do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 724/99 by José GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL Structural Funds
Date: 1999-03-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, Structural Funds, United Kingdom, eligible region, gross domestic product, statistics, terms for aid

C 370/94

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.12.1999

Currently, only the figures corresponding to the financial years 1994, 1995 and 1996 are available.

What regions in Luxembourg does the Commission expect not to be classed as Objective 1 regions for this
three-year period?

(1) OJ C 176, 9.6.1998, p. 1.

(1999/C 370/132)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0724/99

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

(29 March 1999)

Subject: Structural Funds

The regions whose level of income per inhabitant is less than 75 % of that which corresponds to the
average Community inhabitant are classed as ‘Objective 1 regions’ and are entitled to substantial
Community aid.

In order to work out whether this threshold has been crossed or not, the draft Council Regulation,
COM(98) 0131 final (1), laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, stipulates that the figures
corresponding to the last three years on which Eurostat has information will be taken into account.

Currently, only the figures corresponding to the financial years 1994, 1995 and 1996 are available.

What regions in Great Britain does the Commission expect not to be classed as Objective 1 regions for this
three-year period?

(1) OJ C 176, 9.6.1998, p. 1.

(1999/C 370/133)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0725/99

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

(29 March 1999)

Subject: Structural Funds

The regions whose level of income per inhabitant is less than 75 % of that which corresponds to the
average Community inhabitant are classed as ‘Objective 1 regions’ and are entitled to substantial
Community aid.

In order to work out whether this threshold has been crossed or not, the draft Council Regulation,
COM(98) 0131 final (1), laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, stipulates that the figures
corresponding to the last three years on which Eurostat has information will be taken into account.

Currently, only the figures corresponding to the financial years 1994, 1995 and 1996 are available.

What regions in Ireland does the Commission expect not to be classed as Objective 1 regions for this
three-year period?

(1) OJ C 176, 9.6.1998, p. 1.

(1999/C 370/134)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0726/99

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

(29 March 1999)

Subject: Structural Funds

The regions whose level of income per inhabitant is less than 75 % of that which corresponds to the
average Community inhabitant are classed as ‘Objective 1 regions’ and are entitled to substantial
Community aid.

In order to work out whether this threshold has been crossed or not, the draft Council Regulation,
COM(98) 0131 final (1), laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, stipulates that the figures
corresponding to the last three years on which Eurostat has information will be taken into account.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 725/99 by José GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL Structural Funds
Date: 1999-03-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, Ireland, Structural Funds, eligible region, gross domestic product, statistics, terms for aid

C 370/94

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.12.1999

Currently, only the figures corresponding to the financial years 1994, 1995 and 1996 are available.

What regions in Luxembourg does the Commission expect not to be classed as Objective 1 regions for this
three-year period?

(1) OJ C 176, 9.6.1998, p. 1.

(1999/C 370/132)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0724/99

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

(29 March 1999)

Subject: Structural Funds

The regions whose level of income per inhabitant is less than 75 % of that which corresponds to the
average Community inhabitant are classed as ‘Objective 1 regions’ and are entitled to substantial
Community aid.

In order to work out whether this threshold has been crossed or not, the draft Council Regulation,
COM(98) 0131 final (1), laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, stipulates that the figures
corresponding to the last three years on which Eurostat has information will be taken into account.

Currently, only the figures corresponding to the financial years 1994, 1995 and 1996 are available.

What regions in Great Britain does the Commission expect not to be classed as Objective 1 regions for this
three-year period?

(1) OJ C 176, 9.6.1998, p. 1.

(1999/C 370/133)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0725/99

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

(29 March 1999)

Subject: Structural Funds

The regions whose level of income per inhabitant is less than 75 % of that which corresponds to the
average Community inhabitant are classed as ‘Objective 1 regions’ and are entitled to substantial
Community aid.

In order to work out whether this threshold has been crossed or not, the draft Council Regulation,
COM(98) 0131 final (1), laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, stipulates that the figures
corresponding to the last three years on which Eurostat has information will be taken into account.

Currently, only the figures corresponding to the financial years 1994, 1995 and 1996 are available.

What regions in Ireland does the Commission expect not to be classed as Objective 1 regions for this
three-year period?

(1) OJ C 176, 9.6.1998, p. 1.

(1999/C 370/134)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0726/99

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

(29 March 1999)

Subject: Structural Funds

The regions whose level of income per inhabitant is less than 75 % of that which corresponds to the
average Community inhabitant are classed as ‘Objective 1 regions’ and are entitled to substantial
Community aid.

In order to work out whether this threshold has been crossed or not, the draft Council Regulation,
COM(98) 0131 final (1), laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, stipulates that the figures
corresponding to the last three years on which Eurostat has information will be taken into account.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 768/99 by Alexandros ALAVANOS Archaeological excavations at ancient Nikopolis, Epirus
Date: 1999-03-29
Institutions: ALAVANOS, European Parliament
Subjects: Community support framework, EU financing, Epirus, archaeology, heritage protection, museum, project evaluation, terms for aid













EUR-Lex - 91999E0768 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91999E0768

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 768/99 by Alexandros ALAVANOS Archaeological excavations at ancient Nikopolis, Epirus  


Official Journal C 348 , 03/12/1999 P. 0130 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0768/99by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission(29 March 1999)Subject: Archaeological excavations at ancient Nikopolis, EpirusThe site of ancient Nikopolis occupies an area of 900 hectares in south-eastern Epirus, comprising buildings from the Roman period, walls, a council chamber and music academy, baths, thermal springs, a stadium and villas. Many of the surviving monuments are unknown to the public at large and lie abandoned, whereas they need maintaining and protecting. The creation of a museum has been approved under the 2nd CSF and the Central Archaeological Council endorses the conclusions of a study to locate it at Preveza.In addition to setting up the museum, does the Commission also consider the maintenance, development and promotion of the site of ancient Nikopolis to be worthy of support?Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission(5 May 1999)The Commission has not yet received any funding request for the work at the Nikopolissite.However, the Greek authorities may, if they wish, submit such a request in accordance with procedures for the Community Support Framework (CSF). The Commission is willing to cooperate with the authorities in examining funding options within the CSFbudget.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 729/99 by José GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL Structural Funds
Date: 1999-03-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, Germany, Structural Funds, eligible region, gross domestic product, statistics, terms for aid

21.12.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 370/95

Currently, only the figures corresponding to the financial years 1994, 1995 and 1996 are available.

What regions in Denmark does the Commission expect not to be classed as Objective 1 regions for this
three-year period?

(1) OJ C 176, 9.6.1998, p. 1.

(1999/C 370/135)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0727/99

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

(29 March 1999)

Subject: Structural Funds

The regions whose level of income per inhabitant is less than 75 % of that which corresponds to the
average Community inhabitant are classed as ‘Objective 1 regions’ and are entitled to substantial
Community aid.

In order to work out whether this threshold has been crossed or not, the draft Council Regulation,
COM(98) 0131 final (1), laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, stipulates that the figures
corresponding to the last three years on which Eurostat has information will be taken into account.

Currently, only the figures corresponding to the financial years 1994, 1995 and 1996 are available.

What regions in Sweden does the Commission expect not to be classed as Objective 1 regions for this
three-year period?

(1) OJ C 176, 9.6.1998, p. 1.

(1999/C 370/136)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0728/99

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

(29 March 1999)

Subject: Structural Funds

The regions whose level of income per inhabitant is less than 75 % of that which corresponds to the
average Community inhabitant are classed as ‘Objective 1 regions’ and are entitled to substantial
Community aid.

In order to work out whether this threshold has been crossed or not, the draft Council Regulation,
COM(98) 0131 final (1), laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, stipulates that the figures
corresponding to the last three years on which Eurostat has information will be taken into account.

Currently, only the figures corresponding to the financial years 1994, 1995 and 1996 are available.

What regions in Finland does the Commission expect not to be classed as Objective 1 regions for this
three-year period?

(1) OJ C 176, 9.6.1998, p. 1.

(1999/C 370/137)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0729/99

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

(29 March 1999)

Subject: Structural Funds

The regions whose level of income per inhabitant is less than 75 % of that which corresponds to the
average Community inhabitant are classed as ‘Objective 1 regions’ and are entitled to substantial
Community aid.

In order to work out whether this threshold has been crossed or not, the draft Council Regulation,
COM(98) 0131 final (1), laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, stipulates that the figures
corresponding to the last three years on which Eurostat has information will be taken into account.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 684/1999 of 29 March 1999 amending Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 laying down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixing representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin, and repealing Regulation No 163/67/EEC
Date: 1999-03-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: CCT duties, egg, egg product, import, poultrymeat, representative price

L 86/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30. 3. 1999

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 684/1999

of 29 March 1999

amending Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 laying down detailed rules for imple-
menting the system of additional import duties and fixing representative prices
in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin, and repealing Regula-
tion No 163/67/EEC

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75
of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the
market in eggs (1), as last amended by Commission Regu-
lation (EC) No 1516/96 (2), and in particular Articles 5(4)
and 15 thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75
of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the
market in poultrymeat (3), as last amended by Commis-
sion Regulation (EC) No 2916/95 (4), and in particular
Articles 5(4) and 15 thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2783/75
of 29 October 1975 on the common system of trade for
ovalbumin and lactalbumin (5), as last amended by Regu-
lation (EC) No 2916/95, and in particular Articles 3(4) and
10 thereof,

Whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 (6) was
recently amended by Regulation (EC) No 493/1999 (7) in
accordance with the decision taken in the framework of
the World Trade Organisation to make it compulsory for
the additional duty to be established on the basis of the
cif import price; whereas Articles 4(2) and 6 of that Regu-

lation must also be amended in accordance with that
decision;

Whereas it is necessary to apply this amendment as soon
as possible;

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 is hereby amended as
follows:

1. Article 4(2) is deleted;

2. in Article 6,

‘laid down in Annex I' is replaced by

‘referred to in Article 1'.

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 25 March 1999.

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

Done at Brussels, 29 March 1999.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 282, 1. 11. 1975, p. 49.
(2) OJ L 189, 30. 7. 1996, p. 99.
(3) OJ L 282, 1. 11. 1975, p. 77.
(4) OJ L 305, 19. 12. 1995, p. 49.
(5) OJ L 282, 1. 11. 1975, p. 104.
(6) OJ L 145, 29. 6. 1995, p. 47.
(7) OJ L 59, 6. 3. 1999, p. 15.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 770/99 by José GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL Traditionally made ice cream
Date: 1999-03-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: brand name, consumer information, craft production, dairy ice cream, producer organisation, product designation, product quality, trade-mark law

3.12.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 348/131

In addition to setting up the museum, does the Commission also consider the maintenance, development and
promotion of the site of ancient Nikopolis to be worthy of support?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 1999)

The Commission has not yet received any funding request for the work at the Nikopolissite.

However, the Greek authorities may, if they wish, submit such a request in accordance with procedures for the
Community Support Framework (CSF). The Commission is willing to cooperate with the authorities in
examining funding options within the CSFbudget.

(1999/C 348/178)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0770/99

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

Subject: Traditionally made ice cream

(29 March 1999)

An application for registration of the designation ‘helado artesano’ pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC)
2082/92 (1) on certificates of specific character was published in the Official Journal of the European
Communities (OJ C 329/97) on 31 October 1997. No decision has yet been taken.

What stage in the Community procedure has been reached?

(1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992, p. 9.

(1999/C 348/179)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0771/99

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

Subject: Traditionally made ice cream

(29 March 1999)

An application for registration of the designation ‘helado artesano’ pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC)
2082/92 (1) on certificates of specific character was published in the Official Journal of the European
Communities (OJ C 329/97) on 31 October 1997. No decision has yet been taken.

Is there any reason why it should not be possible for consumers to distinguish between traditionally made ice
cream and industrially produced ice cream?

(1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992, p. 9.

(1999/C 348/180)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0772/99

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) to the Commission

Subject: Traditionally made ice cream

(29 March 1999)

Regulation (EEC) 2082/92 (1) was adopted in order to protect specific and traditional recipes defined in
accordance with a set of conditions.

Article 13 makes provision for two types of protection: ‘partial’ protection (Article 13(1)) and ‘total’ protection
(Article 13(2)).
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 744/99 by Anita POLLACK Marine resources
Date: 1999-03-29
Institutions: European Parliament, POLLACK
Subjects: common fisheries policy, conservation of fish stocks, fishing fleet, fishing regulations, management of resources, resources of the sea













EUR-Lex - 91999E0744 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91999E0744

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 744/99 by Anita POLLACK Marine resources  


Official Journal C 348 , 03/12/1999 P. 0127 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0744/99by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission(29 March 1999)Subject: Maríne resourcesIn the Agenda 2000 regulations, is the Commission seeking to shift resources away from investment in increased fisheries capacity towards locally appropriate management of marine resources?Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission(5 May 1999)The Commission would point out that Community assistance can only be granted to investments aiming at the renewal of the fishing fleet if conditions are met ensuring that fishing capacity is not increased. In particular, Member States must comply with the objectives of the multiannual guidance programmes for their fishing fleets.Under the current structural programming period 1994-1999 the overall size of the Community fishing fleet has decreased by approximately 13 % in tonnage and 11 % in power as can be seen in the yearly reports from the Commission to the Parliament and the Council on the multiannual guidance programmes.In its proposal for structural assistance in the fisheries sector(1), which is currently being discussed in the Council and the Parliament, the Commission is proposing a continuation of the permanent cessation scheme and additional conditions for granting assistance to the renewal of the fleet. Furthermore, the Commission proposes that Member States must demonstrate that public aid is necessary with regard to the objectives pursued and in particular that without public aid the fishing fleet concerned could not be renewed or modernised and that the planned measures will not jeopardise the long-term equilibrium of fishery resources. In addition, permanent arrangements for controlling fleet renewal must be established in all Member States.Community assistance is granted in the framework of national structural programmes, which are presented by Member States and approved by the Commission. Moreover, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity these programmes can contain additional provisions in favour of locally appropriate management of marine resources.(1) OJ C 16, 21.1.1999.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 755/99 by Stephen HUGHES Union-busting firms
Date: 1999-03-29
Institutions: European Parliament, HUGHES STEPHEN
Subjects: International Labour Organisation, United Kingdom, United States, foreign enterprise, public service, trade union, trade union freedom, trade union rights

C 341/142

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.11.1999

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 1999)

The Commission wishes to draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that the Commission has on
several occasions proposed extending the matters covered by Council Regulation (EEC) 1408/71 of 14 June
1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to
members of their family moving within the Community (1) to early retirement schemes. The Commission also
confirms that its proposal of 1996 failed to receive the Council’s unanimous support.

However, the Commission recently adopted a proposal simplifying and reforming Regulation (EEC) 1408/
71 (2), in which a new chapter has been introduced with a view to including and coordinating early retirement
schemes, in line with the substance of the earleir 1996 proposal. The new proposal is scheduled to be
examined by the Council during 1999.

At the same time the Commission is studying, on a case-by-case basis, whether the national legal systems
respect the principles enshrined in the EC Treaty in this area as recently interpreted by the Court of Justice (3).

(1) OJ L 149, 15.7.1971; in 1980: OJ C 169, 9.7.1980; in 1996: OJ C 62, 1.3.1996.
(2) OJ C 38, 12.2.1999.
(3) Meints, C-57/96 27.11.1997, and Commission v. France C-35/97, 24.9.1998.

(1999/C 341/202)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0755/99

by Stephen Hughes (PSE) to the Commission

(29 March 1999)

Subject: Union-busting firms

The Sunday Observer of 17 January 1999 revealed that US firms which specialise in busting trade unions are
being established in the UK. The European Federation of Public Services Unions has approached the
Commissioner on this issue and asked for European measures to be taken on the grounds that preventing
workers from obtaining union recognition violates ILO standards and the European Treaty.

1.

Is the Commission monitoring the activities of these companies?

2. Will the Commission prepare measures to prohibit the activities of these companies in Europe?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 1999)

The Commission is aware of the alleged practices of some American firms established in the United Kingdom.
However, trade union rights are,
in the Community legal framework, matters principally within the
competence of the Member States as Article 2(6) of the agreement on social policy (Article 137.6 of the
new Treaty) excludes the right of association and the right to strike from the social provisions of the EC Treaty.

As the matter falls within the competence of the Member State concerned, the Commission is not preparing
any measures to prohibit the alleged practices of these companies.