title: Ehdotus Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston direktiiviksi selvityksen lopullisuudesta ja vakuuksista

eurovoc_concepts:
European Monetary System
credit guarantee
credit institution
financial solvency
payment

formats: html pdf pdfa1b print

text: EUROOPAN YHTEISÖJEN KOMISSIO fr fr Bryssel, 30. 05. 1996 KOM<%) 193 lopuU. 96A)126<COD) Ehdotus 6URWPAN PAftlAMBNTOiM NfiUWSTPN P1REKTOY4KM selvityksen lopullisuudesta ja vakuuksista (komission esittämä) EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM I. Background The present proposal for a directive is the result of a process which can be summarised as follows: The Lamfalussy Report of 19901 highlighted the important systemic risks inherent in payment systems which operate on the basis of one or more legal types of payment netting1. The Commission's attention was drawn to these matters by one of its advisory committees on payment systems, the Payment Systems Technical Development Group. In its March 1992 working document3, the Commission noted that certain features of the law in a number of Member States, together with the differences between Member States' laws relating to payment systems in general, were a source of uncertainties and risks. This view was endorsed by the Committee of Governors of the central banks of the EC4. Work began on these issues in a group of government legal experts and central bank representatives, chaired by the Commission, early in 1993. The first phase of the work has consisted of establishing an inventory of the legal situation in the areas of payment netting and settlement finality in all Member States, which has led to a more precise identification of these problems. An extensive study5, ordered by the Commission and delivered in February 1994, supported these preliminary conclusions. A first consultation hearing with the European Credit Sector Industry was held in the spring of 1994. In a second phase (since 1994) different solutions have been discussed and examined within the group of government experts. They are listed under point II. 3. A second consultation hearing with the European Credit Sector Industry was held in October 1995, which confirmed the overall validity of the approach. In the light of this process, the Commission has reached operational conclusions, in particular as regards the questions pertaining to settlement finality and collateral security. It therefore considers that a directive should be proposed. No operational conclusions have been reached relating to securities settlement systems. These issues remain, however, under consideration within the Commission. It may be necessary to make a further proposal covering these issues in the future. Overall assessment The Commission Strategic Programme for the Internal Market clearly identified the establishment of effective cross-border payment systems as one of the few requirements that still need to be met to ensure the functioning of the Internal Market. This requires modernisation of systems, which affects both central banks and commercial banks, and consequent investment on the part of the industry. This 1 Report to the Governors of the central banks of the Group of Ten countries, Basel, November 1990 2 3 4 For the purposes of the present Proposal, "payment netting" means the conversion into one net claim or one net obligation of claims and obligations resulting from payment orders which an institution either issues or receives, with the result that only the net claim can be demanded or the net obligation be owed. "Easier cross-border payments: Breaking down the barriers", SEC(92)621 final of 27 March 1992. "Issues of common concern to EC Central Banks in the field of payment systems", by the Ad Hoc Working Group on EC payment systems, September 1992. 5 The laws on credit transfers and their settlement in Member States of the EU: Report for the European Commission (DG XV), Wilde Sapte - Brussels, February 1994. A process is already under way. Moreover a number of the large value payment systems which primarily serve the domestic market in their countries are increasingly gaining member banks from other Member States. The legal issues which are the subject of the present proposal have an important underlying influence on the design of the necessary systems and linkages, both those which are specifically conceived to transmit payments across borders and those which have a "cross-border membership". The resolution of these issues will provide a valuable foundation of certainty and serve to minimise legal risks of a systemic kind, as well as the costs which such risks entail. The need for action in this domain is all the more urgent as progress is made towards full Economic and Monetary Union. The European Council, meeting in Madrid on 15 and 16 December, has stressed that the payment system's infrastructure needs to be in place so as to ensure the smooth functioning of an area-wide money market based on the single currency. II. Subsidiarity assessment 1. What are the objectives of the directive, having regard to Community obligations? The principal objectives are threefold: • • to reduce legal risks associated with participation in payment systems, as was pointed out in the Lamfalussy report of 1990, in particular as regards the legal validity of netting agreements and the enforceability of collateral security; to ensure that in the Internal Market payments may be made free of impediments, thus contributing to the efficiency and the cost-effective operation of cross-border payment arrangements in the European Union; • by taking into account collateral constituted for monetary policy purposes, to contribute to developing the necessary legal framework in which the future European Central Bank may develop its monetary policy. The present directive also • • leads to further integration of EC banks in the domestic payment systems of other EC States. The directive therefore supports the free movement of capital stated in Article 73B to 73G and the freedom to provide services under Article 59 of the Treaty; contributes to the preparation of the third stage of EMU, for which efficient payment mechanisms are indispensable. 2. Does the action envisaged stem from an exclusive competence of the Community? Exclusive competence: Article 100A, in conjunction with Article 7A. 3. What are the possibilities of action available to the Community A number of alternatives were considered: First, the minimalist approach of developing a solution within the current state of the national laws was examined. The question in that context was to examine whether it was possible to design a model contract which could be used by members of a payment system and which could remedy the problems concerned. This approach was rejected for two reasons: • This solution concerns only the parties to the contract, while it is necessary that third parties be legally bound. This is illustrated by the following case: a Country A bank participates in a multilateral netting system with a central settlement agent in Country B. The Country A bank goes bankrupt. In that case, the creditors -or the liquidator- of the bankrupt Country A bank, attempting to recover part of their claims against that bank, are likely to challenge the netting agreement under Country A law, since that law may not necessarily recognise multilateral netting. If such action were successful, it could jeopardise the whole netting system. « Insolvency law contains so-called "ordre public" rules which can overrule contractually stipulated provisions. Even if a payment system agreement stipulated that in case of insolvency of a member the payment orders introduced before the moment of pronouncement of insolvency proceedings cannot be unwound, a zero-hour-rule e. g. , as it exists in a number of Member States, would overrule that contractual arrangement. Consequently, unwinding could happen, with potentially far-reaching and damaging consequences for the payment system concerned. A second possible solution consisted of the private international law approach, under which k is possible to agree that a payment system established under the laws of Country A, a country whose commercial law recognises netting and whose bankruptcy laws do not interfere with the proper operation of payment systems, would be governed entirely - including all its members from EU countries - by the laws of country A. Whether Member State B's law recognises the finality of netting applicable to bank B, or whether that State's insolvency law has provisions "d'ordre public", like the zero-hour rule, would no longer be relevant. Such an approach did not in the final analysis, however, prove to be attractive. If chosen, it would mean that the courts in every Member State would in principle need to be in a position to interpret and apply the different branches of law (commercial law, insolvency law, etc. ) of all other Member States. Such a solution, at least when standing alone, seemed unnecessarily cumbersome. A third possibility was to recommend to the Member States, without any binding obligations, the necessary modifications in their laws. This approach has some procedural attractions in largely bypassing the EU legislative process but it would not substantially assist the governments of Member States, who would still have to draft and implement any necessary legislation. From the point of view of the financial institutions and payment systems, the solution would lack transparency and legal certainty. Any slight advantage of proceeding in this way was felt to be outweighed by the disadvantages. Therefore, as explained in detail in section I above, a binding instrument is now deemed both timely and necessary. 4. Is uniform legislation necessary or is a directive setting out the general objective and leaving implementation thereof to the Member States sufficient? Uniform legislation is not necessary. A directive setting out the general objectives, as they are outlined hereunder, is sufficient. Section I of the directive deals with the scope of the directive and defines the necessary terms; Section II of the directive lays down the general principle, the objective of which is to ensure that payment netting is made legally enforceable under all jurisdictions and its effects binding on third parties; Section III provides for the irrevocability of payment orders in accordance with the rules of the payment system concerned; Section IV of the directive lays down the general principle, the objective of which is to : • ensure that insolvency proceedings or any other rule or practice do nol have a retroactive effect on the rights and obligations of participants. • determine which insolvency law is applicable to the rights and obligations in connection with direct participation in a payment system in the event of insolvency proceedings against a participant in that payment system. Section V of the directive lays down the general principle, the objective of which is to insulate collateral security from the effects of the insolvency law of the Member State of a failed participant. These provisions set out the general objective pursued, thus leaving implementation to the Member States; where appropriate, institutions are free to determine the precise contents of these general principles. III. Detailed commentary on the articles Article J This Directive's main goal is to reduce the systemic risk associated with participation in Payment Systems. There was a general consensus that this directive should have the widest scope possible. To this effect, the directive covers cross-border payment systems as well as domestic systems. Furthermore, it applies to the following two categories: • EC institutions which are participants in third country payment systems and collateral security constituted for such a payment system • Third country institutions which participate in an EC Payment System and the collateral security constituted in favour of that payment system The inclusion of the first category in the directive's scope implies that the benefits of this Directive are extended to third country payment systems as far as their EC participants are concerned. Third country payment systems as such are of course not covered by the directive, but their participants are insofar as they are EC institutions within the meaning of Article 2 (i). As far as the second category is concerned, the essential interest of its inclusion in the directive's scope lies in the fact that it makes it possible to insulate collateral security, pledged by a third country institution in an EC Member State, from a possibly universal insolvency law of that third country. Finally, with a view to the establishment of the future European Central Bank, the pledging of collateral security will increasingly be cross-border. The same problems arise in that respect as in the case of the pledging of collateral in the framework of payments systems. Therefore, the scope of this proposal has been extended to collateral security, pledged in connection with monetary policy operations. Article 2 "insiitulioji" has been given a wide scope, so as to include not only credit institutions in the sense of the first Banking Directive, but also investment banks, giro and postal banks and any other undertaking which participates directly in a payment system. "payment order" means an instruction given to carry out a transfer, be it credit or debit, by a book entry on the accounts of a credit institution or of a central bank. On the accounts of a credit institution, since it is this type of payment system which calls -from a public policy standpoint- for the kind of protection which this Proposal for a Directive provides for. On the accounts of a central bank, is added to anticipate the foreseeable development of real time gross settlement facilities, which necessitate movements on the accounts of the Central Banks. "payment system" is defined widely, so as to include systems, regardless of whether they settle on a gross or net basis and of whether they are based on multilateral or bilateral arrangements. Of course, a federation of payment systems in itself is also covered by the directive. Article 3 Many payment systems, handling very large payments ("large value") or smaller values ("retail") depend on the technique known as netting6 or set-off. "Payment netting" is the conversion into one net claim or one net obligation of claims and obligations resulting from payment orders which an institution either issues to one or more other institutions or receives from one or more other institutions, with the result that only the net claim can be demanded or the net obligation be owed. This has the effect of reducing greatly the number of settlement transactions required to process a given number of payments. Instead of settling each payment order individually as it arises during the day the banks involved in a netting agreement settle once by paying (or receiving) a single net balance to (or from) the other members of the system. The legal enforceability of a netting operation with institutions from different Member States ultimately depends on the law of the Member State of origin of these institutions. In a number of Member States netting, especially multilateral netting, is not enforceable under the current state of legislation. If the liquidator of a failed participant in a payment system were on that basis to challenge the netting, this would mean that he could repudiate the net settlement debt, arrived at by netting. Instead he could insists on payment to him of all the individual underlying amounts originally due to that institution. As for the amounts due from the failed institution, they will be claims on paper in the insolvency proceedings and unlikely to be met. This phenomenon of repudiating the debt and accepting the amounts originally due, is called cherry-picking. The consequence of cherry-picking is serious disruption in the payment system at best, at worst the payment system might break down (systemic risk) and cause in turn the inability of other members in the payment system to meet their obligations (knock-on effect). Therefore, Article 3(1) provides that netting is legally enforceable and binding on third parties, even in the event of the opening of insolvency proceedings, insofar as the payment orders have been introduced into the payment system before the opening of insolvency proceedings. Article 3(2) specifically focuses on the cases in which a participant who realises that bankruptcy is becoming inevitable, introduces payment orders into a payment system before the declaration of From the legal point of view, "netting" in this sense is the same technique as is the subject of the proposal for a directive on contractual netting. However the latter deals with unmatured obligations, netted on a bilateral basis only, whilst the present initiative concerns payment streams netted bilaterally or multilaterally. Both types of netting differ markedly from the concept of position netting, as used in the Capital Adequacy Directive. insolvency in order to remove assets to the detriment of the creditors. Therefore, this article confirms that the directive does not shield fraudulent payment orders from invalidation. Such invalidation will, however, not be permitted to occur through the unwinding of the netting operation, something that the directive aims to avoid at all costs, but rather outside the payment system, or indeed in a subsequent netting cycle (via a reverse order). Article 4 It is commonly agreed that the possibility of a significantly large payment being revoked can generate systemic risk, if the revocation occurs during the process leading to settlement in a payment system. It would be unacceptable, on the other hand, to disproportionately limit the freedom of operation and the freedom of contract of the various parties to a payment system in attempting to reduce or minimise this risk. Thus, having recognised that revocation might otherwise lead to an unwinding of settlement, Article 4 (1) precludes the revocation of a payment order after a contractually agreed time, not only by the parties to the payment system agreement, but also by third parties, e. g. a sub participant. This prohibition is important not only in the case of netting, but also in the case of real time gross settlement arrangements. This does not mean, of course, that a payment order which was not due by the originator, but has been introduced into the payment system, is forever lost to him. Article 4(2) confirms that, if the originator, i. e. a customer, has a right against the beneficiary to reclaim an amount that has been introduced into the payment system, such a right is not cancelled, but will only have to be exercised outside of the payment system, or by a reverse payment operation in the next netting cycle. Articles 5 and 6 Irrespective of whether a payment system operates on the basis of netting or gross-settlement, the different insolvency laws in the different Member States cause further problems, where rules "d'ordre public" included in these insolvency laws would lead to the possibility of cherry-picking, with its very damaging consequences, as described above. This is the case for the so called "zero-hour" rule, which gives retroactive effect to the pronouncement of insolvency. A consequence of this rule is that payment orders introduced after zero hour of the day of pronouncement of insolvency of a participant in a payment system but before the pronouncement of the insolvency, could be challenged by a liquidator of an insolvent institution. The latter would then be in a position to insist on payment to him of all the individual underlying amounts originally due to that institution. As for the amounts due from the failed institution, they will be claims on paper in the insolvency proceedings and unlikely to be met. In order to avoid this possibility, Article 5 provides that insolvency proceedings do not have retroactive effect. There may, however, exist other provisions "d'ordre public", beyond the so called zero-hour rules, which can potentially lead to cherry-picking. This is why Article 6 has been designed as a catch-all provision, which is to cover all those cases which have not been identified but are believed to exist. Therefore, Article 6 states that "in the event of insolvency proceedings against an institution which participates directly in a payment system, the rights and obligations arising from or in connection with participation in that payment system, shall be determined by the insolvency law of the country where the payment system is located. " In practice, Article 6 does, of course, not imply that a separate insolvency proceeding has to be opened in the Member State of location of the payment system. The insolvency of a member institution would continue to fall under the insolvency law of the Member State where that institution is established, as is currently the case. If the liquidator, however, would wish to draw on insolvency provisions "d'ordre public" to challenge a payment made through the payment system, he would have to apply the insolvency law of the Member State of location of the payment system. This approach has the advantage that the parties in a payment system only have to examine one insolvency law, namely the insolvency law of the Member State of location of the payment system, instead of having to examine and attempt to reconcile the insolvency law of the Member State of origin of every single participant. This would contribute to reducing costs and eliminating legal uncertainty. Article 7 Finally, the directive addresses the problems associated with collateral security which supports participation in payment systems, on a cross-border basis. Its objective is to avoid a situation where in the case of insolvency of a participant in a payment system, the insolvency law of that participant's Member State would not recognise the validity of collateral security constituted in another Member State. Article 7(1) therefore provides that, in the case of insolvency of a participant, the rights of the pledgee shall not be affected by the insolvency of that participant. This rule is justified for public policy reasons. Vast sums are transferred through the payment systems on a daily basis: if one member were not able to meet its obligations and the collateral could not be realised, this could -in a worst case scenario- have disastrous consequences for the payment system as such, causing no less than the collapse of such a system, with a devastating knock-on effect in financial markets. It should be pointed out that this Proposal does not alter the rule of law applicable to collateral security. This remains, as is the current situation, the law of the Member State where the collateral is located, in accordance with the principle of lex rei sitae. In its second paragraph, Article 7 provides that in the case of a universal third country insolvency law, the effects of that law do not extend to the rights of the pledgee in connection with participation in a payment system or in connection with monetary policy operations, if that collateral security is constituted in a Member State. EUROOPAN PARLAMENTTI JA EUROOPAN UNIONIN NEUVOSTO, jotka ottavat huomioon Euroopan yhteisön perustamissopimuksen ja erityisesti sen 100 a artiklan, ottavat huomioon komission ehdotuksen, ottavat huomioon Euroopan rahapoliittisen instituutin lausunnon, ottavat huomioon talous-ja sosiaalikomitean lausunnon, noudattavat Euroopan yhteisön perustamissopimuksen 189 b artiklassa määrättyä menettelyä sekä katsovat, että G10 -maiden keskuspankkien pääjohtajille vuonna 1990 toimitettu Lamfalussyn kertomus osoitti toisaalta sellaisiin maksujärjestelmiin olennaisesti kuuluvan huomattavan järjestelmäriskin, jotka laillisen, joko kahdenvälisen toimivat yhden tai monenkeskisen maksujen tai useamman toisaalta sen, että reaaliaikaisiin bruttoselvitysjärjestelmiin nettoutusmuodon pohjalta, sekä tärkeää ottaen osallistumiseen liittyvien oikeudellisten riskien vähentäminen on ehdottoman huomioon näiden järjestelmien kiihtyvä kehittyminen, järjestelmäriskin vähentäminen koskee erityisesti selvityksen lopullisuutta ja vakuuksien rahaksi muuttamista; vakuutena pidetään kaikkia välineitä, jotka osapuoli antaa muille maksujärjestelmään turvaamiseksi kyseisen maksujärjestelmän kuuluville osapuolille oikeuksien ja velvoitteiden yhteydessä ja jotka voivat olla muun muassa takaisinostosopimuksia tai mahdollisesti vakuutuksia, joita maksujärjestelmän osapuoli on ottanut muiden osapuolten hyväksi, varmistamalla sen, että maksut ja pääomanliikkeet voivat tapahtua esteettä sisämarkkinoilla, tämä direktiivi myötävaikuttaa siihen, että maasta toiseen tehtävät maksujärjestelyt toimivat Euroopan unionissa suorituskykyisesti ja kustannuksiin nähden tehokkaasti; direktiivi on siten jatkoa edistykseen, jota on saavutettu sisämarkkinoiden lopullista toteuttamista koskevissa pyrkimyksissä, erityisesti pyrkimyksissä palvelujen tarjoamisen vapauden ja pääomanliikkeiden vapauttamisen aikaansaamiseksi talous- ja rahaliiton toteuttamista silmälläpitäen, tämän direktiivin on tarkoitus koskea sekä kotimaisia että maiden välisiä maksujärjestelmiä; se koskee sekä veloitus- että hyvityssiirtoja; sitä sovelletaan Euroopan yhteisön maksujärjestelmiin ja vakuuksiin, joita niihin osallistuvat, olivatpa ne Euroopan yhteisöstä tai kolmansista maista olevia osapuolia, ovat antaneet näihin maksujärjestelmiin osallistumisen yhteydessä; se koskee myös yhteisön laitoksia, jotka ovat osapuolina kolmansien maiden maksujärjestelmissä, ulottuessaan koskemaan rahapoliittisten toimenpiteiden yhteydessä annettua vakuutta direktiivi tukee ERIä sen pyrkimyksessä tehostaa maasta toiseen tapahtuvia maksuja talous- ja rahaliiton kolmannen vaiheen valmistelua silmälläpitäen ja siten osaltaan kehittää tarpeellista oikeudellista kehystä, jossa perustettava Euroopan keskuspankki voi kehittää rahapolitiikkaansa, tämän direktiivin tarkoituksena on varmistaa, että nettoutus on kaikissa jäsenvaltioissa oikeudellisesti pätevä ja kolmansia osapuolia sitova; direktiivin tarkoitus on myös varmistaa, että maksumääräyksiä ei voida peruuttaa sopimuksessa sovitun ajan jälkeen; direktiivin tavoitteena on taata, että maksukyvyttömyysmenettelyt eivät vaikuta taannehtivasti osapuolten oikeuksiin ja velvoitteisiin; tämän direktiivin tavoitteena on edelleen määritellä - tapauksessa, jossa maksujärjestelmän osapuoli joutuu maksukyvyttömyysmenettelyyn - mitä maksukyvyttömyyttä koskevaa lakia sovelletaan kyseiseen maksujärjestelmään suoraan osallistumisen yhteydessä syntyneisiin oikeuksiin ja velvoitteisiin; tämän direktiivin tarkoituksena on lisäksi suojata vakuus maksuvaikeuksiin joutuneeseen osapuoleen sovellettavan maksukyvyttömyyslainsäädännön vaikutuksilta, ja se koskee myös suhdetta laitoksen ja sellaisen maksujärjestelmän jäsenen välillä, joka siirtää laitoksen maksumääräyksiä maksujärjestelmään, ottaen huomioon, että tällaista suhdetta itsessään voidaan pitää erillisenä maksujärjestelmänä 5 tämän direktiivin antaminen on asianmukaisin tapa saavuttaa edellä mainitut tavoitteet; tämä ehdotus on tarpeellinen näiden tavoitteiden saavuttamiseksi eikä sen päämääränä ole muuta kuin näiden tavoitteiden saavuttaminen; OVAT ANTANEET TÄMÄN DIREKTIIVIN: I. SOVELTAMISALA JA MÄÄRITELMÄT 1 artikla - Soveltamisala Tätä direktiiviä sovelletaan (1) (2) kaikkiin missä tahansa valuutassa ja ecuissa toimiviin yhteisön maksujärjestelmiin vakuuksiin, jotka on annettu tällaiseen järjestelmään osallistumisen yhteydessä; ja kaikkiin yhteisön laitoksiin, jotka osallistuvat suoraan kolmannen maan maksujärjestelmään, niiden tällaiseen järjestelmään osallistumisen yhteydessä antamien vakuuksien osalta; (3) rahapoliittisten toimenpiteiden yhteydessä annettuihin vakuuksiin. 2 artikla - Määritelmät Tässä direktiivissä tarkoitetaan (a) 'laitoksella' sellaista neuvoston direktiivin 77/780/ETY 1 artiklassa määriteltyä yritystä tai sen 2 artiklan 2 kohdan luettelossa mainittua laitosta, joka osallistuu suoraan maksujärjestelmään, ja muuta yritystä, joka osallistuu suoraan maksujärjestelmään; (b) 'suoralla' osallistumisella osallistumista selvityksestä vastuussa olevaan maksujärjestelmään; (c) 'yhteisön laitoksella' laitosta, jonka rekisteröity toimipaikka on jossakin jäsenvaltiossa; (d) 'kolmannen maan laitoksella' laitosta, joka ei ole yhteisön laitos, (e) 'maksumääräyksellä' kehotusta asettaa lopullisen saajan käyttöön rahamäärä tekemällä kirjaus luottolaitoksen tai keskuspankin tileihin; (f) 'maksukyvyttömyysmenettelyllä' toimenpidettä, jonka oikeudellinen tai hallinnollinen viranomainen käynnistää velkojien hyväksi johtuen uhkaavasta tai todellisesta kyvyttömyydestä vastata maksuvelvoitteista ja jolla laitosta estetään maksamasta maksuja tai määräämästä omaisuudesta; (g) 'maksujen nettoutuksella' sitä, että laitoksen yhdelle tai useammalle muulle laitokselle antamista tai yhdeltä tai useammalta muulta laitokselta saamista maksumääräyksistä johtuvat saatavat ja velvoitteet muunnetaan yhdeksi nettosaatavaksi tai nettovelaksi, jolloin vain tätä nettosaatavaa voidaan velkoa tai tästä nettovelasta vastata; (h) 'maksujärjestelmällä' kahden tai useamman laitoksen välistä kirjallista sopimusta maksumääräysten toteuttamisesta; (i) 'yhteisön maksujärjestelmällä' maksujärjestelmää, joka sijaitsee jossakin jäsenvaltiossa. Maksujärjestelmän katsotaan sijaitsevan siinä jäsenvaltiossa, jonka lain maksujärjestelmään suoraan osallistuvat laitokset ovat valinneet. Mikäli lakia ei ole valittu, maksujärjestelmän katsotaan sijaitsevan siinä jäsenvaltiossa, jossa selvitys tapahtuu; (j) 'kolmannen maan maksujärjestelmällä' maksujärjestelmää, joka ei ole yhteisön maksujärjestelmä; (k) 'rahapoliittisella toimenpiteellä' jäsenvaltion keskuspankin tai perustettavan Euroopan keskuspankin tekemää joko suoraa osto- ja myyntitoimenpidettä (avistakauppa ja termiinikauppa) rahoitusmarkkinoilla tai vastaavaa takaisinostosopimukseen perustuvaa toimenpidettä taikka saatavien ja siirtokelpoisten arvopapereiden anto- tai ottolainausta siitä riippumatta koskeeko toimenpide yhteisön tai kolmansien maiden valuuttoja tai jalometalleja; se tarkoittaa myös jäsenvaltion keskuspankin tai perustettavan Euroopan keskuspankin tekemiä luottotoimia luottolaitosten tai muiden markkinaosapuolten kanssa luotonannon perustuessa riittävään vakuuteen; M (1) Vakuudella' kaikkia varoja, jotka on annettu niiden oikeuksien ja velvoitteiden turvaamiseksi, jotka mahdollisesti syntyvät maksujärjestelmässä, jäsenvaltion keskuspankille tai perustettavalle Euroopan keskuspankille rahapoliittisten toimenpiteiden yhteydessä. tai jotka on annettu II. MAKSUJEN NETTOUTUKSEN LOPULLISUUS 3 artikla - Maksujen nettoutus (1) Maksujen nettoutus on oikeudellisesti pätevä ja sitoo kolmansia osapuolia myös siinä tapauksessa, että maksujärjestelmään suoraan osallistuvaa laitosta vastaan on aloitettu maksukyvyttömyysmenettely, edellyttäen, että maksumääräys oli tullut maksujärjestelmään ennen maksukyvyttömyysmenettelyn aloittamista. Maksujärjestelmään tulon ajankohta on määriteltävä maksujärjestelmän säännöissä. (2) Säännös ennen maksukyvyttömyysmenettelyn aloittamista maksujärjestelmään sopimusten purkamisesta ja toimien peruuttamisesta ei johda nettoutuksen purkautumiseen. tulleiden m. MAKSUMÄÄRÄYSTEN PERUUTTAMINEN 4 artikla - Peruuttaminen (1) Suoraan maksujärjestelmään osallistuva laitos tai kolmas osapuoli ei saa peruuttaa muille kyseiseen maksujärjestelmään suoraan osallistuville osapuolille osoitettua maksumääräystä sen ajankohdan jälkeen, joka on määritelty kyseisen maksujärjestelmän säännöissä. Tätä sääntöä sovelletaan riippumatta maksukyvyttömyysmenettelyjen aloittamisesta. (2) Maksumääräyksen antajan mahdollinen oikeus hyvityksen saamiseen ei rajoita 1 kohdan soveltamista. *l IV. TAKAUTUMATTOMUUS JA SOVELLETTAVA MAKSUKYVYTTÖMYYSLAINSÄÄDÄNTÖ 5 artikla - Takautumattomuus Maksukyvyttömyysmenettely ei vaikuta taannehtivasti laitoksen sellaisiin oikeuksiin ja velvoitteisiin, jotka ovat syntyneet laitoksen osallistuessa suoraan yhteisön maksujärjestelmään. Muu määräys tai käytäntö, jolla on taannehtiva vaikutus, jätetään huomioon ottamatta. 6 artikla - Sovellettava maksukvvvttömvvslainsäädäntö Mikäli maksujärjestelmään aloitettu maksukyvyttömyysmenettely, kyseiseen maksujärjestelmään suoraan osallistumisesta johtuvat tai sen yhteydessä syntyneet oikeudet ja velvoitteet määräytyvät sen maan maksukyvyttömyyslainsäädännön mukaan, jossa maksujärjestelmä sijaitsee. osallistuvaa suoraan vastaan laitosta on V. VAKUUDEN SAAJAN OIKEUKSIEN SUOJAAMINEN VAKUUDEN ANTAJAN MAKSUKYVYTTÖMYYDEN VAIKUTUKSILTA 7 artikla - Maksukyvyttömyyden vaikutuksilta suojautuminen (1) Maksukyvyttömyysmenettelyn aloittaminen vakuuden antajaa vastaan ei vaikuta vakuuden saajan oikeuksiin, jotka liittyvät maksujärjestelmän yhden osapuolen toiselle tai useammalle osapuolelle olevaan vastuuseen tai rahapoliittisten toimenpiteiden yhteydessä rahapoliittisille viranomaisille annetusta vakuudesta syntyvään vastuuseen. Vakuus on muutettava rahaksi maksujärjestelmään osallistumisen tai rahapoliittisten toimenpiteiden yhteydessä syntyneiden oikeuksien turvaamiseksi etuoikeudella ennen kaikkia muita velkojia. (2) Jos kolmannen maan laitos antaa vakuuden jäsenvaltiossa yhteisön maksujärjestelmään osallistumisen tai rahapoliittisten toimenpiteiden yhteydessä, vakuuden saajan oikeuksiin ei vaikuta maksukyvyttömyysmenettelyn aloittaminen kyseistä kolmannen maan laitosta vastaan. /3 VI. LOPPUSÄÄNNÖKSET 8 artikla - Täytäntöönpano (1) (2) (3) Jäsenvaltioiden on saatettava tämän direktiivin noudattamisen edellyttämät lait, asetukset ja hallinnolliset määräykset voimaan viimeistään 31 päivänä joulukuuta 1998. Niiden on ilmoitettava tästä komissiolle viipymättä. Näissä jäsenvaltioiden antamissa säädöksissä on viitattava tähän direktiiviin tai niihin on liitettävä tällainen viittaus, kun ne virallisesti julkaistaan. Jäsenvaltioiden on säädettävä siitä, miten viittaukset tehdään. Jäsenvaltioiden on toimitettava tässä direktiivissä tarkoitetuista kysymyksistä antamansa lait, asetukset ja hallinnolliset määräykset kirjallisina komissiolle. Tämän tiedonannon osana jäsenvaltioiden on annettava taulukko, josta ilmenevät kutakin tämän direktiivin artiklaa vastaavat voimassa olevat tai uudet kansalliset säännökset. 9 artikla - Euroopan parlamentille ja neuvostolle annettava kertomus Viimeistään kolmen vuoden kuluttua 8 artiklan 1 kohdassa mainitun päivämäärän jälkeen komission on annettava Euroopan parlamentille ja neuvostolle kertomus tämän direktiivin soveltamisesta sekä tarpeen vaatiessa sen tarkistamista koskevat ehdotukset. 10 artikla Tämä direktiivi on osoitettu kaikille jäsenvaltioille. Tehty Brysselissä Euroopan parlamentin puolesta Puhemies Neuvoston puolesta Puheenjohtaja 1H BUSINESS IMPACT ASSESSMENT Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on settlement finality and collateral security La. Taking account of the principle of subsidiarity, why is Community legislation necessary and what are its main aims? Research carried out on behalf of the Commission by banking lawyers1, together with the analyses made by the Commission's working group, confirm that there are crucial differences between the laws of the Member States which prejudice the legal validity of certain key features of payment systems2. One of the central features of a sound payment system is that there must be no doubt as to when and how settlement becomes final. In the current situation, finality in a payment system whose participants are domiciled in different legal jurisdictions (as under the Treaty and the Second Banking Directive will increasingly be the case) depends ultimately on the laws of the various Member States whose institutions are members. Another essential prerequisite is that there must be legal certainty that in the case a participant fails to meet its obligations vis-à-vis the payment system, the latter can realise the collateral security pledged by that participant. In the current situation, the only way to ensure that, is to constitute the collateral security under the same law as the payment system itself, so as to avoid conflicts of law. This is contrary to the principle of an Internal Market. Legal certainty as to collateral security and as to finality of settlement can only be achieved if the national legislations are changed in a similar way in each Member State. The most efficient way of achieving this goal is by way of a directive laying down the necessary minimum standards. Lb. Are there likely to be any wider benefits and disadvantages from the proposal? If any effect is to be expected for the financial sector, it will be one of protection of current employment. The proposal's main goal is to strengthen the stability of payment systems and therewith of inter bank financial relations and to avoid the knock-on effects that currently could arise in the case of bankruptcy of a large participant in a payment system. Consequently, the loss of employment that would occur in such a case would be avoided as well. The laws on credit transfers and their settlement in Member States of the EU: Report for the European Commission (DG XV), Wilde Sapte - Brussels, 1994. The key differences referred to are: - - settlement finality in netting schemes: different possibilities of unwinding the settlement; the effect of insolvency of a participant, on netting schemes: different powers of liquidators to prevent settlement occurring or to unwind it; rules on revocation: different rules on the time when a payment order becomes irrevocable - /* - Moreover, the establishment of a legal framework in order to rule out the legal uncertainty associated with cross-border payment systems, is likely to encourage the further development of these systems. The consequent increase in the volume of business might therefore generate employment. I. e. Were alternative proposals considered, and with what outcome (e. g. codes of conduct, voluntary arrangements)? As explained under II. 3 of the explanatory memorandum, a number of other possibilities were considered, but these were abandoned for the reasons exposed. 2. Who will be affected by the proposal? Which sector of business? What are the size classes and what is the total employment? The proposal will be applicable to any undertaking which participates directly in a payment system. In practice, the large majority of these undertakings will be credit-institutions. Are there any significant features of the business sector, e. g. dominance by a limited number of large firms? The main feature of this sector is the hitherto lack of integration of payment systems at European level. Are there implications for very small businesses, the craft sector or the self-employed? Although small businesses are very unlikely to constitute a payment system among themselves, such a system would be covered by the Directive. However, as end-users of payment systems, they will benefit from the proposal and its effect of elimination of legal risks, increased efficiency and reduction of costs. These remarks apply equally to the craft sector and the self-employed. Are there particular geographical areas in the Community where these businesses are located? No. 3. What will businesses have to do to comply with the proposal? What will be the compliance costs? No costs other than the legislative ones are to be expected. Are there other administrative procedures or forms to complete? No. Are licenses or marketing authorisations required? No. Will fees be charged? No. 4. What economic effects, costs and benefits is the proposal likely to have? Unemployment? Within the payment systems industry, the net effect, if such effect is to be expected at all, should be positive. Within the segment of SMEs, employment benefits are expected (more efficient payment services => widening of intra-EU trade potential => contribution to growth and higher employment => greater and more specialised demand for efficient payment services, etc. ). On investment and the creation or start up of new businesses? Marginal effect, if any. On the competitive position of businesses, both in the Community and third countries' markets? The efficiency gains and reductions in costs for business within the Community will be positive (See paras. 1 and 4 above). Third country businesses will benefit from the advantages of this Directive inside the Community to the same extent as Community businesses do. The unilateral extension of the benefits of this Directive to third country payment systems, e. g. the protection against undue revocation, the protection against retroactive effects of insolvency proceedings and the insulation of collateral security from foreign insolvency laws, will also benefit third country payment systems. Community businesses will indirectly benefit from the advantage of the extension of the Directive's scope to the EC participants of the third country payment systems. Therefore, no distortion of competitiveness is to be expected. On public authorities for implementation? Legislative costs of passing the necessary domestic legislation. Are there other indirect effects? No. What are the costs and benefits of the proposal? • • costs: no costs, other than the legislative ones are to be expected. benefits: -elimination of legal risks associated with participation in payment systems, leading to more efficient and cost-effective operation of EC payment systems -completion of the Internal Market: the proposal will also facilitate the access by banks from one EC Member State, into the payment systems of another EC Member State (remotely or via a branch). -further integration of the EC financial sector, both domestically and cross-border, thus contributing to the free movement of capital and to the freedom of cross-border services. -cross-border use of collateral securities is facilitated. This contributes to the free movement of capital, to the freedom of cross-border services, to the development of securities markets, to developing the necessary legal framework in which the future European Central Bank may develop its monetary policy. • balance: overwhelmingly positive on the benefit side. A 5. Impact on SMEs. Does the proposal contain measures to take account of the specific effect on SMEs - if not, why not? Are reduced or different requirements appropriate? No. No direct effect on SMEs. Consultation 6. Indicate at what stage the consultations were undertaken and the date of publication of the prior notification of an intent to introduce legislation? The Commission has, over many years, promoted the fullest consultation of all interested parties and earliest disclosure of its line of policy in this area. This has materialised in the following steps: -Green Paper3 (consultation paper) of September 1990, calling for comments from all interested parties; annexed to the Green Paper was a decision to set up two consultative groups; -setting up of two permanent consultative groups on payment systems in March 1991, with intensive frequency of meetings throughout 1991 and early 1992, leading to reports to the Commission (in February 1992) published in March 1992; -Commission working document of March 19924, based on the detailed reports of these consultative groups, announcing the Commission's proposed policy, including intent to introduce legislation in this respect. Furthermore, two consultative hearings with representatives of the European Credit Sector Industry were held in the spring of 1994 and October 1995, at key stages of the preparatory work leading to the present proposal (see Section I above; background). List of organisations which have been consulted about the proposal and set out in detail their main views, including their concerns and objections to the final proposal. Why is it not possible or desirable to accede their concerns? European credit sector associations : The European credit sector associations have been consulted throughout. Two "hearings" have taken place with the Commission and its working party, the latest in October 1995. There is an overall support for this proposal, which is deemed essential by the sector itself. Government experts, including representatives of the EC central banks: Governments representatives which were members of the Commission's working group, take a positive stand on this proposal. There are differences on some technical issues, which it is not possible to resolve entirely within the working group. The main point at issue is that some delegations wished to have an (even more) ambitious approach, covering so called "securities settlement" or "obligations netting". EMI: a representative of the EMI has been present in the working group as an observer. Were the SME Business Organisations formally consulted? If not, why not? No. However, SMEs and Retailer organisations were kept regularly informed of progress being made, through their representatives in the Commission's consultative groups on payment systems. 3 Discussion paper on "Making payments in the Internal Market", COM(90)447. 4 "Easier cross-border payments: breaking down the barriers", SEC(92) 621 of 27 March 1992 A Monitoring and Review 7. Explain how the effects and compliance costs of the proposal will be monitored and reviewed. How will complaints be dealt with? Can the proposal, once it is legislation, be amended easily? The proposal contains in its Article 9 an undertaking on the part of the Commission to report on these matters to the European Parliament and Council. The necessary preparation for this will be done by the Commission acting with its existing two consultative groups on payment systems. There is no comitology procedure, therefore amendments to the proposal, once this is adopted, will require normal legislative procedures. Contact point Directorate General XV Dr. Peter TROBERG Av. de Cortenberg, 107 B-1040 Brussels Tel: 295. 41. 09 295. 79. 78 295. 32. 19 295. 94. 62 Fax: 295. 07. 50 11 ISSN 1024-4492 KOM(96) 193 lopullinen ASIAKIRJAT FI 09 Luettelonumero : CB-CO-96-201-FI-C ISBN 92-78-03488-6 Euroopan yhteisöjen virallisten julkaisujen toimisto L-2985 Luxemburg U


title: Регламент (ЕО) № 956/96 на Комисията от 30 май 1996 година за изменение на Регламент (ЕО) № 2883/94 относно изготвянето на прогнозен баланс на снабдяване на Канарските острови със селскостопански продукти, предмет на специални мерки, предвидени в членове 2, 3, 4 и 5 от Регламент (ЕИО) № 1601/92 на Съвета

eurovoc_concepts:
Canary Islands
aid system
supply balance sheet
wine

formats: html pdf print xhtml

text: 03/т. 19 BG Официален вестник на Европейския съюз 3 31996R0956 L 130/3 ОФИЦИАЛЕН ВЕСТНИК НА ЕВРОПЕЙСКИТЕ ОБЩНОСТИ 31. 5. 1996 РЕГЛАМЕНТ (ЕО) № 956/96 НА КОМИСИЯТА от 30 май 1996 година за изменение на Регламент (ЕО) № 2883/94 относно изготвянето на прогнозен баланс на снабдяване на Канарските острови със селскостопански продукти, предмет на специални мерки, предвидени в членове 2, 3, 4 и 5 от Регламент (ЕИО) № 1601/92 на Съвета КОМИСИЯТА НА ЕВРОПЕЙСКИТЕ ОБЩНОСТИ, като взе предвид Договора за създаване на Европейската общност, като взе предвид Регламент (ЕИО) № 822/87 на Съвета от 16 март 1987 г. относно общата организация на пазара на вино (1), последно изменен с Регламент (ЕО) № 1544/95 (2), и по-специално член 56, параграф 4 от него, като взе предвид Регламент (ЕИО) № 1601/92 на Съвета от 15 юни 1992 г. относно специалните мерки за Канарските острови по отношение на някои селскостопански продукти (3), последно изменен с Регламент (ЕО) № 2537/95 (4) на Комисията, и по-специално член 3, параграф 4 и член 7, втори параграф от него, като има предвид, че Регламент (ЕО) № 2805/95 на Комисията от 5 декември 1995 г. за определяне на възстановяванията при износ във винения сектор и отмяна на Регламент (ЕИО) № 2137/93 (5) изменя начина, по който се определят възстановяванията при износ във винения сектор, като тези суми се изразяват на хектолитър, независимо от техния алкохолен градус; графското положение на архипелага; като има предвид, че сумите на помощите следва да се коригират в резултат на промените в сумите за възстановяване, направени в гореспоменатия регламент; като има предвид, че предвидените в настоящия регламент мерки са в съответствие със становището на Управителния комитет за виното, ПРИЕ НАСТОЯЩИЯ РЕГЛАМЕНТ: Член 1 Приложение ХII, част Б към Регламент (ЕО) № 2883/94 на Комисията (6) заменя с приложението към настоящия регламент. се Член 2 като има предвид, че сумите на помощите, посочени в член 3, параграф 2 от Регламент (ЕИО) № 1601/92, съответстват на сумите за възстановяване, като се отчитат условията, произтичащи от гео- Настоящият регламент влиза в сила на третия ден след публикуването му в Официален вестник на Европейските общности. Настоящият регламент е задължителен в своята цялост и се прилага пряко във всички държави-членки. Съставено в Брюксел на 30 май 1996 година. За Комисията Franz FISCHLER Член на Комисията (1) ОВ L 84, 27. 3. 1987 г. , стр. 1. (2) ОВ L 148, 30. 6. 1995 г. , стр. 31. (3) ОВ L 173, 27. 6. 1992 г. , стр. 13. (4) ОВ L 260, 31. 10. 1995 г. , стр. 10. (5) ОВ L 291, 6. 12. 1995 г. , стр. 10. (6) ОВ L 304, 29. 11. 1994 г. , стр. 18. 4 BG Официален вестник на Европейския съюз 03/т. 19 ПРИЛОЖЕНИЕ „ПРИЛОЖЕНИЕ ХII ЧАСТ Б Суми на отпуснатите помощи Кодове на продукти (1) Сума на помощи, приложими за про- дукти с произход от Общността (в екю/хл) 2204 21 79 120 2204 21 79 220 2204 21 79 180 2204 21 79 280 2204 21 79 910 2204 21 80 180 2204 21 80 280 2204 21 83 120 2204 21 83 180 2204 21 84 180 2204 29 62 120 2204 29 62 220 2204 29 62 180 2204 29 62 280 2204 29 62 910 2204 29 64 120 2204 29 64 220 2204 29 64 180 2204 29 64 280 2204 29 64 910 2204 29 65 120 2204 29 65 220 2204 29 65 180 2204 29 65 280 2204 29 65 910 2204 29 71 180 2204 29 71 280 2204 29 72 180 2204 29 72 280 2204 29 75 180 2204 29 75 280 2204 29 83 120 2204 29 83 180 2204 29 84 180 4,782 4,782 19,854 23,244 4,782 19,854 23,244 4,782 27,118 27,118 4,782 4,782 19,854 23,244 4,782 4,782 4,782 19,854 23,244 4,782 4,782 4,782 19,854 23,244 4,782 19,854 23,244 19,854 23,244 19,854 23,244 4,782 27,118 27,118 (1) Кодовете на продукти се определят в Регламент (ЕИО) № 3846/87 на Комисията (ОВ L 366, 24. 12. 1987 г. , стр. 1. ), последно изменен с Регламент (ЕО) № 823/96 (ОВ L 111, 4. 5. 1996 г. , стр. 9). “


eurovoc_concepts:
decision-making
equal treatment
gender equality
public awareness campaign

text: COMISSÃO DAS COMUNIDADES EUROPEIAS Bruxelas, 30. 05. 1996 COM(96) 252 final 95/0308 (CNS) Proposta alterada de RECOMENDAÇÃO DO CONSELHO relativa à participação equilibrada das mulheres e dos homens na tomada de decisões. (apresentada pela Comissão em conformidade com o disposto no n° 2 do artigo 189°-A do Tratado CE) EXPOSIÇÃO DE MOTIVOS 1. 2. 3. A proposta inicial de Recomendação do Conselho foi adoptada pela Comissão em 29 de Novembro de 1995 (COM(95) 593 final). O seu objectivo é incentivar os Estados-membros a, por um lado, considerarem a questão do equilíbrio entre mulheres e homens no processo de tomada de decisões em todos os domínios (económico, político, social e cultural) e, por outro lado, a adoptarem uma estratégia global e integrada com vista à obtenção desse equilíbrio. O Comité Económico e Social emitiu um parecer favorável sobre esta proposta inicial em 24 de Abril de 1996. Najsessão plenária de 24 de Maio, o Parlamento Europeu votou 36 alterações, 8 das quais a Comissão aceitou na totalidade e 1 em parte (2, 8, 10, 14, 19, 25, 26, 31, 35). As alterações aceites reforçam e alargam o âmbito da proposta inicial em termos: da importância da conciliação entre vida profissional e familiar, das ligações estreitas entre o processo de tomada de decisões e a participação das mulheres no mercado de trabalho, assim como a sua integração no conjunto das políticas, da necessidade de campanhas públicas, do controlo e avaliação de alvos, da promoção do espírito empreendedor das mulheres. 4. As alterações que não foram aceites podem dividir-se em três grupos: As que: propunham alterações ao significado do texto sem nada lhe acrescentar de útil (1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 30, 32); propunham conceitos inteiramente novos que não estão ainda suficientemente desenvolvidos, quer pela Comissão quer pelos Estados-membros (5, 9, 13, 28, 29, 33); incidiam em áreas onde a Comissão detém o direito de iniciativa (36) ou propunham à Comissão actividades fora das suas actuais competências (34). A proposta alterada tem em conta as alterações que foram aceites pela Comissão. COM (95) 593 final PROPOSTA DE PROPOSTA ALTERADA DE RECOMENDAÇÃO DO CONSELHO RELATIVA À PARTICIPAÇÃO EQUILIBRADA DAS MULHERES E DOS HOMENS NA TOMADA DE DECISÕES RECOMENDAÇÃO DO CONSELHO RELATIVA À PARTICIPAÇÃO EQUILIBRADA DAS MULHERES E DOS HOMENS NA TOMADA DE DECISÕES O CONSELHO DA UNIÃO EUROPEIA Tendo em conta o Tratado que institui a Comunidade Europeia e, nomeadamente, o seu artigo 235°, Tendo em conta a proposta da Comissão, Tendo em conta o parecer do Parlamento Europeu, Tendo em conta o parecer do Comité Económico e Social, Tendo em conta o parecer do Comité das Regiões, Considerando que o Conselho adoptou uma série de instrumentos legislativos e um certo número de compromissos políticos no domínio da igualdade de tratamento e de oportunidades entre as mulheres e os homens, Considerando que os Chefes de Estado e de Governo, reunidos nos Conselhos Europeus de Essen e de Cannes, sublinharam que a igualdade de oportunidades entre mulheres e homens, bem como a luta contra o desemprego, tarefas constituem prioritárias da União Europeia e dos seus Estados-membros; as Considerando que o acesso das mulheres à tomada de decisões foi objecto de uma atenção especial na recomendação do Conselho de 13 de Dezembro de 1984, relativa à promoção de acções positivas a favor das mulheres, na resolução do Conselho de 24 de Julho de 1986, relativa à promoção da igualdade de oportunidades para as mulheres, e na resolução do Conselho de 21 de Maio de 1991, relativa ao terceiro programa de acção, a médio prazo, para a igualdade de oportunidades entre mulheres e homens (1991/1995); Considerando que o Conselho na sua resolução de 27 de Março de 1995 relativa à participação equilibrada das mulheres e dos homens na tomada de decisões, convidou os Estados-membros a "proclamar a promoção da participação equilibrada das mulheres e dos homens como um dos objectivos prioritários no âmbito das suas práticas de igualdade de oportunidades entre as mulheres e os homens e a retomar este objectivo como tal no programa dos governos"; que, além disso convidou a Comissão a "elaborar um projecto de recomendação a submeter ao Conselho a fim de promover a participação equilibrada das mulheres e dos homens na tomada de decisões"; Considerando que o Parlamento Europeu na sua resolução de 11 de Fevereiro de 1994 "relativa às mulheres nos órgãos de decisão", pediu à Comissão que "pusesse em prática a política em matéria de tendo em vista eliminar os igualdade obstáculos que impedem as mulheres de aceder a postos de decisão", bem como definir "medidas e acções que permitam uma maior participação das mulheres nos processos de decisão"; Considerando que a Comissão Europeia no seu quarto programa comunitário de acção a médio prazo, para a igualdade de oportunidades entre homens e mulheres (1996-2000) apresentado ao Conselho para decisão, incluiu a promoção da participação equilibrada das mulheres e dos homens na tomada de decisões com um dos seis objectivos principais; das Mulheres Considerando que a declaração e a plataforma de acção da 4a Conferência Mundial acentuavam fortemente a necessidade de assegurar uma repartição equilibrada das responsabilidades, dos poderes e dos direitos, e que os Estados-membros se comprometeram a implementar a plataforma de acção; Considerando que a sub-representação das mulheres no órgãos de decisão resulta, em especial, de um acesso tardio das mulheres à igualdade cívica e civil assim como dos obstáculos sua independência económica; realização da à Considerando que as mulheres continuam a estar sub-representadas nesses órgãos, sejam eles públicos ou privados, políticos, administrativos, económicos, sociais ou culturais; Considerando que as mulheres representam mais de metade da população e que uma participação equilibrada das mulheres e dos homens na representação e na administração das nações constitui uma exigência democrática; Considerando que a sub-representação das mulheres nos lugares de decisão constitui uma perda para a sociedade no seu conjunto e não permite que tomados plenamente em consideração os interesses e necessidades do conjunto da população; sejam Considerando que a sub-representação das mulheres nos órgãos de decisão resulta, em especial de um acesso tardio das mulheres à igualdade cívica e civil assim como dos obstáculos sua independência económica e das dificuldades em conciliar o desenvolvimento de uma carreira profissional e a vida familiar; realização da à (novo) Considerando que o objectivo de melhorar a participação das mulheres no processo decisório não pode ser dissociado da política de emprego, tendo em conta que as mulheres de desvantagem devido à contínua segregação no mercado de trabalho e à crescente precariedade do trabalho feminino. posição numa estão (novo) Considerando que as medidas que visam uma participação igual das mulheres e homens no processo decisório em todos os sectores devem estar estreitamente ligadas ao objectivo de incluir uma perspectiva em função do sexo em todas as políticas comunitárias. que uma participação Considerando equilibrada das mulheres e dos homens na tomada de decisões pode gerar ideias, valores e comportamentos diferentes, que vão no sentido de um mundo mais justo e equilibrado tanto para as mulheres como para os homens; têm social Considerando que os Estados-membros, os parceiros sociais, os partidos e organizações políticas, as ONG e os meios de papel comunicação determinante a desempenhar na construção de uma sociedade em que o exercício das responsabilidades públicas e privadas, económicas, políticas e domésticas seja assegurado, em paridade, pelas mulheres e pelos homens; um Considerando que, em conformidade corn os princípios da subsidiariedade, e da proporcionalidade tal como enunciados no artigo 3°-B do Tratado que institui a Comunidade Europeia, o objectivo da presente recomendação ao promover a participação equilibrada das mulheres e dos homens na tomada de decisões, é uma acção cuja eficácia pode ser reforçada através do intercâmbio de informações e de boas condutas num quadro de referências comum aos Estados-membros; que convém, pois, comunitário, a nível orientações para promover uma participação equilibrada das mulheres e dos homens nos órgãos de decisão com o objectivo de alcançar a igualdade entre homens e mulheres: que a recomendação se limita ao mínimo indispensável para atingir este objectivo e não excede o que é necessário, propor, Considerando que, em conformidade com os princípios da subsidiariedade, e da proporcionalidade tal como enunciados no artigo 3°-B do Tratado que institui a Comunidade Europeia, o objectivo da presente recomendação ao promover a participação equilibrada das mulheres e dos homens na tomada de decisões, é uma acção cuja eficácia pode ser reforçada através do intercâmbio de informações e de boas condutas num quadro de referências comum aos Estados-membros; que convém, comunitário, pois, orientações uma representação equilibrada das mulheres e dos homens nos órgãos de decisão; que a recomendação ao mínimo indispensável para atingir este objectivo e não excede o que é necessário; promover a para propor, limita nível se Considerando que, para efeitos da adopção da presente recomendação, o Tratado não prevê outros poderes para além dos citados no artigo 235°; RECOMENDA AOS ESTADOS MEMBROS: I. conjunta que adoptem uma estratégia que integrada vise promover a participação equilibrada das mulheres e dos homens nas instâncias de poder de influência e de decisão, e que para o efeito, desenvolvam ou criem as medidas apropriadas, l e g i s l a t i v a s, regulamentares ou de estímulo, 2. a) b) c) que valorizem, nos programas e manuais escolares e nos diferentes níveis de ensino e de formação, o papel e a contribuição das mulheres na sociedade e que sublinhem a das importância da responsabilidades, ou domésticas, entre as mulheres e os homens, partilha públicas tomem que disposições as apropriadas para que a imagem das mulheres e dos homens nos meios e nas de comunicação não mensagens reforcem os estereótipos abusivos baseados numa repartição das tarefas em função do sexo, publicitárias, consolidem social nem c) suscitem concebam, ou que divulguem públicas campanhas destinadas a sensibilizar a opinião pública sobre a utilidade e as vantagens para o conjunto da sociedade de um equilíbrio entre as mulheres e os homens na tomada de decisões, suscitem concebam, campanhas aos homens que ou divulguem públicas e às destinadas mulheres para chamar a atenção para a utilidade e as vantagens para o conjunto da sociedade de um equilíbrio entre as mulheres e os homens na tomada de decisões^ incluindo, entre outras, campanhas paralelas às campanhas eleitorais. Deverá ser garantida uma avaliação adequada destas campanhas, por forma a garantir a sua eficácia. d) 3. a) b) as como social, sensibilizem associações que os parceiros sociais, os partidos e os grupos políticos, e organizações não governamentais os meios de assim comunicação para a importância de um equilíbrio entre as mulheres e os homens nas instâncias de decisão, encorajando- os a desenvolver planos para a igualdade de oportunidades entre as mulheres e os homens que incluam medidas para facilitar o acesso das mulheres ao processo de decisão, que desenvolvam ou promovam a produção e a publicação de dados estatísticos que permitam conhecer a participação relativa das mulheres e dos homens nas instâncias de decisão, em geral, e especialmente, nos administrativos, nos conselhos e comités públicos, nos conselhos de administração e de gestão, a nível nacional, regional e local, bem como na economia e na vida social e cultural, d o m í n i os p o l í t i c o- que apoiem, desenvolvam e suscitem estudos quantitativos e qualitativos sobre as mulheres e os homens na tomada de decisões e, nomeadamente, sobre os obstáculos jurídicos, sociais ou culturais que entravam o acesso de pessoas de um ou outro sexo, sobre as ideias e conceitos que possam enriquecer a noção de democracia gerida em parceria pelas mulheres e pelos homens e sobre as estratégias que permitam obter um equilíbrio entre mulheres e homens na tomada de decisões, c) 4. a) b) que apoiem e suscitem iniciativas que criem exemplos de boa conduta nos vários domínios da tomada de desenvolvam decisões, que programas de e intercâmbio de experiências tendo em vista generalizar essas acções, difusão de e que promovam um melhor equilíbrio entre as mulheres e os homens a todos funções governamentais, os níveis das tais homens que criem ou prossigam medidas activas acções de como e de definição de orientação objectivos quantificados a fim de promover o equilíbrio entre as mulheres e os na representação política a níveis europeu, nacional, regional e local, inclusive nas instâncias de consulta que contribuam para a tomada de dada decisões especial atenção à promoção de uma composição equilibrada dos comités, comissões e grupos de trabalhos tanto a nível nacional como europeu, públicas. Será b) tais que criem ou prossigam medidas activas acções de como e de definição de orientação objectivos com quantificados calendários e com a monitorização efectiva destes objectivos, a níveis europeu, nacional, regional e local, para que seja alcançada uma representação igual de homens e mulheres, inclusive nas instâncias de consulta que contribuam para a tomada de decisões públicas,. velando por que tais acções sejam e acompanhadas, documentadas avaliadas. especial Será dada atenção à promoção de uma composição equilibrada dos comités, comissões e grupos de trabalho tanto a nível nacional como europeu, 4 b) bis (novo) que analisem efeitos dos os diferentes sistemas eleitorais sobre a representação política das mulheres em órgãos eleitos e. se necessário, prevejam a adaptação ou a reforma desses sistemas: c) d) e) que criem ou desenvolvam planos de igualdade para a função pública integrem o conceito de que equilíbrio na tomada de decisões e que velem por que, quando os funcionários são recrutados por comissões que concurso, elaboram as respectivas provas e a composição dos júris se aproxime, o mais possível, de um equilíbrio entre mulheres e homens, as que encorajem o sector privado a reforçar a presença das mulheres a todos os níveis de decisão, nomeadamente através da adopção, ou no quadro de planos de igualdade, ou de programas de acções positivas, que incitem à adopção pela imprensa, rádio e televisão de medidas que promovam uma das participação equilibrada mulheres e dos homens nas instâncias de produção, nas instâncias de direcção e nos lugares de decisão, E, PARA O EFEITO, PEDE A CG&HSSÃO: 1. que intensifique os seus esforços de informação, de sensibilização, de estímulo à procura e à promoção de acções-piloto para realizar a equilibrada das participação mulheres e dos homens na tomada de decisões, 10 4 d) bis (novo) que prevejam programas e acções que visem promover a capacidade empresarial das mulheres e o seu acesso às profissões liberais, sistemático os Estados-membros, que estimule e organize em ligação o com intercâmbio de experiências e a avaliação das políticas realizadas para obter um equilíbrio entre as mulheres e os homens na tomada de decisões, 3. relatório ao que apresente um Conselho no prazo de três anos após da a p r e s e n te a d o p ç ão recomendação, relativamente aos progressos alcançados na respectiva implementação, com base nas informações que lhe serão prestadas pelos Estados-membros. relatório ao que apresente um Parlamento Europeu e ao Conselho no prazo de três anos após a adopção da presente recomendação, progressos relativamente respectiva alcançados implementação, com base nas informações que lhe são prestadas pelos Estados-membros. aos na 11 K SN 0257-9JS3 COM(96) 252 final DOCUMENTOS FT §4 05 ft'de catálogo : CB-CO-96-264-PT-C ISBN 92-78-05195-0 Serviço das Publicações Oficiais das ComunidBdcs Europeias L-2985 Luxemburgo • ft


title: Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 956/96 z dne 30. maja 1996 o spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 2883/94 o določitvi načrtovane bilance oskrbe Kanarskih otokov s kmetijskimi proizvodi, ki jih zajemajo posebni ukrepi iz členov 2, 3, 4 in 5 Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 1601/92

formats: html pdf print

text: 03/Zv. 19 SL Uradni list Evropske unije 31996R0956 31. 5. 1996 URADNI LIST EVROPSKIH SKUPNOSTI UREDBA KOMISIJE (ES) št. 956/96 z dne 30. maja 1996 137 L 130/3 o spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 2883/94 o določitvi načrtovane bilance oskrbe Kanarskih otokov s kmetijskimi proizvodi, ki jih zajemajo posebni ukrepi iz členov 2, 3, 4 in 5 Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 1601/92 KOMISIJA EVROPSKIH SKUPNOSTI JE ob upoštevanju Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti, ob upoštevanju Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 822/87 z dne 16. marca 1987 o skupni ureditvi trga za vino (1), kakor je bila nazadnje spremenjena z Uredbo (ES) št. 1544/95 (2), in zlasti člena 56(4) Uredbe; ob upoštevanju Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 1601/92 z dne 15. junija 1992 o posebnih ukrepih za Kanarske otoke glede neka- terih kmetijskih proizvodov (3), kakor je bila nazadnje spreme- njena z Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 2537/95 (4), in zlasti člena 3(4) in drugega odstavka člena 7 Uredbe; ker Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 2805/95 z dne 5. decembra 1995 o določitvi izvoznih nadomestil v vinskem sektorju in o razve- ljavitvi Uredbe (EGS) št. 2137/93 (5) spreminja način določanja izvoznih nadomestil v vinskem sektorju tako, da se ta izrazijo v hektolitrih ne glede na volumenski delež alkohola; ker zneski pomoči iz člena 3(2) Uredbe (EGS) št. 1601/92 ustrezajo zneskom nadomestil, upoštevajoč pogoje, vezane na zemljepisno lego arhipelaga; ker naj bi se zneski nadomestil prilagodili zaradi sprememb glede zneskov nadomestil, ki jih uvaja zgoraj navedena uredba; ker so ukrepi, predvideni v tej uredbi, v skladu z mnenjem Upravljalnega odbora za vino, SPREJELA NASLEDNJO UREDBO: Člen 1 Del B Priloge XII k Uredbi Komisije (ES) št. 2883/94 (6) se nadomesti s Prilogo k tej uredbi. Člen 2 Ta uredba začne veljati tretji dan po objavi v Uradnem listu Evropskih skupnosti. Ta uredba je v celoti zavezujoča in se neposredno uporablja v vseh državah članicah. V Bruslju, 30. maja 1996 Za Komisijo Franz FISCHLER Član Komisije (1) UL L 84, 27. 3. 1987, str. 1. (2) UL L 148, 30. 6. 1995, str. 31. (3) UL L 173, 27. 6. 1992, str. 13. (4) UL L 260, 31. 10. 1995, str. 10. (5) UL L 291, 6. 12. 1995, str. 10. (6) UL L 304, 29. 11. 1994, str. 18. 138 SL Uradni list Evropske unije 03/Zv. 19 PRILOGA „PRILOGA XII DEL B Zneski odobrene pomoči Oznaka KN (1) 2204 21 79 120 2204 21 79 220 2204 21 79 180 2204 21 79 280 2204 21 79 910 2204 21 80 180 2204 21 80 280 2204 21 83 120 2204 21 83 180 2204 21 84 180 2204 29 62 120 2204 29 62 220 2204 29 62 180 2204 29 62 280 2204 29 62 910 2204 29 64 120 2204 29 64 220 2204 29 64 180 2204 29 64 280 2204 29 64 910 2204 29 65 120 2204 29 65 220 2204 29 65 180 2204 29 65 280 2204 29 65 910 2204 29 71 180 2204 29 71 280 2204 29 72 180 2204 29 72 280 2204 29 75 180 2204 29 75 280 2204 29 83 120 2204 29 83 180 2204 29 84 180 (V ECU/hl) Znesek pomoči, ki se uporablja za proizvode po poreklu iz Skupnosti 4,782 4,782 19,854 23,244 4,782 19,854 23,244 4,782 27,118 27,118 4,782 4,782 19,854 23,244 4,782 4,782 4,782 19,854 23,244 4,782 4,782 4,782 19,854 23,244 4,782 19,854 23,244 19,854 23,244 19,854 23,244 4,782 27,118 27,118 (1) Oznake proizvodov so opredeljene v Uredbi Komisije (EGS) št. 3846/87 (UL L 366, 24. 12. 1987, str. 1), kakor je bila nazadnje spre- menjena z Uredbo (ES) št. 823/96 (UL L 111, 4. 5. 1996, str. 9). “