title: Report from the Commission on the implementation in 1993-1994 of Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 on the harmonization of certain social legislation relating to road transport - (18th report by the Commission on the implementation of the social legislation relating to road transport)

eurovoc_concepts:
approximation of laws
driving period
rest period
road safety
transport regulations

text: COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 12. 12. 1997 COM(97) 698 final REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION on the implementation in 1993-1994 of Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport (18th report by the Commission on the implementation of the social legislation relating to road transport) Contents Contents Executive Summary 1. 2. Introduction ' National initiatives 2. 1 Regulatory measures 2. 2 Administrative measures 3. Penalties 3. 1 Scales 3. 2 Changes 4. Relations and co-operation between the Member States 4. 1 Concerted checks 4. 2 Exchanges of information 5. Summary Tables 5. 1 Checks: summary 5. 2 OffenGes: summary 6. Conclusions and comments 6. 1 Conclusions and comments by Member States 6. 2 Conclusions and comments by the Commission 1 3 5 - 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 10 11 12 Annex A Table of Penalties Annex B Summary of Data received from Member States 1. Reference Period 2. 3. Calculation of minimum checks to be carried out Checks 3. 1 Number of checks at the roadside 3. 2 Number of drivers checked at premises of undertaking 3. 3 Number of working days checked at the roadside 3. 4 Number of working days checked at the premises of the undertaking Offences: number of offences recorded 16 17 17 18 19 20 21 4. 1 4. 2 4. 3 4. 4 Article 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85: driving period 22 Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85: breaks 24 Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 3 820/85 : rest periods 26 Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85: service timetable and duty roster 28 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Report sets out trends and statistics on the Member States' inspection and enforcement activities in relation to the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No. 3820/85 on driving times and rest periods during the period 1993-94. The Report is based on statistics provided by the Member States and includes their views on implementation. More Member States have submitted more detailed information on checks and offences detected during" this period. However Austria, Italy and Greece failed to submit data for this period and Belgium and Portugal submitted incomplete statistics. This has delayed the production of the Report and has limited an early and effective comparison of statistics. The Commission services are therefore preparing infringement proceedings against Italy and Greece to ensure such inactivity does not recur, warning Belgium and Portugal to tighten up their statistical co-ordination and advising Austria, as a new Member State, to provide the stipulated data for 1995-96 within the Regulation's required timeframe. The statistics show that roadside checks generally increased, although this increase was not reflected in checks on working days, except in Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. Checks at premises of undertakings increased, in particular on the passenger transport sector. Overall, eight Member States were above the 1% minimum working days checking limit with Denmark, Germany, Ireland and Spain achieving more than 2%. Of the four Member States falling beneath the 1% requirement, Belgium and Portugal have forwarded only partial data, which may mask a true picture of enforcement levels, while Sweden and Finland were in the process of reorganising their enforcement agencies. The general rise in enforcement levels has led to an increase in the level of offences detected. Overall, offences in respect of rest periods continue to account for the highest number of infringements. However, there has been a general shift of 5% in the nature of offences detected from those relating to rest periods and duty rosters to those in respect of 'breaks', although driving offences still remain a constant and significant proportion (34%) of all reported offences. A significantly higher level of enforcement activity by Spain, particularly in the passenger transport sector, has resulted in a considerable increase in offences detected. Germany has also now supplied figures including data from the Lander which indicate a major enforcement effort and associated high offence detection rate. Indeed the data provided shows that within the Union over 86% of all detected offences are committed in Germany and that it has by far the highest ratio of offences detected against working days checked. The Netherlands has reported a notable decrease in offences especially amongst the national road haulage sector. It is significant that it is £lso one of the top three countries with a high ratio of offences detected against working days checked. Member States have taken various initiatives: in particular, France has issued uniform checking instructions to all its enforcement authorities to ensure a common approach, as well as promoting staff exchanges with other Member States to broaden the expertise of its staff and encourage exchanges of views. The Netherlands developed a particular sectoral approach to enforcement which appears to be yielding results in terms of reduced offences. As regards co-operation, while the French arranged fruitful joint actions, the Germans pointed out that the current reciprocal arrangements were insufficient to deal with the enforcement of the Regulation for foreign nationals. The Commission will further elaborate on this matter in a report to the Council on the effectiveness and uniformity of enforcement practice requested by the Council in its declaration in June 1997. Although the figures provided for penalties are difficult to compare accurately, the available data suggest a wide disparity between different Member States and point to the need for action to ensure that sanctions are effective, proportionate and dissuasive in the context of the Internal Market Charges of discrimination in enforcement practice between national and non-national road transport operators have been levelled at Member States based on the figures submitted and published in this series of reports. Commission investigations of complaints have not so far revealed any such deliberate policy by a Member State which would contravene the provisions of the Regulation. In this report, Belgium and Luxembourg check and detect considerably more offences amongst non-nationals than nationals - in their defence, they are both transit countries. However the Commission intends to keep this aspect under closer scrutiny to ensure an even handed approach to enforcement throughout the Union. The Commission intends to • take the necessary action to improve data provision • clarify whether enforcement levels in Belgium and Portugal are in accordance with minimum requirements • review minimum enforcement levels including sanctions and come forward with proposals, as appropriate- • examine whether enforcement activity in some Member States is biased against non-nationals and take action as necessary • evaluate the effectiveness and uniformity of enforcement practice in a report to be accompanied by proposals where necessary • study whether further changes to Community enforcement rules are needed particularly with the introduction of the new tachograph ' • revise Regulation (EEC) No. 3820/85 _ 1. Introduction This report, which covers the period 1993-1994, is the second in the new series of Commission reports which exclusively covers Regulation (EEC) No 3 820/85 \ The information provided has been supplied by the Member States on the standard form, introduced by the Decision of 22 February 19932. This makes it simpler to analyse trends in particular countries and also to compare statistics between the Member States over the past two reports. Unfortunately the data cannot be compared with that supplied for earlier documents. While most Member States have submitted their data in a format close to the standard form, their returns are still not all uniform and some of the data submitted was fragmentary, incomplete or for the wrong reference period. There were delays in returns and in the case of Austria, Italy and Greece no return was made. The returns for Finland and Sweden reflected the transitional difficulties experienced. This report is presented in a different format to its predecessor: it highlights the statistical data in summary form for 1993-94, sets out any initiatives communicated by Member States and includes the latest developments at Community level to ensure Member States are aware of the Commission's current concerns, objectives and proposals. 1 OJ No L 370, 31. 12. 1985, p. l. 2 OJ No L 72, 25. 03. 1993, p. 33 2. National initiatives 2. 1 Regulatory measures In France, Decree No 93/218 of 11 February 1993 and Circular No 93-19 of 2 March 1993 brought into operation most exemptions permitted under Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No. 3820/85. In Finland, during 1994 enforcement was a matter for the police alone. To enhance enforcement practice, a Regulation was introduced to allow the labour protection inspectors to include this aspect of work within their brief. The Regulation was later approved in 1995. 2. 2 Administrative Measures In France an inter-ministerial circular issued on 14 March 1994 led for the first time to the use of identical instructions by all road traffic enforcement authorities as regards speeding, loading and driving and rest periods. Exchanges have taken place between enforcement staff in France and both the United Kingdom and Spain. Recruitment and assimilation into the enforcement establishment in 1994 surpassed that in 1993. Individual officers received 60 days training, majoring in enforcement psychology and the penal code. There was investment in manual and optical tachograph reading equipment. In Finland a comprehensive training programme for policemen was introduced to facilitate checking driving times. Plans are in hand to train the labour protection inspectors in enforcement activities. In the Netherlands, the emphasis has been on developing preventative checking methods as regards undertakings. In Germany, fines with a caution were meted out to 12,107 passenger carriers-and 384,251 road hauliers. 2,528 passenger vehicle operators. 71,159 road hauliers were presented with penalty notices, while 750 and 36,803 respectively were banned from continuing their journey. In the United Kingdom, enforcement on driver's hours was increased with particular locations being targeted as well as suspect drivers and operators. This included information from 'silent checks', where a vehicle's use and location is recorded without the driver's knowledge and followed by a thorough check of drivers' charts to see whether all information has been recorded. This helps to detect systematic abuse of drivers'hours rules. 3. Penalties 3. 1 Scales Six Member States submitted information on the scale of penalties imposed for infractions against the Regulations. A summary is set out in Annex A. To facilitate a broader comparison, the Commission has added information submitted more recently by other Member States at a conference of National Experts in 1995. The table indicates the wide range of fines between Member States for both major and minor offences. While Member States may have differing views on what constitutes a major or a minor offence, divergences such as a maximum penalty of 248 ecu in Belgium and 4,447 ecu in Italy for serious offences appear to exist. In the light of the Commission Communication on the role of sanctions in the Internal Market1, which states that penalties should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive, it appears that in some countries, fines might be viewed by some in the road transport industry as an occupational hazard rather than as dissuasive. If they are not dissuasive, ultimately they are not an effective means of enforcement. The Commission will therefore open discussions with the Member States to clarify and complete the data provided to date, with a view to reaching an understanding on this issue. 3. 2 Changes In France the new penal code in 1994 increased the fme for minor infringements, while abolishing the repeat offence provisions. The commissions for administrative sanctions were reactivated through the circular of 7 January 1994 to better regulate the activities of the profession. In 1994, it heard cases relating to 53 undertakings for serious or repeated omissions concerning transport, conditions of work and road safety regulations. The majority of these offences related to infringements of the Regulations (EEC) Nos; 3820/85 and 3821/85 - inoperative tachographs or multiple offences in relation to driving times and rest periods. Sanctions comprised the temporary or permanent revocation of all or some of the transport authorisations. In Great Britain the maximum fines were increased in October 1992 by means of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 which lays down the maximum amount for each level of fine. Reference to the level of fme appropriate to each category of driver's hour offence (i. e. Level 1 or 2 etc. ) is contained in Part VI of the Transport Act 1968. Belgium is currently revising the scale of on-the-spot fines for driving times and rest periods. 1 COM (95) 162/2 4. Relations and co-operation between Member States Although this heading is not included explicitly in the standard form, a number of Member States made comments on two points - checks and exchanges of information. 4. 1 Concerted checks Directive 88/599/EEC of 23 November 1988 calls for an exchange of information and mutual assistance on the part of the Member States as regards the implementation of the enforcement measures. France mentioned that fruitful joint operations have been undertaken with Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom. Germany pointed out that offences committed by non-resident drivers were harder to detect than those perpetrated by resident drivers. The co-operation envisaged by the Directive between Member States was insufficient to tackle the problem and hence the number of non-resident drivers checked did not reflect the full extent of offences committed. 4. 2 Exchanges of information Denmark reported that penalty notices had been exchanged with the Netherlands, France, Germany and Sweden. The Dutch Traffic Inspectorate arranged through a private consultancy service for an informal working group to be convened at the Hague on 14-15 October 1996 to which representatives from all Member States were invited. Representatives from nine Member States and the Commission attended. The aim of the meeting was to analyse the difficulties in the interpretation of the social legislation in the road transport sector and the problems of checking systems. The group concluded that arriving at a uniform interpretation of the legislation would be a difficult task, given the different political, economic and social aspects which impinged on the subject, More exchanges of information, as well as more basic reference guides on the aims ofjhe regulations were recommended to persuade interested parties of the need to abide by the rules. The group called for an initiative at Community level to reach a consensus on how serious each offence stipulated under the Regulation should be viewed and sanctions aligned accordingly. A framework for conducting a regular dialogue on these issues was recommended with the Commission taking the lead. 5. 0 Summary tables 5. 1 Checks: summary Number of days actually checked as a proportion of the minimum number of working days to be checked. Member State - a- Minimum. number of working days to be checked - b- Number of working days checked (national) - c- Number of working days (non-national) - d- Total number of working days checked - e- Number of working days checked as a proportion of the minimum number of days to be checked (d/a) Austria Belgium (1) Denmark (2) Finland (3) France (4) Germany Greece Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal (2)(5) Spain Sweden (3) United Kingdom 665,500 176,000 91,300 1,250,000 3,690,466 194,527 245,898 1,530,106 9,096,571 244,048 5,885,704 440,425 449,859 40,000 1,774,154 14,982,275 243,248 935,125 4,143 939,268 49,496 647,000 591,250 1,680,000 200,000 2,014,920 53,990 651,120 57,450 3,035,725 22,926 36,736 94,814 1,638 347,927 1,998 90,726 745,934 88,158 3,383,652 27,048 3,439,391 66% 256% 44% 142% 405% 386% 183% 115% 15% 201% 13% 171% Note (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) In the Table 5. 1 above, as in Tables 3. 1 to 3. 4 in Annex B, figures relating to checks carried out by the gendarmerie, the Ministry of Finance (Customs) and the Ministry of Employment and Labour are absent. Since these bodies have detected more than twice as many offences as the Ministry of Transport (see Table 5. 2 overleaf - a total of 21,176 offences as opposed to 8,021) wliich has provided the main figures used here, it may be assumed that they-4iave carried out more than twice as many checks as the Ministry of Transport. Hence it follows that Belgium has carried out a number of checks well in excess of the required minimum. Statistics for checks not disaggregated between nationals/ non-nationals but included in overall total (d) From 1 January 1994 to 31 December 1994. From 1 January 1993 to 31 December 1993. In the Table 5. 1 above, as in Tables 3. 1 to 3. 4 in Annex B, all figures relating to checks carried out by the Labour Inspectorate and gendarmerie are absent. The statistics represent only a partial picture of enforcement activity. 5. 2 Offences: summary Number of ofTences recorded: Articles 6, 7, 8 and 14 of Regulation (EEC) 3820/85 Overview by Member State Member State ^ PASSENGERS GOODS Total Nationals EEC Third countries Total non- nationals Nationals EEC Third countries Total non- nationals 8,021 3,266 1,282 •47,642 907,530 12,493 778 • 20,824 1,857 48,305 309 9,336 4,952 177,728 1,001 545 4093 18 1,535 - 9 _ 134 200 267 251 1,550 1,978 1,541 3,528 2,602 44,814 116,424 681,460 ** 1,282 258 19 4,818 3,247 Austria Belgium *** Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden United Kingdom Note * Figures are from 1 January 1993 and include the first semester of 1994. ** Total figure only available. *** The following figures have not been incorporated into the Table above, nor in Tables 4. 1- 4. 4 in 5 962 258 47,580 222 15,706 1,580 545 3,956 18 3 57 1 725 223 **7,087 86 1,470 6 63 1 137 - 61,304 3 6 - **714 9,700 1,001 251 65 Annex B, as they were not suitably disaggregated: Gendarmerie: Ministry of Finance Ministry of Employment and Labour: Total Total 17,329 3,625 222 (in 1994 only) 21,176 Number of offences recorded: Articles 6, 7, 8 and 14 of Regulation (EEC) 3820/85 Overview by category of offence (includes passengers and goods; nationals, EEC and third countries) Article 6 7 8 14 Type of offence ~ Driving periods ~ Breaks Rest periods Service timetable and duty roster Number of offences* 356,188 261,871 414,763 19,738 TOTAL I 1,052,560 * excludes unattributed figures 10 6. Conclusions and comments on all the trends observed in the fields in question 6. 1 Conclusions and comments by the Member States In France, comparison between the statistics for the first half of 1993 and 1994 indicate a consistency of roadside checks of all vehicles (164,593 for 1993 as opposed Jo 166,058 for 1994) with a slight increase of 1% in the number of passenger vehicles (9,165 coaches). The number of working days checked at the roadside went up by 1. 5% from 544,226 to 552,427. The number of drivers checked at the premises of their undertaking rose by 7% from 23,594 to 25,731 and the number of working days checked at the premises of the enterprise rose by 42% - 402,788 working days in the first half of 1994. The number of offences under the Regulation represents more than 54% of the total number of offences recorded on the road. Sweden pointed out that due to the reorganisation and reallocation of responsibilities for checking on the roadside and at the premises of enterprises a system was not yet in place to gather a complete set of statistics. Those figures given only represented a proportion of the actual work undertaken. Like Finland, Sweden had only become party to the EEA agreement with effect from 1 January 1994. Belgium reported that driving and rest period offences were by far the two biggest categories of reported offences committed by drivers of goods transport and passenger transport. By placing an emphasis on the employers' responsibility, it was hoped to reduce the number of offences. Between 1992 and 1993 there had been a decrease of 34% in the number of tachograph infractions coming before the courts, while the number of on-the-spot fines for such offences had risen by 13% for nationals and by 6. 7% for non-nationals. 1994 saw an upward trend in all three statistics with an increase in court proceedings of 28. 7%, in spot fines for nationals of 115% and for non- nationals of 30. 8%. The Netherlands reported that they had targeted the market sectors where^the offences are most frequent by a specific random checking method to maximise impact. Other offences were checked by a signalling system for which the random method was not appropriate. Premises were also selected for checking on this basis. The introduction of a new Dutch law relating to carriage of goods by road led to an increase in the number of goods transporters and goods vehicles on the road. Notwithstanding this ' increase, a positive development as far as the number of recorded offences in the Netherlands was noted. None of the other Member. States made any comments under this heading. 11 6. 2 Conclusions and comments by the Commission recognises however Regulation (EEC) No. 3820/85 currently provides an important Community basis for setting maximum driving time and rest periods for road transport operators. Effectively and uniformly applied, it can be an essential part of efforts to enhance road safety, transport efficiency and fair competition. The that Member States have differing Commission perceptions about the implementation of this legislation. There are differing authorities within Member States to enforce the Regulation's provisions, checks and controls are carried out with varying degrees of frequency and intensity, and infringements are penalised at different levels. The potential for circumvention,of the current recording equipment is recognised as is the need for greater co-operation between Member States to ensure a co-ordinated approach to enforcement. In response, the Commission has adopted a two pronged approach: liaison to foster administrative co-operation, a common with national officials interpretation of the legislation and a consistent approach in its application; and enhanced enforcement through the development and adoption of a digital tachograph - a Common Position was agreed at the Council meeting on 17 June 1997 - and other pending legislative initiatives. 6. 2. 1 Incomplete data continues to present problems for comparisons between states. Lack of data from Member States continues to hinder a comprehensive comparison. The reasons vary from country to country: for recent Community entrants, the organisational restructuring to implement the Regulation means that statistics, if available, cannot yet be broken down; for others their current division of responsibilities means the presentation of an incomplete picture of the enforcement efforts carried out; Austria, Italy and Greece simply failed to make a return. The Commission is opening discussions with those Member States who have failed to submit comprehensive statistics to ensure that this does not happen again. Should there be a number of national authorities involved in enforcing the provisions of the legislation, the Commission would strongly suggest that one be nominated to act as co-ordinator for statistical purposes. The delay in publication of data due to the delay in receipt allows lessons to be drawn only some time after the event. Community measures cannot then take into account any specific national difficulties if they are not communicated. Accordingly, Member States are reminded that they should have submitted their data for the next report, the nineteenth, covering 1995 and 1996, by 30 September 1997 at the latest. 12 6. 2. 2 Increases in the number of vehicles subject to the Regulation from 1991- 92 to 1993-94 have been concentrated within the smaller Member States such as Ireland and the Benelux countries. The increased activity within the smaller Member States, particularly the Benelux countries which are primarily transit countries, points to the need for a higher level of enforcement activity. This indeed occurred in the Benelux. While it is difficult to accurately compare statistics for Germany between these two periods, the number of vehicles subject to the Regulation dropped significantly in this country, with a consequent downturn in the minimum number of vehicles to be checked during this period. The United Kingdom and, to a lesser extent, Spain also experienced this downturn. 6. 2. 3 There has been a general rise in checks undertaken and offences detected Overall within the EU, the number of enforcement checks rose. This may also partially explain the general rise in the number of offences detected, although the deterrent effect of increased enforcement activity especially within the Netherlands may have contributed to a downturn in their overall offence rates. The Netherlands has devised a system of enforcement which targets high risk market sectors and attributes the downturn in its overall offence rate to this approach. The transferability of this approach to the enforcement agencies of other Member States would merit examination by other Member States, given the Dutch success in reducing offence levels. 6. 2. 4 There has been a shift in the nature of offences detected towards * breaks'. Since the last report there has been a 5% increase in the number of 'breaks' offences detected, with a consequent decline in those relating to rest periods and duty rosters. Driving time offences have remained a constant and significant proportion (34%) of total offences detected. Nevertheless, overall offences in respect of rest periods continue to account for the highest number of infringements. 6. 2. 5 The minimum standard has been reached by an increasing number of those Member States submitting data. A larger proportion of Member States which submitted data required to confirm compliance with the minimum check of 1% easily surpassed this basic standard, with Denmark, Germany, Ireland and Spain attaining a check of over 2%. There is generally a noticeably upward trend in the level of enforcement throughout most Member States which provides a reassurance among States that enforcement is continuing to be given priority by their neighbours. In particular, there are noticeably high rates of enforcement activity and consequent infraction detection levels in Germany. The provision of comprehensive statistical data in this instance has helped to indicate the full 13 extent of Germany's enforcement effort. Recognition of similar efforts in other Member States can only be given if full statistics are made available. 6. 2. 6 Interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 continues to be refined through rulings made by the European Communities. The period covered is up to the start of 1997. the Court of Justice of In its ruling of 9 November 1995 on case C-235/94, the Court established that Article 12 does not authorise a driver to derogate from the provisions of Articles 6, 7 or 8 of the Regulation for reasons known before the journey was commenced. In reaching its ruling the Court noted that exemptions are authorised under Article 12 only on the condition that road safety is not jeopardised. Before a journey begins, neither drivers nor employers are in a position to say whether that condition will be fulfilled. It is when an unforeseen event occurs capable of justifying a derogation from the regulation that the driver must take into account the requirement of ensuring road safety. Case C-335/94 dealt with two principal questions: the définition of vehicles used for rubbish collection services, as referred to in Article 4(6) of the Regulation; and secondly, whether the exemption under Article 4(6) for 'vehicles used in connection with. rubbish collection and disposal' overruled the application of national legislation on driving times and rest periods to this category. In its ruling of 25 January 1996 the Court defined vehicles used for rubbish collection services and found that the derogations contained in Article 4(6) do not preclude the ability of Member States to make national regulations in the field of driving time for vehicles in this category. In case C-29/95 (Eckehard Pastoors, Trans-Cap GmbH v Belgium) the Court ruled on 23 January 1997 that Article 6 of the Treaty disallowed a national regulation, made on the basis of Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 3820/85 and 3821/85, under which only non-resident offenders who do not choose the specified on-the-spot fine but instead opt for their case to be pursued through the courts are obliged under caution to pay for each infraction a predetermined amount which is greater than the amount payable for an on-the-spot fine, otherwise their vehicle is impounded. ~ 6. 2. 7 Digital Tachograph gains Council agreement. A Commission proposal COM(94) 323 final of 22 July 1994 modifying Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport and Council Directive 88/599/EEC on standard checking procedures was presented to the Council on 1 September 1994. The Council has now adopted a political agreement on this issue on 17 June 1997 accepting the introduction of a digital tachograph. 14 6. 2. 8 Exchange of views on enforcement promoted A meeting of national experts was arranged in 1995 to facilitate an exchange of views on inspection and penalties. The Joint Committee on road transport produced a report in December 1995 on aspects of organisation and enforcement of working and driving time which outlined the differences between the Member States. In addition the Commission is drawing up a report at the request of the Council in relation to the effectiveness and uniformity of enforcement practice. 6. 2. 9 Success rates in detecting offences vary widely The ratio of the total number of offences detected to the total number of working days checked reveals a wide disparity in the success of Member States in targeting potential offenders. During 1993-94 Germany was the most successful with 6 offences detected for every 100 working days checked; Finland (3. 2 offences), the Netherlands (2. 79 offences) and France (2. 68 offences) also show a relatively high detection rate. This contrasts with some other Member States where detection levels are below 1 offence per 100 working days checked and indeed in one instance where only 1 offence comes to light in every 10,000 working days checked. This ratio serves to indicate the benefits to be gained by an exchange of experience and adoption of the most effective and nationally appropriate methods of practice throughout the Union. 6. 2. 10 Modification of Regulation (EEC) No. 3820/85 A Commission White Paper on the inclusion of sectors (such as road transport) and activities currently excluded from the Working Time Directive (Directive 93/104/EEC) was adopted on 15 July 1997. The Commission is actively considering how best to revise the Regulation on driving times and rest periods in the light of this document. 6. 2. 11 Final comments interest. The Effective application of this legislation is in everyone's Commission encourages all Member States to take further. co-operative initiatives and, as some Member States have already done, promote exchanges of information, particularly on best practice, to enhance enforcement. The Commission is considering ways in which the interpretation and application of the legislation can be improved. It is also examining an extension of the scope of the Regulation to include other activities which affect public safety. 15 ' Type of penalty Annex A 248 ecu. Serious offences 2,181 ecu or up to 6 weeks in prison. Minor Offences 22-36 ecu 62 ecu Fine of at least 54 ecu for the driver and 135 for the company, the amount depending on the nature and gravity of the offence. Fines are related to income: a 'one day' fine represents 33. 3% of a person's daily income, with social exemptions. The severity of one breach is more important than the number of breaches in determining the fine levied. The average penalty for this type of infringement is 120-137 ecu. Prior to the introduction of the new Prior to the introduction of the new penal code on 1 March 1994, the penal code on 1 March 1994, the fines were as follows: fines were as follows: 197-455 ecu (455-910 ecu for second 76-2,276 ecu or an imprisonment of between 15 days and three months. offences). Offenders from other countries could deposit in court a sum of 136 ecu per infringement or between 303 and 1,158 ecu per criminal offence. After the introduction of the new After the introduction of the new penal "code* on 1 March 1994, the penal code on 1 March 1994, the fines fines were amended as follows: were amended as follows: 759 ecu maximum. 3,794 ecu and imprisonment for three months. 1,365 ecu and/or six months imprisonment 4,447 ecu maximum. ' Member State ^__ Austria Belgium Denmark ' Finland France Ireland Italy Netherlands Spain '. 16 ecu minimum There are set fines for each breach of a provision of the Regulation ranging from 45 - 1,365 ecu. • 30-284 ecu. __ I 284-1,388 ecu (First Category) J 1,388-2,414 ecu (Second Category) ~~ __ Sweden United Kingdom Fines range from 139 to 231 ecu. Maximum fines for drivers and those who cause or permit driver's hours and tachograph offences range from. 1,407 ecu (Level 3) to 7,034 ecu (Level 5), with a lower maximum in Northern Ireland of 2,814 ecu. In addition to a fine, the offences of falsifying a chart, and altering or forging a seal on a tachograph carry two years a penalty of up imprisonment. to Note Entries for Austria, Belgium, Italy, Spain and Sweden are based on figures supplied by national experts from these countries in 1995. The ecu conversion rate is that taken at 31 March 1997. Data for other Member States was not supplied. 16 Annex B Statistical data 1. Reference period. From 1 January 1993 to 31 December 1994. 2. Calculation of minimum checks to be carried out (Article 2 of Directive 88/599/EEC)1 Member State Austria Belgium Denmark Finland (1) France (2) Germany Greece Ireland (3) Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden (1) United Kingdom Total number of days worked Minimum checks ( l % o f c) Number of days worked per driver during the. reference period. -a- Total number of vehicles subject to Regulation (EEC) No. 3820/85 (annual average) - b- a xb - c- 151,250 40,000 41,500 521,875 768,847 66,550,000 17,600,000 9,130,000 125,250,000 396,046,560 - d- 665,500 176,000 91,300 1,250,000 3,690,465 52,880 24,324,800 243,248 10,760 129,400 137,500 350,000 100,000 434,250 4,949,600 64,700,000 59,125,000 168,000,000 20,000,000 201,492,000 49,496 647,000 591,250 1,680,000 200,000 2,014,920 440 440 220 240 480 460 460 500 430 480 200 464 Note (1) (2) (3) From 1 January 1994 to 31 December 1994 Figures relate to one year Figures relate to total number of goods vehicles over 1,524 kgs and large public service vehicles registered in the State. A number of these would be exempted from Cojmcil Regulation (EEC) No. 3820/85. However there is no breakdown of figures available. O J N oL 325 29. 11. 88. p. 55 •n/ 3. Checks 3. 1 Number of checks at the roadside Member State Type of operation EEC Third countries Total non- national (1) nationals other Member States Austria Belgium Denmark Finland (3) France (4) Germany Greece Ireland (5) Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden (3) United Kingdom carriage of passengers carriage of goods carriage of passengers carriage of gqods carriage of passengers carriage of goods total value carriage of passengers carriage of goods total value carriage of passengers carriage of goods carriage of passengers carriage of goods carriage of passengers carriage of goods carriage of passengers carriage of goods carriage of passengers carriage of goods carriage of passengers carriage of goods carriage of passengers carriage of goods carriage of passengers carriage of goods carriage of passengers carriage of goods carriage of passengers carriage of goods total value carriage of passengers carriage of goods • 2,284 36,322 (2) 109,399 13,000 18,810 377,458 222,594 3,621,124 3,826 59,621 151 2,670 62,291 ^ 81,623 1,957,690 109,176 2,086,348 7,607 97,236 190,808 4,044,038 9,509 33,651 1,539 4,572 210 225 1,749 4,-797 946 10,871 1,871 39,293 40 503 42,142 161,508 666 717 6,068 7,076 119,959 1,341 23,506 201,203 963,220 7,642 67,691 469,707 162 388 247 5,996 _ 5,960 15,935 1,108 11,259 2,118 45,289 40 503 48,102. 177,443 666 4,874 39,879 Note (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Where the Member States were unable to supply more detailed figures. EEC total, including nationals. From 1 January 1994 to 31 December 1994. From 1 January 1993 to 31 June 1994. Where it has not been possible to distinguish between the two types of carriage, the following figures apply: nationals: 1,527; other Member States: 1,324; third country: 119. 19 3. Checks 3. 2 Number of drivers checked at premises of undertaking Member State Austria Belgium (1) Denmark (2) Finland (2) France (3) Germany Greece Ireland (4) Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal (2) Spain (5) Sweden (6) United Kingdom Carriage of passengers Carriage of goods Carriage on own account Carriage for hire or reward 157 - - 7,805 27,240 1,123 1,097 2,148 - 4,652 1,737 - - 67,821 104,755 5,212 5,306 9,612 - 136,269 708 28,697 28 - - 3,133 30,184 2,728 24 2,445 - -(5) 1,866 - - 72,493 101,811 3,607 1,062 7,167 - - (5) Note (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) These statistics include figures provided by the Ministry of Employment and Labour for 1994 only (Passengers - 24; Goods -193). No statistics supplied From 1 January 1993 to 30 June 1994 From July 1993 Figures unable to be disaggregated From 1 January 1994 to 31 December 1994. 20 3. Checks 3. 3 Number of working days checked at the roadside Member State Type of transport EEC Nationals other member states Third countries Total non nationals (1) Austria Belgium Denmark Finland (3) France (4) Germany Greece Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden (3) United Kingdom (5) carriage of passengers carriage of goods carriage of passengers carriage of goods carriage of passengers carriage of goods total number carriage of passengers carriage of goods total number (1) carriage of passengers carriage of goods carriage of passengers carriage of goods carriage of passengers carriage of goods carriage of passengers carriage of goods carriage of passengers carriage of goods carriage of passengers carriage of goods carriage of passengers carriage of goods carriage of passengers carriage of goods carriage of passengers carriage of goods carriage of passengers carriage of goods total number (1) carriage of passengers carriage of goods 8,422 , 124,315 14,116 221,030 569 10,183 14,685 231,213 (2) 437,569 40,000 58,008 1,242,018 417,480 6,894,156 " - 122,054 3,125,922 125,584 2,512,144 24,188 342,422 247,638 5,638,066 3,152 35,974 737 3,175 7 224 744 3,399 984 17,428 14,152 239,918 4,853 52,597 361,273 1,420,907 22,926 197,802 1,560,484 2,147 32,820 3,742 78,586 297 1,341 64,315 247,400 1,998 487 1,282 494 11,992 _ 9,585 26,627 — 2,634 34,102 4,236 90,578 297 1,341 73,900 274,027 1,998 Note (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Where the Member States were unable to supply more detailed figures EEC total including nationals From 1 January 1994 to 31 December 1994. From 1 January 1993 to 30 June 1994. Figures unable to be disaggregated. 21 3. Checks 3. 4 Number of working days checked at premises of undertaking. Member State Austria Belgium Denmark (1) Finland (2)(3) France (4) Germany Greece Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal Spain (5) Sweden (3)(5) United Kingdom Carriage of Passengers Carriage of goods Carriage on own account Carriage for hire or reward 4,351 1,037 112,239 441,019 - 84,227 5,249 85,920 1,471 253,651 57,439 11,226 950,494 1,343,916 811,772 30,329 225,210 27,599 1,253,545 2,124 1,427,454 33,571 296,119 1,029,162 1,488,816 6,066 24,450 29,512 286,680 Note (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Estimated figures No statistics available. From 1 January 1994 to 31 December 1994. From 1 January 1993 to 30 June 1994. Total number provided. 22 4. Offences Number of offences recorded. 4. 1 Article 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85: driving period. Member Type of PASSENGERS GOODS State offence nationals EEC third countries total non- nationals nationals EEC third countries total non- nationals PASSENGERS AND GOODS non- nationals nationals Austria Belgium Denmark Finland France* Germany Greece - daily driving period - six days maximum - fortnight - daily driving period - six days maximum -fortnight - daily driving period - six days maximum - fortnight - daily driving period - six days maximum - fortnight - daily driving period - six days maximum - fortnight - daily driving period - six days maximum - fortnight - daily driving period - six days maximum - fortnight 90 112 4 116 1,266 24 2,348 44 60 5 2,408 49 1,356 24 2,524 49 0 628 • 13,946 872 322 1,072 6 806 6 1,878 12 206,042 3,990 5,368 46,128 1,206 1,630 16,298 4,272 22 62,426 5,478 1,652 219,988 4,862 5,690 64,304 5,490 1,652 14,511 169 5,034 35 1 23 Type of offence PASSENGERS GOODS nationals EEC third countries total non- nationals nationals EEC third countries Member State Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden** United Kingdom - 1 - - 294 86 91 54 14 11 - 179 118 5 - 4 1 352 17,024 48 32 - daily driving period - six days maximum - fortnight - daily driving period - six days maximum - fortnight - daily driving period - six days maximum - fortnight - daily driving period - six days maximum - fortnight - daily driving period - six days maximum - fortnight - daily driving period - six. days maximum - fortnight - daily driving period - six days maximum - fortnight - daily driving period - six days maximum - fortnight PASSENGERS AND GOODS nationals non- nationals 3,112 377 334 282 85 86 total non- nationals 228 71 75 311 125 312 - - 54 14 11 2,818 291 243 228 71 75 125 311 1 4 1 4,885 996 28 1,024 5,064 1,028 635 19 38 8 1 223 86 269 173 10 - - 11. 14 8 1 753 24 38 17,024 48 32 223 269 173 10 9 1 352 86 11 14 Note •From 1 January 1993 to 30 June 1994 ** From 1 January 1994 to 31 December 1994 *** Data may include figures in respect of a siftall proportion of passenger vehicles 24 4. Offences Number of offences recorded 4. 2 Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No. 3820/85: breaks Member State Type of offence PASSENGERS nationals EEC Austria Belgium Denmark (2) Finland France (3) Germany Greece - driving for more than 4. 5 hours without a break - breaks too short - driving for more than 4. 5 hours without a break - breaks too short - driving for more than 4. 5 hours without a break - breaks too short - driving for more than 4. 5 hours without a break - breaks too short - driving for more than 4. 5 hours without a break - breaks too short - driving for more than 4. 5 hours without a break - breaks too short - driving for more than 4. 5 hours without a break - breaks too short GOODS third countries total non- nationals nationals EEC third countries total non- nationals • PASSENGERS AND GOODS non- nationals nationals (1) - 9 4 9 3 6 1 10 3 160 101 331 97 7 2 338 99 169 105 348 102 1,321 6,938 9,300 306 312 62 186 368 498 72,424 100,952 16,888 8,142 10,376 8,140 27,264 16,282 79,362 110,252 27,632 16,780 1 6,769 2,382 - 25 Type of offence PASSENGERS GOODS nationals EEC third countries total non- nationals nationals EEC third countries total non- nationals PASSENGERS AND GOODS (1) nationals non- nationals 384 188 - 57 23 57 23 1,715 643 348 40 1 1 105 43 - - 1 1 - - 9,099 154 2 1 - - - - 348 40 2,099 831 405 63 206 21 211 82 12 3,135 208 22 211 81 12 206 21 3,030 203 8 245 9 4 - 4 288 4 9,099 154 30 Member State Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden United Kingdom (4) Note (1) (2) (3) - driving for more than 4. 5 hours without a break - breaks too short - driving for more than 4. 5 hours without a break - breaks too short - driving for more than 4. 5 hours without a break - breaks too short - driving for more than 4. 5 hours without a break -breaks too short - driving for more than 4. 5 hours without a break - breaks too short - driving for more than 4. 5 hours without a break ^ breaks too short - driving for more than 4. 5 hours without a break - breaks too short - driving for more than 4. 5 hours without a break - breaks too short Where the Member States were unable to supply more detailed figures. Total number provided From 1 January 1993 to 30 June 1994. | (4) Data may include figures in respect of a small proportion of passenger vehicles. 26 4. Offences Number of offences recorded 4. 3 Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 3280/85: rest periods Member State Austria Belgium Denmark Finland France (1) Germany Greece Ireland Italy Luxembourg Type of offence - daily - weekly -daily - weekly - daily - weekly -daily - weekly -daily - weekly - daily - weekly -daily - weekly -daily - weekly - daily -weekly - daily -weekly PASSENGERS nationals EEC GOODS third countries total non- nationals nationals EEC third countries total non- nationals PASSENGERS AND GOODS nationals non- nationals 88 9 116 18 13 4 120 18 1,010 41 1,873 125 1,298 58 2 1,931 127 1. 098 50 2,051 145 10,900 1,924 272 2 312 133 56 36 416 26 - 1 ! 688 28 285,816 6,868 41,720 710 21,610 586 63,330 1,296 13,993 64 296,716 8,792 4,341 62 64,018 1,324 56 36 3,736 254 145 94 _ 145 94 4,048 387 201 130 1 - 27 Member State Type of Offence Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden United Kingdom (2) - daily - weekly - daily - weekly -daily - weekly -daily - weekly -daily - weekly PASSENGERS GOODS PASSENGERS AND GOODS nationals EEC 676 53 third countries 6 - _ 71 21 2,555 324 total non- nationals nationals EEC 59 - 7,787 4 584 59 2,756 1 5 third. countries 101 „ total non- nationals nationals 2,857 1 5 8,463 4 655 80 non- nationals 2,916 1 5 844 144 29 11 Note (1) (2) From 1 January 1993 to 30 June 1994. Data may include figures in respea of a small proportion of passenger vehicles. 28 4. Offences Number of offences recorded 4. 4 Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No. 3820/85: Service timetable and Duty roster. Nationals EEC Third countries Total non- nationals Member State Austria Belgium Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden United Kingdom Type of offence Faulty Incorrectly applied Faulty Incorrectly applied Faulty Incorrectly applied Faulty Incorrectly applied Faulty Incorrectly applied Faulty* Incorrectly applied Faulty Incorrectly applied Faulty Incorrectly applied Faulty Incorrectly applied Faulty Incorrectly applied Faulty Incorrectly applied Faulty Incorrectly applied Faulty Incorrectly applied Faulty Incorrectly applied Faulty Incorrectly applied 84 7 46 2 6 2 ! » \ V > } 215** > 528 > }67** } 8 24 24 32 24 1 7 -T 2,618 15,880 219 Note •Not to hand. ** Infringements of Article 14 without distinction. 29 ISSN 0254-1475 COM(97) 698 final DOCUMENTS EN 05 07 14 Catalogue number : CB-CO-97-718-EN-C ISBN 92-78-29182-X Office for Official Publications of the European Communities L-2985 Luxembourg 3>o


title: Commission Regulation (EC) No 2495/97 of 12 December 1997 amending Regulation (EC) No 1460/96 establishing the detailed rules for implementing the preferential trade arrangements applicable to certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products, as provided for in Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 3448/93

eurovoc_concepts:
agricultural product
agro-industry
generalised preferences
originating product
tariff quota
third country

formats: html pdfa1b print


title: SCHRIFTLICHE ANFRAGE Nr. 3953/97 von Marjo MATIKAINEN- KALLSTRÖM an die Kommission. Anträge zur Unterstützung von Forschungs- und Regionalprogrammen

eurovoc_concepts:
EU regional policy
administrative formalities
administrative transparency
development plan
operational programme
research and development
research programme

formats: html pdf print

text: C 187/100 DE Amtsblatt der Europa¤ischen Gemeinschaften 16. 6. 98 Inwieweit stimmen diese Informationen und was wird die Europa¤ische Kommission tun, um die Meinungs- und Aktionsfreiheit fu¤r das betreffende Institut, aber auch fu¤r andere Institute zu verbessern? Antwort von Herrn Van den Broek im Namen der Kommission (19. Januar 1998) Die Kommission teilt die Besorgnis des Herrn Abgeordneten wie auch die Sorge des Europarates und der internationalen Menschenrechtsorganisationen im Hinblick auf die Meinungs- und Vereinigungsfreiheit in Kroatien. Die Kommission ist der Auffassung, da(cid:223) die ju¤ngsten gesetzlichen und gerichtlichen Ma(cid:223)nahmen der kroatischen Regierung gegen die Zivilgesellschaft und gegen Menschenrechtsorganisationen wie das Open society institute, sowie gegen die unabha¤ngigen Medien, ein gro(cid:223)es Hindernis fu¤r die Entwicklung einer pluralistischen Demokratie und den Schutz der Menschenrechte darstellen. Die Achtung der Menschenrechte ist eine der Bedingungen fu¤r eine Verbesserung der Beziehungen zwischen Kroatien und der Gemeinschaft. Die Meinungs- und Vereinigungsfreiheit werden sogar in den Schlu(cid:223)folgerun- gen des Rates vom 29. April 1997 als Bedingungen fu¤r den Aufbau bilateraler Beziehungen mit den La¤ndern, die in das Regionalkonzept der Gemeinschaft fu¤r Su¤dosteuropa fallen, speziell aufgefu¤hrt. In diesem Zusammen- hang ist entscheidend, wie sich Kroatien gegenu¤ber Nichtregierungsorganisationen verha¤lt, die die Menschen- rechte und die Meinungsfreiheit fo¤rdern. (98/C 187/151) SCHRIFTLICHE ANFRAGE E-3953/97 von Marjo Matikainen-Kallstro¤m (PPE) an die Kommission (12. Dezember 1997) Betrifft: Antra¤ge zur Unterstu¤tzung von Forschungs- und Regionalprogrammen In meiner am 17. 9. 1997 an die Kommission gerichteten Anfrage (E-2961/97) (1) habe ich mich nach dem Abbau der Bu¤rokratie in der Forschungs- und Regionalpolitik der EU erkundigt. Nach Erhalt der Antwort der Kommission stelle ich folgende Zusatzfrage: Welches sind die ga¤ngigsten Gru¤nde fu¤r die Ablehnung von Projekten? (1) ABl. C 134 vom 30. 4. 1998, S. 44. Antwort von Frau Wulf-Mathies im Namen der Kommission (27. Januar 1998) Die wichtigsten Kriterien, anhand deren die Projektvorschla¤ge im Rahmen der Gemeinschaftsprogramme fu¤r Forschung und technologische Entwicklung (FTE) bewertet werden, sind die wissenschaftliche und technische Qualita¤t, der innovative Charakter, die transnationale Zusammenarbeit (Nutzen fu¤r die Gemeinschaft), die Kostenwirksamkeit, die Kompetenz des Antragstellers sowie die Mo¤glichkeiten zur Weiterverbreitung und Nutzung der Ergebnisse. Au(cid:223)erdem sind fu¤r jedes Programm im dazugeho¤rigen Arbeitsprogramm die Kriterien genannt, die fu¤r die Verwirklichung der spezifischen Ziele wesentlich sind. Angesichts der begrenzten verfu¤gbaren Mittel und der starken Konkurrenz um diese Mittel wird ein Projekt in der Regel bereits bei Verfehlen eines einzigen dieser Kriterien (die alle bekanntgemacht werden) abgelehnt. Bei den meisten Programmen sind unzureichende wissenschaftliche und technische Qualita¤t oder mangelnder Innovationscha- rakter die ha¤ufigsten Gru¤nde, die zur Ablehnung von Vorschla¤gen fu¤hren. Die ha¤ufigsten Gru¤nde fu¤r die Ablehnung von FTE-Projekten im Rahmen der Strukturfondsprogramme wa¤ren bei den Mitgliedstaaten selbst zu erfragen, da diese in den Begleitausschu¤ssen ihre eigenen Verfahren fu¤r die Projektauswahl anwenden. Ebenso werden sich die Auswahlkriterien je nach den besonderen Priorita¤ten des betreffenden Programms voneinander unterscheiden


title: Verordening (EG) nr. 2492/97 van de Commissie van 12 december 1997 houdende schorsing van de verkoop van boter uit openbare opslag op grond van de artikelen 3 bis en 4 bis van Verordening (EEG) nr. 2315/76

eurovoc_concepts:
butter
public stock
sale


title: KOMISSION ASETUS (EY) N:o 2484/97, annettu 12 päivänä joulukuuta 1997, kokonaan hiotun keskipitkäjyväisen riisin ja kokonaan hiotun pitkäjyväisen A-riisin enimmäisvientituen vahvistamisesta asetuksessa (EY) N:o 2095/97 tarkoitetun tarjouskilpailun osana

eurovoc_concepts:
award of contract
export refund
rice
third country


title: Règlement (CE) n° 2492/97 de la Commission du 12 décembre 1997 portant suspension de la vente de beurre de stock public en vertu des articles 3 bis et 4 bis du règlement (CEE) nº 2315/76


title: REGLAMENTO (CE) N° 2483/97 DE LA COMISIÓN de 12 de diciembre de 1997 por el que se establecen valores globales de importación para la determinación del precio de entrada de determinadas frutas y hortalizas

eurovoc_concepts:
agri-monetary policy
citrus fruit
fruit vegetable
import price
perennial vegetable
pip fruit


title: PERGUNTA ESCRITA n. 3956/97 dos Deputados Cristiana MUSCARDINI , Amedeo AMADEO , Carlo SECCHI à Comissão. Aeroporto de Malpensa (Milão)

eurovoc_concepts:
Italy
air traffic
air traffic control
air transport
airline
airport
means of transport
project of common interest
town and country planning

text: 16. 6. 98 PT Jornal Oficial das Comunidades Europeias C 187/81 No que se refere a‘ situa(cid:231)a(cid:152)o das ilhas gregas no per(cid:14)·odo futuro, a Comissa(cid:152)orecorda que os programas dos Fundos Estruturais sa(cid:152)o elaborados em regime de associa(cid:231)a(cid:152)o com os Estados-membros, que apresentam a‘ Comissa(cid:152)o o seu plano de desenvolvimento regional. Os documentos adoptados reflectem, pois, as escolhas e prioridades fixadas inicialmente por cada Estado-membro. De acordo com as estat(cid:14)·sticas dispon(cid:14)·veis actualmente na Comissa(cid:152)o (me·dia do produto interno bruto 1992-1994), a seleccionabilidade das ilhas gregas para o objectivo 1 na(cid:152)o e· questionada. Ale·m disso, nos projectos de regulamento que a Comissa(cid:152)o esta· a preparar actualmente projecta-se renovar uma taxa de cofinanciamento comunita·rio mais alta para as ilhas perife·ricas gregas que sofrem de desvantagens devidas a‘ dista(cid:136)ncia. (98/C 187/127) PERGUNTA ESCRITA E-3905/97 apresentada por Cristiana Muscardini (NI) a‘ Comissa(cid:152)o (11 de Dezembro de 1997) Objecto: Aeroporto de Malpensa (Mila(cid:152)o) Considerando que Malpensa e· um dos grandes projectos priorita·rios da Unia(cid:152)o Europeia; Considerando que, infelizmente, o aeroporto de Malpensa continua a na(cid:152)o ter estruturas adequadas de liga(cid:231)a(cid:152)o a Mila(cid:152)o, a mais importante metro·pole da Ita·lia do Norte e cidade que, do ponto de vista econo·mico, representa uma ponta avan(cid:231)ada em direc(cid:231)a(cid:152)o a‘ Europa; Considerando que o Ministro dos Transportes italiano, Sr. Burlando, tera· decretado que, a partir do pro·ximo me(cid:136)s de Outubro, o aeroporto de Linate deveria ser unicamente utilizado para os voos dome·sticos, enquanto todos os outros voos para a Unia(cid:152)o Europeia deveriam partir do aeroporto de Malpensa; Considerando que, durante as horas de trabalho, o trajecto do centro de Mila(cid:152)o ao aeroporto de Malpensa leva uma hora e meia a percorrer, o que implica, em ta·xi, um custo de cerca de 200. 000 liras; Pode a Comissa(cid:152)o convidar o Governo italiano a melhorar os acessos ao aeroporto de Malpensa antes de 1. fixar qualquer data para o aumento do tra·fego ae·reo deste aeroporto? 2. Pode a Comissa(cid:152)o intervir no sentido de que na(cid:152)o sejam anulados, no aeroporto de Linate, os voos que ligam Mila(cid:152)o ao resto da Unia(cid:152)o, em especial a Bruxelas, dado que, a manterem-se os voos Mila(cid:152)o-Roma (capital da Ita·lia), devera(cid:152)o igualmente manter-se os voos Mila(cid:152)o-Bruxelas (capital da Europa)? (98/C 187/128) PERGUNTA ESCRITA E-3956/97 apresentada por Cristiana Muscardini (NI), Amedeo Amadeo (NI) e Carlo Secchi (PPE) a‘ Comissa(cid:152)o (12 de Dezembro de 1997) Objecto: Aeroporto de Malpensa (Mila(cid:152)o) Considerando que o aeroporto de Malpensa e· um dos grandes projectos priorita·rios da Unia(cid:152)o Europeia e que, infelizmente, este aeroporto continua a na(cid:152)o dispor de infra-estruturas adequadas para assegurar a liga(cid:231)a(cid:152)o com Mila(cid:152)o, metro·pole do Norte de Ita·lia e cidade que constitui uma plataforma econo·mica projectada para a Europa, Considerando que o Ministro dos Transportes de Ita·lia, Sr. Burlando, decidiu que, a partir do pro·ximo me(cid:136)s de Outubro, o aeroporto de Linate-Mila(cid:152)o sera· exclusivamente reservado aos voos internos e que todos os voos para a Unia(cid:152)o Europeia devera(cid:152)o partir do aeroporto de Malpensa, Considerando que para chegar a Malpensa a partir do centro de Mila(cid:152)o › durante as horas de trabalho› se leva cerca de uma hora e meia e que o custo do ta·xi ronda as 200. 000 liras,


title: Forslag til Rådets forordning (EF) om fordeling for 1998 af fangstkvoter mellem medlemsstaterne for fartøjer, der udøver fiskeri i estiske farvande

eurovoc_concepts:
EU Member State
Estonia
authorised catch
catch quota
fishing area

text: KOMMISSIONEN FOR DE EUROPÆISKE FÆLLESSKABER Bruxelles, den 12. 12. 1997 KOM(97) 688 endelig udg. Forslag til RÅDETS FORORDNING (EF) om fordeling for 1998 af fangstkvoter mellem medlemsstaterne for fartøjer, der udøver fiskeri i estiske farvande (forelagt af Kommissionen) BEGRUNDELSE Der blev ført konsultationer mellem Fællesskabet og Estland i Bruxelles fra den 3. til den 4. november 1997, som førte til et godkendt referat af konklusionerne om et gensidigt fiskeriarrangement for 1998. Disse konsultationer fandt sted i henhold til den nye fiskeriaftale mellem Det Europæiske Fællesskab og Republikken Estland, som blev underskrevet i Bruxelles den 19. december 1996. Fiskeriarrangementet for 1998 indebærer bl. a. andet, at EF-fartøjer får visse fangstkvoter i Estlands fiskerizone som led i udveksling af fangstmuligheder og kvoter for gensidig adgang. Formålet med dette forslag til forordning er at foretage en fordeling mellem medlemsstaterne af kvoterne for 1998 til EF-fartøjer, der fisker i den estiske zone i henhold til ovennævnte arrangement. Som følge af akten om Østrigs, Finlands og Sveriges tiltrædelse af Den Europæiske Union, særlig artikel 121, stk. 1, fodnote 9 til tabellen, har de stater, der var medlemmer af Fællesskabet i dets sammensætning før udvidelsen, fået kompensation for deres lavere andel af torskebestanden op til det niveau, der kræves i Rådets erklæring. Estland får kompensation for de kvoter, der er opnået i landets farvande, i form af en økonomisk støtte på 465 467 ECU, jf. artikel 4 i fiskeriaftalen mellem Det Europæiske Fællesskab og Republikken Estland. st Forslag til RÅDETS FORORDNING (EF) om fordeling for 1998 af fangstkvoter mellem medlemsstaterne for fartøjer, der udøver fiskeri i estiske farvande RÅDET FOR DEN EUROPÆISKE UNION HAR - under henvisning til traktaten om oprettelse af Det Europæiske Fællesskab, under henvisning til Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 3760/92 af 20. december 1992 om en fællesskabsordning for fiskeri og akvakultur^), særlig artikel 8, stk. 4, under henvisning til forslag fra Kommissionen, og ud fra følgende betragtninger: Fællesskabet og Estland har i overensstemmelse med proceduren i fiskeriaftalen mellem Det Europæiske Fællesskab og Republikken Estland^2), særlig artikel 3 og 6, ført konsultationer om de gensidige fiskerirettigheder for 1998 og forvaltningen af de fælles levende ressourcer; under disse konsultationer blev delegationerne enige om at henstille til deres respektive myndigheder, at der fastsættes visse fangstkvoter for 1998 for den anden parts fartøjer; på baggrund af resultatet af konsultationerne med Estland bør der træffes de nødvendige foranstaltninger for 1998; for at sikre en effektiv forvaltning af fangstmulighederne i estiske farvande bør disse i overensstemmelse med artikel 8 i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 3760/92 fordeles mellem medlemsstaterne ved hjælp af kvoter; fiskeri, der er omhandlet det relevante kontrolforanstaltninger i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 2847/93 af 12. oktober 1993 om indførelse af en kontrolordning under den fælles fiskeripolitik*3) ; forordning, er undergivet de i nærværende der blev ikke aftalt ekstra forholdsregler med Estland i overensstemmelse med bestemmelserne i artikel 2 i Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 847/96W om supplerende betingelser for forvaltningen af TAC og kvoter fra år til år; det er af almene hensyn strengt nødvendigt, at denne forordning anvendes fra den 1. januar 1998 - <l ) EFT L 389 af 31. 12. 1992, s. 1. Forordning ændret ved 1994-tiltrædelsesakten. (2) EFT L 332 af 20. 12. 1996, s. 16. <3> EFT L 261 af 20. 10. 1993, s. 1. W EFT L 115 af 9. 5. 1996, s. 3. UDSTEDT FØLGENDE FORORDNING: Artikel 1 Fra den 1. januar til den 31. december 1998 tillades det herved fartøjer, der fører en medlemsstats flag, at tage fangster inden for de i bilaget fastsatte kvoter i farvande henhørende under Estlands fiskerijurisdiktion. Artikel 2 Den økonomiske støtte, som er omhandlet i artikel 4 i fiskeriaftalen mellem Det Europæiske Fællesskab og Republikken Estland, fastsættes for den i artikel 1 omhandlede periode til 465 467 ECU, der indbetales på en af Estland angivet konto. De i bilaget omhandlede bestande er ikke omfattet af betingelserne i artikel 2, 3 og 5, stk. 2, i Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 847/96. Artikel 3 Denne forordning træder i kraft på dagen for offentliggørelsen i De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende. Den anvendes fra den 1. januar 1998. Artikel 4 Denne forordning er bindende i alle enkeltheder og gælder umiddelbart i hver medlemsstat. Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den. december 1997. På Rådets vegne Formand BILAG Fordelingen af Fællesskabets fangstkvoter i estiske farvande for 1998 (tons, levende vægt; for laks: antal fisk) '8$tt' Fællesskabets Medlemsstaternes I "*" ^Fanactlrvntw ** oter '*, kvoter Torsk ni(d) 763 Sild ni(d) 3 000 Laks ni(d) 5 400 Brisling 111(d) 13 000 Danmark Finland Tyskland Sverige Danmark Finland Tyskland Sverige Danmark Finland Tyskland Sverige Danmark Finland Tyskland Sverige 285 120 128 '230 1430 0 1070 500 2 100 2 020 235 1045 7 560 0 2 010 3 430 s4 FINANSffiRINGSOVERSIGT 1. FORANSTALTNINGENS BETEGNELSE: Forslag til Rådets forordning om fordeling for 1998 af fangstkvoter mellem medlemsstaterne for fartøjer, der udøver fiskeri i estiske farvande. 2. BUDGETPOST: B7-800 3. RETSGRUNDLAG: Artikel 8, stk. 4, i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 3760/92 4. BESKRIVELSE AF FORANSTALTNINGEN: 4. 1 Foranstaltningens generelle mål: • • • at bevare og udvikle EF-fiskernes traditionelle aktivitet i estiske farvande; at skaffe forsyninger til EF-markedet; og at mindske fiskeriindsatsen i EF-farvande. 4. 2 Periode: 1998 5. KLASSIFIKATION AF UDGIFTERNE: 5. 1 Obligatoriske udgifter 5. 2 Opdelte bevillinger 6. UDGIFTERNES ART: Finansiel godtgørelse for fiskerimuligheder i estiske farvande. 7. FINANSIELLE VIRKNINGER: 465 467 ECU Den finansielle godtgørelse i henhold til aftalens artikel 4 er blevet forhandlet på grundlag af de gennemsnitlige landingspriser i 1996 i EF-Østersøhavne. Der er foretaget fradrag for flådernes anslåede omkostninger ved udnyttelsen for hver af arterne. 7. 1 Beregningsmetode: Opnåede kvoter (tons) 1 100 fei^^-l 27 (5 400 stk. ) BRISMNG; 3 000 13 000 Vejede gennemsnitlige landingspriser 1996 (ECU/ton) 908 2 284 166,81 84,75 Markedsværdi (ECU) Forhandlet (procent) ECU 998 800 25% 249 700 61668 25% 15 417 500 430 1 101 750 , 12,5% 62 550 12,5% 137 800 Samlet finansiel godtgørelse (artikel 4): 465 467 ECU Gennemsnitspris ECU/ton: 27,18 8. FORHOLDSREGLER MOD SVIG: Fællesskabets økonomiske støtte skal anvendes af Estland til udvikling af landets fiskerisektor, jf. aftalens artikel 4. Beløbet administreres af den estiske fiskerifond. 9. OPLYSNINGER OM COST/BENEFIT: EF-flåden i Østersøen er blevet hårdt ramt af reduktioner af fangstmulighederne, hovedsagelig på grund af biologiske faktorer (vandets lave saltindhold, M-74-syge) og forurening af vandet. Enhver forøgelse af fiskerimulighederne ud over de nuværende kritiske fangstniveauer vil medvirke til at forhindre, at flåden og de tilknyttede industrier og tjenester på land bryder sammen og forsvinder. En sådan forøgelse vil også i et vist omfang medvirke til at forhindre udbetalinger under oplægningsordninger eller sociale programmer. Erfaringerne har lært os, at den finansielle godtgørelse, der var af samme størrelsesorden som i 1997, hovedsagelig er blevet anvendt af Estland til fortsat at forbedre fiskeriforskningen og uddannelsen inden for fiskeriforvaltningen. Dette medfører en bedre videnskabelig vurdering og håndhævelse i Estlands fiskerizone og bidrager til en mere rationel udnyttelse af bestandene til gavn for alle parter i Østersøen. De foreslåede udgifter indgår i budgetplanlægningen for den pågældende periode. 10. UDGIFTER TIL ADMINISTRATION: Forslaget kræver administrationsomkostninger. ingen udvidelse af Kommissionens personale og ingen ekstra * ISSN 0254-1459 KOM(97) 688 endelig udg. DOKUMENTER DA 03 04 05 10 Katalognummer : CB-CO-97-710-DA-C ISBN 92-78-29091-2 Kontoret for De Europæiske Fællesskabers Officielle Publikationer L-2985 Luxembourg


title: Verordening (EG) nr. 2491/97 van de Commissie van 12 december 1997 houdende wijziging van Verordening (EG) nr. 3163/93 tot vaststelling van de op ramingen berustende voorzieningsbalans voor zuivelproducten in het kader van de specifieke voorzieningsregeling voor de kleinere eilanden in de Egeïsche Zee

eurovoc_concepts:
Aegean Islands
EU aid
aid system
supply
supply balance sheet
yoghourt


title: Ehdotus neuvoston asetukseksi (EY) eräistä Venäjän federaation lipun alla purjehtiviin aluksiin sovellettavista kalavarojen säilyttämis- ja hallintotoimenpiteistä vuodeksi 1998

eurovoc_concepts:
Russia
conservation of fish stocks
fishery management
fishing licence
fishing regulations

text: EUROOPAN YHTEISÖJEN KOMISSIO Bryssel, 12. 12. 1997 KOM(97) 703 lopull. Ehdotus ^NEUVOSTON ASETUKSEKSI fEY) eräistä Venäjän federaation lipun alla purjehtiviin aluksiin sovellettavista kalavarojen säilyttämis- ja hallintotoimenpiteistä vuodeksi 1998 (komission esittämä) PERUSTELUT Itävallan, Suomen ja Ruotsin liittymisasiakirjan mukaisesti yhteisö hoitaa kyseisten maiden kolmansien maiden kanssa tekemät kalastussopimukset. Venäjän federaation ja Ruotsin vuonna 1992 tekemän kahdenvälisen kalastussopimuksen perusteella yhteisö on neuvotellut Venäjän federaation kanssa Ruotsin puolesta, mikä on johtanut keskinäiseen kalastussopimukseen vuodeksi 1998. Tämän asetusehdotuksen tarkoituksena on antaa Venäjän aluksille lupa kalastaa niille vuodeksi 1998 yhteisön vesillä jaettuja kiintiöitä edellä mainittujen keskinäisten järjestelyjen mukaisesti. oL Ehdotus NEUVOSTON ASETUS (EY) N:o /98 annettu eräistä Venäjän federaation lipun alla purjehtiviin aluksiin sovellettavista kalavarojen säilyttämis-ja hallintotoimenpiteistä vuodeksi 1998 EUROOPAN UNIONIN NEUVOSTO, joka ottaa huomioon Euroopan yhteisön perustamissopimuksen, ottaa huomioon yhteisön kalastus- ja vesiviljelyjärjestelmän perustamisesta 20 päivänä joulukuuta 1992 annetun neuvoston asetuksen (ETY) N:o 3760/921, ja erityisesti sen 8 artiklan 4 kohdan, ottaa huomioon komission ehdotuksen, sekä katsoo, että vuoden 1994 liittymisasiakirjan 124 artiklan mukaisesti yhteisö hallinnoi Ruotsin kuningaskunnan kolmansien maiden kanssa tekemiä kalastussopimuksia, Ruotsin kuningaskunnan hallituksen ja Venäjän federaation hallituksen 11 päivänä joulukuuta 1992 tehdyn kalastussopimuksen 3 artiklassa määrätyn menettelyn mukaisesti yhteisö Ruotsin kuningaskunnan puolesta ja Venäjän federaatio ovat neuvotelleet keskinäisistä kalastusoikeuksistaan vuoden 1998 osalta, näissä neuvotteluissa valtuuskunnat sopivat suosittelevansa viranomaisilleen eräiden pyyntikiintiöiden vahvistamista toisen sopimuspuolen aluksille vuodeksi 1998, toteutettava olisi neuvottelujen tulosten täytäntöönpanemiseksi vuodeksi 1998, toimenpiteet Venäjän tarvittavat federaation kanssa käytyjen neuvosto vahvistaa Venäjän federaation lipun alla purjehtivien alusten harjoittamaa pyyntiä koskevat erityisedellytykset, tässä asetuksessa tarkoitetun kalasmstoiminnan on oltava yhteiseen kalastuspolitiikkaan sovellettavasta valvontajärjestelmästä 12 päivänä lokakuuta 1993 annetussa asetuksessa (ETY) N:o 2847/932 säädettyjen valvontatoimenpiteiden mukaista, ja EYVL N:o L 389, 31. 12. 1992, s. 1 asetus sellaisena kuin se on muutettuna vuoden 1994. EYVLN:oL261, 20. 10. 1993, s. 1 2 kalastusalusten merkitsemistä jä asiakirjoilla todistamista koskevista yksityiskohtaisista erityissäännöistä 20 päivänä toukokuuta 1987 annetun komission asetuksen (ETY) N:o 1381/873 3 artiklan 2 kohdassa säädetään, että kaikissa aluksissa, joissa on meriveden jäähdytyssäiliöitä, on oltava toimivaltaisen viranomaisen hyväksymä asiakirja, johon on merkitty säiliöiden tilavuus kuutiometreinä 10 senttimetrin tarkkuudella mitattuna; yhteisen edun vuoksi tätä asetusta sovelletaan 1 päivästä tammikuuta 1998, ON ANTANUT TÄMÄN ASETUKSEN: 1 artikla 1. Venäjän federaation lipun alla purjehtivat alukset saavat pyytää 1 päivästä tammikuuta 31 päivään joulukuuta 1998 liitteessä I lueteltuja lajeja siinä esitettyjä maantieteellisiä ja määrällisiä rajoja noudattaen ja tämän asetuksen mukaisesti jäsenvaltioiden Itämerellä kalastusvyöhykkeellä. 200 meripeninkulman sijaitsevalla laajuisella 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. Edellä 1 kohdassa sallitun kalastuksen on rajoituttava sellaiseen osaan 200 meripeninkulman laajuista kalastusvyöhykettä, joka on yli 12 meripemnkulman päässä merelle päin niistä perusviivoista, joista jäsenvaltioiden kalastusvyöhykkeet mitataan. Sen estämättä, mitä 1 kohdassa säädetään, sellaisten lajien sivusaaliit, joille ei ole kiintiötä vyöhykkeellä ja joiden saamista ei ole voitu välttää, sallitaan kyseisellä vyöhykkeellä voimassa olevien säilyttämistoimenpiteiden rajoissa. Tietyllä vyöhykkeellä saadut sellaisen lajin sivusaaliit, jolle kyseisellä vyöhykkeellä on määrätty kiintiö, lasketaan osaksi kiintiötä. 2 artikla Edellä 1 artiklassa vahvistettuja kiintiöitä kalastavien alusten on noudatettava säilyttämis- ja valvontatoimenpiteitä sekä kaikkia muita kyseisessä artiklassa tarkoitettua vyöhykettä koskevia kalastusta säänteleviä säännöksiä. Edellä 1 kohdassa tarkoitettujen alusten on pidettävä kalastuspäiväkirjaa, johon merkitään liitteessä II esitetyt tiedot. 3. Alusten on toimitettava komissiolle liitteessä HI esitetyt tiedot kyseisessä liitteessä säädettyjen sääntöjen mukaisesti. 4. Aluksissa, joissa on meriveden jäähdytyssäiliöitä, on oltava toimivaltaisten viranomaisten hyväksymä asiakirja, johon on merkitty säiliöiden -tilavuus kuutiometreinä 10 senttimetrin tarkkuudella mitattuna. 5. Aluksen rekisterikirjaimet ja -numerot on merkittävä selvästi aluksen keulan molemmille puolille. EYVL N:o L 132, 21. 5. 1987, s. 9 4 , 1. 3 artikla Liitteessä I lueteltuja lajeja pyytävillä aluksilla on oltava komission yhteisön puolesta myöntämä lisenssi ja erityiskalastuslupa, ja niiden on noudatettava lisenssissä ja erityiskalastusluvassa vahvistettuja edellytyksiä. Venäjän viranomaisten on ilmoitettava komissiolle niiden alusten nimet ja tiedot, joille lisenssejä ja erityiskalastuslupia voidaan myöntää. 2. Komissio myöntää 1 kohdassa tarkoitetut lisenssit ja erityiset kalastusluvat kaikille aluksille, joille Venäjän viranomaiset pyytävät lisenssiä ja erityistä kalastuslupaa. Lisenssin ja erityisen kalastusluvan koskevat pyynnöt voidaan esittää koska tahansa ja ne käsitellään nopeasti. saaneiden alusten luettelon muuttamista 3. Toimitettaessa komissiolle lisenssiä ja erityiskalastuslupaa koskevia hakemuksia mukana on oltava seuraavat tiedot: aluksen nimi, rekisterinumero, rekisterisatama, omistajan tai rahtaajan nimi ja osoite, bruttovetoisuus ja kokonaispituus, (a) (b) (c) ulkoiset tunnuskirjaimet ja -numerot, (d) (e) (f) (g) moottorin teho (h) (i) (j) (k) pyydettävät lajit, (1) radiokutsutunnus ja -taajuus, aiottu kalastusmenetelmä, aiottu kalastusalue, ajanjakso, jolle lisenssiä ja erityiskalastuslupaa haetaan. 4. Lisenssi ja erityiskalastuslupa myönnetään, jos lisenssien ja erityiskalastuslupien määrä ei ylitä liitteessä I mainittuja määriä tiettynä kuukautena tai vuonna. 5. Kukin lisenssi ja erityiskalastuslupa koskee ainoastaan yhtä alusta. Jos kaksi alusta tai useampi alus osallistuu samaan kalastukseen, jokaisella aluksella on oltava lisenssi ja erityiskalastuslupa. 6. 7. 8. ja erityiskalastusluvat voidaan peruuttaa uusien Lisenssit ja erityiskalastuslupien myöntämisen yhteydessä. Tällainen mitätöinti tapahtuu päivää ennen kuin komissio myöntää uudet lisenssit ja erityiskalastusluvat. Uudet lisenssit ja erityiskalastusluvat tulevat voimaan niiden myöntämispäivänä. lisenssien Lisenssit ja erityiskalastusluvat perutaan kokonaan tai osittain ennen niiden päättymispäivää, jos 1 artiklassa vahvistetut kiintiöt täyttyvät ennen tätä. Lisenssit ja erityiskalastusluvat perutaan, jos velvoitteita ei noudateta. tässä asetuksessa säädettyjä 9. Alukselle, joka ei noudata tässä asetuksessa säädettyjä velvoitteita, ei myönnetä lisenssiä tai erityiskalastuslupaa enintään 12 kuukauteen. r 10. Komissio toimittaa yhteisön puolesta Venäjän viranomaisille niiden venäläisten alusten nimet ja tiedot, joiden ei sallita kalastaa yhteisön kalastusvyöhykkeellä seuraavan kuukauden tai seuraavien kuukausien aikana yhteisön sääntöjen rikkomisen vuoksi. 4 artikla Alukset, jotka saavat kalastaa 31 päivänä joulukuuta, voivat jatkaa kalastusta seuraavan vuoden alusta, kunnes komissio vastaanottaa ja hyväksyy yhteisön puolesta luettelon kyseisenä vuonna kalastamaan oikeutetuista aluksista. 5 artikla Tämä asetus tulee voimaan seuraavana päivänä sen jälkeen, kun se on julkaistu Euroopan yhteisöjen virallisessa lehdessä. Sitä sovelletaan 1 päivästä tammikuuta 1998. Tämä asetus on kaikilta osiltaan velvoittava, ja sitä sovelletaan sellaisenaan kaikissa jäsenvaltioissa. Tehty Brysselissä Neuvoston puolesta Puheenjohtaja C LIITE I Venäjän federaation saaliskiintiöt vuonna 1998 Ruotsin kalastusvyöhyke (1) (1) (2) Ruotsin vesialue Itämerellä linjan 59°30' pohjoista leveyttä eteläpuolella. Enintään viittä tukialusta, joita ei käytetä kalastukseen, voidaan myös käyttää samanaikaisesti. % LIITE n Kalastettaessa vyöhykkeillä, jotka ulottuvat 200 meripeninkulman päähän yhteisön jäsenvaltioiden rannikoista ja joita koskevat yhteisön kalastusta koskevat säännöt, kalastuspäiväkirjaan on merkittävä seuraavat tiedot välittömästi seuraavien tapahtumien jälkeen: Jokaisen nostokerran jälkeen: jokaisen pyydetyn lajin määrä (elopaino kilogrammoina), 1. 1. 1 1. 2 nostokerran päivämäärä ja kellonaika, 1. 3 maantieteellinen sijainti saalista pyydettäessä, 1. 4 käytetty kalastusmenetelmä. 2. Jokaisen toiseen alukseen tai toisesta aluksesta tapahtuneen jälleenlaivauksen jälkeen: 2. 1 merkintä "saatu. :lta" tai "siirretty. :lle", 2. 2 2. 3 jokaisen jälleenlaivatun kalalajin määrä (elopaino kilogrammoina), sen aluksen nimi, ulkoiset tunnuskirjaimet ja jälleenlaivaus tehtiin, turskan jälleenlaivaus ei ole sallittua. -numerot, josta tai johon Jokaisen yhteisön satamassa tapahtuneen lastin purkamisen jälkeen: sataman nimi, jokaisen puretun lajin määrä (elopaino kilogrammoina). Jokaisen Euroopan yhteisöjen komissiolle asianomaisten Ruotsin viranomaisten välityksellä lähetetyn tiedonannon jälkeen: lähetyksen päivä ja aika, 4. 1 4. 2 viestin tyyppi: "IN", "OUT" tai "TWO WEEKS", 4. 3 jos viesti lähetetään radioteitse: radioaseman nimi. 2. 4 3. 3. 1 3. 2 4. r LIITE ra 1. Komissiolle toimitetaan asianomaisten Ruotsin viranomaisten välityksellä seuraavat tiedot seuraavina ajankohtina: 1. 1 Aina kun alus saapuu kalastusvyöhykkeelle, joka ulottuu 200 meriperiinkulman päähän yhteisön jäsenvaltioiden rannikosta ja jota koskee yhteisön kalastusta koskevat säännöt: jäljempänä 1. 4 kohdassa esitetyt tiedot, aluksella pidettyjen lajien määrät (elopaino kilogrammoina), päivämäärä ja ICES-alue, jolla aluksen päällikkö aikoo aloittaa pyynnin. Jos kalastus edellyttää tiettynä päivänä useaa saapumista 1. 1 kohdassa tarkoitetulle vyöhykkeelle, yksi, ensimmäisen kerran saavuttaessa annettava ilmoitus riittää. a) b) c) 1. 2 Aina kun alus poistuu 1. 1 kohdassa tarkoitetulta vyöhykkeeltä: a) b) c) jäljempänä 1. 4 kohdassa esitetyt tiedot, aluksella pidettyjen lajien määrät (elopaino kilogrammoina), kaikkien edellisen ilmoituksen jälkeen pyydettyjen kilogrammoina), ICES-alue, jolla saaliit on pyydetty, toisille aluksille jälkeen jälleenlaivatut saalismäärät lajeittain (elopaino kilogrammoina) sekä sen aluksen tunnukset, jolle jälleenlaivaus tehtiin. Jos kalastus edellyttää tiettynä päivänä useaa saapumista 1. 1 kohdassa tarkoitetulle vyöhykkeelle, yksi, viimeisen kerran poistuttaessa annettava ilmoitus riittää. toisilta aluksilta vyöhykkeelle saapumisen lajien määrät (elopaino ja/tai d) e) 1. 3 Joka neljästoista päivä alkaen neljännennestätoista päivästä sen jälkeen, kun alus saapuu ensimmäisen kerran 1. 1 kohdassa tarkoitetulle vyöhykkeelle: jäljempänä 1. 4 kohdassa esitetyt tiedot, kaikkien edellisen kilogrammoina), ICES-alue, jolla saaliit on pyydetty. ilmoituksen jälkeen pyydettyjen lajien määrät (elopaino a) b) c) 1. 4 a) Aluksen nimi, radiokutsutunnus, ulkoiset tunnuskirjaimet ja -numerot, b) c) d) lisenssin numero, jos aluksella on lisenssi, viestityypin tunnus (IN/OUT/TWO WEEKS), päivämäärä, kellonaika ja aluksen maantieteellinen sijainti. 2. 1 Edellä 1 kohdassa esitetyt tiedot on toimitettava Euroopan yhteisöjen komissiolle Brysseliin (teleksi: 24189 FISEU-B) jonkin 3 kohdassa mainitun radioaseman kautta ja 4 kohdassa esitetyssä muodossa. 2. 2 Jos alus ei,ylivoimaisen esteen takia voi lähettää tietoja, toinen alus voi lähettää sanoman sen puolesta. Q ti Radioaseman nimi Radioaseman kutsutunnus Tukholma Gryt Maarianhamina Helsinki Tiedonantojen muoto SDJ (ei kutsutunnusta) OHM OHG Edellä 1 kohdassa täsmennettyihin tietoihin on sisällyttävä seuraavat osat ja ne on lähetettävä seuraavassa järjestyksessä: - aluksen nimi, - radiokutsutunnus, - ulkoiset tunnuskirjaimet ja -numerot, - viestityypin tunnus seuraavan koodin mukaisesti: - sanoma saavuttaessa johonkin 1. 1 kohdassa tarkoitetuista vyöhykkeistä: "IN", - sanoma poistuttaessa joltakin 1. 1 kohdassa tarkoitetuista vyöhykkeistä: "OUT", - joka toinen viikko lähetettävä sanoma: "TWO WEEKS", - päivämäärä, kellonaika ja maantieteellinen sijainti, - päivä, jona pyynti aiotaan aloittaa, - aluksella pidettyjen lajien määrät (elopaino kilogrammoina) 5 kohdassa mainittua koodia käyttäen, - kaikkien edellisen ilmoituksen jälkeen pyydettyjen kalalajien määrät (elopaino kilogrammoina) 5 kohdassa mainittua koodia käyttäen, ICES-alueet/suuralueet, joilla saaliit on pyydetty, - - edellisen ilmoituksen jälkeen muille aluksille/muilta aluksilta jälleenlaivatut saaliit kalalajeittain (elopaino kilogrammoina), sen aluksen nimi ja kutsutunnus, jolle/jolta jälleenlaivaus suoritettiin, - Aluksella olevien lajien 4 kohdassa tarkoitettuun ilmoittamiseen käytettävä koodi: COD SAL HER SPR OTH - - - - - Turska (Gadus morhua) Lohi (Salmo salar) Silli (Clupea harengus) Kilohaili (Sprattus sprattus) Muu /O ISSN 1024-4492 KOM(97) 703 lopullinen r\i3JLr\J\J. _IVtJ/\_l. FI 03 11 14 Luettelonumero : CB-CO-97-722-FI-C ISBN 92-78-29231-1 Euroopan yhteisöjen virallisten julkaisujen toimisto L-2985 Luxemburg //


title: SCHRIFTELIJKE VRAAG nr. 3968/97 van Mihail PAPAYANNAKIS aan de Commissie. Het probleem van het jaar 2000

eurovoc_concepts:
Economic and Monetary Union
computer system
economic convergence
euro
monetary integration
single monetary policy
technical barrier
technological change

text: C 196/42 NL Publicatieblad van de Europese Gemeenschappen 22. 6. 98 Antwoord van Sir Leon Brittan namens de Commissie (2 februari 1998) De eerbiediging van de mensenrechten en de fundamentele vrijheden in China blijft voor de Commissie onderwerp van voortdurende bezorgdheid. Waar zij het gerechtvaardigd acht, heeft de Commissie steeds haar bezorgdheid uitgedrukt ten aanzien van de situatie omtrent de mensenrechten, in het bijzonder in Tibet. De Commissie beschikt niet over nauwkeurige gegevens omtrent de door het geachte Parlementslid vermelde feiten. Indien deze feiten bevestigd zouden worden, zou de Commissie het niet nalaten om, zoals ze reeds in het verleden heeft gedaan, in het kader van de bilaterale dialoog met China in verband met de mensenrechten, elke schending van de mensenrechten en de menselijke waardigheid ter sprake brengen. (98/C 196/59) SCHRIFTELIJKE VRAAG E-3967/97 van Reimer Bo¤ge (PPE) aan de Commissie (12 december 1997) Betreft: Noodzaak van een algemene voedermiddelenrichtlijn Deelt de Commissie de opvatting dat gezien het grote aantal bestaande richtlijnen een algemene voedermidde- lenrichtlijn moet worden ontwikkeld, om zo een duidelijk gedefinieerd en overzichtelijk kader voor de EU-voedermiddelenwetgeving te cree¤ren? Zo ja, met welke essentie¤le doeleinden en principes moet dan volgens de Commissie in de eerste plaats rekening gehouden worden? Antwoord van de heer Fischler namens de Commissie (3 februari 1998) De Commissie is het met het geachte Parlementslid eens dat het, gezien het grote aantal richtlijnen die voorschriften inzake diervoeding bevatten, wenselijk zou zijn die richtlijnen op vrij korte termijn te herwerken tot e·e·n enkele tekst. Daarmee was reeds een begin gemaakt, maar helaas moesten de betrokken werkzaamheden worden onderbroken om andere problemen aan te pakken waarvan wordt gevonden dat deze voorrang moeten krijgen. De Commissie is van mening dat een herwerking van de huidige regelgeving in de eerste plaats tot een vereenvoudiging moet leiden, maar dat daarbij geen afbreuk mag worden gedaan aan de doelstellingen die met die huidige regelgeving worden nagestreefd, namelijk bescherming van de gezondheid van dieren en mensen, milieubehoud, handhaving van de kwaliteit van de diervoeders en voorlichting van de dierhouders. De vereenvoudigde voorschriften zullen doorzichtiger zijn en daardoor beter kunnen worden toegepast door de verschillende betrokkenen, waaronder met name de industrie. (98/C 196/60) SCHRIFTELIJKE VRAAG E-3968/97 van Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) aan de Commissie (12 december 1997) Betreft: Het probleem van het jaar 2000 In een artikel uit de (cid:132)Times(cid:148) van zondag 23 november wordt bericht dat een groep experts aan president Clinton een rapport heeft voorgelegd, waaruit blijkt dat Europa door het feit dat de invoering van de EURO min of meer samenvalt met het optreden van de softwareproblemen in verband met het jaar 2000 voor onoverkomelijke problemen van zowel technische als economische aard zal worden gesteld