title: Verordening (EG) nr. 730/98 van de Raad van 30 maart 1998 betreffende de opening en de wijze van beheer van autonome communautaire tariefcontingenten voor bepaalde visserijproducten

eurovoc_concepts:
CCT duties
fishery product
quantitative restriction
tariff quota

formats: html pdf print

text: 2. 4. 98 ‹ ‹NL Publicatieblad van de Europese Gemeenschappen L 102/1 I (Besluiten waarvan de publicatie voorwaarde is voor de toepassing) VERORDENING (EG) Nr. 730/98 VAN DE RAAD van 30 maart 1998 betreffende de opening en de wijze van beheer van autonome communautaire tariefcontingenten voor bepaalde visserijproducten DE RAAD VAN DE EUROPESE UNIE, Gelet op het Verdrag tot oprichting van de Europese Gemeenschap, inzonderheid op artikel 28, Gezien het voorstel van de Commissie, Overwegende dat de Gemeenschap voor haar voorziening met bepaalde visproducten momenteel afhankelijk is van invoer uit derde landen; dat het in het belang van de Gemeenschap is de douanerechten op de invoer van de betrokken producten geheel of ten dele op te schorten binnen de grenzen van communautaire tariefcontingenten van passende omvang; dat het, teneinde de verwerkende industrie in staat te stellen zich met deze producten te bevoorraden zonder dat de ontwikkelingsmogelijkheden van de communautaire producenten daarbij in het gedrang komen, dienstig is deze tariefcontingenten te openen en bij het vaststellen van de daaraan verbonden rechten rekening te houden met de gevoeligheid van de betrokken producten op de markt van de Gemeenschap; Overwegende dat het dienstig is ervoor te zorgen dat alle importeurs in de Gemeenschap te allen tijde en in gelijke mate toegang hebben tot de genoemde contingenten en dat de voor deze contingenten vastgestelde rechten zonder onderbreking worden toegepast op alle invoer van de betrokken producten in alle lidstaten tot de contingenten geheel zijn uitgeput; Overwegende dat de Gemeenschap gemachtigd is autonoom tariefcontingenten te openen; dat er evenwel geen beletsel is, teneinde een doeltreffend gemeenschap- pelijk beheer van deze contingenten te waarborgen, om de lidstaten toe te staan uit deze contingenten de met hun werkelijke invoer overeenstemmende hoeveelheden op te nemen; dat deze wijze van beheer een nauwe samen- werking vereist tussen de lidstaten en de Commissie die te allen tijde het saldo van de contingenten dient te kennen en de lidstaten daarvan in kennis moet kunnen stellen; Overwegende dat bij Verordening (EEG) nr. 2454/93 van de Commissie van 2 juli 1993 houdende vaststelling van enkele bepalingen ter uitvoering van Verordening (EEG) nr. 2913/92 van de Raad tot vaststelling van het commu- nautair douanewetboek (1), de regels voor het beheer van tariefcontingenten in chronologische volgorde van de data van aanvaarding van de douaneaangiften werden gecodifi- ceerd, HEEFT DE VOLGENDE VERORDENING VASTGESTELD: Artikel 1 1. De rechten bij invoer van de in de bijlage vermelde producten worden gedurende de aangegeven periodes geschorst tot de aangeduide niveaus en binnen de grenzen van de naast elk product vermelde hoeveelheden. 2. De betrokken producten komen bij invoer voor de in lid 1 bedoelde contingenten in aanmerking op voor- waarde dat de prijs franco grens Gemeenschap die door de lidstaten wordt vastgesteld overeenkomstig artikel 22 van Verordening (EEG) nr. 3759/92 van de Raad van 17 december 1992 houdende een gemeenschappelijke ordening der markten in de sector visserijproducten en producten van de aquacultuur (2), minstens even hoog is als de door de Gemeenschap vastgestelde of vast te stellen referentieprijs van de betrokken producten of categorie(cid:137)n van producten. Artikel 2 De in artikel 1 bedoelde tariefcontingenten worden beheerd door de Commissie overeenkomstig de artikelen 308 bis tot en met 308 quater van Verordening (EEG) nr. 2454/93. Artikel 3 De lidstaten en de Commissie werken nauw samen om de naleving van deze verordening te waarborgen. Artikel 4 Deze verordening treedt in werking op de dag van haar bekendmaking in het Publicatieblad van de Europese Gemeenschappen. Zij is van toepassing met ingang van 1 april 1998. (1) PB L 253 van 11. 10. 1993, blz. 1. Verordening laatstelijk ge- wijzigd bij Verordening (EG) nr. 75/98 (PB L 7 van 13. 1. 1998, blz. 3). (2) PB L 388 van 31. 12. 1992, blz. 1. Verordening laatstelijk ge- wijzigd bij Verordening (EG) nr. 3318/94 (PB L 350 van 31. 12. 1994, blz. 15). L 102/2 ‹ ‹NL Publicatieblad van de Europese Gemeenschappen 2. 4. 98 Deze verordening is verbindend in al haar onderdelen en is rechtstreeks toepasselijk in elke lidstaat. Gedaan te Brussel, 30 maart 1998. Voor de Raad De Voorzitter LORD SIMON of HIGHBURY 2. 4. 98 ‹ ‹NL Publicatieblad van de Europese Gemeenschappen L 102/3 BIJLAGE Omschrijving Kabeljauw (Gadus morhua, Gadus ogac, Gadus macrocephalus) en vis van de soort „Boreogadus saida”, met uitzondering van levers, hom en kuit, vers, gekoeld of bevroren en bestemd om te worden verwerkt (a) (b) Omvang van het contingent (in ton) Toepasselijk recht (in %) Contingents- periode 57 500 3,7 1. 4- 31. 12. 1998 Kabeljauw (Gadus morhua, Gadus ogac, Gadus macrocephalus) en vis van de soort „Boreogadus saida”, met uitzondering van levers, hom en kuit, bevroren en bestemd om te worden verwerkt (a) (c) 9 000 3,7 1. 4- 31. 12. 1998 Levers van kabeljauw (Gadus morhua, Gadus ogac, Gadus macrocephalus) en van vis van de soort „Boreogadus saida”, gekoeld of bevroren, bestemd om te worden verwerkt (a) (b) 300 0 1. 4- 31. 12. 1998 Kabeljauw (Gadus morhua, Gadus ogac, Gadus macrocephalus) en vis van de soort „Boreogadus saida”, gezouten of gepekeld, doch niet gedroogd of gerookt, bestemd om te worden verwerkt (a) (b) 8 000 3,7 1. 4- 31. 12. 1998 Volg- nummer 09. 2753 09. 2756 GN-code TARIC onder- verdeling ex 0302 50 10 ex 0302 50 90 ex 0302 69 35 ex 0303 60 11 ex 0303 60 19 ex 0303 60 90 ex 0303 79 41 ex 0303 60 11 ex 0303 60 19 ex 0303 60 90 ex 0303 79 41 * 20 * 10 * 10 * 10 * 10 * 10 * 10 * 10 * 10 * 10 * 10 09. 2758 ex 0302 70 00 * 20 09. 2765 ex 0305 62 00 ex 0305 69 10 09. 2773 ex 0306 13 10 ex 0306 23 10 * 20 * 25 * 29 * 10 * 10 * 11 * 91 Garnalen van de soort „Pandalus borealis”, niet ontdaan van de schaal, vers, gekoeld of bevroren en bestemd om te worden verwerkt (a) (b) 09. 2779 ex 0304 90 05 * 10 Surimi, bevroren, bestemd om te worden ver- werkt (a) (b) 09. 2780 ex 0304 20 91 ex 0304 90 97 * 10 * 60 Filets van blauwe grenadier (Macruronus novaezea- landiae), bevroren en ander bevroren vlees van blauwe grenadier, bestemd om te worden ver- werkt (a) (b) 6 000 8 000 5 000 0 6 6 1. 4. 1998- 31. 3. 1999 1. 4- 31. 12. 1998 1. 4- 31. 12. 1998 09. 2785 ex 0307 49 59 ex 0307 99 11 * 10 * 10 Pijlinktvissen in tube (Ommastrephes spp. — met uitzondering van Ommastrephes sagittatus —, Nototodarus spp. , Sepioteuthis spp. ) en Illex spp. , bevroren en bestemd om te worden verwerkt (a) (b) 9 000 3,5 1. 4- 31. 12. 1998 09. 2786 ex 0307 49 59 ex 0307 99 11 * 20 * 20 Pijlinktvissen (Ommastrephes spp. — met uitzon- dering van Ommastrephes sagittatus —, Nototo- darus spp. , Sepioteuthis spp. ) en Illex spp. , bevro- ren, hetzij geheel, hetzij tentakels en vinnen en bestemd om te worden verwerkt (a) (b) 500 3,5 1. 4- 31. 12. 1998 09. 2788 ex 0302 40 98 ex 0303 50 98 ex 0304 10 96 ex 0304 90 27 * 10 * 10 * 10 * 10 Haring (Clupea harengus, Clupea pallasii), lappen daaronder begrepen, met uitzondering van levers, hom en kuit, vers, gekoeld of bevroren en bestemd om te worden verwerkt (a) (b) 12 500 0 15. 9- 31. 12. 1998 L 102/4 ‹ ‹NL Publicatieblad van de Europese Gemeenschappen 2. 4. 98 Volg- nummer GN-code TARIC onder- verdeling Omschrijving Omvang van het contingent (in ton) Toepasselijk recht (in %) Contingents- periode 09. 2790 ex 1604 14 16 * 10 Filets, zogenaamde „loins”, van tonijn en van boniet, bestemd om te worden verwerkt (a) (b) 09. 2792 ex 1604 12 99 * 10 Haring, bereid met kruiden en azijn, gepekeld, in verpakkingen met een netto-inhoud per onmid- dellijke verpakking van 90 kg of meer, bestemd om te worden verwerkt (a) (b) 800 1 200 9 8 1. 4- 31. 12. 1998 1. 4- 31. 12. 1998 (a) De controle op het gebruik voor deze bijzondere bestemming geschiedt door toepassing van de op dit gebied geldende communautaire bepalingen. (b) Het tariefcontingent is van toepassing op vis die bestemd is om aan een andere behandeling dan uitsluitend (cid:130)(cid:130)n of meer van de volgende behandelingen te worden onderworpen: — schoonmaken, ontdoen van ingewanden, staart of kop, — in stukken snijden, met uitzondering van het in ringen snijden, van het fileren, van de vervaardiging van lappen of van het in stukken snijden van vriesblok- ken, — sorteren, — etiketteren, — verpakken, — verpakken met ijs, bevriezen, — diepvriezen, — ontdooien, scheiden. Het contingent is niet van toepassing op producten die de op het gebruik van het contingent rechtgevende bewerkingen ondergaan in de kleinhandel of in restau- rantbedrijven, kantines en dergelijke. De verlaging van de douanerechten geldt uitsluitend voor vis die bestemd is voor menselijke consumptie. (c) Het contingent is van toepassing op producten die uitsluitend bestemd zijn om te worden gezouten of gedroogd


title: 98/268/EG: Beschluss des Rates vom 30. März 1998 über die Grundsätze, Prioritäten, Zwischenziele und Bedingungen der Beitrittspartnerschaft mit der Republik Slowenien

eurovoc_concepts:
EU programme
Slovenia
accession to the European Union
cooperation policy

text: L 121/46 DE Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften 23. 4. 98 BESCHLUSS DES RATES vom 30. März 1998 über die Grundsätze, Prioritäten, Zwischenziele und Bedingungen der Beitrittspartnerschaft mit der Republik Slowenien (98/268/EG) DER RAT DER EUROPÄISCHEN UNION — gestützt auf den Vertrag zur Gründung der Europäischen Gemeinschaft, gestützt auf die Verordnung (EG) Nr. 622/98 des Rates vom 16. März 1998 über die Hilfe für die beitrittswilli- gen Länder im Rahmen der Heranführungsstrategie, ins- besondere über die Gründung von Beitrittspartnerschaf- ten (1), insbesondere auf Artikel 2, Die Stellungnahme der Kommission enthielt eine objek- tive Analyse der Vorbereitungen der Republik Slowenien auf die Mitgliedschaft und nannte eine Reihe prioritärer Bereiche für die weitere Arbeit. Die Republik Slowenien sollte ein nationales Programm für die Übernahme des gemeinschaftlichen Besitzstands erstellen. Dieses Programm sollte einen Zeitplan für die Verwirklichung der Prioritäten und Zwischenziele enthal- ten, die im Rahmen der Beitrittspartnerschaft festgelegt worden sind — auf Vorschlag der Kommission, BESCHLIESST: in Erwägung nachstehender Gründe: Artikel 1 Der Europäische Rat von Luxemburg hat erklärt, daß die Beitrittspartnerschaft ein neues Instrument und den Schwerpunkt der intensivierten Heranführungsstrategie darstellt. In der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 622/98 heißt es, daß der Rat auf Vorschlag der Kommission mit qualifizierter Mehr- heit die Grundsätze, Prioritäten, Zwischenziele und Bedingungen für jede der Beitrittspartnerschaften, die den einzelnen beitrittswilligen Ländern unterbreitet werden, sowie über spätere signifikante Änderungen daran beschließt. Die Hilfe der Gemeinschaft setzt voraus, daß wesentliche Voraussetzungen erfüllt sind; sie hängt insbesondere von der Einhaltung der in den Europa-Abkommen vorgesehe- nen Verpflichtungen und von Fortschritten im Hinblick auf die Erfüllung der Kopenhagener Kriterien ab. Fehlt eine dieser Voraussetzungen, so kann der Rat auf Vor- schlag der Kommission mit qualifizierter Mehrheit geeig- nete Maßnahmen hinsichtlich der Gewährung der Heran- führungshilfe treffen. Der Europäische Rat von Luxemburg hat beschlossen, daß die Umsetzung der Beitrittspartnerschaft und die Fortschritte bei der Übernahme des gemeinschaftlichen Besitzstands von den im Rahmen der Europa-Abkommen eingesetzten Gremien geprüft werden. Im Einklang mit Artikel 2 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 622/98 werden die Grundsätze, Prioritäten, Zwischenziele und Bedingungen der Beitrittspartnerschaft mit der Repu- blik Slowenien im Anhang festgelegt, der Bestandteil dieses Beschlusses ist. Artikel 2 Die Umsetzung der Beitrittspartnerschaft wird in den im Rahmen der Europa-Abkommen eingesetzten Gremien und von den zuständigen Stellen des Rates geprüft, denen die Kommission regelmäßig Bericht erstatten wird. Artikel 3 Dieser Beschluß tritt am dritten Tag nach seiner Veröf- fentlichung im Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaf- ten in Kraft. Geschehen zu Brüssel am 30. März 1998. Im Namen des Rates Der Präsident M. BECKETT (1) ABl. L 85 vom 20. 3. 1998, S. 1. 23. 4. 98 DE Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften L 121/47 ANHANG SLOWENIEN 1. Ziele Ziel der Beitrittspartnerschaft ist es, in einem einheitlichen Rahmenwerk die in der Stellungnahme der Kommission zum Antrag Sloweniens auf Beitritt zur Europäischen Union ermittelten prioritären Bereiche für die weiteren Arbeiten, die verfügbaren finanziellen Mittel zur Unterstützung Sloweniens bei der Umsetzung dieser Maßnahmen und die Bedingungen für diese Unterstützung festzulegen. Die Beitrittspartnerschaft liefert ein Rahmenwerk für das politische Instrumentarium zur Unterstützung der Beitrittskandidaten bei ihrer Vorbereitung auf die Mitgliedschaft. Zu diesen Instrumenten gehören unter anderem das von Slowenien anzunehmende Nationale Programm für die Übernahme des gemeinschaftlichen Besitzstands, die Gemeinsame Bewertung der wirtschaftspolitischen Prioritäten, der Pakt gegen die organisierte Kriminalität und der Fahrplan für den Binnenmarkt. Für die Vorbereitung und Umsetzung dieser verschiedenen Instrumente gelten jeweils spezifische Verfahren. Sie sind zwar nicht Bestandteil dieser Beitrittspartnerschaft, jedoch sind ihre Prioritäten mit ihr kompatibel. 2. Grundsätze Für jedes Beitrittsland wurden die prioritären Bereiche nach seiner Fähigkeit ausgewählt, der Verpflichtung nachzukommen, die Kopenhagener Kriterien zu erfüllen, wonach die Mitgliedschaft folgendes voraussetzt: — institutionelle Stabilität des Beitrittslands als Garantie für demokratische und rechtsstaatliche Ordnung, für die Wahrung der Menschenrechte und den Schutz der Minderheiten; — funktionsfähige Marktwirtschaft sowie die Fähigkeit, dem Wettbewerbsdruck und den Marktkräften innerhalb der Union standzuhalten; — Fähigkeit zur Erfüllung der Verpflichtungen aus der Mitgliedschaft, einschließlich der Übernahme der Ziele der politischen Union sowie der Wirtschafts- und Währungsunion. Auf seiner Tagung in Madrid hob der Europäische Rat hervor, daß die Beitrittsländer ihre Verwaltungs- strukturen anpassen müssen, um ein reibungsloses Funktionieren der Gemeinschaftspolitik nach dem Beitritt zu gewährleisten. In Luxemburg wies er darauf hin, daß die Übernahme des gemeinschaftlichen Besitzstands in einzelstaatliches Recht zwar notwendig, aber nicht ausreichend ist; entscheidend ist seine tatsächliche Anwendung. 3. Prioritäten und Zwischenziele In den Stellungnahmen der Kommission und den darauffolgenden Erörterungen im Rat wurde hervorgeho- ben, welche Anstrengungen die Beitrittsländer im Hinblick auf den Beitritt in bestimmten Bereichen noch unternehmen müssen, und darauf hingewiesen, daß gegenwärtig keines dieser Länder alle Kopenhagener Kriterien vollständig erfüllt. Daher müssen für die Prioritäten Zwischenstufen definiert werden, für die in Zusammenarbeit mit den betreffenden Ländern konkrete Ziele vereinbart werden. Davon, inwieweit diese Ziele erreicht werden, hängt dann das Ausmaß der gewährten Hilfe, der Fortschritt der laufenden Verhandlungen mit einigen Ländern und die Aufnahme von Verhandlungen mit den anderen ab. Diese Prioritäten und Zwischenziele wurden in zwei Gruppen eingeteilt, und zwar kurzfristige und mittelfristige Ziele und Prioritäten. Grundlage für die Auswahl der kurzfristigen Ziele war die realistische Annahme, daß Slowenien sie im Laufe oder bis Ende des Jahres 1998 erreichen oder sich ihnen nähern wird. Da bis dahin nur wenig Zeit verbleibt und ein gewisses Maß an Verwaltungskapazität erforderlich ist, wurde nur eine begrenzte Zahl von kurzfristigen Prioritäten ausgewählt. Die Maßnahmen mittelfristiger Priorität dürften mehr als ein Jahr in Anspruch nehmen, obwohl auch sie bereits 1998 in Angriff genommen werden können und sollten. Slowenien wird aufgefordert, bis Ende März ein Nationales Programm für die Übernahme des gemeinschaft- lichen Besitzstands anzunehmen, das einen Zeitplan für die Erreichung dieser Prioritäten und Zwischenziele und, soweit möglich und sachdienlich, Angaben über die erforderlichen personellen und finanziellen Ressourcen enthält. In der Beitrittspartnerschaft wird festgestellt, daß Slowenien in sämtlichen in der Stellungnahme aufgezeigten Bereichen Fortschritte machen muß. Die Übernahme des gemeinschaftlichen Besitzstands in einzelstaatliches Recht allein ist nicht ausreichend, darüber hinaus kommt es darauf an, daß er nach den gleichen Normen wie in der Union angewandt wird. In allen im folgenden aufgeführten Bereichen steht eine glaubhafte und effiziente Umsetzung und Durchsetzung des gemeinschaftlichen Besitzstands noch aus. L 121/48 DE Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften 23. 4. 98 Auf der Grundlage der Stellungnahme der Kommission und der darauffolgenden Erörterung im Rat wurden für Slowenien die folgenden kurz- und mittelfristigen Prioritäten ermittelt. 3. 1. K u r z f r i s t i g e P r i o r i t ä t e n ( 1 9 9 8 ) Wirtschaftliche Reform: Festlegung der mittelfristigen wirtschafspolitischen Prioritäten und gemeinsame Bewertung im Rahmen des Interims-/Kooperationsabkommens; marktorientierte Unternehmens-, Finanz- und Bankreformen, Vorbereitung der Rentenreform. Steigerung der Leistungsfähigkeit der Verwaltungsbehörden: insbesondere Verabschiedung eines Gesetzes für den öffentlichen Dienst, Verbesserung in den Bereichen Justiz, Katasterführung, Veterinär- und Pflanzen- schutz, vor allem in bezug auf die Einrichtungen an den Außengrenzen, Finanzkontrolle und Rechnungsprü- fung, Ausbau der Institutionen für den Umweltschutz, erste Maßnahmen für den Aufbau der für die Regional- und Strukturpolitik erforderlichen Strukturen. Binnenmarkt: unter anderem Rechtsangleichung in den Bereichen indirekte Steuern, geistiges und gewerbli- ches Eigentum, Verabschiedung eines Mehrwertsteuergesetzes und vorbereitende Maßnahmen für dessen Einführung 1999, Normung und Zertifizierung (Konformitätsbewertung), technische Vorschriften, Gesell- schaftsrecht und Liberalisierung des Kapitalverkehrs (insbesondere Währungsvorschriften), Einrichtung einer Aufsichtsbehörde für staatliche Beihilfen, Erstellung einer vorläufigen Liste der staatlichen Beihilfen, Schaffung eines rechtlichen Rahmens für die Kontrolle staatlicher Beihilfen, Fortschritte in Richtung Verabschiedung eines Kartellgesetzes. Vermögensrecht: weitere Klärung der einschlägigen Rechtsvorschriften, insbesondere in bezug auf das Recht der Bürger der Union, Eigentum zu erwerben. Umwelt: weitere Umsetzung der Rahmenvorschriften, Abschluß detaillierter Angleichungsprogramme und Umsetzungsstrategien für einzelne Gesetze. Planung und Beginn der Umsetzung dieser Programme und Strategien. 3. 2. M i t t e l f r i s t i g e P r i o r i t ä t e n Politische Kriterien: Fortführung der Bemühungen zur Beschleunigung der Rückgabe von Vermögenswer- ten. Wirtschaftspolitik: regelmäßige Überprüfung der gemeinsamen Bewertung der wirtschaftspolitischen Priori- täten im Rahmen des Europa-Abkommens, vor allem der Erfüllung der Kopenhagener Kriterien für die Mitgliedschaft in der Union und der Übernahme des gemeinschaftlichen Besitzstands im Bereich der Wirtschafts- und Währungspolitik (Koordinierung der Wirtschaftspolitik, Vorlage von Konvergenzprogram- men, Vermeidung übermäßiger Defizite); auch wenn nicht erwartet wird, daß Slowenien den Euro unmittelbar nach dem Beitritt übernimmt, sollte die Politik Sloweniens auf die Verwirklichung der tatsächlichen Konvergenz im Einklang mit dem Ziel der Union, den wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Zusammenhalt zu stärken, und der nominalen Konvergenz gemäß den Anforderungen für die Übernahme des Euro ausgerichtet sein. Steigerung der Leistungsfähigkeit der Verwaltungsbehörden: für das öffentliche Auftragswesen (insbesondere in bezug auf Transparenz), die Überwachung des Versicherungs- und Wertpapiermarkts, das Amt für den Schutz des Wettbewerbs, die Vervollständigung des Wettbewerbsrechts, die Entwicklung und Umsetzung von Agrar- und Regionalpolitiken, die Politik im audiovisuellen Bereich, die Zollverwaltung und die Durchsetzung des Zollkodex; Verbesserung der Arbeitsweise der Justiz und Ausbildungsmaßnahmen im Bereich Gemeinschaftsrecht und seiner Anwendung; Stärkung der Verwaltung in den Bereichen Justiz und Inneres (genug qualifiziertes Personal, vor allem bei Polizei und Grenzschutz sowie in Ministerien und Gerichten), Stärkung der Behörde für nukleare Sicherheit, Reform der Finanzverwaltung (Zölle und Steuern) zur Gewährleistung der Fähigkeit, den gemeinschaftlichen Besitzstand anzuwenden, Stärkung der Behörden für die Lebensmittelüberwachung. Binnenmarkt: unter anderem Rechtsangleichung in den Bereichen öffentliches Auftragswesen, Finanzdienst- leistungen, staatliche Beihilfen (insbesondere Angleichung der Aufsichtsvorschriften und der Exklusiv- und Sonderrechte); Modernisierung der Einrichtungen für Normung und Konformitätsbewertung; Einführung eines Marktaufsichtsystems und Angleichung der horizontalen technischen Vorschriften für gewerbliche Waren, verstärkte Bemühungen zur Liberalisierung des Kapitalmarkts und zur Erleichterung von Auslands- investitionen, weiter Angleichung der Verbraucherschutzbestimmungen, Ausbau des Amtes für den Schutz des Wettbewerbs und der Aufsichtsbehörde für staatliche Beihilfen, effiziente Durchsetzung des Wettbe- werbsrechts, Förderung der Entwicklung der Unternehmen, einschließlich der kleinen und mittleren Unternehmen (KMU), Angleichung an den gemeinschaftlichen Besitzstand in den Bereichen Telekommunika- tion, Verbraucherschutz und Binnenmarkt für Energie. 23. 4. 98 DE Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften L 121/49 Justiz und Inneres: Bekämpfung der organisierten Kriminalität (insbesondere Geldwäsche, Drogen- und Menschenhandel) und der Korruption; Angleichung der Visumpolitik an die der Union und Vollendung der Angleichung an internationale Übereinkünfte; Umsetzung der Migrationspolitik und Anwendung der Asylverfahren insbesondere im Hinblick auf den Schengen-Besitzstand. Nukleare Sicherheit: Die Politik für den Nuklearsektor und die entsprechenden Investitionspläne sind an den Ergebnissen der Erdbebenrisikobewertung auszurichten, die in der Umgebung des Kernkraftwerks Krsko durchzuführen ist. Landwirtschaft: Einrichtung eines funktionierenden Katasters, Intensivierung der Strukturpolitik und Strate- gien für die Entwicklung des ländlichen Raums, unter anderem Angleichung an den gemeinschaftlichen Besitzstand im Agrarbereich (einschließlich Veterinär- und Pflanzenschutzbereich, insbesondere Kontrollen an der Außengrenze), Berücksichtigung der umweltrelevanten Aspekte der Landwirtschaft und der Artenviel- falt, Aufbau der erforderlichen Verwaltung zur Umsetzung und Durchsetzung der gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik (GAP), insbesondere der wesentlichen Mechanismen und Verwaltungsbehörden für die Überwachung der Agrarmärkte und für die Umsetzung von Maßnahmen für die Strukturreform und für die ländliche Entwicklung, Annahme und Umsetzung der Anforderungen im Veterinär- und Pflanzenschutzbereich, Modernisierung bestimmter Lebensmittelverarbeitungsbetriebe und Prüf- und Diagnoseeinrichtungen, Umstrukturierung der Agrar- und Ernährungswirtschaft. Fischerei: Aufbau der erforderlichen Kapazitäten für die Umsetzung und die Durchsetzung der gemeinsamen Fischereipolitik. Verkehr: weitere Anstrengungen zur Angleichung an den gemeinschaftlichen Besitzstand, insbesondere in den Bereichen Straßenverkehr (Marktzugang, Sicherheitsvorschriften und Besteuerung) und Schienenverkehr, sowie erforderliche Investitionen in die Verkehrsinfrastruktur, insbesondere in den Ausbau der transeuropäi- schen Netze. Beschäftigung und Soziales: Entwicklung geeigneter Arbeitsmarktstrukturen und gemeinsame Prüfung der Beschäftigungspolitik in Vorbereitung der Beteiligung an der unionsweiten Koordinierung der Beschäfti- gungspolitik, Angleichung des Arbeitsrechts sowie der Rechtsvorschriften in den Bereichen Arbeitsmedizin und -schutz und Aufbau von Strukturen für ihre Durchsetzung, insbesondere die schnelle Übernahme der Rahmenrichtlinie über Gesundheitsschutz und Sicherheit am Arbeitsplatz; Durchsetzung der Chancengleich- heit; Intensivierung des aktiven und autonomen sozialen Dialogs; Weiterentwicklung des sozialen Schut- zes. Umwelt: unter anderem Aufbau leistungsfähiger Kontroll- und Durchsetzungsstrukturen, kontinuierliche Planung und Umsetzung der Angleichungsprogramme in bezug auf einzelne Gesetze. Besondere Beachtung sollte den Bereichen Abwasser und integrierte Vermeidung und Verminderung der Umweltverschmutzung durch Industriebetriebe sowie Risikobewältigung gelten. Regionalpolitik: Schaffung des Rechts-, Verwaltungs- und Haushaltsrahmens für eine nationale Politik zur Beseitigung regionaler Ungleichgewichte durch einen integrierten Ansatz im Hinblick auf die Einbeziehung in Strukturprogrammen der Union nach dem Beitritt. 4. Programmierung Slowenien wurden im Zeitraum 1995—1997 PHARE-Mittel von insgesamt 72 Mio. ECU zugewiesen. Vorbehaltlich der Genehmigung des PHARE-Haushalts für den verbleibenden Zeitraum wird die Kommis- sion die Zuweisungen für 1998 und 1999 bestätigen. Die Finanzierungsvorschläge werden gemäß der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 3906/89 dem PHARE-Verwaltungsausschuß vorgelegt. Sämtliche Investitionsvorha- ben erfordern eine gemeinsame Finanzierung mit den Beitrittskandidaten. Ab 2000 umfaßt die finanzielle Unterstützung auch Agrarbeihilfen und ein strukturpolitisches Instrument, das ähnliche Prioritäten wie der Kohäsionsfonds setzen wird. 5. Konditionalität Die Unterstützung der Gemeinschaft setzt voraus, daß Slowenien seinen Verpflichtungen gemäß dem Europa-Abkommen nachkommt und Fortschritte bei der Erfüllung der Kopenhagener Kriterien sowie bei der Umsetzung dieser Beitrittspartnerschaft macht. Die Nichterfüllung dieser Bedingungen könnte einen Ratsbeschluß über die Aussetzung der finanziellen Unterstützung nach Artikel 4 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 622/98 zur Folge haben. L 121/50 DE Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften 23. 4. 98 6. Überwachung Die Umsetzung der Beitrittspartnerschaft wird im Rahmen des Europa-Abkommens bereits ab 1998 überwacht, bevor die Kommission dem Rat den ersten regelmäßigen Bericht über die Fortschritte Sloweniens, auch bei der Umsetzung dieser Beitrittspartnerschaft, vorlegt. Die einzelnen Bereiche der Beitrittspartnerschaft werden in den entsprechenden Unterausschüssen behandelt. Der Assoziationsausschuß erörtert die allgemeinen Entwicklungen, Fortschritte und Probleme bei der Verwirklichung der Prioritäten und Zwischenziele sowie die spezifischeren Fragen, die die Unterausschüsse an ihn verweisen. Der Assoziationsausschuß erstattet dem Assoziationsrat Bericht über die Umsetzung der Beitrittspartnerschaft. Der PHARE-Verwaltungsausschuß stellt die Vereinbarkeit der Finanzierungsbeschlüsse mit den Beitrittspart- nerschaften sicher. Die Beitrittspartnerschaft wird erforderlichenfalls gemäß Artikel 2 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 622/98 angepaßt. Die Kommission schlägt vor Ende 1999 und anschließend in regelmäßigen Zeitabständen vor, diese Partnerschaft zu überprüfen, wobei der Rat förmlich beschließen wird. Dabei wird auch geprüft, inwiefern die Zwischenziele unter Berücksichtigung der Fortschritte Sloweniens bei der Erreichung der Ziele dieser Partnerschaft genauer zu bestimmen sind


title: Commission Regulation (EC) No 709/98 of 30 March 1998 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1686/72 on certain detailed rules for aid for seed as regards checking procedures and laying down rules for application of the stabiliser mechanism for rice seed production

eurovoc_concepts:
aid system
marketing
production aid
regulation of agricultural production
rice
seed

text: L 98/30 ‹ EN ‹ Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 3. 98 COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 709/98 of 30 March 1998 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1686/72 on certain detailed rules for aid for seed as regards checking procedures and laying down rules for application of the stabiliser mechanism for rice seed production THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Regulation (EC) No 3072/95, 86 624,600 tonnes of seed were needed; Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2358/71 of 26 October 1971 on the common organisation of the market in seeds (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 192/98 (2), and in particular Articles 3(5) and 11 thereof, Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 1674/72 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3795/85 (4), lays down general rules for granting and financing aid for seed; Whereas Article 3(4a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2358/71 establishes a stabiliser mechanism for rice seed produc- tion; whereas this involves setting a maximum quantity on which the Community seed aid may be granted that is consistent with potential seed sales given the existence of the base area set in Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 of 22 December 1995 on the common orga- nisation of the market in rice (5), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 192/98; Whereas for determining agronomic yields for rice seed production in the various Member States it is appropriate to use the same period as that considered representative for the purposes of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95; whereas, accordingly, the three-year average that is obtained when for the period 1990/91 to 1994/95 the year with the highest and the year with the lowest yield are eliminated has been used; Whereas the seed harvested in one marketing year is normally used to sow paddy rice and rice seed production areas in the next marketing year; whereas in the period considered as representative the quantity of seed used in the Community to sow one hectare was 0,2 tonnes, i. e. to sow the base area of 433 123 hectares set in Article 6 of (1) OJ L 246, 5. 11. 1971, p. 1. (2) OJ L 20, 27. 1. 1998, p. 16. (3) OJ L 177, 4. 8. 1972, p. 1. (4) OJ L 367, 31. 12. 1985, p. 21. (5) OJ L 329, 30. 12. 1995, p. 18. Whereas the maximum quantity on which rice seed aid can be granted in the Community must be split up by producer Member State on the basis of production in the Member States in the same representative period; whereas, in order to allow for annual variation in yield, provision should be made for adjustment of the maximum aidable quantity in individual Member States provided that the overall quantity for the Community is not exceeded; Whereas operation of the stabiliser mechanism will require that a time limit be set for lodging of aid applica- tions for rice seed and for notification by the Member States to the Commission of the quantities covered by these so that any percentage reduction applicable in the Member State can be calculated; Whereas payment of the aid for rice seed must be subse- quent to determination by the Commission of any percentage reduction applicable; Whereas compliance with the provisions governing Community aids must be adequately checked; whereas to this end detailed criteria and technical rules covering required; administrative whereas as regards the latter previous experience indicates that it is desirable, in addition to specifying minimum volumes of checks to be carried out, to require the use of risk analysis and to specify the criteria to be used in it; and on-the-spot checks are Whereas experience also indicates the need to adopt suitably graded provisions, that also allow for cases of force majeure, to prevent and punish irregularity and fraud; whereas graded penalties in line with the gravity of the irregularity should be set that extend to total exclu- sion from aid for the year in question and the following year; Whereas arrangements are required to guarantee that only legitimate aid payments are made and to reduce the aid when applications are lodged late; whereas these should be modelled on the integrated administration and control system specified in Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 of 27 November 1992 establishing an integrated 31. 3. 98 ‹ EN ‹ Official Journal of the European Communities L 98/31 administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 820/97 (2), and in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2015/95 (4); Whereas the Management Committee for Seeds has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1686/72 (5) is hereby amended as follows: 1. the following Article 1a is added: ‘Article 1a For the purposes of this Regulation “marketing” shall mean holding available or in stock, displaying for sale, offering for sale, sale or delivery to another person. ’; 2. the following Article 2a is added: ‘Article 2a 1. Aid shall be granted only on condition that the seed has in fact been marketed by the recipient for sowing by the date the request is submitted. He must prove this to the satisfaction of the Member State. 2. Member States shall make unannounced checks to verify the first destination of seed on which aid has been given and on compliance with the aid conditions and shall notify to the Commission action taken follo- wing such checks. ’; 3. Article 3 is replaced by the following: ‘Article 3 Except for rice seed, the aid shall be granted to 1. the seed grower on application to be lodged after the harvest and before a date set by the Member State for each species or variety group. (1) OJ L 355, 5. 12. 1992, p. 1. (2) OJ L 117, 7. 5. 1997, p. 1. (3) OJ L 391, 31. 12. 1992, p. 36. (4) OJ L 197, 22. 8. 1995, p. 2. (5) OJ L 177, 4. 8. 1972, p. 26. 2. Except for rice seed, the Member State shall pay the aid to the seed grower within two months of lodging of the application and at the latest by 31 July of the year following that of harvest. ’; 4. the following Articles 3a, 3b and 3c are added: ‘Article 3a 1. For rice seed a maximum quantity of 86 624,600 tonnes per year is set on which aid may be granted in the Community. It is allocated to producer Member States as follows: — Spain: — France: — Greece: — Italy: — Portugal: 29 625,613 tonnes, 3 031,861 tonnes, 1 472,618 tonnes, 50 242,268 tonnes, 2 252,240 tonnes. The quantity per Member State may be adjusted within the maximum quantity set for the Community, on the terms set in paragraph 3. 2. Subject to Article 2a, aid on rice seed shall be granted to producers, within the maximum limit set for the Community, on application to be lodged after the harvest but before 20 June of the following year. By 15 July of the year following the harvest producer Member States shall notify to the Commission the quantities for which aid applications were made. If the sum total of the quantities for which aid is 3. applied for in producer Member States exceeds the maximum quantity set for the Community the aid shall be reduced in each Member State in proportion to the overrun of its national quantity. The Commis- sion shall set the reduction percentages applicable. 4. The Member State shall pay the aid to the producer between 31 July and 30 September of the year following that of harvest. Article 3b The checks referred to in Article 2a(2) shall 1. comprise: (a) administrative cross-checks checks, notably to prevent aid being paid twice for the same calendar year. These cross-checks shall cover plots subjected to official examination that have been found to comply with the requirements set by the directives indicated in the first indent of Article 1(1) of Regu- lation (EEC) No 1674/72; (b) checks on documents to verify at least the first des- tination of seed on which aid has been granted; L 98/32 ‹ EN ‹ Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 3. 98 (c) any other checks that the Member State deems necessary in order to guarantee that aid is not paid on uncertified seed or seed from third countries. Checks shall cover a significant sample of applications and at least 5 % of applications for each species. The applications to be checked shall be determined by the competent authority on the basis of risk analysis plus an element of representativeness of the applications made. Risk analysis shall take account of: — the aid amount, — the quantity of certified seed in relation to the area checked, — change from the previous year, — other parameters to be defined by the Member State. 2. Where appropriate, Member States shall make the premises of breeders, other seed es- checks at tablishments and end users. The following Articles of Commission Regulation 3. (EEC) No 3887/92 (*) shall apply: — Article 6(1) (verification of compliance with terms on which aid is granted), — Article 11 (additional national penalties; force majeure), — Article 12 (inspection visit report), — Article 13 (check on the spot), — Article 14 (undue payment). Article 3c 1. Except in cases of force majeure late lodging of an application shall give rise to a 1 % reduction per day of the aid to which the seed producer would otherwise have been entitled. Applications shall be invalid if lodged, in the case of rice seed, after 30th June of the year following that of harvest and, in the case of other species or variety groups, after the 10th day following the time limit set by the Member State. 2. If it is found that seed covered by an application was not in fact marketed by the applicant for sowing, the aid to the producer for the species concerned shall be reduced by 50 % if the quantity not marketed for sowing amounts to more than 2 % but not more than 5 % of the quantity covered by the application. If the quantity not marketed exceeds 5 % no seed produc- tion aid shall be granted to the producer for the marketing year in question. 3. If an aid application is made for seed not offici- ally certified or not harvested within the Member State in question during the calendar year in which the mar- keting year for which the aid has been set begins, no seed production aid shall be granted to the producer for that or the following marketing year. (*) OJ L 391, 31. 12. 1992, p. 36. ’ Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. It shall apply from the 1998/99 marketing year. Requests for aid relating to contracts or seed production declarations registered prior to the 1998/99 campaign are not subject to the checks listed in paragraph 1(a) of Article 3b of Regulation (EEC) No 1686/72. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 30 March 1998. For the Commission Franz FISCHLER Member of the Commission


title: WRITTEN QUESTION No. 971/98 by Robin TEVERSON to the Commission. Payments of EU structural fund allocations to Member States

eurovoc_concepts:
EAGGF
EU programme
European Regional Development Fund
European Social Fund
FIFG
Structural Funds
United Kingdom
payment

text: C 354/48 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 19. 11. 98 (98/C 354/85) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0971/98 by Robin Teverson (ELDR) to the Commission (30 March 1998) Subject: Payments of EU structural fund allocations to Member States Would the Commission please indicate how and when it pays EU structural fund allocations to the Member States? For example, does it pay the UK Government an annual sum in advance for ERDF, ESF, EAGGF and FIFG, or does the UK Government claim the money retrospectively at certain times during the programme? I should be grateful for a detailed answer covering all four structural funds. Answer given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (14 May 1998) The procedures for structural funds payments by the Commission to Member States are laid down in Article 21 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 as amended (1). The payments are made in relation to budgetary commitments at Community level and take the form either of advances or of final payments in respect of expenditure actually incurred. For each commitment up to 80% may be paid in the form of advances. The payment of the balance is conditional on submission to the Commission of a satisfactory report on progress with implementation of the programme concerned. These provisions apply to all structural funds and to all Member States, which are responsible in turn for ensuring that the final beneficiaries of the programmes receive payment as soon as possible. (1) OJ L 193, 31. 7. 1993. (98/C 354/86) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0985/98 by Ben Fayot (PSE) to the Commission (2 April 1998) Subject: Railway connection between Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg These three major cities, two of them European capitals and all three European Parliament places of work, are poorly served by rail. The train takes between 2 hrs 15 mins and 2 hrs 30 mins to complete the journey of scarcely 200 kilometres between Brussels and Luxembourg. The frequency of services between Luxembourg and Strasbourg is moreover extremely low. Does the Commission not consider that the highly symbolic railway line joining these three European places of work is worthy of a special investment effort by the Member States concerned and by the European Union? Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (15 May 1998) The Brussels-Luxembourg and Brussels-Strasbourg rail links are included in the planned high speed train (TGV) routes of the transport trans-European networks (TEN-T). This means that their strategic importance is recognised by the Community, and that Member States are committed to upgrading the present conventional rail services as resources permit. The French government has included the Metz-Luxembourg link in the first phase of the TGV Est, one of the TEN-T priority projects. This and the other upgrading work would be eligible for assistance from the TEN-T funds, should the Member States concerned wish to apply for it


title: Communication from the Commission on 'the out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes'

eurovoc_concepts:
access to the courts
civil proceedings
consumer protection
consumption
mediator

text: COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES CORRIGENDUM Rediffusion du document SEC(l998) 576 final du 30. 03. 1998 car la cote de ce document doit se lire COM(1998) 198 final. (concerne toutes les versions linguistiques) Brussels, 30. 03. 1998 COM(1998) 198 final Communication from the Commission "the out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes" on and t?*: P Commission recommendation on the principles applicable to the bodies responsible for out- of-court settlement of consumer disputes SUMMARY This Communication is part of a series of Community initiatives in the field of consumer access to justice that have been developed over the years. The urgent need for Community action in regard to the settlement of consumer disputes was highlighted and confirmed in the consultations on the Green Paper (1993) and the Action Plan on "consumer access to justice and the settlement of consumer disputes in the single market" (1996). The outcome of these discussions shows that one of the paramount goals is to facilitate the settlement of consumer disputes by resolving the problems arising from the disparity between the economic value at stake and the cost of its judicial settlement. In order to satisfy this objective, this Communication contains two features designed to improve access to justice for individual consumers!: - a claim form designed to facilitate communication between consumers and professionals and, should an amicable solution prove impossible, facilitate access to out-of-court procedures and - a Recommendation laying down the principles applicable to out-of-court procedures for the settlement of consumer disputes2. î -) For the purposes of this communication "consumer access to justice" means the opportunity to exercise one's rights in practice, not access to justice in the stricter sense, i. e. to the courts. The first Community initiatives in the field of consumer access to justice date from the 1980s. A first Commission Communication on consumer redress was transmitted to the Council in the form of a memorandum on 4 January 1985 (COM(84) 692 final), followed by a supplementary Communication dated 7 May 1987 (COM(87) 210 final. The European Parliament adopted a Resolution on the subject on 13 March 1987 (OJ No C 99, 13. 4. 1987, p. 203). The Council's reaction was to adopt a Resolution on 25 June 1987 devoted solely to consumer redress (87/C 176/02, OJ No C 176, 4. 7. 1987, p. 2), in which it invited the Commission to supplement its analysis in view of the enlargement of the Community. The Community dimension of the problem of consumers' access to the law was also referred to in the European Parliament's Resolution of 11 March 1992 (OJ No C 94, 13. 4. 1992, p. 217) and the Council Resolution of 13 July 1992 on future priorities for the development of consumer protection policy (OJ No C 186, 23. 7. 1992, p. 1). On 21-23 May 1992, under the aegis of the Council Presidency and the Commission, the third European Conference on consumer access to justice was held in Lisbon and was attended by some 300 experts from the 12 Member States of the European Community and certain EFTA countries. The conclusions of the meeting confirmed the concerns expressed in the course of the above-mentioned initiatives. In its Green Paper on "Access of consumers to justice and the settlement of consumer disputes in the single market" (COM(93) 576 final of 16 November 1993), the Commission set out a number of proposals aimed at resolving individual and collective cross-border disputes. The aspects mentioned in the proposals included the free movement of actions for an injunction and the simplified settlement of disputes. Following the Green Paper, the Commission tabled a proposal for a Directive on injunctions for the protection of consumers' interests, which is in the process of being adopted (common position of the Council on injunctions for the protection of consumers' interests (EC No 48/97 of 30 October 1997, OJ No C 389, 22. 12. 1997, p. 51) as well as a Communication on an action plan on consumer access 2 CONTENTS 1. THE PROBLEM OF ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSUMERS 2. THREE APPROACHES TO A SOLUTION: a) b) The simplification and improvement of court procedures improvement of communication between consumers and The professionals c) The creation of out-of-court procedures I. THE CONTENT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 1. 1 Encouragement of amicable settlement of consumer problems 1. 2. Providing appropriate safeguards in connection with the creation and operation of out-of-court bodies responsible for resolving consumer disputes H. A EUROPEAN COMPLAINT FORM FOR CONSUMERS HI. COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON THE PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE TO THE BODIES RESPONSIBLE FOR OUT-OF-COURT SETTLEMENT OF CONSUMER DISPUTES ANNEX. INFORMATION FORM ON THE OUT-OF-COURT BODIES RESPONSIBLE FOR RESOLVING CONSUMER DISPUTES to justice and the settlement of consumer disputes in the internal market (COM(96) 13 final of 14 February 1996). In its Resolution on this Communication (A4-0355/96, OJ No C 362, 2. 12. 1996, p. 275) the European Parliament gave its support to the objectives set out in the action plan and called on the Commission to undertake further work on the subject. INTRODUCTION l. THE PROBLEM OF ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSUMERS When it adopted the first programme for a consumer protection and information policy in 19753, the Council of the European Communities enunciated five fundamental rights4. Since then, Community law has made substantial progress in this area. There are now several Community texts that endow consumers with a set of concrete rights which can be relied on in all the Member States. Product liability, consumer credit, doorstep selling, package holidays, overbooking in air transport, liability for air traffic accidents5, unfair terms, contracts negotiated at a distance, and timeshares - all are now addressed in EC law. Other texts have been proposed and are currently under discussion in such areas as the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees. Thanks to the adoption of these rights at Community level, consumers can make the most of the large internal market, which was the objective underlying the Member States' decision to accept the Action Plan for a Single Market presented by the Commission to the Amsterdam European Council (strategic objective 4, CSE(97) 1 final of 4 June 1997). The Member States, who are primarily responsible for consumer protection, have also adopted on their own initiative a multiplicity of laws providing for specific rights in consumers both in domains not covered by the Community texts and in harmonised domains covered by Community provisions allowing Member States to ensure a higher level of consumer protection. Moreover, in their relations with professionals - even in the absence of specific legislation - consumers enjoy the protection granted by the general rules of civil law. However, if substantial rights are granted people without providing mechanisms to ensure their effective exercise, these rights have no practical value6. Hence, in order to ensure OJ No C 92, 25. 4. 1975, pp. 1-16. 'The right to protection of health and safety, the right to protection of economic interests, the right to information and education, the right to representation, the right to fair compensation for damages in the form of rapid, effective and affordable procedures". Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 of 9 October 1997 on air carrier liability in the event of accidents, OJ No L 285, 17. 10. 1997. Access to justice, as far as consumers are concerned, constitutes a corollary of the substantial rights conferred by the Community legal order. Although, in the absence of Community regulations, Member States have the power to establish the procedures for access to justice which are necessary to ensure that these rights are fully safeguarded, Community law nevertheless imposes limits to that power. For example, legislation of this type may not discriminate against persons whom Community law entitles to equal treatment, and they may not restrict the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty. Since Community law guarantees free movement of goods and services in the common market, it is a corollary of those freedoms that operators, including consumers, must be able, in order to resolve any disputes arising from their economic activities, to bring actions in the courts of a Member State in the same way as nationals of that State (judgment of 26 September 1996, Data Delecta and Forsberg, C-43/95, ECR 96 /I-4661; judgment of 20 March 1997, Hayes, C-323/95, ECR 1-171). that reality is in step with the consumer protection framework designed by the Community and national legislators, consumers must be able to assert their rights, whenever they are infringed, through access to simple, swift, effective and inexpensive legal channels. The specific problems encountered by consumers in exercising their rights have already been addressed in several position statements issued by the competent institutions. In real life there are a certain number of obstacles facing consumers who are seeking justice in the courts. Firstly, there is the cost of legal consultation and representation, court fees and the cost of expert opinions (particularly as modern economies are characterised by increasingly complex products and services, sometimes beyond the judge's knowledge). Secondly, in certain countries plaintiffs may have to pay the defendant's costs if they lose their case, and in other countries they have to pay their own costs even if they win. Finally, because of the backlog of cases pending in certain Member States, long delays may arise before a case is judged. Besides these material factors, there are also barriers of a psychological order due to the complexity and formalism associated with court procedures. * And consumers are often reluctant to sue because of their unfamiliarity with legal language and the hermetic rituals characteristic of judicial proceedings. If things are complex enough in national disputes, they are even more complicated when more than one country is involved. The risk of getting involved in a cross-border dispute7 has been increasing with the proliferation of cross-border consumer transactions and the development of new selling techniques and services. In view of the above it is fair to say that, in most consumer disputes - both national and cross-border - the proceedings are too long drawn out and their cost excessive8 when compared, with the limited value of the dispute. In these circumstances many consumers do not even try to assert their rights and simply allow them to be infringed. 2. THREE APPROACHES TO A SOLUTION: There are three possible ways of improving consumer access to justice: simplification and improvement of legal procedures, improvement of communication between professionals and consumers, and out-of-court procedures to settle consumer disputes. Far from being alternatives, these three approaches are fully complementary. However, a fundamental difference distinguishes the first approach from the other two: while the first approach remains within the traditional framework of the judicial settlement 7 For a detailed description of the definition and all the specific or supplementary problems associated with it, see page 72 of the Green Paper. This argument has been verified and borne out in the study on the "Cost of legal barriers for consumers in the single market". This study showed that the average cost (court fees plus lawyer's fees) of the judicial settlement of an intra-Community dispute concerning an amount of ECU 2 000 is approximately ECU 2 500 for the plaintiff even in the best of circumstances. The results of the. study are summarised in the Action Plan on consumer access to justice and the settlement of consumer disputes in the single market, pages 8-11 (COM(96) 0013). of disputes and aims to improve the existing systems, the two other remove these disputes from the judicial arena wherever possible. a) The simplification and improvement of court procedures Most Member States have mounted initiatives designed to simplify court procedures for "small disputes", either generally or specifically in regard to consumer disputes. The idea common to these initiatives is to dispense with formalised procedures so that the case can be dealt with in a simplified manner, the involvement of a lawyer being optional, or to have the court itself seek to reach a settlement (either mandatory or at the discretion of the court or the parties). Despite some similarities there are many inter-country differences in the simplified procedures, especially in the criteria used to define small disputes and in regard to costs. In its Action Plan of 14 February 1996 the Commission proposed creating a form, designed to simplify consumer access to court procedures. However, the results of the subsequent consultations showed that the Member States had misgivings about the benefits of a single form in the context of simplified court procedures - especially since the possibility of initiating such a procedure simply by dispatching a form would mean changes to the national rules of civil procedure in most countries. However, the work done in this context inspired the Commission to launch one of the initiatives in the out-of-court domain contained in this Communication (see section 1. 1 below). This Communication does not address court procedures and therefore does not contain proposals referring to this primordial domain. Of course, this does not mean the Commission has opted not to encourage progress in the matter of court procedures. On the contrary, it will continue to study the need for common action and the form such action should take with regard to the operation of court procedures in the global framework of the internal market and the European legal area, in which connection its efforts will receive a considerable boost from the Amsterdam Treaty. It has also presented a Communication9 the main intent of which is to improve procedures for the enforcement of court decisions abroad and rules on determination of the courts empowered to hear cross-border disputes. This Communication, which takes account of consumer interests, also opens up a debate on a common EU approach as regards certain aspects of national procedural law. Moreover, a broader debate will be launched on the operation of simplified court procedures (for small disputes) in the context of the European legal area. b) The improvement of communication between consumers and professionals In order to counter the problems of consumer access to justice before the courts, the objective is to help consumers find an amicable solution to their disputes with the professional. Dialogue between the two parties and an amicable settlement of the dispute mean that consumers can avoid all the problems associated with going to court, while putting right the situation created by any infringement of their rights. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament "Towards greater efficiency in obtaining and enforcing judgments in the European Union" (COM(97) 609 final, of 26. 11. 1997). The amicable resolution of disputes is also in the interest of professionals who, for their part, are keen to avoid litigation and to retain their clients. Normally the dialogue takes place at the consumer's own initiative, with or without the involvement of consumer associations or other bodies whose mission is to help consumers. However, fruitful communication is obstructed through lack of consumer information, the problems consumers have in formulating their complaints clearly and, in the case of cross- border disputes, their reluctance to initiate a dialogue with someone in a language other than their own. Obviously, if an amicable solution proves impossible, there is nô alternative but to have recourse to the bodies responsible for resolving consumer disputes. The Commission has also launched an initiative in the field of financial services10, intended to allow the parties concerned, i. e. the financial services industry and consumer organisations, to reach voluntary agreements with a view to improving consumer information and access for consumers to redress procedures. c) The creation of out-of-court procedures Hence numerous initiatives in various Member States have opted for out-of-court solutions for the settlement of consumer disputes. The European Commission has long supported "pilot projects" at national or local level designed to put in place or develop systems of this kind. In addition to court procedures, a whole range of "out-of-court methods" specifically designed to resolve consumer disputes currently exist in Europe. Sometimes these are supplementary or prior procedures, such as mediation or conciliation; sometimes they offer access to alternative mechanisms, such as arbitration. Since a given method may differ from country to country, and in order to avoid confusion as a result of this terminological diversity, it should be made clear that this Communication concerns methods which, no matter what they are called, lead to the settling of a dispute through the active intervention of a third party who proposes or imposes a solution. It does not concern procedures that merely involve an attempt to bring the parties together to convince them to find a solution by common consent. Systems for the out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes differ greatly as regards their structure, operation and implementation. Out-of-court instruments may be the fruit of initiatives by public authorities both at central level (such as the Consumer Complaints Boards in the Scandinavian countries) and at local level (such as the arbitration courts in Spain); they may also spring from initiatives promoted or organised by individual associations or sectors (e. g. bank and insurance company mediators / ombudsmen) or by professionals or establishments offering mediation or arbitration services as their main activity (e. g. lawyers or private arbitration centres). 10 Communication on "Financial services: enhancing consumer confidence" (COM(97) 309 of 26 June 1997, which constituted a follow-up to the Green Paper on "Financial services: meeting consumers' expectations" (COM(96) 209 of 22 May 1996) Precisely because of this diversity, the status of the decisions adopted by these bodies differs greatly. Some are mere recommendations (as in the case of the Scandinavian Consumer Complaints Boards and most of the private ombudsmen), while others are binding only on the professional (as in the case of most of the bank ombudsmen); others still are binding on both parties (arbitration). However, with an eye to safeguarding the interests of the parties involved, it is necessary to determine the extent to which out-of-court procedures can provide guarantees comparable with those offered by court procedures (notably independence and impartiality), while improving practical access to the settling of disputes. This question is all the more important in that the out-of-court system, despite its unquestionable merits, is not without its weaknesses, such as the flexibility which makes it possible to exclude strict application of the legal rules, the absence of appeal procedures in cases where decisions are binding, or difficulties in implementing a decision, especially in a Member State other than that in which it was made (the 1958 New York Convention on the enforcement of arbitral awards does not apply in all Member States of the European Union11). Providing certain guarantees of "good justice" in out-of-court procedures might reduce their drawbacks and also enhance the credibility of out-of-court systems for consumers, besides reinforcing mutual confidence between the bodies that exist in the different Member States. 11 Portugal, for example, has not subscribed to this Convention (judgment of 25 July 1991, Rich, C-l90/89, ECR 1-3855). This means that the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards are not guaranteed throughout the European Union. I. THE CONTENT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION With this Communication the Commission is launching two initiatives designed to improve consumer access to justice. The Commission's aim is to supplement the policy of the Member States in this area with a view to realising a "high level of consumer protection" in compliance with Article 129a of the Treaty; in keeping with the principle of subsidiarity (Article 3b of the Treaty), the content of the action is limited to what is necessary to achieve the objective, and the idea is that the proposed initiative will be implemented on a voluntary basis. 1. 1 Encouragement of amicable settlement of consumer problems In this context the Communication's paramount goal is to encourage and facilitate the settling of consumer conflicts at an early stage so that the parties can avoid the inconvenience of initiating proceedings (in court or, for that matter, out of court). To this end the Communication presents a "European claim form for consumers", designed to improve communication between consumers and professionals with a view to settling their disputes amicably. If the dialogue between the consumer and professional does not lead to a solution, this form could be used to initiate an out-of-court procedure. Ideally the bodies responsible for out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes should agree to open a procedure coming within their remit on the basis of simple lodgement of the European form, so as to make the most of the possibilities offered by this form. This claim form may be used at both national and cross-border level, independently of the value of the claim or the type of consumer dispute in question. It is for the parties ' themselves to decide to what extent their problem through use of the form. As regards financial services in particular, the ongoing "dialogue" between the financial services industry and consumers is currently examining the appropriateness of this form for disputes concerning financial services. The form will be available on the Internet for all interested persons and organisations (hup ://europa. eu. int/comm/dg24) in all the languages of the European Union. The form as such cannot be altered, but the organisations (firms, associations of firms, consumer organisations, consumer information centres, etc. ) that propose its use to consumers may "personalise" it by printing their logo in the top right-hand corner. The "consumer claim form", whose current wording is based on numerous consultations with the parties concerned and the Member States, has been designed with a view to "guiding" and orientating consumers in formulating their claims. It proposes a choice of multiple responses to help consumers indicate their problems and describe their claim, while leaving enough space for users to add supplementary details or to describe particular cases not covered by the form's lists. The combination of a multiple-choice system and free text will considerably facilitate translation in the case of cross-border disputes where the parties speak different languages. The Commission will make any technical changes to the form which may prove desirable. This Commission initiative is a pilot project. After two years the Commission will evaluate the pertinence and impact of the form on the basis of the experience gained. Providing appropriate safeguards in connection with the creation and 1. 2. operation of out-of-court bodies responsible for resolving consumer disputes. The second strand of the Commission's initiative takes the form of a Recommendation designed to establish a series of principles applicable to the operation of out-of-court bodies (existing or yet to be created) for resolving consumer disputes. The out-of-court procedures concerned by this Recommendation are those which, whatever their "legal nature" (decision, recommendation or settlement proposal), involve the mediation of a third party whose role is not confined to persuading the parties to reach agreement but who express a firm position concerning settlement of the dispute. Respect for certain principles - such as independence, transparency and effectiveness - should contribute to a higher level of protection of consumer rights. In parallel, provision of these safeguards will make for greater reliability and confidence. This confidence must be built up at two levels: firstly, consumers - aware of the guarantees provided by the out- of-court procedures available to them - will be able to make the most of the out-of-court system in their own country, or that of another Member State in the event of cross-border disputes, without misgivings or reservations; secondly, the bodies responsible for the out- of-court settlement of consumer disputes in the different EU countries will have more confidence in each other, in connection with cross-border disputes. Mutual confidence will enable them to cooperate effectively in improving the processing of consumer disputes of a cross-border nature. The Commission will facilitate the networking of these bodies so as to promote their active collaboration in resolving specific cases. Ultimately, consumers should be able to refer cross-border disputes to the competent out-of-court body in the foreign country via the corresponding out-of-court body in their own country. To this end, the existing out-of-court bodies in the Member States should respect the principles set out in this Recommendation. Consumer associations and trade associations - both individually and jointly - have a key role to play in realising this objective. These principles may also make it easier for parties providing out-of-court settlement services established in one Member State to offer their services in other Member States. In order to ensure a level of transparency and dissemination of information on out-of- court procedures in line with the principles set out in the Recommendation and to facilitate networking, the Commission intends to create a database of the out-of-court bodies responsible for resolving consumer disputes that offer these safeguards. In keeping with the principle of subsidiarity, the database will contain particulars communicated to the Commission by the Member States that wish to participate in this initiative. To ensure standardised information and to simplify the transmission of these data, the Commission is providing the Member States with a standard information form, annexed to this Communication. Likewise, with an eye to transparency and the provision of information, each Member State could appoint a single contact point on its territory responsible for directing all interested parties to the bodies they should consult with a view to the out-of-court settlement of a specific consumer dispute. The Commission will evaluate the implementation of this Recommendation in two years' time. 10 H. A EUROPEAN CLAIM FORM FOR CONSUMERS 11 Where appropriate, the seal of the body proposing use of this form to consumers CONSUMER CLAIM FORM This form has been drawn up by the European Commission 'sservices and should not be changed by users. It is intended to improve communication between consumers and professionals in order, as far as possible, to reach an amicable solution to the problems which they may encounter in their various transactions. The form is available in all the official languages of the European Union (http://europa. eu. int/comm/dg24). Under no circumstances should it be sent to the European Commission, which has no power to intervene in this type of dispute!. DETAHS OF THE PARTIES Complaint submitted by: Against: N° Name: Address, street: Town, post code: Country: Tel: Fax: Email: On behalf of: * Name: Address, street: Town, post code: Country: Tel: Fax: Email: Other particulars: N° * To be filled in only if the consumer's complaint is presented by a third party and not by himself. In this case, the consumer should put his signature under his name. INSTRUCTIONS • • In order to identify your problem and your claim, the form offers a choice of answers to each question. Please choose the answers (one or more) most appropriate to your case and, where appropriate, provide additional particulars in the space reserved for this purpose. It is recommended that this form be accompanied by copies of supporting documents and be sent by registered post with acknowledgement of receipt or any other means making it possible to establish proof of dispatch and receipt. A copy should be kept. • The claimant should give the professional an appropriate amount of time to reply (at least two weeks). The professional's reply must be communicated to the claimant by returning the entire form. The consumer must then send him the reply coupon (page 4). WARNING: Most national laws stipulate a time limit after which persons may no longer seek redress through the courts. Sometimes this limitation period is relatively short, particularly in the case of purchases of goods. Whether or not the use of this form suspends this time limit is determined by the legislation applicable to the dispute. 12 CONSUMER COMPLAINT I. PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Date on which problem(s) was (were) encountered (day/month/year): Indicate whether the problem has arisen for the first time or not: Problem connected with: I Q Product not delivered 2D Service not provided 3 0 Delay in delivering product 4D Delay in providing service Duration of delay 5 0 Defective product 6 0 Poor service Details 7 D Product not in conformity with order 8 D Products/services not ordered 9 D Damage suffered 10 0 Refusal to honour the guarantee II 0 Refusal to sell 12 0 Refusal to provide service 13 0 Fraud 140 Incorrect information 33 0 Additional information 15 0 Inadequate information 160 Payment arrangements 170 Price paid 180 Price increase 19 0 Supplementary charges 20 0 Unjustified costs/billing 210 Terms of contract 22 0 Coverage of contract 23 0 Assessment of damage 24 0 Refusal to pay compensation 25 0 Inadequate compensation 26 0 Modification of contract 27 0 Poor performance of contract 28 0 Rescission / cancellation of contract 29 0 Cancellation of service 30 0 Loan reimbursement 31 0 Interest demanded 32 0 Failure to honour commitments 340 Other type of problem * n. THE CIRCUMSTANCES: (Indicate the date and place of purchase or signature of the contract, describe the product or service as well as the price, payment arrangements or any other information which may be useful in assessing your complaint: 45 0 Correction of assessment of damage 46 0 Payment of an indemnification in the sum of 47 0 Reimbursement of a down payment in the amount of 48 0 Reimbursement of other payments effected in the amount of 49 0 Price rebate in the amount of 50 0 Payment of damages in the amount of III. REQUEST BY THE CONSUMER To obtain: 35 0 Delivery of product or provision of the service 36 0 Repair of the product or service 37 0 Exchange of the product 38 0 Cancellation of sale 39 0 Performance of the guarantee 40 0 Honouring of commitments 41 0 Conclusion of a contract 42 0 Rescission / cancellation of contract 43 0 Cancellation of invoice 44 0 Information 51 0 Other particulars: 52 0 Other type of request IV. ADDITIONAL EXPLANATIONS (OPTIONAL) 13 V. LEGAL BASIS (OPTIONAL) VI. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS (if possible please attach to this form one COPY of the supporting documents in your possession, e. g. invoice, contract, receipt, etc. ) List of documents attached: 1 2 3 4 If an amicable settlement is not reached or in the absence of a reply within complaint, I reserve the right to refer the matter to any competent body days from despatch of this Done at. Signature: 14 m. REPLY FROM THE COMPANY/PROFES$IONALJ Reference (to be given by the professional): 53 01 accede in full and I undertake 54 0 I accede in part and I propose 55 0 I do not accept the grounds for your complaint but agree, in the spirit of fair trading, to undertake to: within 56 0 I reject your complaint Grounds:. within. 57 0 I propose that the case be brought before the body referred to below, responsible for the out-of-court settlement of this type of consumer disputes: Done at Signature: -X- TO BE RETURNED TO THE PROFESSIONAL BY THE CONSUMER Reference given by the professional: Claim submitted by: On behalf of: Against: 58 0 I am satisfied and accept your proposal for resolving the dispute 59 0 I do not accept your proposal because 60 0 Following your proposal, I wish to inform you that I will submit the dispute to the body you have proposed Done at Signature: , 15 m. COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION No. /. /EC ON THE PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE TO THE BODIES RESPONSIBLE FOR OUT-OF-COURT SETTLEMENT OF CONSUMER DISPUTES THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community and in particular Article 155 thereof, Whereas the Council, in its conclusions approved by the Consumer Affairs Council of 25 November 1996, emphasised the need to boost consumer confidence in the functioning of the internal market and consumers' scope for taking full advantage of the possibilities offered by the internal market, including the possibility for consumers to settle disputes in an efficient and appropriate manner through out-of-court or other comparable procedures; Whereas the European Parliament, in its Resolution of 14 November 199612, stressed the need for such procedures to meet minimum criteria guaranteeing the impartiality of the body, the efficiency of the procedure and the publicising and transparency of proceedings and called on the Commission to draft proposals on this matter; Whereas most consumer disputes, by their nature, are characterised by a disproportion between the economic value at stake and the cost of its judicial settlement; whereas the difficulties that court procedures may involve may, notably in the case of cross-border conflicts, discourage consumers from exercising their rights in practice; Whereas the "Green Paper on the access of consumers to justice and the settlement of consumer disputes in the single market"13 was the subject of wide-ranging consultations whose results have confirmed the urgent need for Community action with a view to improving the current situation; Whereas the experience gained by several Member States shows that alternative mechanisms for the out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes - provided certain essential principles are respected - have had good results, both for consumers and firms, by reducing the cost of settling consumer disputes and the duration of the procedure; level would facilitate the Whereas the adoption of such principles at European implementation of out-of-court procedures for settling consumer disputes; whereas, in the case of cross-border conflicts, this would enhance mutual confidence between existing out-of-court bodies in the different Member States and strengthen consumer confidence in the existing national procedures; whereas these criteria will make it easier for parties providing out-of-court settlement services established in one Member State to offer their services in other Member States; 12 European Parliament Resolution on the Commission Communication "Action plan on consumer access to justice and the settlement of consumer disputes in the internal market" of 14 November 1996, OJ No C 362, 2. 12. 1996, p. 275. 13 COM(93) 576 final of 16. 11. 1993. 16 Whereas one of the conclusions of the Green Paper concerned the adoption of a Commission Recommendation with a view to improving the functioning of the ombudsman systems responsible for handling consumer disputes; Whereas the need for such a Recommendation was stressed during the consultations on the Green Paper and was confirmed during the consultation on the "Action Plan" Communication14 by a very large majority of the parties concerned; Whereas this Recommendation must be limited to procedures which, no matter what they are called, lead to the settling of a dispute through the active intervention of a third party, who proposes or imposes a solution; whereas, therefore, it does not concern procedures that merely involve an attempt to bring the parties together to convince them to find a solution by common consent; Whereas the decisions taken by out-of-court bodies may be binding on the parties, may be mere recommendations or may constitute settlement proposals which have to be accepted by the parties; whereas for the purposes of this Recommendation these various cases are covered by the term "decision"; Whereas the decision-making body's impartiality and objectivity are essential for safeguarding the protection of consumer rights and for strengthening consumer confidence in alternative mechanisms for resolving consumer disputes; Whereas a body can only be impartial if, in exercising its functions, it is not subject to pressures that might sway its decision; whereas, therefore, its independence must be guaranteed without this implying the need for guarantees that are as strict as those designed to ensure the independence of judges in the judicial system; Whereas, when the decision is taken by an individual, the decision-maker's impartiality can only be assured if he can demonstrate that he possesses the necessary independence and qualifications and works in an environment which allows him to decide on an autonomous basis; whereas this requires the person to be granted a mandate of sufficient duration, in the course of which he cannot be relieved of his duties without just cause; Whereas, when the decision is taken by a group, equal participation of representatives of consumers and professionals is an appropriate way of ensuring this independence; Whereas, in order to ensure that the persons concerned receive the information they need, the transparency of the procedure and of the activities of the bodies responsible for resolving the disputes must be guaranteed; whereas the absence of transparency may adversely affect the rights of the parties and cause misgivings as to out-of-court procedures for resolving consumer disputes; Whereas certain interests of the parties can only be safeguarded if the procedure allows them to express their viewpoints before the competent body and to acquaint themselves with the facts presented by the opposing party and, where applicable, the experts' statements; whereas this does not necessarily necessitate oral hearings of the parties; 14 Action Plan on consumer access to justice and the settlement of consumer disputes in the internal market, COM(96) 13 final of 14. 2. 1996. 17 Whereas out-of-court procedures are designed to facilitate consumer access to justice; whereas, therefore, if they are to be effective, they must remedy certain problems associated with court procedures, such as high fees, long delays and cumbersome procedures; Whereas, in order to enhance the effectiveness and equity of the procedure, the competent body must play an active role which allows it to take into consideration any element useful in resolving the dispute; whereas this active role is all the more important when, in the framework of out-of-court procedures, the parties in many cases do not have the benefit of legal advice; Whereas the out-of-court bodies may decide not only on the basis of legal rules but also in equity and on the basis of codes of conduct; whereas, however, this flexibility as regards the grounds for their decisions should not lead to a reduction in the level of consumer protection by comparison with the protection consumers would enjoy, under Community law, through the application of the law by the courts; Whereas the parties are entitled to be informed of the decisions handed down and of grounds for these decisions; whereas the grounds for decisions are a prerequisite for transparency and the parties' confidence in the operation of out-of-court procedures; Whereas in accordance with Article 6 of the European Human Rights Convention, access to the courts is a fundamental right that knows no exceptions; whereas since Community law guarantees free movement of goods and services in the common market, it is a corollary of those freedoms that operators, including consumers, must be able, in order to resolve any disputes arising from their economic activities, to bring actions in the courts of a Member State in the same way as nationals of that State; whereas out-of-court procedures cannot be designed to replace court procedures; whereas, therefore, use of the out-of-court alternative may not deprive consumers of their right to bring the matter before the courts unless they expressly agree to do so, in full awareness of the facts and only after the dispute has materialised; Whereas in some cases, and independently of the subject and value of the dispute, the parties and in particular the consumer, as the party who is regarded as economically weaker and less experienced in legal matters than the other party to the contract, may require the legal advice of a third party to defend and protect their rights more effectively; Whereas, in order to ensure a level of transparency and dissemination of information on out-of-court procedures in line with the principles set out in the Recommendation and to facilitate networking, the Commission intends to create a database of the out-of-court bodies responsible for resolving consumer disputes that offer these safeguards; whereas the database will contain particulars communicated to the Commission by the Member States that wish to participate in this initiative; whereas, to ensure standardised information and to simplify the transmission of these data, a standard information form will be made available to the Member States; Whereas, finally, the establishment of minimum principles governing the creation and operation of out-of-court procedures for resolving consumer disputes seems, in these circumstances, necessary at Community level to support and supplement, in an essential area, the initiatives taken by the Member States in order to realise, in accordance with Article 129a of the Treaty, a high level of consumer protection; whereas it does not go 18 beyond what is necessary to ensure the smooth operation of out-of-court procedures; whereas it is therefore consistent with the principle of subsidiarity, RECOMMENDS that all existing bodies and bodies to be created with responsibility for the out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes respect the following principles: I Principle of independence The independence of the decision-making body is ensured in order to guarantee the impartiality of its actions. When the decision is taken by an individual, this independence is in particular guaranteed by the following measures: - the person appointed possesses the abilities, experience and competence, particulariy in the field of law, required to carry out his function; - the person appointed is granted a period of office of sufficient duration to ensure the independence of his action and shall not liable to be relieved of his duties without just cause; if the person concerned is appointed or remunerated by a professional association or an - enterprise, he must not, during the three years prior to assuming his present function, have worked for this professional association or for one of its members or for the enterprise concerned. When the decision is taken by a collegiate body, the independence of the body responsible for taking the decision must be ensured by giving equal representation to consumers and professionals or by complying with the criteria set out above. II Principle of transparency Appropriate measures are taken to ensure the transparency of the procedure. These include: 1. Provision of the following information, in writing or any other suitable form, to any persons requesting it: - a precise description of the types of dispute which may be referred to the body concerned, as well as any existing restrictions in regard to territorial coverage and the value of the dispute; - the rules governing the referral of the matter to the body, including any preliminary requirements that the consumer may have to meet, as well as other procedural rules, notably those concerning the written or oral nature of the procedure, attendance in person and the languages of the procedure; 19 - the possible cost of the procedure for the parties, including rules on the award of costs at the end of the procedure; - the type of rules serving as the basis for the body's decisions (legal provisions, considerations of equity, codes of conduct, etc. ); - the decision-making arrangements within the body; - the legal force of the decision taken, whereby it shall be stated clearly whether it is binding on the professional or on both parties. If the decision is binding, the penalties to be imposed in the event of non-compliance shall be stated, as shall the means of obtaining redress available to the losing party. 2. Publication by the competent body of an annual report setting out the decisions taken, enabling the results obtained to be assessed and the nature of the disputes referred to it to be identified. III. Adversarial principle The procedure to be followed allows all the parties concerned to present their viewpoint before the competent body and to hear the arguments and facts put forward by the other party, and any experts' statements. IV. Principle of effectiveness The effectiveness of the procedure is ensured through measures guaranteeing: - that the consumer has access to the procedure without being obliged to use a legal representative; - that the procedure is free of charges or of moderate costs; - that only short periods elapse between the referral of a matter and the decision; - that the competent body is given an active role, thus enabling it to take into consideration any factors conducive to a settlement of the dispute. V. Principle of legality The decision taken by the body may not result in the consumer being deprived of the protection afforded by the mandatory provisions of the law of the State in whose territory the body is established. In the case of cross-border disputes, the decision taken by the 20 body may not result in the consumer being deprived of the protection afforded by the mandatory provisions applying under the law of the Member State in which he is normally resident in the instances provided for under Article 5 of the Rome Convention of 19 June 1980 on the law applicable to contractual obligations. All decisions are communicated to the parties concerned as soon as possible, in writing or any other suitable form, stating the grounds on which they are based. VI. Principle of liberty The decision taken by the body concerned may be binding on the parties only if they were informed of its binding nature in advance and specifically accepted this. The consumer's recourse to the out-of-court procedure may not be the result-of a commitment prior to the materialisation of the dispute, where such commitment has the effect of depriving the consumer of his right to bring an action before the courts for the settlement of the dispute. VII. Principle of representation The procedure does not deprive the parties of the right to be represented or assisted by a third party at all stages of the procedure. THIS RECOMMENDATION is addressed to the bodies responsible for the out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes, to any natural or legal person responsible for the creation or operation of such bodies, as well as to the Member States, to the extent that they are involved. 21 ANNEX INFORMATION FORM ON THE OUT-OF-COURT BODIES RESPONSIBLE FOR RESOLVING CONSUMER DISPUTES PARTICULARS OF THE BODY: (Indicate the name, address, telephone and fax numbers, e-mail address, and any other details making it easier for interested persons to contact the body) STRUCTURE: (Describe the composition of the body, stating whether it consists of an individual or whether it is a collegiate body, the duration of its mandate and the rules governing appointment and dismissal of the persons responsible for decision-making) POWERS: (Describe the type of disputes treated, the geographical coverage and any existing thresholds as regards the value of the dispute) PROCEDURE: (Describe the rules governing referral, notably any prior steps which must be taken by the consumer, the time limits within which consumers must take action, stating whether or not consumers must attend the proceedings in person, and whether the procedure is written or oral) COSTS (Indicate the possible cost of the procedure and any rules on the sharing of fees at the end of the procedure) NATURE OF THE DECISION: (Indicate whether the procedure culminates in a binding decision for one of the two parties, a mere recommendation or a settlement proposal) ENFORCEMENT: (When the procedure leads to a binding decision, indicate how this decision is enforced) 22 ISSN 0254-1475 COM(98) 198 final DOCUMENTS EN 10 06 01 Catalogue number : CB-CO-98-307-EN-C ISBN 92-78-36010-4 Office for Official Publications of the European Communities L-2985 Luxembourg 23


title: QUESTION ECRITE no 1074/98 de Roberta ANGELILLI à la Commission. Irrégularités dans la passation du marché public pour l'informatisation du ministère italien de l'instruction publique

eurovoc_concepts:
Italy
award of contract
fraud
information technology applications
invitation to tender
public contract

text: 11. 12. 98 FR Journal officiel des CommunautØs europØennes C 386/77 RØponse donnØe par M. Fischler au nom de la Commission (29 avril 1998) Dans le cadre de la politique communautaire de dØveloppement rural, la Commission a encouragØ les (cid:201)tats membres (cid:224) accorder une aide (cid:224) la diversification de la production agricole en faveur de produits non-alimentaires. Dans le cas de l(cid:146)Irlande, l(cid:146)aide communautaire pouvait Œtre octroyØe aux agriculteurs et aux autres habitants des zones rurales afin de leur permettre de diversifier leurs activitØs en direction de l(cid:146)Ølevage de lØvriers dans le cadre du programme opØrationnel pour l(cid:146)agriculture, le dØveloppement rural et la sylviculture 1994-1999. Des dØpenses publiques d(cid:146)un montant de 870 000 IEP ont ØtØ affectØes (cid:224) des projets visant (cid:224) amØliorer la qualitØ de l(cid:146)Ølevage ainsi que pour la commercialisation et la promotion. Aucune demande de financement communautaire n(cid:146)a ØtØ prØsentØe et il a, par consØquent, ØtØ dØcidØ de retirer les mesures en question du programme opØrationnel. (98/C 386/102) QUESTION (cid:201)CRITE E-1070/98 posØe par Allan Macartney (ARE) (cid:224) la Commission (6 avril 1998) Objet: ConfØrence ministØrielle de l(cid:146)OMC et incidences du GATT/OMC sur la protection animale La Commission a-t-elle examinØ les incidences du GATT et de l(cid:146)Organisation mondiale du commerce sur la protection des animaux et sur la capacitØ de la CommunautØ europØenne de limiter les souffrances animales et d(cid:146)interdire l(cid:146)importation de produits lorsqu(cid:146)il est clair qu(cid:146)il y a eu mauvais traitement/exportation d(cid:146)animaux vivants dans des conditions cruelles? La Commission entend-elle Øvoquer cette question lors de la confØrence ministØrielle de l(cid:146)OMC, en mai prochain, et garantir une protection adØquate des animaux au sein de l(cid:146)UE? RØponse donnØe par Sir Leon Brittan au nom de la Commission (8 mai 1998) L(cid:146)Honorable Parlementaire voudra bien se reporter (cid:224) la rØponse que la Commission a donnØe (cid:224) la question Øcrite E-949/98 de M. Watts (1). (1) JO C 354 du 19. 11. 1998. (98/C 386/103) QUESTION (cid:201)CRITE P-1074/98 posØe par Roberta Angelilli (NI) (cid:224) la Commission (30 mars 1998) Objet: IrrØgularitØs dans la passation du marchØ public pour l(cid:146)informatisation du ministŁre italien de l(cid:146)instruc- tion publique Dans trois questions (P-1972/97 (1), P-2841/97 (2) et E-3869/97 (3)), un avis de la Commission a ØtØ sollicitØ en ce qui concerne les irrØgularitØs dont a ØtØ entachØe la passation du marchØ public pour l(cid:146)informatisation du ministŁre italien de l(cid:146)instruction publique. La Commission a re(cid:231)u du gouvernement italien la confirmation du fait que la sociØtØ Tele Sistemi Ferroviari appartenant au Ferrovie dello Stato (FS) a ØtØ cØdØe par ce dernier aprŁs le lancement de l(cid:146)appel d(cid:146)offres mais avant l(cid:146)adjudication dØfinitive. Le FS est donc restØ au sein du groupement temporaire d(cid:146)entreprises (RTI), auquel a ØtØ attribuØ le marchØ, avec EDS, privØ de la seule sociØtØ spØcialisØe dans ce domaine. Si ces faits Øtaient confirmØs, cela signifierait que, au moment de l(cid:146)adjudication, le FS ne possØdait aucun titre l(cid:146)autorisant (cid:224) faire partie de ce groupement d(cid:146)entreprises et que l(cid:146)offre prØsentØe par celui-ci


title: PREGUNTA ESCRITA n. 1099/98 del Fiorella GHILARDOTTI a la Comisión. Programa de reestructuración de Black & Decker Corporation y derecho de consulta e información de los trabajadores

eurovoc_concepts:
European undertaking
collective dismissal
industrial restructuring
investment policy
worker consultation
worker information
works council

formats: html print