title: Report from the Commission on the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2137/92 concerning the Community scale for the classification of carcasses of ovine animals and determining the Community standard quality of fresh or chilled sheep carcasses and extending Regulation (EEC) No 338/91

text: COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 30. 05. 1997 COM(97) 250 final REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COUNCIL REGULATION ( E E C) NO 2137/92 CONCERNING THE COMMUNITY SCALE FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF CARCASSES OF OVINE ANIMALS AND DETERMINING THE COMMUNITY STANDARD QUALITY OF FRESH OR CHILLED SHEEP CARCASSES AND EXTENDING REGULATION ( E E C) NO 338/91 Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION ŒCÏ amending Regulation (EEC) No 338/91 determining the Community standard quality of fresh or chilled sheep carcasses and Regulation (EEC) No 2137/92 concerning the Community scale for the classification of carcasses of ovine animals and determining the Community standard quality of fresh or chilled sheep carcasses (presented by the Commission) 1 ' '' ! ?/! ( '6 F \ ^ t V^ ' t ' '} '? 11 *4V '•,:' '•'ft. O 'Â rl 't,f- " ^ 1. " '^ 'is *. 1 , •«-+•*• ', 1 » »Vl ^ " REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COUNCIL REGULATION ( E E C) NO 2137/92 CONCERNING THE COMMUNITY SCALE FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF CARCASSES OF OVINE ANIMALS AND DETERMINING THE COMMUNITY STANDARD QUALITY OF FRESH OR CHILLED SHEEP CARCASSES AND EXTENDING REGULATION ( E E C) NO 338/91 1. INTRODUCTION The establishment of market prices in the sheep sector is of particular importance as the Community market price is a central element in the calculation of the annual ewe premium, Currently, these prices are recorded weekly at Member State level according to a Community definition of standard quality of sheep carcasses agreed in 1991 and set to apply until the end of 1997 marketing year. They are then translated into the Community average market price. Conscious of the need to improve market transparency, the Council, in 1992, introduced a carcase classification system for sheep. This classification system is a voluntary at Community level. It provides a method of grading carcases according to set criteria and thus establishes the possibility for producers to be paid according to these criteria. At this stage, except in Finland and Sweden, prices recorded in accordance with this classification system are not used in the calculation of the Community average market price. Among the long term objectives for the Community carcase classification scheme was that it should provide the basis for a new definition of standard quality of sheep carcases. With this in mind, Council Regulation (EEC) No 2137/92 concerning the Community scale for the classification of carcasses of ovine animals and determining the Community standard quality of fresh or chilled sheep carcasses and extending Regulation (EEC) No 338/91 determining the Community standard quality of fresh or chilled sheep carcasses, requires the Commission (Article 9) to submit a report to the Council on its implementation by 31 December 1996 at the latest. The scope of this report, therefore, concerns the carcase classification of ovine animals and also to what extent the definition of standard quality for price reporting which is currently in place until the end of the 1997 marketing year, could be improved at the light of experience in carcase classification. Subject to the conclusions of the report, the Council set itself the goal of making the use of the Community grid compulsory for all Community slaughterhouses approved for intra-Community trade, if possible during the 1999 marketing year and in any event before 1 January 2000, without prejudice to the possibility of excluding small slaughterhouses situated in regions where the impact on the market price produced by the volume slaughtered in such slaughterhouses is negligible. The accompanying proposals respond to the conclusions of the report. 2- 2. S T A N D A RD Q U A L I TY The current definition of standard quality contained in Council Regulation (EEC) No 338/91 reads "lamb of less than one year old at slaughter of acceptable fat level with a carcase weight or estimated carcase weight of at least 12 kg. " This definition, introduced following the 1989 reform unifying the regime, has applied from the 1991 to the 1997 marketing years for the purposes of price formation and premium calculation. The practical implementation, of this definition involved the elimination, from price reporting, of lightweight carcasses of between 9 and 11. 9 kg in Spain, Italy, Greece and Portugal. Furthermore, the Commission implementing provisions interpreted the phrase "acceptable fat level", in the absence of carcase classification standards, by the application of different upper weight limits for carcases reflecting Member State production practices. These limits are 16 kg in Spain, Italy, Greece and Portugal, 21. 5 kg in Great Britain, Ireland and Northern Ireland, 22 kg in France and Austria and 23 kg in Denmark, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Finland and Sweden. Since its introduction in May 1991, price reporting based on standard quality has worked well insofar as its practical operation is concerned (Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1481/86). Except in respect of Italy in 1991 where prices had to be adjusted to align them to standard quality, prices for the lamb weight categories included in it have been recorded without difficulty. The graph in Annex 1 shows the trend in Member State prices since 1981 and the notable convergence which occurred on the introduction of price reporting based on standard quality in 1991. rj Nevertheless, there are still significant differences between prices in the different Member States. These differences arise mainly from variations in production and consumption patterns, seasonality of supply and degree of self-sufficiency between Member States together with qualitative differences in terms of carcase weights, conformation and fat levels. In addition, there appears to be some consumer preference in "importing" Member States for domestic lamb rather than for lamb brought in from another Member State. •o* In effect, then, even within standard quality there are some qualitative price differences between Member States. Elimination of these qualitative differences through the reporting of prices of the same qualities of carcase would increase the transparency of prices reported under standard quality. 3. CARCASE CLASSIFICATION 3. 1 Regulatory aspects Regulation (EEC) No 2137/92 establishes the provisions concerning the Community scale for the classification of sheep carcasses including, in particular, the definition of the carcase, the criteria for classification, price reporting and inspections. It establishes two classification systems: 3 - a system which describes both conformation and degree of fat cover, normally referred to as the "SEUROP grid", - a system which may apply only to lambs under 13 kg and which describes weight, meat colour and fat cover, normally referred to as the "A grid". Commission Regulation (EEC) No 461/93 laying down detailed rules for the Community scale for the classification of carcasses of ovine animals entered into force on 6 March 1993 with provision for price reporting based on classification with effect from 8 April 1993. At the beginning of 1995 the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities published brochures issued, in all Community languages except Swedish and Finnish, by the Commission explaining the Community scales for the classification of sheep and of light lambs. These brochures are available from the office : Ref : SEUROP : CM-84-94-694; A grid : CM 84-94-703. Since its introduction, both carcase classification and price reporting thereon have been voluntary at slaughterhouse level. In accordance with the regulations, control visits have been made to all Member States applying the grids in the period 1993-1995 with a view initially to align grading standards among Member State experts and to ensure that these standards were adhered to in the slaughterhouses visited. 3. 2 Implementation at Member State level (See Annex 2 for details for each Member State) Carcase classification based on the "SEUROP grid" is compulsory in Finland, France, Sweden and Germany. In addition, some classification also takes place in Denmark, Ireland and, to a much lesser extent, in the UK and Greece under this grid. Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece all indicated their intention to classify carcasses of lambs less than 13 kg weight via the "A grid". To date, however, classification under this grid has taken place to a limited extent only in Spain, Portugal and Greece. Virtually no progress has been made in the implementation of carcase classification in Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Italy. Several reasons have been put forward for the slow progress in the implementation of carcase classification. Among these are: - in many Member States, producers sell their lambs live in livestock markets or directly off farms to slaughterhouse owners or traders and have no further interest in them. The transaction and payment is on live lambs. In the UK and Spain up to 80% of trade takes place in this form; - where producers do sell directly to slaughterhouses they often sell their lambs in lots based on an agreed price per kg carcase weight. Thus, the producer's interest, with the exception of certain producer groups, in grading may be academic rather than financial; T - in some Member States, slaughterhouses are municipal rather than privately/co-operatively owned so that grading facilities or personnel may not be present; - slaughterers' and wholesalers sometimes suggest that the Community classification system is not relevant in dealings at the wholesale/retail side of their businesses where a simple grading into first/second/third quality tends to be the norm; - disagreement between slaughterhouses and producers as to who carries out and who pays for the classification; - virtual absence of a. strong slaughter sector in Member States from which there is a traditional important live export trade. However, it is recalled that many producers, and in particular producer groups, are keenly interested in classification, even if occasionally they are reluctant to have payment based upon it. They generally consider that classification, and the rewards relating to payment on good quality lamb, is a useful tool in achieving improvements in the quality of the product sold both for the domestic and export market. In that sense, classification, could in the longer term lead to better producer prices and quality more in line with consumer demand. 4. PRICES AND QUALITY OF PRICE REPORTING BASED ON CLASSIFICATION In Annex 3, price tables for 1995 and 1996 and graphs comparing grid prices and prices based on standard quality and including different grid qualities for 1996 are set down. However, the quality of the prices reported by Member States where classification take place is variable due to several factors. Only prices in Sweden and Finland, where classification is compulsory and where price reporting according to the grid covers most or all lamb production can be considered satisfactory. Indeed, these prices are used in the calculation of the Community weekly market price (Regulation (EEC) No 1841/86) which in turn is used for premium calculation purposes. In France, where classification is compulsory, eight slaughterhouses representing 10% of national production have agreed to report prices paid according to the grid in the framework of a national observatory. Elsewhere the representativity of prices and the geographic representativity of the slaughterhouses concerned is open to question. In Germany, although 14 slaughterhouses take part in price reporting according to classification, only 3% of total German production is concerned. In Ireland. , although 20% of total national throughput is classified, only two slaughterhouses are involved. In Great Britain, only two slaughterhouses representing less than 1% of national slaughterings provide prices. Indeed, the representativity of the throughput in these slaughterhouses in comparison to the national throughput is open to question. It appears that individual producers may sell their better lambs using classification as a payment basis. In addition, there is a tendency for producer groups, normally containing the more quality oriented producers, to use classification. In Spain six volunteer In relation to the "A grid", a similar pattern emerges. slaughterhouses provide prices. In Portugal three slaughterhouses provided information in 1995 but the number of animals classified was small while in Greece just one slaughterhouse provides information. 5. CONCLUSIONS The lack of progress in several Member States in implementing carcase classification and price reporting based thereon over the past four years is disappointing. Carcase classification is widely developed only in Finland, Sweden and France. Elsewhere, with the exception of Germany, it is dependent on the goodwill of producers and slaughterers. For different reasons, including a preference for live markets and for selling lambs to slaughterers at a fixed price per kg, a majority of producers seem to be reluctant to sell lamb via the classification system. Slaughterers, too, seem to be reluctant given the relatively few volunteers in several Member States. This lack of progress raises the question not just as to whether the Council should continue to pursue its goal of making use of the Community grid compulsory before January 2000 but whether it should pursue any such goal at all. It could be argued that, if such a widespread lack of interest in classification exists, then the need for a Community classification scheme is itself questionable. Nevertheless, the Commission points out that, unlike in most other sectors, prices in the sheep sector have a direct bearing on the level of the annual premium and hence on the amount of Community expenditure devoted to the sheep sector each year. Such Thus, it is essential that transparency be evident in reported prices. transparency is greatly increased when qualitative differences are removed from price comparisons. The Commission believes that the goal set itself by the Council of making use of the grid compulsory is not feasible. However, It does not feel that non use of classification, at this stage, in some Member States, should lead to its abandonment. The positive aspects of classification with regard to price transparency and indeed the improvement carcase quality lead the Commission to conclude that classification is of value to the sector and that's its use should be developed. The Commission, therefore, concludes that the inclusion of prices of classified carcasses within price reporting for the establishment of the Community average market price and hence premium calculation is desirable. With regard to standard quality, it is clear, as indicated, that it has worked well in so far as its practical operation is concerned but that important price differences still exist between Member States with part of those differences relating to qualitative factors. 6. PROPOSALS With regard to carcase classification, the Commission proposes that the Council set aside the goal it set itself subject to the conclusions of this report of making the use of the Community grid compulsory for all Community slaughterhouses approved for intra Community trade, if possible during the 1999 marketing year and in any event before 1 January 2000. In effect, this means that carcase classification would remain a voluntary tool at Community level to be used Where it is seen to have a benefit for the sheep industry. Against this background, the Commission proposes that the current definition of standard quality be left unchanged in the future. However, the Commission does wish to see carcase classification incorporated into the price reporting mechanism for standard quality in accordance with progress with its implementation in the various Member States and intends within the framework of its own competence to pursue this aim. It believes that this step will assist in making prices more transparent and in explaining differences between market prices in different Member States. The Commission intend, therefore, where possible to include in the price reported for standard quality for each Member State a percentage reserved for prices established according to the Community classification grids. Thus, a relatively small and varying percentage between Member States inclusion of prices of classified carcases is envisaged. In order to achieve this aim, some modification of Commission Regulations (EEC) No 1481/86 on price reporting and (EEC) No 461/93 on the detailed rules for carcase classification will be required in order to incorporatcprice reporting under both classification grids to price reporting for the calculation of Member State and Community market prices used principally for the purposes of premium calculation. In addition, a technical modification of Regulation (EEC) No 2137/92 will be required in order to permit the splitting of carcase category C in the A grid for price reporting purposes. Finally, the Commission signals its intention also of re-examining, within its own competence, the operation of the Community inspection group provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 2137/92 with a view to making it more effective and less costly by reducing its size and by concentrating on Member States where reported prices include prices for classified animals. The Commission intends to finalise its amendments to the above mentioned Commission regulations after discussion of this report and the adoption of the accompanying draft regulation by the Council. The accompanying proposal entrains no financial consequences. Only the Union has power to act as regards the measures proposed. These proposals extend the duration of an existing regulation and modify to a second regulation. Annexes Prix de la viande ovine - Prices of sheepmeat - Preise fur Schaf-Fleisch 650 550 o o 3 O 450 LU 00 <D i a) 350 > 3 O 250 150 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 0) 3 3 X (D • B + DK B GR • • Irl I + NL OO • P ^ FIN • S * UK - UE IMPLEMENTATION OF SHEEP CLASSIFICATION SCALES BY MEMBER STATES ANNEX 2 Summary of statements made at meetings of working party up to and including 2 February 1996 together with updated information provided bv Member States in December 1996. BELGIUM - Classification is not compulsory and no slaughterhouses are systematically classifying. One slaughterhouse may classify on a very limited basis in 1996. - Limited use in promotion campaigns. Some live grading based on carcase classification scale. - Direct sales by producer to consumer make up 50% of total sales. DENMARK - Objective : to extend classification in accordance with the scale to all slaughterhouses but classification is not compulsory. - Producers favourable. - Grid operational (27. 2 % of national slaughterings). - One company paying on classification. Classifiers paid by slaughterhouse. - 22. 6 % of payments based on classification. - Classification done by slaughterhouse staff with control by the Danish Classification Board. - Presentational difference (removal of kidney and kidney fat) being eliminated by a corrective factor. GERMANY - Classification is compulsory in slaughterhouses with a through put of more than 50 lambs per week. - Only 3% of national production paid on the basis of the grid (60,000 lambs). Producers reticent (lack of confidence vis-a-vis the slaughterhouse and clear preference for flat-rate payment per head or kilogram of carcase). Fourteen volunteer slaughterhouses now in classification but slaughterhouses unhappy at extra costs involved under national law (65 DM per hour for independent graders). Only 23. 4 % of their production (3 % of national production) is paid on the basis of the grid alone. involved Direct sales by producer to consumer make up 50% of total sales. GREECE - Classification is not compulsary - Little interest in SEUROP grid, some interest in BIS grid. - One volunteer slaughterhouse classifies carcases with 2 other slaughterhouses now showing some interest (100,000 lambs classified in 1995). - Price differences mainly determined by weight. - Problems in presentation of carcases. - Problems due to small slaughterhouses. - Problems due to low level of direct sales by producers to slaughterhouses. - Classifiers paid by the State. SPAIN - Classification is not compulsory and the SEUROP grid is not suitable. - Bis grid : six volunteer slaughterhouses which provide prices regularly (good geographical distribution) with interest growing. - 20 % direct sales by producer to slaughterhouse. As trade is in live animals the live price is the most important. FRANCE - Carcase classification is mandatory since 1977. - Grid operational (85 % of national production). - Price collection system by OFIVAL (8 correspondents accounting for 10% of national production) on SEUROP grid. - Payment on SEUROP grid on 617,000 lamb carcases in 1995 especially to better producers (producer groups). - 70 % direct sales by producer to slaughterhouse. - Classification done by abattoir staff. - The criteria for the former National grid (EUROP) used for price reporting under Regulation No 1481/86. - Total payments on classification amount to 50% of national production. IRELAND - Classification not compulsory but this option being considered. - Good progress on use of SEUROP grid for grading with 5 different and varying price levels based on joined grid positions to be operated. - Two slaughterhouses with 20% of national throughput now operating and paying on classification (still some payment problems at certain times of year in one of them) 440,000 lambs classified in 1995. - Classification done by abattoir staff under technical supervision of Department of Agr. ITALY - Classification not compulsory and littleJ enthusiasm by slaughterhouses or producers. - SEUROP grid not relevant. Bis grid is relevant. - Difficulties in working out price paid to producer (lambs are sold in batches). - Producers reticent (they fear that the price will be lower). - 35 % direct sales by producer to slaughterhouse. - Seasonality problems (peak sales, in October-April). - Training courses to be organized for slaughterhouses and producers. - Institution of an observatory envisaged for price collection. -M NETHERLANDS - Classification is not compulsory. - Little interest in slaughterhouses. One slaughterhouse participating with 1% of animals classified and producers paid on classification (4,000 lambs in 1995). - Particular interest in export of live animals 558,000 live exports in 1995 (50% of total production): one group classifies and purchases live animals in accordance with the scale (33,000 heads); cost of classification Dfl. 0. 5 per animal. - 5 % direct sales by producer to slaughterhouse (estimate). - 90 % of lambs for slaughter or export are sold via a trader on the holding. - Bulking of lambs for sale from small producers with sheep as a secondary enterprise makes it difficult to pass classification information to small producers. - Classification done by indépendant company which charges slaughterhouse (207 FL/day plus VAT) or producer (live animals). PORTUGAL - Classification not compulsory. - Producers interested in bis grid. SEUROP grid not relevant. - Three volunteer slaughterhouses but small numbers of animals classified and paid according to grid at present (5% of total). - Classification done by regional body of Ministry of Agriculture with centralized checking. - Weight rather than quality determines price level. - Large percentage of production sold by producers to traders. UNITED KINGDOM - Classification is not compulsory. - Two volunteer slaughterhouses in Great Britain paying according to grid (out of approximately 400) (less than 1% of total slaughterings) (44,000 lambs in 1995). - Two volunteer slaughterhouses in Northern Ireland (10% of total slaughterings) (148,000 lambs in 1995). - Classification done by MLC (paid by slaughterhouse) or by slaughterhouse. Control by MAFF rarely. u - Three problems : 1. 2. 3. Slaughterhouses not interested in payment on classification (see no benefit). Slaughterhouse owners are not convinced that notifying prices paid to producers is in their interest (in particular vis-a-vis their main competitors and commercial contacts). Lack of cooperation between slaughterhouses and the Ministry mainly for commercial reasons. - 20 %direct sales by producer to slaughterhouse, the rest sold mainly via auction markets. „ - Continuing efforts to find volunteer slaughterhouses but little success. SWEDEN - Classification compulsory, producers paid on classification (2. 1001 in 1995). - Direct trade from farm to slaughterhouse (producers favourable). - Classification done by slaughterhouse staff with control by Board of Agriculture. - Classification according to the grid. The Class S is not used. - Presentational difference (removal of kidney and kidney fat) being eliminated by a corrective factor. - The grid is the basis for the carcase trade. Q FINLAND - Classification is compulsory. - Classification done by slaughterhouse staff with control by Ministry. - All sheep classified with no distinction between categories (ewes, lambs, rams). - Presentational difference (removal of kidney and kidney fat) being eliminated by a corrective factor. - Classification of over 90% of all animals with prices paid and reported on them. 1% AUSTRIA - Classification is not compulsory. - Direct marketing of sheep at live markets. - Slaughterhouses small with only 14% of total slaughterings (287,000) going through the 30 slaughterhouses in Austria. - Direct sales between producers and consumers account for; 80 - 90 % of total production. 1+ Annexe 3 Prix selon la grille de classement et selon la qualité type pour 1995 et 1996 et graphiques comparatifs entre les prix selon la grille et selon la qualité type pour 1996. Classification grid and standard quality prices for 1995 and 1996 and comparative graphs between classification grid and standard quality prices for 1996. Preise 1995 und 1996 gemâss Handelsklassenschema und Standardqualitâtspreisen sowie Grafiken zum Vergleich der Preise gemass Handelsklassenschema mit den Preisen der Standardqualitât fur 1996. r* isas. Prix - Prices - Preise D 386. 9 391. 0 388. 6 361. 6 338. 1 388,7 386,1 381. 1 360,5 339. 0 371. 7 378. 5 370,3 349. 8 314. 1 356,4 364,8 364. 7 343. 0 320,6 266,5 272. 0 245. 0 F 511. 7 484,3 398,9 363,1 355. 5 471. 7 457. 3 368. 3 335. 9 348,5 443. 6 420,2 344. 6 325,2 317. 4 369. 8 386. 1 327. 6 302,4 294. 9 330,8 315. 6 IRL 318. 1 333. 9 322. 6 324,6 304,0 272,6 332. 4 317. 7 322. 5 307. 3 303,4 313. 0 319. 0 302. 5 248. 7 278,4 290,4 314. 6 299,8 277. 1 237,8 Fin 291,3 242,2 250,9 229,7 186,3 207. 7 229,3 183,4 145. 3 124,4 188. 6 198,4 168. 6 127. 4 134. 2 130. 6 96. 6 76. 6 43. 1 S 289. 1 428. 7 308,9 402,3 367,1 243. 9 175. 7 303. 1 335. 4 307. 9 207. 6 151. 8 229,0 287,4 279. 6 182. 5 143. 6 115,5 146,6 139. 9 DK 402,0 374,3 339,2 342,9 295,3 302,8 247,2 273. 8 137,4 128. 9 E U R O 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 S 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 P 1 2 3. 4 5 0 SEUROP GB 348. 9 275. 7 311. 8 VW4btO 274,1 319,9 296,7 299. 1 271,8 - 259. 9 290. 8 271. 6 eCU/100 kg IRLN 331. 6 304,3 325,4 322,8 305,3 269. 6 328. 0 326,0 304. 4 281,9 270. 9 323. 5 293. 7 304,8 364,5 421,5 314,1 186,3 289,6 295,3 318,2 0 Qualité typa - Standard quality - Standardqualititt 270,6 358,6 380,2 308,4 186,3 289,6 336,7 310,1 Quantités en % • Quantity in % - Mengein% DK 0. 0 0,6 2,1 0,0 0. 0 0,0 4. 9 19. 9 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 15. 2 38,5 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 11. 7 6. 9 0. 0 '•"* 0. 0 0. 0 0. 1 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 E U R 0 P 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 6 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 0 0. 3 0. 6 1. 2 0,2 0. 1. 0. 7 2. 2 4. 7 0,9 0. 1 3. 4 10,3 27. 1 7. 5 1,3 6. 5 12. 1 16. 0 2. 2 0. 1 2. 1 0. 4 0. 1 0. 0 0. 0 F 0. 0 0. 1 0,2 0. 0 0,0 0. 0 4. 4 17. 2 1. 3 0. 0 0. 3 15. 6 39. 6 3. 9 0. 1 0. 6 2,3 13. 2 0. 9 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0,0 0. 0 0. 0 IRL. FIN 0. 0 0,0 0. 2 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 1. 5 17. 7 3. 4 0. 2 0. 0 8. 9 55,1 3. 1 3,0 0,0 3,3 2. 5 0. 0 0. 0 0. 1 0. 9 0. 0 0,0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0,0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 3 0. 1 0. 0 0. 0 0. 1 6. 2 3. 1 0. 2 0. 0 2,6 51,4 9. 5 0. 6 0. 0 5. 4 17. 1 0. 8 0,0 0. 0 97. 7 S 0. 0 0,0 0,0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0,2 0. 1 0. 0 0. 0 0. 5 23,0 13. 0 0. 9 0. 0 6. 1 43. 6 8. 9 0. 4 0. 0 1. 7 1. 4 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 GB 0. 0 0. 0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0. 0 2. 3 21. 4 7. 1 0. 1 0. 0 6. 4 42. 9 13,0 0,3 0. 0 3,7 2. 9 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0,0 0,0 0,0 IRLN 0,0 0,0 1. 8 0. 2 0. 0 0. 0 1. 5 15. 9 8. 3 0,7 0. 0 6. 1 35. 8 14,0 1. 3 0. 0 2. 1 11. 4 0. 9 0. 0 0,0 0,0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 /fc 1995 Prix - Prices - Preise F IRL S GB ecu/100 kg IRLN 441. 4 431. 0 326. 6 280. 6 351. 2 419. 2 409. 7 313. 7 292. 7 327. 3 388,4 379. 4 280. 8 281. 6 260,2 344. 3 350. 8 260. 3 265. 1 277. 4 320. 1 313. 6 250. 9 277. 2 236. 0 275. 6 280. 7 270. 7 272. 1 255. 4 265. 4 "277,1 250. 9 269,7 224,0 263,3 261. 7 294. 5 218. 4 242. 6 250. 2 226. 9 286. 1 360,0 339,5 295. 0 318. 8 283,8 176,9 95,4 237. 6 276. 2 256. 6 ° 157. 9 93. 2 137. 0 142. 0 108,2 15. 6 327. 8 267. 2 263. 5 253,7 218. 7 267. 0 264,9 262. 5 224,2 247. 6 248. 1 288. 3 280. 4 245. 1 273. 1 270. 3 252. 7 216,9 274. 0 273,0 252. 9 •225. 0 233. 1 262. 8 240,1 216,6 OK 325. 0 319. 1 303,0 300,4 255,5 270,0 229,7 225,2 211. 7 126. 0 100,6 E U R 0 P 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 D 349,6 351. 1 349,3 334. 0 334. 5 349. 1 650. 4 348. 8 336. 1 316. 3 343. 9 340,6 341. 8 327,5 308. 9 338. 4 336. 1 337. 1 323,8 308,5 306,8 312,8 318,2 354. 0 343. 7 0*SEUROP 256,2 343,2 374,5 273,2 277,2 254,4 265,9 0 Qualité type - Standard quality - Standardqualltât 256,4 335,0 328,6 257,1 277,2 284,4 258,2 Quantités en % - Quantity in % - Menge in % DK 0. 0 0. 1 0. 1 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 3. 3 10,4 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 17. 1 38. 3 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 18. 4 12. 1 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 3 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 E U R 0 P 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 D 0. 2 0,7 1. 1 0. 2 0,1 0. 7 2. 0 4. 7 1. 1 0. 4 3. 1 12. 9 26. 3 8. 2 2. 9 4. 1 8. 7 16. 2 3. 8 0. 9 0. 8 0. 8 0. 2 0,0 0. 0 F 0. 0 0. 2 0. 2 0. 0 0,0 0. 1 5. 2 15. 4 1. 3 0. 0 0,8 12,4 40. 5 4. 6 0. 1 0. 6 1. 7- 15. 9 0. 9 0. 0 0. 0 0. 1 0,0 0,0 0. 0 IRL 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0,0 1. 0 16. 5 1. 5 0. 0 0. 0 5. 6 58. 2 1. 1 6,6 0,0 5. 4 3. 8 0. 0 0. 0 0. 1 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 S 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 2 0. 1 0. 0 0. 0 0. 5 23. 0 14. 0 1. 0 0. 0 4. 9 42. 2 11. 1 0. 6 0. 0 1. 2 1. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 GB 0,0 0. 0 0. 0 0,0 0. 0 0. 0 2,8 10. 5 10. 3 0. 0 0. 0 9. 7 39. 9 15. 9 0. 0 0. 0 6. 0 4. 7 0. 2 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 IRLN 0,0 0. 0 1. 3 0. 1 0,0 0. 0 1. 7 18. 6 8. 9 0. 6 0. 0 6. 6 37. 3 12. 0 0. 7 0. 0 1. 8 10. 1 0,2 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 R3 1995 + Dk _. D • F -A-(ri «S • GB _ IrIN _i_i_. 1. J_l_Li_ J J-J_L _. 1_ t_l_. LJ_t. _LJ_l_l_L_Ui_ J_L_L I M 1 I I I 1 I I l_I_. t_J-J. _J- 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 Semaines - Weeks - Wochen 520 t 480 440 400 «> o 360 o g 320 280 240 200 160 520 480 440 400 360 320 280 240 200 160 _ o o O LU 02 1995 + Dk • D *F • Irl • S • GB • IrIN LI I I I l_l-J-J_L 21 Semaines - Weeks - Wochen 26 31 Danmark 1996 Qualité type - Standard quality - Standardqualitat Grille - Grid - Schema 500 CO __ o o D O LU 400 300 200 L_Jl_J_J I—I LLJ. LJ-J. J-J-l—LL—-L_. _LJ I I_LJ. _LJ_. LJ_L1_LL. LJ. J_. J_. J. _Ll. i_l_J_. L_L 6 11 16 21 Semaines - Weeks - Wochen 31 26 36 41 46 51 CO _: o o 3 O LU (s* 500 400 300 200 Deutschland 1996 Qualité type - Standard quality - Standardqualitat Grille - Grid - Schema i ii i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i I I I LL 11 16 26 21 Semaines - Weeks - Wochen 31 36 41 46 51 France 1996 500 400 CO _£ O O D O LU £ 300 h Qualité type - Standard quality - Standardqualitât Grille - Grid - Schema 200 i i i i i i i i i i i i J i i i i i i i i i l_L_LJ_i. J_ _L_ J_ 1_ L J_ - J-J _ J _ L. LL 11 16 21 Semaines - Weeks - Wochen 31 26 36 41 46 ' 51 CO _ o o 3 O LU 500 400 300 200 6 11 16 Ireland 1996 mm Qualité type - Standard quality - Standardqualitât — Grille - Grid - Schema _ J - L J - J -I I I I I I I I I I-I I I I I I I I I J_LLJJ. _LLJ. _L_L 21 Semaines - Weeks - Wochen 31 26 36 41 46 51 Finland/Suomi 1996 Sverige 1996 CO _: o o 3 O LU *4> 500 400 300 200 Qualité type - Standard quality - Standardqualitât Grille - Grid - Schema w *%». ^r^l />r^u. p !'""' \ , *^ £\ ±_l_l_i. ± _ L J - i _. -. L l J. J _ L J — L - L - LJ I I——_l I I I I. I I I I I I J. J. J. J_J_J„. J_ I_L. I _L_L_LJ_ 11 16 21 Semaines - Weeks - Wochen 26 31 36 41 46 51 Great Britain 1996 Qualité type - Standard quality - Standardqualitat Grille - Grid - Schema 500 400 300 CO _: o o 3 O LU N ^ 200 I I l _L I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 16 21 Semaines - Weeks - Wochen 31 26 36 41 46 51 £ co. _ o o 3 o LU 500 400 h 300 200 Northern Ireland 1996 Qualité type - Standard quality - StandardqualitSt Grille - Grid - Schema i i i i i i i i -J _LJ. _LJ_LJ. _l_J_J_L_l_J_L I I I J—L l I I I I J_l I I I 1-L. 11 16 21 Semaines - Weeks - Wochen 26 31 36 41 i 46 51 850 800 750 700 650 co _? 600 o o 550 3 S 500 lu o 450 400 350 300 250 Elias 1996 m Qualité type - Standard quality - Standardqualitât a-i Grille bis - A Grid - Schema a ii i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i 6 11 16 21 Semaines - Weeks - Wochen 26 31 36 41 46 51 Prix - Prices - Preise Qualité type - Standard quality - Standardqualitàt O) _: 1° g 320 UJ 240 200 160 Jan Fév Mars Avril Mai Juin Juil Août Sep Oct Nov Dec 1996 • DK -é-D e Gr *7 E A FIN • F • Irl • S • UK • U. E Prix - Prices - Preise Qualité type - Standard quality - Standardqualitàt 435 O) I 335 D O UJ Vu I •o 5 1 235 o c < 135 l__ Jan Fév Mars Avril _L Mai Juin Juil Août Sep Oct Nov Dec 1995 520 480 440 400 360 O tu 3 0) 320 £ 0) | 3 O 280 240 200 160 • DK *D B Gr * E -h FIN • F • M • S « UK • U. E Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION ŒO amending Regulation (EEC) No 338/91 determining the Community standard quality of fresh or chilled sheep carcasses and Regulation (EEC) No 2137/92 concerning the Community scale for the classification of carcasses of ovine animals and determining the Community standard quality of fresh or chilled sheep carcasses THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3013/89 of 25 September 1989 on the common organization of the market in sheepmeat and goatmeat ', as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1589/96 2, and in particular Article 4 (2) thereof, Having regard to the proposal from the Commission, Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 338/91 of 5 February 1991, determining the Community standard quality of fresh or chilled sheep carcasses 3, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1278/94 4, applies until the end of the 1997 marketing year, pending the setting up of Community carcase classification standards; Whereas sufficient progress has not been made to permit the replacement of the current Community standard quality by the standards in question; whereas the current standard quality should therefore be retained; Whereas in view of the conclusions of the Commission report on the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 2137/92 5, as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1278/94 the goal set itself by the Council of making the use of the Community grid compulsory for all Community slaughterhouses approved for intra-Community trade, if possible during the 1999 marketing year and in any event before 1 January 2000 without prejudice to the possibility of excluding small slaughterhouses situated in regions where the impact on the market price produced by the volume slaughtered in such slaughterhouses is negligible, should no longer be pursued. Whereas in order to facilitate price reporting, Member States should be authorised to subdivide category C in Annex III of Regulation (EEC) No 2137/92 into two subcategories; 1 OJ No L 289, 7. 10. 1989, p. I 2 OJ No L 206, 16. 8. 1996, p. 25 3 OJNoL41, 14. 2. 1991, p. 1 4 OJ No L 140, 3. 6. 1994, p. 5 5 OJ No L 214, 30. 7. 1992, p. 1 2</- VI-D-2 HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION : Article 1 The second subparagraph of Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 338/91 shall be deleted. Article 2 Regulation (EEC) No 2137/92 is hereby amended as follows : 1. The following subparagraph is added to Article 3 (3) "Member States making use of the classification system provided for in Annex III shall be authorized to subdivide category C into two subcategories" 2. Article 9 is deleted. Article 3 This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable to all Member States. Done at Brussels, For the Council 3S FINANCIAL STATEMENT BUDGET HEADING: B1 -2220 APPROPRIATIONS: ECU 1 656. 4m TITLE: Council Regulation amending Reg. 338/91 determining the Community standard quality of fresh or chilled sheep carcases and Reg. 2137/92 concerning the Community scale for the classification of carcases of ovine animals and the Community standard quality of fresh or chilled sheep carcases DATE: 9. 4. 1997 LEGAL BASIS: Art. 4 of Council Reg. 3013/89 AIMS - To extend the definition of Community standard quality - To repeal Art. 9 of Reg. 2137/92 (compulsory application of Community scale) - To adapt the use of Annex m to Reg. 2137/92 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS (in ECU million) PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR (97) FOLLOWING FINANCIAL YEAR (98) 5. 0. 5. 1. EXPENDITURE CHARGED TO: -EC BUDGET (REFUNDS/INTERVENTION) - NATIONAL AUTHORITIES -OTHSR REVENUE - OWN RESOURCES OF THE EC - (LEVIES/CUSTOMS DUTIES) -NATIONAL 5. 0. 1. ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE 5. 1. 1. ESTIMATED REVENUE 1999 2000 2001 2002 5. 2. 6. 0. 6. 1. METHOD OF CALCULATION: CAN THE PROJECT BE FINANCED FROM APPROPRIATIONS ENTERED IN THE RELEVANT CHAPTER OF THE CURRENT BUDGET? YES/NO CAN THE PROJECT BE FINANCED BY TRANSFER BETWEEN CHAPTERS OF THE CURRENT YES/NO BUDGET? 6. 2. IS A SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET NECESSARY? 6. 3. WILL FUTURE BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS BE NECESSARY? YES/NO YES/NO OBSERVATIONS: 34 ISSN 0254-1475 COM(97) 250 final DOCUMENTS EN 03 Catalogue number : CB-CO-97-239-EN-C ISBN 92-78-20153-7 Office for Official Publications of the European Communities L-2985 Luxembourg if


title: Arbeitnehmervertreter in Europa und ihre Befugnisse im Unternehmen.

eurovoc_concepts:
EU Member State
economic rights


title: WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1866/97 by Johannes SWOBODA to the Council. Planned meeting schedule for the discussion on the ban of landmines

eurovoc_concepts:
arms limitation
common foreign and security policy
disarmament
explosive
international agreement
joint action

formats: html pdf print

text: 11. 3. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 76/61 Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (16 July 1997) The Commission agrees that the incidence of irregularities in the management of the structural funds in the Member States is too high. However, all errors discovered are corrected. Moreover, in the great majority of cases, as the Commission has made clear in its replies to the Court of auditors(cid:146) reports, the advance payments made by the Commission to the Member States are nevertheless correct and do not need to be adjusted. This is because the Member States(cid:146) payment requests are usually for a sum large enough, even after deduction of any ineligible expenditure because of irregularities, to trigger the advance payment made. If, after deduction of known ineligible expenditure, the net amount does not allow payment of the advance requested, the Member State is invited to present a new claim based on eligible expenditure. The question of recovery does not therefore immediately arise. But if, at the closure of the programmes, the Community contributions are higher than the amounts justified by the final expenditure figures declared by the Member State, the Commission makes the necessary recoveries. One of the important objectives of stage III of the SEM 2000 initiative is to address the problem of errors and irregularities in structural fund management. In this context the Commission adopted on 23 April 1997 decisions (1) clarifying the rules on eligibility of expenditure. It also intends to adopt in the near future a regulation specifying minimum standards for financial control of structural funds operations by the Member States, together with internal guidelines on the circumstances in which, in case of irregularity, it would be appropriate for the Commission to reduce its contribution under the funds to a given programme. (1) OJ L 146, 5. 6. 1997. (98/C 76/144) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1866/97 by Johannes Swoboda (PSE) to the Council (30 May 1997) Subject: Planned meeting schedule for the discussion on the ban of landmines What meetings will take place between May and December 1997 to determine the Council(cid:146)s position on the ban of landmines as the issue is discussed in the Campaign for Disarmament and the Ottawa Process? Answer (25 September 1997) As the Honourable Member will be aware, the framework for the Council(cid:146)s position on anti-personnel landmines (APL) is determined by the joint action on APL which it adopted on 1 October 1996. At the heart of this joint action is the expression of the European Union(cid:146)s commitment to the goal of the total elimination of APL and to working actively towards the achievement at the earliest possible date of an effective international agreement to ban these weapons worldwide. Since adoption of the joint action, the EU has actively pursued its implementation. At the International Conference in Brussels on achieving a complete ban on anti-personnel landmines, held from 24 to 27 June 1997 which was attended by a European Parliament delegation, the Council Presidency gave a presentation of the EU(cid:146)s follow-up to the joint action. At Working Group level, the issue of APL is handled by the CFSP Working Group on Global Disarmament and Arms Control, which covers all disarmament issues dealt with in multilateral fora. The Working Group generally meets at least four times per Presidency. Since May 1997, it has discussed APL at three meetings, in mid-May, early June and in July. Other meetings are scheduled for September and November. Additional meetings will be scheduled as the need arises, either in Brussels or in the margins of sessions of international disarmament fora


title: WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1854/97 by Joaquín SISÓ CRUELLAS to the Commission. Subsidy for the Instituto Ramón J. Sender, Fraga, Spain

eurovoc_concepts:
EU aid
Italy
Spain
competence of the Member States
cultural relations
decentralisation
medieval history
research project
travel
university

formats: html print


title: WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1858/97 by Roberta ANGELILLI to the Commission. Agreement between Alitalia S.p.A. and the taxi services cooperative '3570'

eurovoc_concepts:
EU control
Italy
Latium
air transport
application of EU law
award of contract
invitation to tender
public contract
taxi
trade agreement

text: C 60/58 SV Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning 25. 2. 98 Na¤r det ga¤ller p(cid:229)fo¤ljder (sjunde och (cid:229)ttonde delfr(cid:229)gan), vill kommissionen framh(cid:229)lla att ett flertal p(cid:229)fo¤ljder finns, b(cid:229)de administrativa och straffra¤ttsliga, och att det (cid:229)ligger medlemsstaterna att utdo¤ma dessa. Som ett exempel kan na¤mnas fo¤rordning (EEG) nr 2677/85 (3), da¤r medlemsstaterna vad ga¤ller konsumtionssto¤d och beroende p(cid:229) o¤vertra¤delsens allvarlighet, kan utdo¤ma fo¤ljande p(cid:229)fo¤ljder: (cid:150) Betalning av ett belopp mellan 3 och 8 g(cid:229)nger det sto¤d som oegentligt anso¤kts om. (cid:150) Indragning av godka¤nnande fo¤r en tid av 1 till 3 (cid:229)r om den kvantitet fo¤r vilken sto¤d oegentligt so¤kts utgo¤r minst 20 % av den totala kvantitet som a¤r fo¤rem(cid:229)l fo¤r kontroll och som sto¤d har beviljats fo¤r. Kommissionen vill slutligen understryka att den inte regelbundet erh(cid:229)ller information om p(cid:229)fo¤ljder som utdo¤mts av medlemsstaternas myndigheter. (1) EGT C 373, 9. 12. 1997, s. 57. (2) KOM (97) 57 slutlig. (3) EGT L 254, 25. 9. 1985, senast a¤ndrad genom fo¤rordning (EG) nr 887/96, EGT nr L 119, 16. 5. 1996. (98/C 60/88) SKRIFTLIG FR¯GA E-1850/97 fr(cid:229)n Daniela Raschhofer (NI) till kommissionen (30 maj 1997) A¤mne: EU-bidrag till Fo¤renade kungarikets whiskyindustri Hur motiverar kommissionen beviljandet av 40 miljoner ecu per (cid:229)r i EU-bidrag till Fo¤renade kungarikets stora whiskyindustri? Beviljades bidrag a¤ven fo¤r 1996? Om ja, hur stort var detta? Svar fr(cid:229)n Franz Fischler p(cid:229) kommissionens va¤gnar (8 juli 1997) I fo¤rordning (EEG) nr 1766/92 av den 30 juni 1992 om den gemensamma organisationen av marknaden fo¤r spannm(cid:229)l (1), fo¤reskrivs ett beviljande av exportbidrag fo¤r spannm(cid:229)l, obearbetad eller i form av varor som inte omfattas av bilaga II till EG-fo¤rdraget. Dessa bidrag ta¤cker prisskillnaden mellan spannm(cid:229)l p(cid:229) gemenskaps- marknaden och p(cid:229) va¤rldsmarknaden. I no¤dva¤ndig omfattning och fo¤r att kunna ta ha¤nsyn till de speciella fo¤rutsa¤ttningarna fo¤r tillverkning av alkoholhaltiga drycker som framsta¤lls av spannm(cid:229)l, och som kra¤ver en l(cid:229)ng lagringstid, har villkoren fo¤r beviljande av sto¤d anpassats i enlighet ha¤rmed. I kommissionens fo¤rordning (EEG) nr 2825/93 faststa¤lls tilla¤mpningsfo¤reskrifter fo¤r r(cid:229)dets fo¤rordning nr 1766/92 vad betra¤ffar faststa¤llande och beviljande av de anpassade bidragen fo¤r spannm(cid:229)l som exporteras i form av vissa alkoholhaltiga drycker. (2) De bidrag som beviljats fo¤r export av korn i form av whisky som tillverkats i Fo¤renade kungariket, Irland och Spanien har minskat kraftigt och uppgick 1996 till 8,27 miljoner ecu. (1) EGT L 181, 1. 7. 1992 (2) EGT L 258, 16. 12. 1993 (98/C 60/89) SKRIFTLIG FR¯GA E-1858/97 fr(cid:229)n Roberta Angelilli (NI) till kommissionen (30 maj 1997) A¤mne: Avtal mellan Alitalia och taxibolaget (cid:148)3570(cid:148) Alitalia SpA:s administrationskontor vid flygplatsen i Fiumicino har ing(cid:229)tt ett avtal med taxibolaget (cid:148)3570(cid:148) om transport av passagerare fr(cid:229)n deras bosta¤der till flygplatsen Leonardo da Vinci i Fiumicino


title: WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1861/97 by Carlos PIMENTA to the Council. Entrance to medical specializations in the European Union

eurovoc_concepts:
EU Member State
European language
administrative formalities
language teaching
medical specialisation
recognition of diplomas
vocational training

text: 17. 3. 98 FI Euroopan yhteiso¤jen virallinen lehti C 82/17 (98/C 82/23) KIRJALLINEN KYSYMYS E-1821/97 neuvostolle esitta¤ja¤(t): Jesu·s Cabezo·n Alonso (PSE) (29. toukokuuta 1997) Aihe: Espanjan valtion omistuksessa olevien telakoiden toiminta Komissio ilmoitti Espanjan hallitukselle pa¤a¤to¤ksesta¤a¤n laajentaa ajallisesti menettelya¤, jolla valtion omistuksessa oleville telakoille myo¤nneta¤a¤n tukia. (1) Lisa¤tietoja Espanjan viranomaisilta odottaessaan komissio tuntuu hyva¤ksyva¤n sen, etta¤ ASTANDER (Santaderin telakka) lopettaa laivanrakennuksen, mutta jatkaa (cid:148)korjaus- ja muunnosto¤ita¤(cid:148). Mita¤ perusteluita Espanjan hallitus on voinut esitta¤a¤ sille, etta¤ ASTENDERin ei ena¤a¤ sallittaisi jatkaa (cid:148)muunnosto¤ita¤(cid:148)? Onko Euroopan unionin ministerineuvosto hyva¤ksynyt jonkin asiaa koskevan pysyva¤n pa¤a¤to¤ksen? (1) EYVL C 53, 22. 2. 1997, s. 3. Vastaus (28. lokakuuta 1997) Neuvoston (teollisuus) 24. huhtikuuta 1997 pidetyssa¤ istunnossa pa¤a¤stiin osana kokonaisratkaisua poliittiseen yhteisymma¤rrykseen › laivanrakennusteollisuuden tulevaisuutta koskevista pa¤a¤telmista¤ ja › ehdotuksesta asetukseksi tietyille rakenneuudistuksen alaisille telakoille myo¤nnetta¤va¤sta tuesta, jota on tarkoitus myo¤nta¤a¤ era¤ille Saksan, Espanjan ja Kreikan telakoille. Neuvosto antoi virallisesti asetuksen 2. kesa¤kuuta 1997 pidetyssa¤ istunnossaan (1). Espanjan osalta edellyteta¤a¤n muun muassa, etta¤ Astanderin telakalla ei tehda¤ muunnosto¤ita¤ niin kauan kuin se pysyy valtion omistuksessa. (1) EYVL L 148, 6. 6. 1997, s. 1. (98/C 82/24) KIRJALLINEN KYSYMYS E-1861/97 neuvostolle esitta¤ja¤(t): Carlos Pimenta (PPE) (30. toukokuuta 1997) Aihe: Pa¤a¤sy la¤a¤ketieteen erikoistumiskoulutukseen Euroopassa Mita¤ hallinnollisia vaatimuksia la¤a¤ketieteen kandidaattien on ta¤ytetta¤va¤ pa¤a¤sta¤kseen alan erikoistumiskoulutuk- seen (esimerkiksi kirurgian) eri Euroopan unionin ja¤senvaltioissa, erityisesti onko pa¤a¤sykokeen yhteydessa¤ suoritettava kunkin maan kielen koe? Vastaus (16. lokakuuta 1997) Direktiivissa¤ N:o 93/16/ETY sa¤a¤deta¤a¤n, etta¤: › › ja¤senvaltioiden on tunnustettava kunkin muun ja¤senvaltion kansalaisaten la¤a¤ka¤rin tutkintotodistukset (sellaisina kuin ne on lueteltu 3 artiklassa), jotka on hankittu sa¤a¤nno¤nmukaisella tavalla (direktiivin 23 artiklan mukaisesti), siten, etta¤ heille annetaan sama oikeus la¤a¤ka¤rintoimen aloittamiseen ja sen harjoitta- miseen kuin valtion omille kansalaisille, joilla on siella¤ annettu tutkintotodistus (2 artikla), jos ja¤senvaltioiden kansalaiset haluavat saada erikoisla¤a¤ka¤rin muodollista kelpoisuutta osoittavan asiakirjan, jota ei anneta siina¤ ja¤senvaltiossa, josta kansalainen on pera¤isin, heida¤n on ta¤ytetta¤va¤ kyseista¤ erikoisalaa koskevat kansalliset koulutusvaatimukset (8 artikla)


title: SCHRIFTELIJKE VRAAG nr. 1990/97 van Caroline JACKSON aan de Commissie. Informatie over de steunverlening van de EG aan het graafschap Wiltshire sinds 1994 (AANVULLEND ANTWOORD)

eurovoc_concepts:
EAGGF
EU financing
EU programme
EU research policy
European Social Fund
South East (England)
environmental protection

text: C 117/4 NL Publicatieblad van de Europese Gemeenschappen 16. 4. 98 Een groot gedeelte van het bedrag voor Spanje bijvoorbeeld, komt voor rekening van het Puertollano IGCC-project waarvoor de steun van meer dan 50 miljoen ecu in wisselende bedragen verdeeld is onder verschillende andere landen. De productiekosten voor ondergronds gewonnen steenkool in de lidstaten die deze industrie nog hebben, zijn als volgt: Duitsland Spanje Frankrijk Verenigd Koninkrijk ecu/ton steenkool 159 133 126 43 (98/C 117/04) SCHRIFTELIJKE VRAAG P-1990/97 van Caroline Jackson (PPE) aan de Commissie (30 mei 1997) Betreft: Informatie over de steunverlening van de EG aan het graafschap Wiltshire sinds 1994 Kan de Commissie mededelen hoeveel steun de Gemeenschap sinds 1994 aan het graafschap Wiltshire, in het Verenigd Koninkrijk, heeft verleend in het kader van: 1. het Europees Sociaal Fonds 2. het Vierde Kaderprogramma voor onderzoek 3. communautaire programma(cid:146)s op het gebied van milieu en energie 4. het EOGFL, afdelingen Orie¤ntatie en Garantie 5. andere communautaire programma(cid:146)s? Aanvullend antwoord van de heer Santer namens de Commissie (17 oktober 1997) Gezien de lengte zendt de Commissie haar antwoord rechtstreeks naar het geachte Parlementslid en naar het Secretariaat-generaal van het Parlement. Aangezien het geachte Parlementslid heeft aangegeven dat het om een vraag met voorrang gaat, wenst de Commissie erop te wijzen dat vragen met voorrang volgens het Reglement van het Parlement vragen zijn die (cid:132)een onmiddellijke beantwoording maar geen grondig onderzoek vergen(cid:148). (98/C 117/05) SCHRIFTELIJKE VRAAG E-2020/97 van In(cid:152) igo Me·ndez de Vigo (PPE) aan de Raad (18 juni 1997) Betreft: Cohesiefonds De fungerend voorzitter van de Raad heeft op 14 mei 1997 in zijn toespraak tot de plenaire vergadering van het Europees Parlement meegedeeld dat op dit moment geen standpunt kan worden ingenomen over de continu(cid:14)¤teit van het cohesiefonds in de financie¤le vooruitzichten na 1999


title: Proposal for a Council Directive on registration documents for motor vehicles and their trailers

eurovoc_concepts:
commercial vehicle
harmonisation of standards
motor vehicle
police checks
vehicle registration

formats: html pdf pdfa1b print

text: COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 30. 05. 1997 COM(97) 248 final 97/0150 (SYN) Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE on registration documents for motor vehicles and their trailers (presented by the Commission) EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM A. Current situation 1. Registration documents for motor vehicles and their trailers are drawn up by the Member States and currently differ widely from one Member State to another. In particular those differences concern the number of documents issued, their presentation and their content. At international level the only provisions relating to these documents were drawn up by the Vienna Convention on road traffic1. The aim of that Convention is to "facilitate international road traffic and improve road safety via the adoption of uniform traffic rules". Article 35 provides for the minimum content of the registration certificate which the driver of a vehicle must bear in order to engage in international travel. Even though the registration certificates issued by the Member States contain most of the basic international-travel information required by that Convention, the provision set out in Amendment 1, which took effect on 3 September 1993, whereby that information is identified by means of an alphabetical code, is not implemented by a significant majority of the Member States. It must be noted in this connection that Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Luxembourg and Sweden are Contracting Parties of this Convention, whereas Italy, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom have signed but not ratified it, and the Community is not a signatory thereto. Therefore, since (a) the 1968 Vienna Convention only provides for a minimum amount of information to be set out on the certificate and (b) the alphabetical codes provided for by the Convention itself are not used by all of the Member States, it is appropriate to provide for harmonized rules at Community level in l Convention on road traffic, signed in Vienna on 8 November 1968, including amendments taking effect on 3 September 1993. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. respect of the information which the registration certificate is to contain. The provisions of that proposal will apply to the relations between those Member States who have signed the Convention. However, even if there are differences between the obligations deriving from the Convention and the obligations deriving from the proposal, it should be noted that the provisions of the Convention only provide for the minimum amount of information that is to be entered in that registration certificate. The Commission therefore feels that the provisions of the proposal constitute further, additional data to the minimum provided for by the Convention. 2. The first problem raised where registration documents are not harmonized is the difficulty in understanding those documents which emerges when a vehicle travels on the roads in a Member State other than that of its registration. Indeed, as a prerequisite for allowing a vehicle to travel on the roads on their territory, all of the Member States require the driver of a vehicle registered in another Member State to hold the corresponding registration certification. For the relevant authorities in the Member States the inspection of non-harmonized registration certificates that have been issued in various languages is currently very complex. The second problem arising is that under road traffic conditions, it is not always possible to check that Directive 91/439/EEC on driving licences2 has been implemented. In order to be able to check whether the holder of a driving licence that has been issued as required by that Directive is only driving the types of vehicles thereby permitted, the registration certificate must also contain other information such as engine capacity, power, power to weight ratio, number of seats,. The various registration documents used in the Member States do not always contain that information. The third problem raised arises from the fact that, in addition to their use on the roads, the registration documents are also used when a vehicle is registered in another Member State. 2 OJ No L 237, 24. 8. 1991, p. 1. The requirement that the information to be set out in the registration document should be harmonized thus enables (a) travel by road within the Community to be made easier and (b) the movement of vehicles to be made easier where a vehicle that had been previously registered in one Member State of the Community has to be registered in another Member State following a change in residence of the holder, or a transfer of the vehicle to a national of a Member State other than that of registration. The existence of a harmonized document within the Community enables vehicle registration procedures to be made easier, especially since those procedures consist of checking the documents issued by the relevant authorities in a Community Member State in order to examine the characteristics of the vehicle. 3 Where a vehicle is registered in another Member State, the fourth question raised concerns the difficulty in checking the rightful ownership of the vehicle. For this reason certain Member States issue separate registration documents for use on the roads or for registration purposes. When a vehicle is registered in another Member State the issue of several registration documents or a two-part registration certificate makes it easier to check rightful ownership, more particularly where the applicant is not the holder of the registration certificate. The issue of two registration documents of which one is exclusively reserved for all new registrations is the system used in Germany and the Netherlands, while Belgium is currently examining the option of issuing a registration certificate in two separate parts. 3. As far as the use of the registration certificate solely for non-foreign travel is concerned, certain Member States (Denmark, Sweden and the United Kingdom) do not require vehicle drivers to carry the corresponding registration certificate with them. In practical terms the relevant national authorities in those Member States use a system enabling them to have access, during roadside checks, to the 3 Interpretative Commission Communication No 96/C143/04 on the procedures for the approval and registration of vehicles having previously been registered in another Member State (OJ No C 143, 15. 5. 1996, p. 4). national registration database which, inter alia, contains all of the information set out in the registration certificate. In this case the use of the registration certificate is restricted to driving on the roads of the other Member States, or to reregistering. Indeed, the Commission feels that in those Member States where there is provision for accessing the national registration database, this also enables the Directive 91/439/EEC checks to be carried out and that therefore these States may restrict themselves to issuing the registration certificate in the form of only one of the parts provided for by the Annex. B. Aims of the proposal for a directive The proposal for a directive harmonizes the documents issued by the Member States when motor vehicles and their trailers are registered. The aim of that harmonization is to: • make it easier to use vehicles registered in one Member State on the roads of the other «Member States by making it simpler for the relevant national authorities to check registration certificates; • to enable the implementation of Directive 91/439/EEC on driving licences to be verified by means of roadside checks; • to improve the functioning of the internal market by making it easier to understand the registration documents where a vehicle has been registered in another Member State; • to improve the functioning of the internal market by making it easier to check the rightful ownership of a vehicle where this has been registered in another Member State. C. Justification with regard to the principle of subsidiarity (a) What are the aims of the action contemplated as compared with the Community's obligations? Harmonization of the registration documents for motor vehicles and their trailers is intended to make travel by road easier within the Community, to boost road safety and to improve the functioning of the internal market. (b) Does the intended action fall exclusively within the powers of the Community or of powers shared with the Member States? Shared powers Article 75(1) d). (C) What is the Community extent of the problem (for example how many States are involved and what solution has been supplied so far)? All of the Member States are involved. The registration certificates currently issued by the Member States do not in all cases permit: • easy roadside checking of their content in a Member State other than that of registration; • roadside checking of compliance with Directive 91/439/EEC on driving licences; • easy comprehension of their content where a vehicle is registered in another Member State; • checking of the rightful ownership of a vehicle that has been registered in another Member State. (d) What is the most effective option as compared with the Commission's resources and those of the Member States? Action at Community level is essential in order to guarantee that registration certificates are hamonized throughout the Member States, more particularly as regards the use of the alphabetic code to identify the basic information. It is also essential in order to guarantee that the registration certificates issued by the Member States contain the basic information that is essential for being able to conduct roadside checks on compliance with Directive 91/439/EEC on driving licences. (e) What would be the practical contribution of the intended Community action and what would be the cost of inaction? For the Community this proposal would provide the registration documents with the further clarity needed during journeys in another Member State and which, in addition, would make it easier to register vehicles that had previously been registered in another Member State. That proposal would enable it to be guaranteed that registration documents contained the minimum of information that is essential in road traffic. If there were no action the existence of differing, inadequately harmonized registration documents could not enable it to be guaranteed that those documents contained all of the essential basic information and that this was provided with the minimum of clarity needed for their comprehension both in road traffic and in order to register a vehicle in another Member State. (f) What forms of action are open to the Community (recommendation, financial support, regulation, mutual recognition,. )? A directive is considered to be the best means of harmonizing the registration documents issued by Member States in order to restrict that harmonization to the basic essential information while enabling the Member States to add any other information that they consider necessary. A regulation would not allow that approach to be maintained. A recommendation would seem to be inadequate since it is not legally binding. In itself financial assistance would not enable the problems linked with the lack of document harmonization to be solved. (g) Are uniform regulations necessary or is it sufficient for a directive to set general aims and transfer their implementation to the Member States? The Commission's aim is to harmonize registration certificates by providing the information needed for the roadside checking of compliance with Directive 91/439/EEC on driving licences while providing for the issue of a second part of the registration certificate that is needed in order to register a vehicle in another Member State. D. Consistency with other Community policies or activities Since the registration certificate and/or other documents issued when a vehicle is registered are required in order to be able to register a vehicle that has previously been registered in another Member State, harmonization of the registration documents would make it easier for the national administrations to register vehicles and thus the internal market for vehicles to function. E. Content of the proposal Article. 1 determines the scope of this proposal. Article 2 defines the following terms: - motor vehicle - trailer - registration - registration certificate. The definitions of motor vehicle and trailer are in line with the definitions used in Community law on the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers i. e. Directive 70/156/EEC as amended by Directive 92/53/EEC, and Directive 92/61/EEC. Article 3(1) provides for the issue of a two-part registration certificate. Article 3(2) gives those Member States in which it is possible to access a national data base during roadside checks the option solely of issuing the registration document in Part I. Indeed, since this is a system which enables compliance to be ensured with Directive 91/439/EEC, the issue of just one part of the registration certificate is only justified for road journeys in other Member States. Article 3(3) is intended to guarantee that documents issued by one Member State are returned to that State if a vehicle is registered in another Member State. Article 4 establishes the principle of mutual recognition of registration certificates. Article 5(1) enables the Member States to require the first part of the registration certificate where a vehicle is used on the roads. Article 5(2) guarantees that the second part of the registration certificate is needed where a vehicle is reregistered, provided that the preceding registration certificate is in two parts. Article 6 and 7 provide that a Committee shall. adapt the annexes to technical progress, i. e. the provisions concerning the registration certificate. Articles 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 contain provisions concerning the transposition of this Directive into the national laws. Annex I contains the provisions concerning the content of the first part of the registration certificate: 1. maximum dimensions; 2. minimum anti-tampering protection; 3. the option of issuing documents with several pages; 4. the common form taken by the document in order to make it easier to identify this as a Part-I registration certificate, a form which also includes the document number in order likewise to facilitate the exchange of information between the Member States; 5. the minimum mandatory amount of information contained in Part I of the registration certificate, identified by a common code, and which contains the data required by the Vienna Convention (A-H), the date of registration (I), the type-approval number (M) and the information that is essential for roadside checks on the implementation of Directive 91/439/EEC on driving licences; 6. the optional information which nevertheless must be identified by a common code; 7. the optional information not identified by a common code. Annex II contains provisions concerning the content of the second part of the registration certificate: 1. maximum dimensions; 2. minimum anti-tampering protection; 3. the option of issuing documents with several pages; 4. the common form taken by the document in order to make it easier to identify this as a Part-II registration certificate, a form which also includes the document number in order likewise to facilitate the exchange of information between the Member States; 5. the minimum mandatory amount of information contained in Part II of the registration certificate, identified by a common code, and identical to that in Part I of the registration, certificate, and which includes the data that are intended to identify the vehicle, its type-approval and its registration; 6. the optional information which nevertheless must be identified by a common code. 7. the optional information not identified by a common code. 10 PROPOSAL FOR A COUNCIL DIRECTIVE on the registration documents for motor vehicles and their trailers THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 75. 1(d) thereof, Having regard to the proposal from the Commission;4 Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 189c of the Treaty, in cooperation with the European Parliament;5 Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee;6 Whereas the Community has adopted a certain number of measures that are intended to create an internal market consisting of an area without frontiers within which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capitals is guaranteed in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty; Whereas, as a necessary condition for permission to use the roads on their territory, all of the Member States shall require drivers of vehicles registered in another Member State to hold the corresponding certificate of registration; Whereas harmonization of the form and content of the registration certificate will facilitate its comprehension and thus help towards the free movement, on the roads in the other Member States, of vehicles registered in a Member State; 11 Whereas the content of the registration certificate must enable it to be checked that the holder of a driving licence issued in pursuance of Directive 91/439/EEC on driving licences;7 solely drives those categories of vehicles for which he is authorized, and thus helps to improve road safety; Whereas, as a necessary prerequisite for registering a vehicle that has previously been registered in another Member State, all of the Member States require the documents certifying that registration and the technical conformity of the vehicle; Whereas harmonization of the presentation of the contents of the registration certificate will facilitate the registration of vehicles that have previously been registered in another Member State, and will contribute to the proper functioning of the Internal Market; Whereas issuing a registration certificate in two parts, of which the second is exclusively used in order to register a vehicle, will make it easier to check the rightful ownership of a vehicle, and will thus help to improve the functioning of the Internal Market; Whereas certain Member States operate a system of roadside checks that are based on direct access to the national registration data base which does not make it essential, for the purposes of ensuring, inter alia, compliance with Directive 91/439/EEC on driving licences, that the driver of a vehicle registered in that Member State shall carry the registration certificate on board the vehicle; whereas therefore the issue of a registration certificate in those Member States may be restricted to just one of the two parts of which the certificate consists; 7 OJL 237, 24. 8. 1991, p. 1. 12 HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE: Article 1 This Directive shall apply to the documents issued by the Member States at the time of registration of motor vehicles and their trailers, as defined in Article 2. Article 2 For the purposes of this Directive: "motor vehicle": means any. power-driven vehicle as defined in Article 1 and in Annex II A to Directive 70/156/EEC, as amended,8 and in Article 1 of Directive 92/61/EEC. "trailer": means a non-self-propelled vehicle which is designed and constructed to be towed by a motor vehicle "registration": means the issuing to a vehicle by the competent authorities of a Member State of a serial number, to be known as the registration number, that is intended to identify a vehicle and its holder in road traffic. "registration certificate": means the document which certifies that the vehicle is registered in a Member State. 8 Directive 92/53/EEC of 18. 6. 1992, OJ No L 225, 10. 8. 1992, p. 1 13 Article 3 (1) At the time of registration of a motor vehicle or a trailer Member States shall issue a registration certificate consisting of two parts in accordance with the models set out in Annexes I and II. (2) Member States may issue a registration certificate consisting solely of part I of the model set out in Annex I where vehicles are used on their national territory, if, in the event of a roadside check, they have in their possession a system of access to the registry of vehicles. (3) Where a motor vehicle or a trailer previously registered in one Member State is reregistered in another Member State, the competent authorities in that Member State shall return the registration certificate to the authorities in the Member State in which it was issued. Article 4 For the purposes of this Directive, the registration certificate issued by a Member State shall be recognised by the other Member States. Article 5 (1) For the purposes of identifying a vehicle and its holder in road traffic, Member States may require that the driver of a vehicle carries part I of the corresponding registration certificate. (2) At the time of registration of a vehicle previously registered in another Member State, Member States shall require that the holder of a registration certificate submits both part I and part II of the registration certificate, if both parts were issued in the Member State of registration. 14 Article 6 Any amendments necessary in order to adapt the annexes to technical progress shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 7. Article 7 (1) The Commission shall be assisted by the Committee provided for in Council Directive 96/. /EC for the purpose of amending Directive-91/439/EEC on driving licences, hereinafter referred to as "the Committee", which shall consist of representatives of the Member States with a representative of the Commission as Chairman. (2) The representative of the Commission shall submit to the Committee a draft of the measures to be taken. The Committee shall deliver its opinion on the draft within a time limit which the Chairman may lay down according to the urgency of the matter. The opinion shall be delivered by the majority laid down in Article 148, paragraph 2, of the Treaty in the case of decisions which the Council is required to adopt on a proposal from the Commission. The votes of the representatives of the Member States within the Committee shall be weighted in the manner set out in that Article. The Chairman shall not vote. (3) The Commission shall adopt measures which apply immediately. However, if these measures are not in accordance with the opinion of the Committee, they shall be communicated by the Commission to the Council forthwith. (4) In that event, the Commission shall defer application of the measures which it has decided to adopt for a period to be laid down in each instrument adopted by the Council, but which may in no case exceed three months from the date of communication. The Council, acting by a qualified majority, may take a different decision within the time limit referred to in the previous paragraph. 15 Article 8 (1) After consulting the Commission, Member States shall, before [1 July 1998/, adopt the laws, regulations or administration provisions necessary to comply with this Directive as from [1 July 1999]. (2) When Member States adopt these measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such a reference shall be laid down by the Member States. (3) The Member States shall communicate to the Commission the texts of the provisions of national law which they adopt in the field governed by this Directive, and the models for registration certificates adopted in conformity with the provisions of Annexes I and II. Article 9 Member States shall lay down the system of penalties for breaching the national provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive and shall take all the measures necessary to ensure that those penalties are applied. The penalties thus provided for shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Member States shall notify the Commission of the relevant provisions not later than [1 July 1998] and shall notify any subsequent changes as soon as possible. Article 10 The Member States shall assist one another in the implementation of this Directive and shall, if need be, exchange information on the registration certificates that they have issued. 16 Article 11 This Directive shall enter into force on the day following its publication. Article 12 This Directive is addressed to the Member States. Done at Brussels, ANNEX I PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE PARTI (1) The overall dimensions of part I of the registration certificate shall not be greater than an A4 format (210 x 297 mm). (2) The paper used for part I of the registration certificate shall be made secure by using at least two of the following techniques: - graphics; - watermark; - - fluorescent fibres; or fluorescent imprints. (3) Part I of the registration certificate may consist of several pages. Member States shall determine the number of pages in accordance with the information contained in the document and its layout. (4) The first page of part I of the registration certificate shall contain: - the name of the Member State issuing part I of the registration certificate; - the distinguishing mark of the Member State issuing part 1 of the registration certificate, those marks shall be as follows: B Belgium DK Denmark I L Italy Luxembourg D Germany NL Netherlands GR Greece P Portugal E Spain A Austria 18 F France FIN Finland IRL Ireland S Sweden UK United Kingdom - the name of the competent authority; - the words "Part I of the Registration Certificate", printed in large type in the language or languages of the Member States issuing the registration certificate; they shall also appear, after a suitable space, in small type, in the other languages of the European Community; - the words "European Community", printed in the language or languages of the Member State issuing part I of the registration certificate; - the number of the document. V. Part I of the registration certificate shall also contain the following data, identified by the corresponding code: A - registration number B - date of first registration C - holder of the registration certificate: CI - surname C2 - other names C3 - address in the Member State of registration on the date of issue of the document D - vehicle: Dl - manufacturer/trade name D2 - commercial name 19 E - vehicle identification number F - maximum laden mass: Fl - technically permissible mass (in kg) except for motorcycles G - mass of the vehicle with bodywork, and with coupling device in the case of a towing vehicle, in running order (in kg) H - validity of the registration, if not unlimited I - date of registration M - type-approval number R - engine Rl - capacity (in cm3) for motorcycles R2 - maximum net power (in kW) for motorcycles S - power/weight ratio (in kW/kg): R2/G for motorcycles U - number of seats, including the driver VI. Part I of the registration certificate may, moreover, contain the following data, identified by the corresponding code: F - maximum laden mass: F2 - of the vehicle in service in the Member State of registration (in kg) F3 - of the combination in service in the Member State of registration (in kg) 20 J - owner or keeper of the vehicle: Jl - surname J2 - other names J3 - address in the Member State of registration, on the date of issue of the document L - veidcle category M - type-approval number N - number of axles O - wheelbase (in mm) P - distribution of technically-permissible maximum laden mass among the axles: P I- axle 1 (in kg) P2 - axle 2 (in kg) P3 - axle 3 (in kg) Q - technically permissible maximum towable mass of the trailer: Ql - braked (in kg) Q2 - unbraked (in kg) R - engine: Rl - maximum capacity (in cm3) R2 - maximum net power (in kW) rated speed (in minl) R3 - R4 - fuel T - colour of the vehicle 21 V - maximum speed (in km/h) W - sound level: Wl - stationary (in dB(A)) W2 - engine speed (in min"1) W3- drive-by (in dB(A)) X - exhaust emissions: XI - CO (in g/km or g/kWh) X 2- HC(ing/kmorg/kWh) X3 - NOx (in g/km or g/kWh) X4-HC + NOx(ing/km) X5 - particulates for diesel (in g/km or g/kWh) X6 - corrected absorption coefficient for diesel (in m"1) X7 - C02 (in g/km) X8 - combined fuel consumption (in 1/100 km) •' • Y - fuel tank(s) capacity (in 1). VII. Member States may include additional information on the registration certificate part I, only if this information is either stated on the type-approval documentation in accordance with Directive 70/156/EEC or can be derived from it by simple calculation. 22 ANNEX H PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE PARTII (1) The overall dimensions of part II of the registration certificate shall not be greater than an A4 format (210 x 297 mm). (2) The paper used for part II of the registration certificate shall be made secure by using at least two of the following techniques: - graphics; - watermark; - fluorescent fibres; or - fluorescent imprints. (3) Part II of the registration certificate may consist of several pages. Member States shall determine the number of pages in accordance with the information contained in the document and its layout. (4) The first page of part II of the registration certificate shall contain: - the name of the Member State issuing part II of the registration certificate; - the distinguishing mark of the Member State issuing part II of the registration certificate, those marks shall be as follows: B Belgium DK Denmark I L Italy Luxembourg D Germany NL Netherlands GR Greece P Portugal 23 E F Spain France A Austria FIN Finland IRL Ireland S Sweden UK United Kingdom - the name of the competent authority; - the words "Part II of the Registration Certificate", printed in large type in the language or languages of the Member States issuing the registration certificate; they shall also appear, after a suitable space, in small type, in the other languages of the European Community; - the words "European Community", printed in the language or languages of the Member State issuing part II of the registration certificate; - the number of the document. V. Part II of the registration certificate shall also contain the following data, identified by the corresponding code: A - registration number B - date of first registration D - vehicle: Dl - manufacturer/trade name D2 - commercial name E - vehicle identification number M - type-approval number 24 VI. Part II of the registration certificate may, moreover, contain the following data, identified by the corresponding code: J - owner or keeper of the vehicle: Jl - surname J2 - other names J3 - address in the Member State of registration, on the date of issue of. the document K - new owner or keeper of the vehicle Kl - surname K2 - other names K3 - address K4 - date and signature of the former owner or keeper L - vehicle category VII. Member States may include additional information on the registration certificate part II, only if this information is either stated on the type-approval documentation in accordance with Directive 70/156/EEC or can be derived from it by simple calculation. 25 ISSN 0254-1475 COM(97) 248 filial DOCUMENTS EN 07 06 Catalogue number : CB-CO-97-238-EN-C ISBN 92-78-20142-1 Office for Official Publications of the European Communities L-2985 Luxembourg t£


title: PERGUNTA ESCRITA n. 1861/97 do Deputado Carlos PIMENTA ao Conselho. Acesso a especialidades médicas na União Europeia

text: 17. 3. 98 PT Jornal Oficial das Comunidades Europeias C 82/17 (98/C 82/23) PERGUNTA ESCRITA E-1821/97 apresentada por Jesu· s Cabezo·n Alonso (PSE) ao Conselho (29 de Maio de 1997) Objecto: Actividade dos estaleiros navais espanho·is propriedade do Estado A Comissa(cid:152)o informou oportunamente o Governo espanhol da sua decisa(cid:152)o de prolongar os prazos previstos no procedimento relativo a‘s ajudas a conceder aos estaleiros navais propriedade do Estado (1). Aguardando informa(cid:231)o(cid:152)es mais completas da parte das autoridades espanholas, a Comissa(cid:152)o parece aceitar que a ASTENDER (Estaleiros de Santander) cesse a sua actividade de constru(cid:231)a(cid:152)o de navios e mantenha apenas a actividade de «repara(cid:231)a(cid:152)o e transforma(cid:231)a(cid:152)o». Que argumentos po(cid:136)de apresentar o Governo espanhol para que a ASTENDER seja impedida de prosseguir a sua actividade no sector da transforma(cid:231)a(cid:152)o? Adoptou o Conselho de Ministros da Unia(cid:152)o Europeia alguma decisa(cid:152)o firme nesta mate·ria? (1) JO C 53 de 22. 2. 1997, p. 3. Resposta (28 de Outubro de 1997) Na sessa(cid:152)o de 24 de Abril de 1997, o Conselho, reunido na sua forma(cid:231)a(cid:152)o «Indu·stria», chegou a um acordo pol(cid:14)·tico, no a(cid:136)mbito de um compromisso global, sobre: › concluso(cid:152)es a respeito do futuro da constru(cid:231)a(cid:152)o naval e › uma proposta de regulamento relativo aos aux(cid:14)·lios a favor de certos estaleiros em reestrutura(cid:231)a(cid:152)o, proposta essa que tem por objectivo conceder aux(cid:14)·lios a determinados estaleiros navais na Alemanha, na Espanha e na Gre·cia. O Conselho procedeu a‘ adop(cid:231)a(cid:152)o formal deste regulamento na sessa(cid:152)o de 2 de Junho de 1997 (1). No que se refere nomeadamente ao caso espanhol, assinala-se que o estaleiro naval de Astander na(cid:152)o efectuara· qualquer transforma(cid:231)a(cid:152)o de navios enquanto se mantiver propriedade pu·blica. (1) JO L 148 de 06. 06. 1997, p. 1. (98/C 82/24) PERGUNTA ESCRITA E-1861/97 apresentada por Carlos Pimenta (PPE) ao Conselho (30 de Maio de 1997) Objecto: Acesso a especialidades me·dicas na Unia(cid:152)o Europeia Quais as formalidades administrativas necessa·rias para um licenciado em Medicina fazer uma especialidade me·dica (por exemplo, cirurgia) em cada um dos pa(cid:14)·ses da Unia(cid:152)o Europeia, designadamente os exames de acesso, com especial incide(cid:136)ncia na necessidade, ou na(cid:152)o, de uma prova de l(cid:14)·ngua no pa(cid:14)·s de destino? Resposta (16 de Outubro de 1997) A Directiva 93/16/CEE preve(cid:136) que: › os Estados-membros reconhecem aos nacionais de cada um dos Estados-membros os respectivos diplomas de medicina (tal como indicados no artigo 3o) obtidos de forma regular (nos termos do artigo 23o da referida directiva), dando-lhes acesso ao exerc(cid:14)·cio da medicina nas mesmas condi(cid:231)o(cid:152)es que os seus pro·prios nacionais que possuem um diploma emitido por esses Estados-membros; › os nacioanis dos Estados-membros que pretendem obter um diploma de especialista que na(cid:152)o seja concedido no seu estado de origem, devera(cid:152)o preencher as condi(cid:231)o(cid:152)es de forma(cid:231)a(cid:152)o exigidas aos nacionais (artigo 8o)