considered Directive 92/43/EEC to be applicable, and the facts made it clear that the Itoiz project would be carried out after that date. In any case, the Ombudsman did not question the correctness of the Commission's legal stance.Given this and given the fact that the Itoiz project has since been constructed, the Commission does not see any purpose in prolonging commentary on a Commission decision dating from 1994. The original complainant in this case has been fully informed of Commission's views on this issue.(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 4062/98 by Graham MATHER 1992 Habitats Directive - designation of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs)
Date: 1999-01-13
Institutions: European Parliament, MATHER
Subjects: United Kingdom, conservation of resources, environmental protection, nature reserve, protected area, protected species, protection of animal life, protection of plant life













EUR-Lex - 91998E4062 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E4062

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 4062/98 by Graham MATHER 1992 Habitats Directive - designation of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs)  


Official Journal C 341 , 29/11/1999 P. 0033 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-4062/98by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission(13 January 1999)Subject: 1992 Habitats Directive - designation of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs)Under the 1992 Habitats Directive(1), the Member States were obliged to propose a certain number of sites to be designated as SACs by 1992. The United Kingdom has failed to meet all of its obligations in this regard.What action does the Commission propose to take to ensure that the United Kingdom does now meet these obligations?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission(12 March 1999)Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora requires each Member State to propose a list of sites to the Commission within three years of the notification of this Directive. Such lists should therefore have been received by June 1995.The United Kingdom has now proposed 333 sites, covering 16,885 km2. It has informed the Commission that its list is largely complete and that a small number of remaining sites will be proposed by the spring of 1999.With a view to establishing a list of sites of Community importance to be designated as special areas of conservation (SACs) under the Directive the Commission will evaluate with the Member States the different proposed national lists. This will be done within the framework of each of the different biogeographic regions covered by the Directive.The United Kingdom is located entirely within the Atlantic biogeographic region. A seminar is foreseen for autumn 1999 to evaluate the proposed national lists for this region. The sufficiency of the British proposal, with a view to the objectives of the directive, will be examined in this context and will form the basis for any further bilateral discussions between the Commission and the United Kingdom on this subject.(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 4053/98 by Nelly MAES Misuse of humanitarian aid to countries at war
Date: 1999-01-13
Institutions: European Parliament, MAES
Subjects: ACP countries, EU aid, EU control, financial aid, humanitarian aid, third country, use of aid, war

C 325/50

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.11.1999

(1999/C 325/061)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4042/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 January 1999)

Subject: Export incentives in Turkey

The Turkish Government has recently announced the introduction of an export incentive scheme consisting
of:

% funding for export companies formed by joint ventures which open branches abroad,

% payments of $ 400 000 to $ 900 000 for export operations resulting from mergers and

% additional export subsidies.

Since such subsidies infringe competition rules, are detrimental to undertakings and products in the Member
States and are contrary to Turkey’s undertakings to the European Union in connection with the Customs
Union:

% can the Commission confirm the above?

% is the payment of export subsidies in accordance with the spirit and letter of Customs Union?

% in any event, the EU must be informed in advance of any export subsidies. Was this done?

% what steps will the Commission take to put an end to measures by the Turkish Government which

infringe the Customs Union agreement?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 1999)

The Commission has recently been informed about the adoption in July 1997 by the Turkish government of a
communiqué 97/9 on supporting the activities of opening and operating offices and stores and promoting
trademarks abroad. This communiqué contains in particular a provision for the support by the Foreign Trade
Undersecretariat of part of the establishment, operation and promotion expenses of companies, stores,
warehouses and branch offices already established and operating or to be established abroad.

The Commission is examining the conformity of these provisions with the rules established by the customs
union Decision 1/95 and especially its Article 34 on state aids. If these provisions were considered as
incompatible with these rules, the Commission would ask for immediate consultation in the customs union
joint committee under Article 38 of the customs union Decision.

(1999/C 325/062)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4053/98

by Nelly Maes (V) to the Commission

(13 January 1999)

Subject: Misuse of humanitarian aid to countries at war

On 18 September 1998, the President of the Commission said that the European Union should review its aid
to countries at war and refuse to provide financial assistance if it was used for war purposes. Afterwards, the
Commission is said to have instituted an internal inquiry to identify any diversion of European aid funds and
determine what measures can be taken against those responsible.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 4042/98 by Alexandros ALAVANOS Export incentives in Turkey
Date: 1999-01-13
Institutions: ALAVANOS, European Parliament
Subjects: State aid, Türkiye, aid to undertakings, customs union, export aid, export subsidy, restriction on competition, trade promotion

C 325/50

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.11.1999

(1999/C 325/061)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4042/98

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 January 1999)

Subject: Export incentives in Turkey

The Turkish Government has recently announced the introduction of an export incentive scheme consisting
of:

% funding for export companies formed by joint ventures which open branches abroad,

% payments of $ 400 000 to $ 900 000 for export operations resulting from mergers and

% additional export subsidies.

Since such subsidies infringe competition rules, are detrimental to undertakings and products in the Member
States and are contrary to Turkey’s undertakings to the European Union in connection with the Customs
Union:

% can the Commission confirm the above?

% is the payment of export subsidies in accordance with the spirit and letter of Customs Union?

% in any event, the EU must be informed in advance of any export subsidies. Was this done?

% what steps will the Commission take to put an end to measures by the Turkish Government which

infringe the Customs Union agreement?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 1999)

The Commission has recently been informed about the adoption in July 1997 by the Turkish government of a
communiqué 97/9 on supporting the activities of opening and operating offices and stores and promoting
trademarks abroad. This communiqué contains in particular a provision for the support by the Foreign Trade
Undersecretariat of part of the establishment, operation and promotion expenses of companies, stores,
warehouses and branch offices already established and operating or to be established abroad.

The Commission is examining the conformity of these provisions with the rules established by the customs
union Decision 1/95 and especially its Article 34 on state aids. If these provisions were considered as
incompatible with these rules, the Commission would ask for immediate consultation in the customs union
joint committee under Article 38 of the customs union Decision.

(1999/C 325/062)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4053/98

by Nelly Maes (V) to the Commission

(13 January 1999)

Subject: Misuse of humanitarian aid to countries at war

On 18 September 1998, the President of the Commission said that the European Union should review its aid
to countries at war and refuse to provide financial assistance if it was used for war purposes. Afterwards, the
Commission is said to have instituted an internal inquiry to identify any diversion of European aid funds and
determine what measures can be taken against those responsible.
Declaration of intended rejection of common position (EC) No 47/98 established by the Council with a view to adopting a European Parliament and Council Decision establishing a Community action for the ‘European Capital of Culture' event for the years 2005-2019 (9268/98 - C4-0493/98 - 97/0290(COD)
Date: 1999-01-13
Institutions: Committee on Culture and Education, European Parliament
Subjects: EU initiative, European cultural event, cultural promotion

C 104/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14. 4. 1999

Wednesday 13 January 1999

4.  European Capital of Culture (2005-2019) ***II

A4-0509/98

Declaration of intended rejection of common position (EC) No 47/98 established by the Council with
a view to adopting a European Parliament and Council Decision establishing a Community action
for  the  (cid:145)European  Capital  of  Culture(cid:146)  event  for  the  years  2005-2019  (9268/98  ›  C4-0493/98  ›
97/0290(COD)

(Codecision procedure: second reading)

The European Parliament,

›  having  regard  to  common  position  (EC)  No  47/98  of  the  Council,  9268/98  ›  C4-0493/98  ›

97/0290(COD) (1),

›  having regard to its opinion at first reading (2)  on  the  Commission  proposal  to  Parliament  and  the

Council COM(97)0549 (3),

›  having regard to the amended Commission proposal COM(98)0350 (4),

›  having regard to Article 189b(2)(c) of the EC Treaty,

›  having regard to Rule 69 of its Rules of Procedure,

›  having regard to the proposal of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education and the Media for a

declaration of intended rejection (A4-0509/98),

1.

Declares its intention to reject the common position;

Calls on the Council to convene the Conciliation Committee pursuant to Article 189b(2)(c) of the EC

2.
Treaty;

Instructs  its  President  to  forward  this  declaration  of  intended  rejection  to  the  Council  and

3.
Commission.

(1)  OJ C 285, 14.9.1998, p. 5.
(2)  OJ C 152, 18.5.1998, p. 55.
(3)  OJ C 362, 28.11.1997, p. 12.
(4)  OJ C 208, 4.7.1998, p. 6.

5.  Quality of ambient air

**II

A4-0483/98

Decision on common position (EC) No 57/98 adopted by the Council with a view to the adoption of a
Council  Directive  relating  to  limit  values  for  sulphur  dioxide,  nitrogen  dioxide  and  oxides  of
nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air (10275/98 › C4-0540/98 › 97/0266(SYN)

(Cooperation procedure: second reading)

The European Parliament,

›  having  regard  to  common  position  (EC)  No  57/98  of  the  Council,  10275/98  ›  C4-0540/98  ›

97/0266(SYN) (1),

›  having  regard  to  its  opinion  at  first  reading (2)  on  the  Commission  proposal  to  the  Council,

COM(97)0500 (3),

(1)  OJ C 360, 23.11.1998, p. 99.
(2)  OJ C 167, 1.6.1998, p. 103.
(3)  OJ C 9, 14.1.1998, p. 6.