title: Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Communication from the Commission on the new regional programmes 1997-1999 under Objective 2 of the Community's Structural Policies - focusing on job creation'

eurovoc_concepts:
European Regional Development Fund
European Social Fund
job creation
regional planning
structural policy

text: C 235/38 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 27. 7. 98 approach to RTD issues. It will be important for future reports and evaluation commissioned by the European Commission to assess the impact of these trends. The Committee notes with interest that a separate report on RTD and the Structural Funds is to be issued by the Commission early in 1998. Brussels, 27 May 1998. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Tom JENKINS Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission on the new regional programmes 1997-1999 under Objective 2 of the Community’s Structural Policies — focusing on job creation’ (98/C 235/09) On 17 November 1997 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned communication. The Section for Regional Development and Town and Country Planning, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 21 April 1998. The rapporteur was Mr Masucci. At its 355th plenary session (meeting of 27 May 1998), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion with 114 votes in favour and one abstention. 1. Introduction In November 1997 the Commission presented a 1. 1. communication setting out the new regional pro- grammes for declining industrial areas (Objective 2) during the second programming period, which runs to the end of 1999. The communication is based on an examination of 65 new Single Programming Documents (SPDs) and one Community Support Framework (CSF) for Spain. The communication does not consider the SPDs for Austria and Sweden, as these countries opted for a five-year programming period (1). 1. 2. The communication summarizes the anticipated impact on economic development, and especially on employment. (1) A summary of the programmes for these two countries is contained in the Commission communication on the implementation of EU regional policies in Austria, Finland and Sweden (COM(96) 316 final, 3. 7. 1996). According to information from the Member States, these programmes should create or maintain around 880 000 jobs, 90 % of which (801 000) are concentrated in the UK, France, Germany, Spain and Italy. The planned measures fall into four main catego- 1. 3. ries: — support for the growth and competitiveness of industry and businesses, especially SMEs (47,4 % of expenditure); — training and reskilling programmes, in particular to familiarize workers with new technologies (33,8 %); — regeneration and improvement of run-down indus- trial and urban areas (12,3 %); — environmental protection and promotion of clean technologies and green tourism (5,2 %). 27. 7. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 235/39 According to the Note for Guidance which the Com- mission sent to the Member States on 30 April 1996 (1), the paramount priority for the 1997-1999 Objective 2 programmes is job creation. This is to be achieved by improving production structures and raising the skills level of the workforce. 1. 4. The Commission scrutinized each plan in the light of these objectives and assessed the following factors: extent to which the priorities have been taken into account; quality of analysis of the area concerned; consistency between the declared objectives and the resources allocated to them; concrete impact on employ- ment; environmental impact of the strategy and related actions. 1. 4. 1. partnership and additionality. Account was also taken of the principles of In particular, the plans were to include a commitment to ensure that the social partners played their full part, and were to link the Objective 2 programmes with other economic regeneration schemes in the region concerned. As regards additionality, each Member State was to ensure the same overall level of expenditure as for 1994-1996. The list of regions eligible for Objective 2 support 1. 5. is broadly the same as in the 1994-1996 period, as is the percentage of the EU population concerned (16,4 %). Funding has been set at ECU 8,288 million (1997 prices); this is a real increase of 13,8 % compared to the previous period. To this figure should be added ECU 859 million of unutilized resources from the first period, making a total of ECU 9 147 million. some cases the broad range of interventions made complementarities and synergies more difficult to achieve. Training schemes, 2. 2. 1. in particular, were less closely targeted, although ‘this may partly be due to the horizontal nature of human resources measures’ (2). However, the Commission states that ‘the integration of ERDF and ESF measures was relatively improved’(2) 2. 2. 2. The Commission identified more serious short- comings in the plans originally submitted; these plans showed ‘an initial lack of quantification of objectives and outputs including the employment effects and absence of baseline data’ (3). In particular, the Commission notes that little use was made of the methodological framework sent to the Member States, on ex-ante appraisal of employment effects. 2. 2. 3. Greater attention was paid to the environmen- tal aspects. Most plans provided a strategic environmen- tal assessment, and some gave detailed information on all the proposed measures. 2. 3. Although most plans included an explicit com- mitment to the partnership principle, the participation of the economic and social partners was not always clearly defined. 2. Problems identified by the Commission Finally, problems in gathering and verifying data 2. 4. made it difficult to ascertain additionality. 2. 1. The Commission recognizes that the framing of the new SPDs has drawn on experience gained in the previous programming period. For this reason, a clause was introduced in the decisions approving the SPDs ‘suspending Community payments after the first advance pending ex-ante verification of the additionality principle’ (4). It also notes a strong degree of continuity of strategy between the new programmes and their predecessors. Most plans had four or five clearly presented, explicit strategic objectives; some of these reflected an integrated approach to economic development, while others high- lighted horizontal aspects such as environmental sus- tainability and equal opportunities. 2. 2. In assessing the measures’ consistency with the strategic objectives, the Commission notes that in (1) COM(96) 952 final, 29. 4. 1996. 2. 5. Negotiations between the Commission and the Member State resolved some of these problems and significantly improved the quality and effectiveness of the plans, ‘particularly in the light of the results of evaluation (. ) and the paramount priority of job creation’ (5). (2) COM(97) 524 final, 14. 11. 1997, Chapter III (i), point iv. (3) COM(97) 524 final, 14. 11. 1997, Chapter III (i), point v. (4) COM(97) 524 final, 14. 11. 1997, Chapter III (i), c. (5) COM(97) 524 final, 14. 11. 1997, Chapter III (ii). C 235/40 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 27. 7. 98 In some instances, increased importance was given to measures which promised most job creation. In other cases, the programmes were completely rethought. drive to create and save jobs, as this is now the top priority of Community policies. 3. General comments 4. Assessment 3. 1. The communication is important for a number of reasons, and firstly because it covers the last period of operation of Objective 2 in its current form. 3. 1. 1. This is because the reform of the Structural Funds anticipated in Agenda 2000 envisages a radical revision of structural policy. The seven current objectives would be reduced to three. Two of these would be regionally based, while the third would exclusively cover human resources. The programmes described in the communi- 4. 1. cation can thus be assessed: — against the results of the preceding periods, in the light of the problems which emerged in the earlier administration of Objective 2; — with an eye to the future, in the light of the structural policy reform proposed in Agenda 2000 (1). 4. 2. Comparison with earlier action For the period 2000-2006, the Commission envisages a slightly lower average annual appropriation than for 1999, and stricter application of the 75 % of GDP threshold for regions included in the new Objective 1. 4. 2. 1. Firstly, it is worth seeing whether the program- ming for 1997-1999 has improved on previous program- ming. 3. 1. 2. The percentage of the EU population covered by Objectives 1 and 2 would fall from the present 51 % to between 35 and 40 %; this means that some regions would have to be excluded. As all the Community initiatives will come under the new Objectives 1 and 2 (apart from those for human resources, which will form Objective 3), it follows that some areas might no longer receive any structural support at all — other than the Social Fund and the remaining Community initiatives — after 1999. For these areas, the measures discussed in the communication are thus of special importance. 3. 2. There is a second reason why the communication is so important: in order to ensure that the reform of the Structural Funds is as transparent and effective as possible, a careful assessment must be made of the manner in which the decisions were reached on the SPDs for 1997-1999, and of the planned measures. Key factors here might include: — as regards the way the programmes were devised: a check on the existence of a horizontal partnership; — as regards content: the selection of innovative pro- jects and local development projects; — as regards objectives: the creation of real additional, lasting jobs. A useful reference grid is provided by the issues that were highlighted at the April 1997 European Cohesion Forum, which considered some reports on the manage- ment of the Structural Funds (2). 4. 2. 2. The forum’s debate on Objective 2 revealed a number of basic problems. Broadly speaking, although Structural Fund assistance in declining industrial regions has done much to help structural adjustment over the years (in the period 1989-1993, for example, some 500 000 net jobs were created), its impact has been limited by the excessively small size of some areas, which has sometimes made an effective integrated approach impossible. The limited duration of the support (two years) has encouraged short-term schemes, to the detriment of a strategic approach to development. 4. 2. 3. As regards programme content and implemen- tation, any genuine reconversion of these areas has been seriously hampered by the fact that small firms are often unable to follow market and innovation trends, and therefore fail to produce any appreciable regional added value. However, there has been a steady improvement on one important front. Programme content has given priority 3. 3. Thirdly and most significantly, the communi- cation is important because of the contribution which the programmes contained in the SPDs can make to the (1) See Part One, Chapter II, 2 of Agenda 2000. (2) The report presented by Prof. Michel Quévit is particularly relevant. 27. 7. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 235/41 to intangible factors (development of businesses, inno- vation, training and skills, environmental protection), rather than to physical ones such as basic infrastructure. Greater attention is devoted to training and retraining schemes, promotion of entrepreneurship and encourage- ment of RTD. The attention given to RTD and innovation is also important. However, care must be taken to ensure that investment does not just support whatever innovation is on offer, but is geared to the real needs of small businesses. 4. 2. 4. One of the most positive features of the Structural Funds is that they have committed the regions to make more permanent, structured provision for development. Management methods still differ considerably, as they are influenced by the differing administrative traditions, and this fact is to be welcomed. However, centralist administrations still find it difficult to accept a ‘bottom-up’ approach to regional develop- ment. 4. 2. 5. Another plus point is that the Funds have developed the horizontal partnership and have dove- tailed more effectively with other national and regional assistance. In some areas, setting up the partnership remains difficult because of the lack of an established tradition of relations between the public authorities and socio- economic organizations. In the past, the private sector has hardly ever taken part in the framing of the programmes, unlike the public and semi-public sector. 4. 2. 6. Other important issues relate to the manage- ment of the programmes. Alterations tend to be made on the basis of financial aspects rather than on changes in regional development priorities. This is partly because there is no monitoring, and because the time frame is too short. Many projects do not set operational objectives for implementation and impact. These criteria have rarely been instrumental in project selection. Lastly, additionality has often posed a problem. Avail- able funds have not been used because the regional and national authorities found it difficult to match the Community resources. 4. 2. 7. In the communication’s conclusions, the Com- mission points out that the new programmes for 1997- 1999 offer more incentives for investments which pro- mote employment-intensive growth and sustainable development. Efforts will also be made to improve local services, which offer considerable employment potential. 4. 2. 7. 1. Overall, the Committee is pleased to see a greater integration of Community, national and local initiatives. This is vital in order to make optimum use of resources and obtain better results. 4. 3. The reform of the Structural Funds and State aid for the regions 4. 3. 1. The Commission states in Agenda 2000 that the new Objective 2 programmes ‘will favour economic diversification, including in regions heavily dependent on a single declining economic sector’ (1). It goes on to say that ‘this will require increased support for small and medium-sized enterprises and innovation as well as a greater emphasis on vocational training, local development potential, the environment and combating social exclusion (. ). Invest- ment in human resources, based on anticipation and on activating the labour market (. ) should be increased’. the protection of 4. 3. 1. 1. The Commission would also like to see ‘simpler, transparent and specific eligibility criteria developed for the various types of areas covered by the new Objective 2’. Each region is to have a single programme involving the various Funds (ERDF, ESF, EAGGF, FIFG). 4. 3. 1. 2. the worst affected regions at Community level. The aim will be to concentrate resources on Any current Objective 2 and 5b regions which are no longer eligible under the future selection criteria would enjoy limited financial support for a transitional period. The Commission also states that, in order to simplify the operational arrangements, there will be a single multi-year programme for each Objective 1 and 2 region, a clear division of responsibilities between the national, regional and local authorities and the Commission, and stringent checks and verification of results. 4. 3. 2. Account must also be taken of the new guide- lines for State aid to the regions, which were approved by the Commission on 10 December 1997 following an (1) Agenda 2000, Part One, Section II (2). C 235/42 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 27. 7. 98 initiative by Mr Van Miert. These seek ‘to set up a more transparent system’ and ‘to create positive discrimi- nation with regard to the least favoured regions’ (1). The Amsterdam Treaty contains a new Title on employ- ment, deeming it a ‘matter of common concern’. 4. 3. 2. 1. The main criteria will be that: — aid should be concentrated on the poorest regions; — national aid should be consistent with that used for the Structural Funds; — special attention should be accorded to aid that is designed to boost employment; hence aid will no longer be restricted to productive investment, but may also cover the jobs that will ensue from it; — the overall volume of regional aid should be reduced. 4. 3. 3. Of relevance here is the impact which the proposed reforms will have on the number of people covered by the Structural Funds after the year 2000. This raises the question of how to ease the transition for the affected regions and adopt new eligibility criteria that are socio-economically justified. eligible The idea of making Objective 2 areas cotermi- 4. 3. 4. nous with those state aid (Treaty for Article 92(3)c) is also a cause for concern. While recognizing the need to coordinate and integrate EU structural policies more effectively with national ones, the Committee feels that this could lead to an excessive reduction in areas. 5. Impact on employment 5. 1. The employment impact of structural measures deserves careful consideration. According to the Delors white paper, the Structural the main objective of Funds is to help create conditions for lasting growth, competitiveness and economic development. The March 1996 Commission communication on struc- tural assistance and employment (2) established the priority goal as employment. The Commission’s 1998 work programme (3) also announces various draft regulations regarding structural policies, with a view to implementing the reforms proposed in Agenda 2000, and states that employment is the first of the ‘political priorities’ on which it intends to concentrate its action (4). The question of the employment objectives set 5. 2. in the various SPDs is worth considering here. The data contained in Annex 4 to the communication, concerning the expected impact on employment in the Member States, vary greatly and are not always intelligible. In the UK, for instance, over 380 000 jobs are expected to be created or maintained (including over 40 000 temporary jobs — around 10 %). The figure for Germany is less than 120 000 (including 4 100 temporary jobs — around 3 %), while for Italy it is 123 000 (including 6 200 temporary jobs — around 5 %). Hence there are also considerable disparities in the average cost of creating each job. Some of the statements made in the communi- 5. 3. cation appear slightly contradictory. The Commission begins with the caveat (chapter III, point v) that ‘an initial lack of quantification of objectives and outputs (. ) was one of the most disappointing features of the plans originally submitted’. However, it adds that ‘substantial progress was made subsequently’ in the negotiations. It immediately goes on to regret that the Member States made little use of the note on methodology which it sent them regarding ex-ante appraisal of employment effects. Later again, it returns to the ‘substantial progress (. ) made in the quantification of employment effects’, and speaks of ‘detailed estimates’ (5). 5. 3. 1. been made using different calculation methods. At all events, the assessments appear to have From Essen through to the recent summit in Luxem- bourg, European Councils have consistently made employment their most pressing priority. A similar problem exists in relation to the 5. 4. comparison with earlier ex-post evaluations. (1) OJ C 74, 10. 3. 1998. (2) COM(96) 109 final, 20. 3. 1996. (3) SEC(97) 1852 final. (4) COM(97) 517 final. (5) COM(97) 524 final, Chapter III (iii). 27. 7. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 235/43 According to the eighth annual report on the Structural Funds, 850 000 gross jobs were created or maintained during the programming period 1989-1993. between employment and output growth, it is clear that the major problem remains the creation of more jobs’ (1). For 1997-1999 (i. e. just two years), the forecast gross figure is 880 000 — in other words, a higher figure in half the time (a rise of over 200 %). This seems to be due to the greater commitment shown by all parties to employment. However, it is not possible to make the most interesting comparison — concerning the creation of new jobs — because (surprisingly) data are not available on the number of net jobs; these data are provided only by the UK and France. This gives a telling indication of the reliability of the data provided by most countries. In contrast to this lack of precision, data on the number of temporary jobs is available for 12 Member States. The figure for these (106 115) is rather high when compared with the possible, realistic final figure for net jobs. 5. 5. The Commission obviously has difficulty obtaining reliable information from the Member States, and lacks the manpower to carry out the large number of checks required. However, there remains the problem of the methodology to be followed, and — more importantly — the problem of checks on whether the objectives are being achieved; these checks are not being made at present. Checks and verification are carried out meticulously when it comes to the accounting procedures for expendi- ture, but there is no ex post verification or monitoring. These are not just issues of methodology; they have real practical consequences for employment. 5. 6. Here the Committee would again stress that real economic growth — with an increase in demand and in available income — is a precondition for creating real, lasting jobs. Support policies for generating new jobs must form part of a process of wider growth and development. What is true at macro level is also true at micro level. Measures for introducing innovation and increasing productivity must be matched by measures for expanding demand. Structural measures, including those funded under Objective 2, must aim not only to boost the competi- tiveness of businesses and regions, but also to boost production, demand and income. This is the only way in which the improvements will produce additional jobs. 6. Concluding comments The Commission communication highlights a few out- standing problems which must be solved with a view to the reform of the Structural Funds. It also provides an opportunity to consider ways of managing resources more effectively, in the interests of both the short term aim of saving or creating jobs and the strategic aim of economic and social cohesion. 6. 1. Strengthening the partnership The question of 6. 1. 1. the partnership must be addressed clearly and firmly. The communication devotes only a short paragraph of Part I to this key instrument; it is not mentioned at all in the analytical tables for the Member States or in the conclusions. Only in the summary tables for territorial employment pact projects (Annex 5) do we find a list of the main partners. 6. 1. 2. As the Commission states in the Note for Guidance which it sent to Member States in 1996 (2), many Objective 2 regions already have a tradition of partnership and this needs to be further developed. The Note stressed that in developing and implementing the new Objective 2 programmes, ‘full use should be made of the regional and local authorities and the economic (such as, for example, SME representatives) and social partners’. This was necessary ‘in order to ensure that programmes fully reflect local needs and conditions’. 6. 1. 3. However, the communication does not assess the nature or efficacy of this involvement, either in the framing of the programmes or in implementation and checks. 6. 1. 4. The Committee would again stress that the partnership must function right from the planning stage, and must continue during the implementation of structural measures. A strong partnership is essential In its recent report on Employment in Europe 1997, the ‘whatever the relationship Commission states that (1) COM(97) 479 final, 1. 10. 1997, p. 1. (2) COM(96) 952 final, 29. 4. 1996, point III. C 235/44 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 27. 7. 98 for effective structural measures because it makes it possible to tailor projects to real socio-economic problems and to incorporate them in a regional develop- ment strategy. have to be altered. Re-allocating human resources also takes time, as people have to be properly trained for the new activities. The public authorities can no longer treat involvement of the socio-economic organizations as an optional extra or as a mere formality that complicates decision-takers’ work. There must be an organized partnership, which must function across all Member States and for all structural measures. 6. 1. 5. Use of the partnership has improved since the reform of the Structural Funds and the 1993 regulation, but the degree to which Article 4 of Regulation 2081 is applied varies from country to country. The Committee has long asked that this article be reworded to give a clearer definition of the principles of the partnership, without giving too much leeway to the Member States. The Commission’s new proposal (Article 8 of the recent proposal for the framework regulation) would appear to be a step forward which meets the Committee’s recommendations. Common criteria also need to be established regarding the operation of the monitoring committees. 6. 1. 6. Funds in 1996 (1) rightly notes the importance of: The Commission’s report on the Structural — reformulating the legal framework so as to clarify the roles and responsibilities of each partner; — improving the technical and operational capacities of partners where necessary, by supporting training, information and technical assistance measures. The aim should be for the partnership to become an essential part of structural policy, and ensure genuine involvement of the public and private socio-economic partners in the framing of structural programmes. 6. 2. Reviewing the length of the programming periods and regional eligibility 6. 2. 1. Rather than extending the 1994-1996 pro- grammes, the Commission has opted for new pro- grammes, as it feels that this will improve the use made of the funds. In this particular case the decision may be justified by the need to reorient the programmes towards the priority objective of employment. In general, however, the Committee thinks that the productive side of a regional economy cannot be changed overnight, as the whole socio-economic geography may 6. 2. 2. The Committee feels that, in future, longer term programming would be more in keeping with a more integrated strategy that has a stronger impact on conditions in Objective 2 regions. It goes without saying that there should always be a mid-term review, as this provides an opportunity not only for checks and adjustments but also to put forward new measures if necessary, so as to focus on the areas which offer the best prospects for improving local competitiveness and creating stable employment. 6. 2. 3. The eligibility criteria should be carefully reviewed. A more effective and integrated approach obviously also presupposes more flexible criteria for demarcating the covered by measures. geographical areas 6. 2. 4. One problem which needs to be solved with the help of the Member States and local authorities concerns the statistical indicators used for assessment and decision-taking. It is important, with respect to crisis-hit areas, to define indicators based on inter-comparable, credible statistics. The Committee generally endorses the need to 6. 2. 5. concentrate resources in order to obtain a critical mass that will stimulate regeneration and new development. Resources should therefore be concentrated in the worst hit areas of the eligible regions. 6. 3. Focusing on support for SMEs In order to make Objective 2 measures more 6. 3. 1. effective, especially on the employment front, priority should be given to SMEs. The development of existing SMEs and micro-businesses and the establishment of new and innovative ones are a vital way of diversifying production in areas that need regeneration. (1) COM(97) 526 final. SMEs should be helped to become competitive on the national and international market. Innovation-transfer 27. 7. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 235/45 schemes should be provided for them, gearing the regeneration exercise more closely to their needs. As well as for infrastructure, Objective 2 resources should be used to improve the position of SMEs in intra-EU trade, with new products and access to new markets. The overall aims should be to create an operating environment conducive to the generation of profits, and to foster a spirit of risk-taking and inno- vation among young people. 6. 3. 2. The development of information and com- munication systems is of basic importance here — in other words, the implementation of the information society in manufacturing and service SMEs. One priority should be the establishment of centres providing services geared to the needs of SMEs. It is necessary to eliminate a certain bias towards ‘industry’, which leads all countries to skew their planning towards companies in traditional manufactur- ing sectors rather than services, trade and tourism. It should be remembered that for some years now, while industry and agriculture have steadily shed jobs and created few new ones, services have registered a virtually uninterrupted rise in employment. new employment. Both the Delors white paper and the most recent economic forecasts suggest that millions of jobs can be created by fully exploiting the opportunities of the information society. Programmes financed under Objective 2 should include funding for innovation (e. g. telematics in trade and services). 6. 3. 3. sources of new jobs: Two other fields deserve more attention as — environmental protection (water treatment, recy- cling of industrial waste, improvement of the urban environment, and so on). The recent communication on environment and employment (1) is relevant here; — tapping of new sources of employment to meet the changing needs of society. Objective 2 regions have a high population density, and industrial restructuring has left a large pool of labour. 6. 3. 4. The final important factor is the development of human resources, with the training system being geared to business needs. This is of special importance in Objective 2 areas, where hundreds of thousands of workers — many of them highly skilled — are obliged to acquire new skills at an advanced age. A continuing training system is thus vital, to help workers cope with the increasing pace of change. Services such as telecommunications, information tech- nology and distribution still offer considerable scope for (1) COM(97) 592 final, 18. 11. 1997. Brussels, 27 May 1998. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Tom JENKINS


title: Регламент (ЕО) № 1076/98 на Комисията от 27 май 1998 година за изменение на приложение II към Регламент (ЕИО) № 2377/90 на Съвета относно установяване на процедура на Общността за определяне на максимално допустимите граници на остатъчни вещества от ветеринарномедицински продукти в храните от животински произход (текст от значение за ЕИП)

eurovoc_concepts:
animal product
food inspection
public health
veterinary drug
veterinary legislation
waste

formats: html pdf print xhtml

text: 03/т. 24 BG Официален вестник на Европейския съюз 165 31998R1076 L 154/14 ОФИЦИАЛЕН ВЕСТНИК НА ЕВРОПЕЙСКИТЕ ОБЩНОСТИ 28. 5. 1998 РЕГЛАМЕНТ (ЕО) № 1076/98 НА КОМИСИЯТА от 27 май 1998 година за изменение на приложение II към Регламент (ЕИО) № 2377/90 на Съвета относно установяване на процедура на Общността за определяне на максимално допустимите граници на остатъчни вещества от ветеринарномедицински продукти в храните от животински произход (текст от значение за ЕИП) КОМИСИЯТА НА ЕВРОПЕЙСКИТЕ ОБЩНОСТИ, като взе предвид Договора за създаване на Европейската общност, като взе предвид Регламент (EИО) № 2377/90 на Съвета от 26 юни 1990 г. относно установяване на процедура на Общността за опре- деляне на максимално допустимите граници на остатъчни веще- ства от ветеринарномедицински продукти в храните от животин- ски произход (1), последно изменен с Регламент (EO) № 1000/98 на Комисията (2) и по-специално членове 6, 7 и 8 от него, като има предвид, че съгласно Регламент (EИО) № 2377/90 трябва постепенно да се определят максимално допустимите граници за всички фармакологично активни субстанции, които се използват в рамките на Общността във ветеринарномедицински продукти, предназначени за употреба при животни, отглеждани за производ- ство на храни; като има предвид, че максимално допустимите граници следва да се определят само след разглеждане в рамките на Комитета по ветеринарномедицински продукти на цялата информация, отна- сяща се до безопасността на остатъчните количества от съответ- ното вещество за потребителя на храни от животински произход и до влиянието на остатъчните количества върху промишлената преработка на храните; като има предвид, че при определянето на максимално допустимите граници на остатъчните количества от ветеринарномедицински продукти, съдържащи се в храните от животински произход, е необходимо да се посочат животинските видове, у които може да присъстват остатъчни количества, нивата, които може да се при- състват във всяка от съответните месни тъкани, получени от третираното животно (прицелна тъкан), както и естеството на остатъчното количество, което е подходящо за мониторинга на остатъчните количества (маркерно остатъчно вещество); като има предвид, че при международната търговия черният дроб и бъбреците често се отстраняват от трупното месо и следва мак- симално допустими граници на остатъчните количества винаги да се определят също и за мускулната и мастната тъкан; като има предвид, че в случаите, когато ветеринарномедицинските продукти са предназначени за употреба при птици носачки, млекодайни животни или медоносни пчели, максимално допус- тими граници следва да бъдат определени също така и за яйца, мляко и мед; като има предвид, че празиквантел, прокаин, буторфанол тартрат и 2-аминоетанол следва да бъдат включени в приложение II към Регламент (ЕИО) № 2377/90; като има предвид, че е необходимо да се предвиди период от 60 дни преди влизане в сила на настоящия регламент, за да могат държавите-членки да внесат нужните корекции в разрешителните за пускане на пазара на съответните ветеринарномедицински про- дукти, чиито разрешителни са били издадени съгласно Директива 81/851/ЕИО на Съвета (3), последно изменена с Директива 93/40/ЕИО (4), с цел съобразяване с разпоредбите на настоящия регламент; като има пред вид, че мерките, предвидени в настоящия регламент, са в съответствие със становището на Постоянния комитет за ветеринарномедицинските продукти, ПРИЕ НАСТОЯЩИЯ РЕГЛАМЕНТ: Член 1 Приложение II към Регламент (ЕИО) № 2377/90 на Съвета се изменя, както е посочено в приложението към настоящия регламент. като има предвид, че за контрола на остатъчните количества спо- ред съответното законодателство на Общността обикновено следва да се определят максимално допустими граници на остатъчните количества за прицелните тъкани на черния дроб и бъбреците; Член 2 Настоящият регламент влиза в сила на шестдесетия ден след публикуването му в Официален вестник на Европейските общности. (1) ОВ L 224, 18. 8. 1990 г. , стр. 1. (2) ОВ L 142, 14. 5. 1998 г. , стр. 18. (3) ОВ L 317, 6. 11. 1981 г. , стр. 1. (4) ОВ L 214, 24. 8. 1993 г. , стр. 31. 166 BG Официален вестник на Европейския съюз 03/т. 24 Настоящият регламент е задължителен в своята цялост и се прилага пряко във всички държави-членки. Съставено в Брюксел на 27 май 1998 година За Комисията Martin BANGEMANN Член на Комисията 03/т. 24 BG Официален вестник на Европейския съюз 167 ПРИЛОЖЕНИЕ Приложение II към Регламент (ЕИО) № 2377/90 се изменя, както следва: 2. Органични съединения Фармакологично активна/и субстанция/и „2-Аминоетанол Буторфенол тартрат Празиквантел Прокаин Животински вид Други съображения Всички видове, от които се произ- вежда храна Еднокопитни Еднокопитни Всички видове, от които се произ- вежда храна“ За предписване само интравенозно


title: Parecer do Comité Económico e Social sobre a «Proposta de directiva do Conselho que estabelece o regime fiscal aplicável aos veículos automóveis de particulares transferidos a título definitivo para outro Estado-Membro no âmbito de uma mudança de residência ou utilizados temporariamente num Estado-Membro distinto do Estado-Membro de matrícula»

eurovoc_concepts:
free movement of goods
import
motor vehicle
tax-free allowance
vehicle registration

formats: html pdf print

text: 27. 7. 98 PT Jornal Oficial das Comunidades Europeias C 235/31 Parecer do Comité Econo´ mico e Social sobre a «Proposta de directiva do Conselho que estabelece o regime fiscal aplica´vel aos veı´culos automo´veis de particulares transferidos a tı´tulo definitivo para outro Estado-Membro no âmbito de uma mudança de residência ou utilizados temporariamente num Estado-Membro distinto do Estado-Membro de matrı´cula» (1) (98/C 235/07) Em 6 de Março de 1998, o Conselho decidiu, nos termos do artigo 994 do Tratado CE, consultar o Comité Econo´mico e Social sobre a proposta supramencionada. Foi incumbida da preparaça˜o dos correspondentes trabalhos a Secça˜o de Indu´ stria, Comércio, Artesanato e Serviços, que emitiu parecer em 6 de Maio de 1998, sendo relator M. Kubenz. Na 3551 reunia˜o plena´ria, em 27 e 28 de Maio de 1998 (sessa˜o de 27 de Maio), o Comité adoptou, por 111 votos a favor e 2 abstenço˜es, o seguinte parecer. 1. Introduça˜o 1. 1. A presente proposta de directiva destina-se a substituir a Directiva 83/182/CEE (2), relativa às isenço˜ es fiscais aplica´veis na Comunidade, em matéria de impor- taça˜o tempora´ria de certos meios de transporte, e a Directiva 83/183/CEE (3), relativa às isenço˜ es fiscais aplica´veis às importaço˜es definitivas de bens pessoais de particulares provenientes de um Estado-Membro, com a redacça˜o que lhe foi dada pela Directiva 89/604/CEE (4). 1. 2. A directiva consolidara´ e actualizara´ as actuais directivas, solucionara´ os problemas decorrentes da sua aplicaça˜o e dara´ resposta às expectativas que os cidada˜os depositam no mercado interno e na livre circulaça˜o a ele inerente. A proposta prevê que os Estados-Membros na˜o 1. 3. apliquem imposto de matrı´cula ou impostos semelhantes a veı´culos introduzidos no seu territo´rio a tı´tulo defini- tivo por pessoas provenientes de outro Estado-Membro que para ali mudem a sua residência. No caso de mudança tempora´ria, a proposta concede aos particula- res o direito de utilizarem o veı´culo por um perı´odo de seis meses em cada perı´odo de doze meses. A proposta prevê, inter alia: — maiores possibilidades de utilizaça˜o de automo´veis de aluguer em Estados-Membros diferentes do de matrı´cula. Propo˜e-se autorizar um segundo aluguer à mesma pessoa, ao expirar o contrato de aluguer noutro Estado-Membro, mantendo-se o veı´culo no territo´ rio desse Estado-Membro; — o direito de os membros do agregado familiar utilizarem o veı´culo num outro Estado-Membro que na˜o aquele em que o veı´culo esteja matriculado. O mesmo direito sera´ concedido a pessoas que na˜o façam parte do agregado familiar, desde que o proprieta´rio se encontre também no veı´culo; — maior flexibilidade no que se refere ao direito de utilizaça˜o de pessoas que trabalhem num Estado- -Membro diferente do de residência; tais pessoas podera˜o utilizar o seu veı´culo no Estado-Membro em que trabalham por um perı´odo ma´ximo de nove meses em cada perı´odo de doze meses; — que os Estados-Membros na˜o apliquem impostos se, durante o perı´odo de utilizaça˜o tempora´ria legı´tima, o veı´culo sofrer danos e o custo da reparaça˜o exceder o valor do veı´culo; — a revogaça˜o do regime fiscal especial de veı´culos transferidos de um Estado-Membro para outro em consequência de casamento ou de herança; — a consulta entre autoridades nacionais em caso de litı´gios relativos à presumı´vel residência de uma pessoa. 2. Observaço˜es na generalidade (1) JO C 108 de 7. 4. 1998, p. 75. (2) JO L 105 de 23. 4. 1983, p. 59 (parecer do Comité Econo´mico e Social: JO C 131 de 12. 6. 1976, p. 50). (3) JO L 105 de 23. 4. 1983, p. 64 (parecer do Comité Econo´mico e Social: JO C 131 de 12. 6. 1976, p. 49). (4) JO L 348 de 29. 11. 1989, p. 28 (parecer do Comité Econo´mico e Social: JO C 180 de 8. 7. 1987, p. 13). 2. 1. As alteraço˜es propostas têm em conta o facto de que os obsta´culos à livre circulaça˜o de veı´culos particulares entre Estados-Membros sa˜o dos que provo- cam reacço˜es mais sensı´veis dos cidada˜os da Unia˜o Europeia. Tais obsta´culos, quer sejam fiscais quer de outra natureza, prejudicam a livre circulaça˜o de pessoas, dado o veı´culo ser o meio de transporte preferido em grande nu´mero de casos. C 235/32 PT Jornal Oficial das Comunidades Europeias 27. 7. 98 2. 2. O Comité Econo´mico e Social acolhe com agrado a directiva proposta. 2. 3. O Comité tem, porém, a noça˜o plena de que, nos Estados-Membros que cobram impostos de matrı´cula, podera˜o sobrevir receitas cessantes. A expressa˜o destas receitas cessantes na˜o se afigura, contudo, exagerada, atendendo ao pequeno nu´mero de casos. Os Estados- -Membros em que tal fosse o caso poderiam, por exemplo, compensar as perdas com aumentos dos impostos sobre os o´leos minerais (veja-se também a tabela anexa). 2. 4. O Comité Econo´ mico e Social espera que, com a nova directiva, os direitos dos cidada˜os europeus ganhem expressa˜o mais clara e, do mesmo passo, se evite o abuso de vantagens fiscais. 3. Observaço˜es na especialidade 3. 1. Artigo 25: «Definiço˜es» 3. 1. 1. Na alı´nea f) do artigo 24 é definido o conceito de famı´lia. O Comité Econo´ mico e Social assinala que, em alguns Estados-Membros, ha´, em tal matéria, definiço˜es mais latas, que abrangem também outras formas de vida em comum (1). 3. 2. Artigo 45: «Condiço˜ es para na˜o sujeiça˜o a imposto na sequência de mudança de residência» A alı´nea b) do n4 1 do artigo 44 reza de «a 3. 2. 1. pessoa ter utilizado». A expressa˜o na˜o é clara, pois que praticamente nunca sera´ possı´vel comprovar uma data de primeira utilizaça˜o. Mais claro seria falar da data de matrı´cula em nome da pessoa que muda de residência. Problema especı´fico é o representado pelos 3. 2. 2. veı´culos cuja matrı´cula tenha estado registada em nome de um membro da famı´lia da pessoa que muda de residência que na˜o participe, ele pro´prio, nessa mudança. 3. 2. 3. Na alı´nea c) do n4 1 do artigo 44 exige-se que o veı´culo a motor seja transferido para o Estado-Membro para o qual a pessoa tenha mudado a sua residência até doze meses depois da transferência de residência. 3. 2. 4. O Comité Econo´ mico e Social é do parecer de que este passo carece de relevância. O que neste ponto teria cabimento preceituar seria antes a restriça˜o da revenda a um certo prazo e a regulamentaça˜o do nu´mero ma´ximo de veı´culos por famı´lia. 3. 3. Artigo 55: «Condiço˜es gerais para na˜o sujeiça˜o a imposto no caso de veı´culos utilizados temporaria- mente num Estado-Membro distinto do de matrı´- cula» 3. 3. 1. O Comité Econo´ mico e Social é do parecer de que a tema´tica do n4 2 do artigo 54 se arrumara´ correctamente no artigo 74. Na˜o sera´, nesse caso, preciso estabelecer restriça˜o temporal, por esta na˜o ser requerida no artigo 74. 3. 3. 2. Cabe, para todos os efeitos, perguntar como ha´-de um prazo de nove meses (ou sejam quantos forem) ser comprova´vel ou verifica´vel, na˜o havendo quaisquer controlos/certificaço˜es fronteiras internas. travessia das à 3. 4. Artigo 65: «Casos especı´ficos de utilizaça˜o privada em que na˜o é permitido tributar o veı´culo» 3. 4. 1. O Comité Econo´ mico e Social propo˜e que se dilatem os prazos para as empresas de aluguer de automo´veis de que reza a alı´nea a) do artigo 64. 3. 4. 2. O Comité Econo´ mico e Social propo˜ e a seguinte redacça˜o para a alı´nea d) do artigo 64: «Os veı´culos automo´veis particulares utilizados por qualquer pessoa residente no Estado-Membro de utilizaça˜o tempora´ria, desde que a pessoa que introduziu o veı´culo no Estado-Membro de utili- zaça˜o tempora´ria se encontre também no veı´culo. » 3. 4. 3. O Comité Econo´ mico e Social sugere a fixaça˜o de uma forma vinculativa que sirva para designar a situaça˜o descrita na alı´nea f) do artigo 64 e seja depois efectivamente objecto de reconhecimento mu´tuo entre os Estados-Membros (2). 3. 5. Artigo 75: «Casos de utilizaça˜o profissional em que na˜o é permitida tributaça˜o» Analogamente à alı´nea f) do artigo 64, o Comité 3. 5. 1. Econo´ mico e Social volta a sugerir a fixaça˜o de uma forma vinculativa. 3. 6. Artigo 85: «Disposiço˜es relativas a veı´culos com danos irrepara´veis» 3. 6. 1. O Comité Econo´mico e Social faz notar que é precisamente no caso dos veı´culos usados com uma certa idade que é mais difı´cil apurar o respectivo preço de mercado. 3. 7. Artigo 95: «Utilizaça˜o permanente num Estado- -Membro distinto do de residência habitual» 3. 7. 1. O Comité Econo´ mico e Social sugere que se aligeire a proibiça˜o de utilizaça˜o constante do n4 3 do artigo 94. (1) Podera´ pôr-se também um problema especial no caso dos filhos adoptivos e pupilos. (2) Alguns Estados-Membros exigem o preenchimento de volumosos questiona´rios, mesmo tratando-se de trocas de veı´culos por prazo curto. 27. 7. 98 PT Jornal Oficial das Comunidades Europeias C 235/33 3. 8. Artigo 125: «Resoluça˜o de litı´gios» 3. 8. 1. No n4 3 do artigo 124, é facultado à Comissa˜o um poder de decisa˜o em litı´gios entre Estados-Membros. O Comité Econo´ mico e Social vê esta funça˜o mais bem arrumada no Tribunal de Justiça. 4. Concluso˜es e sı´ntese A consumaça˜o do mercado interno requer a 4. 1. liberdade de circulaça˜o das pessoas e de troca dos bens, neste caso veı´culos automo´veis privados. Ao mesmo tempo, alguns Estados-Membros cobram impostos sobre a matrı´cula de veı´culos particulares a motor, perseguindo objectivos fiscais e polı´ticos. 4. 2. O Comité Econo´ mico e Social entende que, com esta directiva e as observaço˜es tecidas pelo Comité Econo´ mico e Social, saem reforçados os direitos dos cidada˜os, especialmente os seus direitos ao transferirem residência de um Estado-Membro para outro, ficando ao mesmo tempo acautelado o legı´timo interesse dos Estados-Membros em arrecadar impostos. Bruxelas, 27 de Maio de 1998. O Presidente do Comité Econo´ mico e Social Tom JENKINS ANEXO ao parecer do Comité Econo´ mico e Social Receita de impostos relacionados com veı´culos, 1994 A. Em percentagem do PIB Imposto de matrı´cula Imposto de circulaça˜o Imposto sobre gasolina Imposto sobre diesel Imposto sobre seguro Portagens Total 0,07 0,14 1,43 0,40 0,10 0,00 0,52 0,78 0,05 0,00 0,60 0,87 0,22 0,11 0,00 0,20 0,42 0,46 0,29 0,22 0,43 0,14 0,67 0,08 0,07 0,82 0,11 0,22 0,27 0,57 1,03 0,88 0,66 1,24 1,04 1,18 1,74 1,09 1,34 2,12 0,95 1,53 1,02 1,44 1,43 0,43 0,65 0,31 0,47 0,73 0,55 0,77 0,68 0,69 1,50 0,58 1,14 0,73 0,31 0,64 0,34 0,12 0,10 0,13 0,33 0,17 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,01 0,45 0,00 0,02 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,33 0,00 0,00 0,24 0,20 0,00 0,00 2,52 2,21 2,99 2,54 2,42 2,33 3,17 3,22 2,48 3,70 2,95 3,88 2,18 2,13 2,65 A´ ustria Bélgica Dinamarca Finlândia França Alemanha Grécia Irlanda Ita´lia Luxemburgo Paı´ses Baixos Portugal Espanha Suécia Reino Unido Fonte: Eurostat 1997 e DG XXI. C 235/34 PT Jornal Oficial das Comunidades Europeias 27. 7. 98 B. Em percentagem da tributaça˜o total (incl. contribuiço˜es para a segurança social), administraça˜o geral Imposto de matrı´cula Imposto de circulaça˜o Imposto sobre gasolina Imposto sobre diesel Imposto sobre seguro Portagens Total 0,30 2,77 0,00 0,85 0,22 1,63 2,12 0,12 0,00 1,28 0,15 2,45 0,59 0,22 0,00 0,91 0,89 1,00 0,60 0,50 0,45 1,83 0,20 0,16 1,76 0,46 0,32 0,61 0,53 1,69 1,88 1,27 2,77 2,60 2,36 5,48 2,97 3,29 4,79 2,04 2,34 4,31 2,79 2,89 4,26 1,39 0,61 1,29 0,99 1,67 2,42 1,85 1,69 3,40 1,25 0,98 3,22 2,02 0,62 1,90 0,26 0,19 0,40 0,28 0,74 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,76 0,00 0,02 0,00 0,02 0,00 0,05 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,81 0,00 0,00 1,03 0,67 0,54 0,00 0,00 4,72 5,77 5,46 5,32 5,49 9,98 8,77 6,10 8,35 6,33 5,73 10,96 5,98 4,27 7,88 Bélgica Dinamarca Alemanha Finlândia França Grécia Irlanda Ita´lia Luxemburgo Paı´ses Baixos A´ ustria Portugal Espanha Suécia Reino Unido Fonte: Eurostat 1997 e GD XXI. Parecer do Comité Econo´ mico e Social sobre o «86 Relato´ rio Anual sobre os Fundos Estruturais 1996» (98/C 235/08) Em 25 de Novembro de 1997, a Comissa˜o decidiu, nos termos do artigo 1984 do Tratado que institui a Comunidade Europeia, consultar o Comité Econo´ mico e Social sobre o «84 Relato´ rio Anual sobre os Fundos Estruturais 1996». Foi incumbida da preparaça˜o dos correspondentes trabalhos a Secça˜o de Desenvolvimento Regional, Ordenamento do Territo´rio e Urbanismo, que emitiu parecer em 21 de Abril de 1998, sendo relator J. Little. Na 3551 reunia˜o plena´ria (sessa˜o de 27 de Maio de 1998), o Comité Econo´ mico e Social adoptou, por 116 votos a favor e 1 abstença˜o, o parecer que se segue. 1. Introduça˜o 1. 1. O Relato´rio Anual da Comissa˜o Europeia sobre os Fundos Estruturais em 1996 é o oitavo relato´ rio anual a ser publicado desde a u´ltima grande revisa˜o dos regulamentos que regem os Fundos Estruturais (a «reforma» dos Fundos de 1988). 1. 2. O relato´rio é publicado em conformidade com os Regulamentos do Conselho (CEE) n4s 2052/88 e 4253/88, ambos alterados em 1993, e, como exigido, apresenta detalhadamente o funcionamento dos Fundos Estruturais ao longo do ano e o progresso alcançado na consecuça˜o dos objectivos. 1. 3. Em Novembro de 1996 e conforme ao disposto no artigo 1304-B do Tratado CE, a Comissa˜o apresentou o primeiro relato´ rio trienal sobre a coesa˜o econo´ mica e social (1). O presente relato´rio inclui uma sı´ntese desse primeiro relato´ rio, com o qual se relaciona directamente. O relato´rio sobre a coesa˜o inclui uma avaliaça˜o da contribuiça˜o dos Fundos Estruturais para o progresso que se tem realizado em matéria de coesa˜o econo´ mica e social. Em 23 de Abril de 1997, o Comité Econo´mico e Social adoptou um parecer (2) sobre este relato´rio. (1) COM(96) 542 final. (2) JO C 206 de 7. 7. 1997, pp. 78 a 87


title: Kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 1074/98 av den 27 maj 1998 om fastställande av det maximala exportbidraget för vitsocker med avseende på den fyrtionde delanbudsinfordran som utfärdas inom ramen för den stående anbudsinfordran som föreskrivs i förordning (EG) nr 1408/97

eurovoc_concepts:
award of contract
export refund
white sugar

formats: pdf print

text: 28. 5. 98 SV Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning L 154/7 KOMMISSIONENS F(cid:153)RORDNING (EG) nr 1074/98 av den 27 maj 1998 om fastst(cid:132)llande av det maximala exportbidraget f(cid:148)r vitsocker med avseende p(cid:134) den fyrtionde delanbudsinfordran som utf(cid:132)rdas inom ramen f(cid:148)r den st(cid:134)ende anbudsinfordran som f(cid:148)reskrivs i f(cid:148)rordning (EG) nr 1408/97 EUROPEISKA GEMENSKAPERNAS KOMMISSION HAR ANTAGIT DENNA F(cid:153)RORDNING s(cid:132)rskilt till situationen och den f(cid:148)rutsebara utvecklingen i gemenskapen och p(cid:134) v(cid:132)rldsmarknaden i fr(cid:134)ga om socker. med beaktande av F(cid:148)rdraget om uppr(cid:132)ttandet av Euro- peiska gemenskapen, med beaktande av r(cid:134)dets f(cid:148)rordning (EEG) nr 1785/81 av den 30 juni 1981 om den gemensamma organisationen av marknaden f(cid:148)r socker (1), senast (cid:132)ndrad genom f(cid:148)rordning (EG) nr 1599/96 (2), s(cid:132)rskilt artikel 17. 5 b andra stycket i denna, och med beaktande av f(cid:148)ljande: I kommissionens f(cid:148)rordning (EG) nr 1408/97 av den 22 juli 1997 om en st(cid:134)ende anbudsinfordran f(cid:148)r att fast- st(cid:132)lla f(cid:148)r vitsocker (3), kr(cid:132)vs att delanbudsinfordringar skall utf(cid:132)rdas f(cid:148)r export av detta socker. importavgifter exportbidrag och/eller Efter en granskning av de anbud som har l(cid:132)mnats in till f(cid:148)ljd av den fyrtionde delanbudsinfordran b(cid:148)r de best(cid:132)m- melser som anges i artikel 1 fastst(cid:132)llas. F(cid:148)rvaltningskommitt(cid:130)n f(cid:148)r socker har inte yttrat sig inom den tid som ordf(cid:148)randen har best(cid:132)mt. H(cid:142)RIGENOM F(cid:153)RESKRIVS F(cid:153)LJANDE. Artikel 1 Med avseende p(cid:134) den fyrtionde delanbudsinfordran f(cid:148)r vitsocker som utf(cid:132)rdas i enlighet med f(cid:148)rordning (EG) nr 1408/97 skall det maximala beloppet f(cid:148)r exportbidrag fastst(cid:132)llas till 47,498 ecu per 100 kg. I enlighet med artikel 9. 1 i f(cid:148)rordning (EG) nr 1408/97 skall ett maximalt exportbidrag fastst(cid:132)llas f(cid:148)r den aktuella f(cid:148)rekommande fall, med h(cid:132)nsyn delanbudsinfordran i Artikel 2 Denna f(cid:148)rordning tr(cid:132)der i kraft den 28 maj 1998. Denna f(cid:148)rordning (cid:132)r till alla delar bindande och direkt till(cid:132)mplig i alla medlemsstater. Utf(cid:132)rdad i Bryssel den 27 maj 1998. P(cid:134) kommissionens v(cid:132)gnar Franz FISCHLER Ledamot av kommissionen (1) EGT L 177, 1. 7. 1981, s. 4. (2) EGT L 206, 16. 8. 1996, s. 43. (3) EGT L 194, 23. 7. 1997, s. 16


title: Avis du Comité économique et social sur la «Liberté d'établissement dans le marché unique» (OMU)

eurovoc_concepts:
approximation of laws
freedom to provide services
right of establishment
single market
small and medium-sized enterprises

text: C 235/10 FR Journal officiel des Communautés européennes 27. 7. 98 Avis du Comité économique et social sur la «Liberté d’établissement dans le marché unique» (OMU) (98/C 235/03) Le 18 mars 1997, le Comité économique et social a décidé, conformément à l’article 23, troisième alinéa, de son Règlement intérieur, d’élaborer un avis sur le thème susmentionné. La section de l’industrie, du commerce, de l’artisanat et des services, chargée de préparer les travaux du Comité en la matière, a élaboré son avis le 6 mai 1998 (rapporteur: M. Folias). Lors de sa 355e session plénière des 27 et 28 mai 1998 (séance du 27 mai), le Comité a adopté par 88 voix pour et 1 abstention le présent avis. 1. Introduction qui s’est tenue en France, à Nice, et un éventail d’obstacles concrets qui ont été dénoncés ou identifiés. 1. 1. Au cours de ses travaux des derniers mois sur le fonctionnement du marché unique, le groupe d’étude permanent sur le marché unique a relevé à plusieurs reprises des problèmes touchant au droit des entreprises de s’établir ou de faire fonctionner une filiale dans un autre État membre de l’UE. 1. 2. Il est indéniable qu’aujourd’hui, des progrès ont été accomplis sur la voie de la création d’un marché unique, grâce aux nombreuses possibilités nouvelles qui ont été offertes aux PME et aux indépendants d’exercer leurs activités à l’extérieur de leur pays. Dans le même temps, tout le monde s’accorde cependant à reconnaître que la liberté d’établissement des entrepri- ses dans un autre État membre reste entravée par nombre d’obstacles. 1. 6. La «liberté d’établissement» des entreprises ne peut être ramenée à une démarche qui viserait à les exempter des règles en vigueur dans le pays d’implanta- tion. Sa finalité est de réserver un accueil positif aux personnes et aux sociétés désireuses de s’installer dans un État membre, et non d’exiger qu’elles se soumettent à des conditions abusives ou différentes de celles imposées aux nationaux. Dans le cas présent, on entend par «conditions abusives» tout traitement discriminatoire visant à gêner ou à empêcher l’installation. 1. 7. Il n’est pas facile de faire le départ entre la question de l’établissement des entreprises et d’autres facettes du marché unique, comme la libre prestation de services. Le Comité ayant déjà élaboré un certain nombre d’avis sur les divers types d’obstacles qui viennent affecter le libre jeu du marché (1), le présent document concentrera son attention sur des propositions suscepti- bles d’aider concrètement les individus et les sociétés à s’implanter dans un autre État membre. 1. 3. Si l’on veut poser clairement les données de la problématique, il ne faut pas perdre de vue que les observations formulées à propos des quinze États mem- bres s’appliquent également aux trois pays AELE/EEE (Norvège, Islande, Liechtenstein) qui sont considérés comme membres à part entière du marché unique en vertu de l’accord EEE. 2. Constats 1. 4. Le présent avis a pour objectif de montrer qu’il reste encore un long chemin à parcourir avant que le marché unique ne soit entièrement réalisé, d’inviter toutes les parties impliquées à œuvrer en ce sens, d’épingler quelques exemples d’entraves concrètes ou créées artificiellement et d’avancer des propositions qui en facilitent l’élimination. 1. 5. Pour atteindre ce but, le présent avis exploitera les éléments recueillis dans les questionnaires que le Comité a rédigés et envoyés et qui lui ont été retournés complétés, les informations récoltées lors de l’audition L’établissement des entreprises dans des États 2. 1. membres autres que le leur achoppe encore et toujours sur des problèmes nombreux et variés, qui y posent une foule d’«entraves» et auxquels il faut encore ajouter les difficultés que ces sociétés ou les professions libérales (1) Impact et efficacité du marché unique — JO C 206 du 7. 7. 1997, p. 65; PME et les relations transfrontalières — JO C 206 du 7. 7. 1997, blz. 70; Le marché unique et la protection de l’environnement — JO C 19 du 21. 1. 1998, p. 95; Prévention des nouvelles entraves dans le marché unique avis du CES 453/98 du 25 mars 1998; Élimination de certaines entraves aux échanges avis du CES 643/98 du 29 avril 1998. 27. 7. 98 FR Journal officiel des Communautés européennes C 235/11 devront affronter après leur implantation et qui créeront des obstacles à la libre prestation de leurs services. 4. Exemples d’entraves concrètes 2. 2. Un grand nombre de dispositions restrictives nationales sont dues au souci plus poussé qu’ont certains États membres de protéger leurs consommateurs. L’inté- rêt absolument légitime que les pouvoirs publics portent à ceux-ci ressortit à leur devoir suprême mais ils ne devront pas s’en servir pour justifier l’introduction de mesures qui poseraient des problèmes à l’établissement d’entreprises nouvelles. 3. Entraves recensées Parmi les entraves à l’établissement qui ont été 3. 1. identifiées figurent des obstacles multiples et variés, nationaux ou régionaux, de nature subjective ou objec- tive; certains sont susceptibles d’être surmontés, tandis que d’autres ne pourront l’être que si un effort, individuel ou collectif, est consenti. 3. 2. Entraves de nature législative La liste ci-après reprend succinctement les obstacles de ce type qui reviennent le plus fréquemment et dans un grand nombre de pays: — reconnaissance des titres; — reconnaissance des conditions d’exercice d’une pro- fession; — octroi de l’autorisation d’exercice d’une profession; — conditions régissant la création d’entreprises; — formalités administratives bureaucratiques; — interdiction d’accéder à certaines professions (phar- macien, notaire, ingénieur, etc. ); — forme juridique des entreprises. On trouvera ci-après une liste d’obstacles précis qui ont été dénoncés ou enregistrés et mettent en évidence des problèmes rencontrés par les entreprises. Le code du travail d’un État membre exige des 4. 1. agences de modèles nationales le dépôt d’une garantie d’au moins 15 000 écus, de sorte que les agences d’autres États membres ne peuvent y travailler, fût-ce occasionnellement, si elles n’ont pas versé la même garantie. 4. 2. Les artisans d’un État membre évitent de travail- ler dans un autre, car il leur faut alors recourir aux services, onéreux, d’un intermédiaire fiscal pour le paiement des impôts indirects exigibles. 4. 3. Dans un État membre, on compte 7 000 agents immobiliers qui, remplissant toutes les conditions néces- saires, sont officiellement habilités par les autorités de ce pays à exercer la profession. Dans ces conditions, seuls 4 (quatre!) non-ressortissants ont réussi à décrocher cette autorisation. A` l’entrée comme à la sortie d’un pays de l’Union, 4. 4. les services compétents du ministère de l’Économie de cet État exigent une déclaration écrite pour la détention de toute somme de plus de 7 500 écus. Pour s’assurer du respect de cette disposition, les préposés procèdent à une fouille physique des bagages des voyageurs, quelle qu’en soit la nationalité. 4. 5. Depuis des années, les services fiscaux d’un État membre restent sourds aux demandes de remboursement de sociétés d’un autre État membre qui ont payé la TVA dans le premier pays à l’occasion de leur participation à des foires internationales et ont droit à sa restitution. En outre, ces demandes sont fort désavantageuses du fait des conditions et procédures auxquelles elles sont soumises. Dans les pays dont l’administration est décentralisée, certaines dispositions régionales qui peuvent jouer un rôle d’entraves se surimposent aux règlements natio- naux. 4. 6. Les autorités d’un État membre restreignent le droit de versement de commissions pour rémunérer les services d’intermédiaires ne résidant pas dans le pays (assureurs, agents immobiliers, etc. ). 3. 3. Obstacles subjectifs — Manque de données sur les législations nationales; — Obstacles linguistiques; — Absence d’information sur le marché choisi comme cible; — Ignorance des règles et principes locaux; — Diversité des cultures et des mentalités; — Différences dans les habitudes de consommation. 4. 7. Les pouvoirs publics d’un État membre obligent les compagnies de services de sécurité qui veulent y exercer leur activité à y avoir leur siège et exigent que leur direction et leurs travailleurs en possèdent la nationalité. Des raisons de maintien de l’ordre public et de sécurité sont invoquées pour justifier ces dispositions. 4. 8. Une entreprise d’un pays membre de l’AELE a été dans l’impossibilité d’honorer un contrat de travaux de construction dans un État de l’UE, parce que les autorités de ce dernier ont refusé de l’inscrire au registre national des entrepreneurs, en arguant de sa non-appartenance à un État membre de l’UE. C 235/12 FR Journal officiel des Communautés européennes 27. 7. 98 5. Propositions Certaines des propositions ci-après ont été avancées par des entreprises en butte aux effets concrets des entraves que l’on vient d’évoquer; d’autres sont le résultat d’échanges de vues. Toutes procèdent, bien entendu, d’une volonté marquée d’apporter une contribution au dossier de l’élimination des obstacles à la libre implantation. Le Comité est soucieux d’instaurer au sein de 5. 1. l’UE un climat grâce auquel l’établissement de sociétés ou de personnes dans un autre État membre sera envisagé comme un réservoir de création d’emplois et d’activité économique. Cette vision dynamique accorde une prio- rité absolue au dialogue des cultures. Dans cet esprit, il est indiqué que la Commission lance une campagne d’information sur les droits des entreprises et des individus à s’implanter dans l’État membre de leur choix en se conformant, bien entendu, à la législation fondamentale du pays concerné. 5. 2. Propositions générales — Créer des banques de données sur les autorités et intervenants compétents pour l’obtention d’informa- tions; — Encourager une exploitation accrue et le développe- ment des Euro-info-centres, qui peuvent jouer un rôle déterminant non seulement pour informer et éclairer les entreprises mais aussi pour organiser des rencontres, bilatérales ou multilatérales, permettant des échanges de vues; publier un rapport annuel décrivant les problèmes les plus fréquents en matière d’établissement d’entreprises; — Etablir dans les chambres professionnelles (com- merce, industrie) des «guichets uniques» nationaux qui fourniraient une palette homogène de services; — Consacrer des ressources plus importantes au capital à risque et au capital d’amorçage; — Lancer une initiative communautaire pour tenter d’harmoniser les diverses législations dans certaines branches; — Instaurer une formule de «société européenne», en menant à bien l’action entreprise par la Commission en ce sens, afin que les entreprises aient la faculté d’opter pour une personnalité juridique qui soit traitée de manière identique et prévisible sur l’ensem- ble du territoire européen (1) ; — Accorder un accès prioritaire aux sources de finance- ment, de niveau européen («croissance et emploi») comme de niveau national, avec pour objectif de susciter des créations d’entreprises. 5. 3. Propositions particulières — Organiser des négociations directes entre les acteurs intéressés et les administrations nationales et régio- nales pour résoudre des questions concrètes; — Nouer des synergies entre chambres professionnelles (commerce, industrie, etc. ) pour des échanges de vues et d’expériences dont les conclusions seront relayées auprès des administrations nationales et des organes communautaires compétents; — Interpeller et informer les députés européens; s’il y a lieu, déposer des propositions ou des questions au Parlement européen, l’initiative pouvant être prise, le cas échéant, par les représentants du monde des entreprises; — Ne pas faire dépendre la liberté d’implantation de la taille des entreprises concernées; — Offrir des chances égales à toutes les sociétés, indépendamment de leurs dimensions; — Accorder une attention spécifique aux associations à but non lucratif et aux organisations humanitaires. — Dresser un tableau comparatif, branche par branche, des différentes législations des États membres; 6. Remarques finales — Pour chaque État membre, créer sur Internet des pages contenant, dans les onze langues communau- taires, des guides complets sur les conditions et la législation à respecter pour réaliser une implantation dans les divers secteurs de leur marché; de même, la Commission pourrait se servir des sites qu’elle exploite déjà sur la Toile (Europa, ISPO, etc. ) pour fournir des informations centralisées sur ce sujet; — Exploiter davantage encore la manifestation «Euro- partenariat»; — Tirer le meilleur parti possible du nouveau pro- gramme communautaire de création d’entreprises («Joint European Ven- européennes conjointes tures»); Par le truchement de l’Observatoire du marché 6. 1. unique et du présent avis, le Comité s’efforce de définir une démarche solide et raisonnée pour aborder le vaste problème des entraves à la liberté d’établissement, qui constitue également un frein important pour la réalisation du marché intérieur. 6. 2. Pour atteindre cet objectif, le Comité en appelle aux parties qui, chacune évidemment à son échelle, peuvent tout aussi bien être responsables de l’apparition de ces obstacles qu’œuvrer efficacement à leur résorp- tion. (1) Cf. l’avis du Comité sur le «Statut de la société européenne» — JO C 129 du 27. 4. 1998, p. 1. 27. 7. 98 FR Journal officiel des Communautés européennes C 235/13 6. 2. 1. La Commission est invitée à déployer, pour expliquer le fonctionnement du marché unique, des efforts concertés et concrets qui aboutissent à des résultats tangibles, sur la base d’un relevé régulier des effets réels que produisent les mesures arrêtées par l’UE. 6. 2. 2. Quant aux entreprises et aux entrepreneurs des États membres qui estiment de leur intérêt de s’établir et de travailler sur un autre marché, le Comité les appelle à retrousser leurs manches, à mobiliser tout le dynamisme qui est manifestement le leur et à exploiter l’ensemble des possibilités dont ils disposent pour surmonter par leurs propres forces un maximum d’obstacles. Bruxelles, le 27 mai 1998. Le Président du Comité économique et social Tom JENKINS Avis du Comité économique et social sur la «Communication de la Commission: “Les marchés européens des capitaux pour les petites et moyennes entreprises: perspectives et obstacles potentiels à leurs progrès”» (98/C 235/04) Le 13 mai 1998, la Commission européenne a décidé, en vertu de l’article 198 du Traité instituant la Communauté européenne, de consulter le Comité économique et social sur la communication susmentionnée. La section de l’industrie, du commerce, de l’artisanat et des services, chargée de la préparation des travaux du Comité en la matière, a adopté son avis le 6 mai 1998 (rapporteur: M. Pezzini). Lors de sa 355e session plénière des 27 et 28 mai 1998 (séance du 27 mai), le Comité économique et social a adopté par 101 voix pour, 1 voix contre et 1 abstention l’avis suivant. 1. Observations générales Il convient de féliciter la Commission européenne 1. 1. pour les efforts positifs et soutenus qu’elle déploie en vue de stimuler la création de marchés européens des capitaux convenant aux petites et moyennes entreprises (PME). Son action en ce domaine a été décrite dans une précédente communication intitulée: «Rapport concer- nant la faisabilité de la création d’un marché européen des capitaux pour les jeunes sociétés entrepreneuriales de croissance rapide» (1), sur laquelle le CES n’a pas rendu d’avis. Ces efforts de la Commission ont répondu à une demande antérieure du Comité qui invitait la Commission «à effectuer une enquête sur la faisabilité d’un marché européen reconnu qui donne accès au capital (risque) aux entreprises européennes et, en particulier, aux petites entreprises». 1. 2. Avec cette communication de suivi, la Commis- sion nous donne un document constructif. Néanmoins, l’on relève certains points, tels que la façon dont la législation de l’Union européenne sur les titres fonctionne (1) COM(95) 498 final du 25. 10. 1995. en pratique, qui n’ont pas fait l’objet de l’examen approfondi qu’ils méritent. Sur d’autres points, des facteurs autres que ceux proposés par la Commission jouent un rôle significatif. 1. 3. Hormis le problème de l’apport de financements adéquats, il existe toute une série d’autres facteurs qui décident de la question de savoir si des entreprises vont connaître une croissance qui les amènera à atteindre une dimension significative. L’on a pris ici le parti d’affirmer que ceux de ces facteurs qui sont les plus importants méritaient d’être examinés dans le présent avis, de sorte qu’il soit possible de procéder à une meilleure évaluation globale des problèmes qui se posent. Un certain nombre des recommandations présentées ici résultent d’un voyage d’étude qu’a effectué le CES aux États-Unis au mois de novembre 1997. Ce voyage a été largement inspiré par le fait que la communication de la Commis- sion faisait référence, dans son introduction, aux mar- chés américains des capitaux, et par l’invitation à examiner la situation aux États-Unis contenue dans le discours tenu par le président Santer au Comité économique et social le 28 octobre 1997. Il s’ensuit que le thème sur lequel porte le présent avis est bien plus large que celui de la communication de la Commission, laquelle se limite exclusivement aux marchés des capi- taux pour les PME


title: QUESTION ECRITE no 1747/98 de Freddy BLAK à la Commission. Poursuite de la discrimination des femmes dans la légisation danoise relative aux pensions

eurovoc_concepts:
Denmark
gender equality
national law
pension scheme
position of women
sexual discrimination

text: C 354/120 FR Journal officiel des Communaute·s europe·ennes 19. 11. 98 Re·ponse (20 juillet 1998) 1. L(cid:146)article 126, paragraphe 1, du traite· pre·voit que «la Communaute· contribue au de·veloppement d(cid:146)une e·ducation de qualite· en encourageant la coope·ration entre E· tats membres et, si ne·cessaire, en appuyant et en comple·tant leur action tout en respectant pleinement la responsabilite· des E· tats membres pour le contenu de l(cid:146)enseignement et l(cid:146)organisation du syste‘me e·ducatif ainsi que leur diversite· culturelle et linguistique. » 2. L(cid:146)introduction ou la re·introduction de l(cid:146)enseignement du latin dans les programmes de l(cid:146)enseignement obligatoire des E· tats membres rele‘ve de la responsabilite· des E· tats membres en matie‘re de contenu de l(cid:146)enseignement et d(cid:146)organisation du syste‘me e·ducatif. Le Conseil n(cid:146)est pas saisi de propositions de la Commission visant a‘ encourager une coope·ration des E· tats membres en la matie‘re. (98/C 354/194) QUESTION E· CRITE P-1737/98 pose·e par Luciano Schifone (NI) a‘ la Commission (20 mai 1998) Objet: Intervention de la Commission a‘ la suite de la catastrophe naturelle qui s(cid:146)est produite en Campanie Conside·rant que, ces derniers jours, la re·gion Campanie a e·te· frappe·e par une catastrophe naturelle qui a de·truit des villages entiers, fait des centaines de victimes et prive· d(cid:146)abri des milliers de personnes, conside·rant que, lors de sa session du 11 mai, le Parlement europe·en a fait part, par la voix du Pre·sident Gil-Robles, de la solidarite· de l(cid:146)Europe avec les populations si durement e·prouve·es, prenant acte de la communication du commissaire Monti, qui a de·clare· qu(cid:146)il e·tait possible que la Commission arre(cid:136)te une forme d(cid:146)intervention concre‘te, la Commission pourrait-elle dire quels cre·dits elle est dispose·e a‘ allouer a‘ la re·gion Campanie pour les communes sinistre·es, dans quels de·lais et selon quelles modalite·s? Re·ponse donne·e par M. Santer au nom de la Commission (15 juin 1998) En re·ponse a‘ la question de l(cid:146)Honorable Parlementaire, la Commission rappelle qu(cid:146)elle s(cid:146)est exprime·e devant le Parlement lors du de·bat d(cid:146)urgence qui a eu lieu le 14 mai 1998, sur les inondations meutrie‘res en Campanie. Dans ce contexte, elle a confirme· et pre·cise· les intentions qu(cid:146)elle avait initialement annonce·es. La Commission sugge‘re a‘ l(cid:146)Honorable Parlementaire de se re·fe·rer au texte de la de·claration de la Commission, ainsi qu(cid:146)a‘ la re·ponse a‘ la question e·crite P-1618/98 de M. Caccavale. (98/C 354/195) QUESTION E· CRITE P-1747/98 pose·e par Freddy Blak (PSE) a‘ la Commission (27 mai 1998) Objet: Poursuite de la discrimination des femmes dans la le·gisation danoise relative aux pensions Me(cid:136)me si, a‘ partir du 1er juillet 1999, toute diffe·rence de traitement entre homme et femmes sera interdite au Danemark dans le domaine des pensions, 450 000 Danoises continueront ne·anmoins a‘ be·ne·ficier d(cid:146)une pension moins e·leve·e que leurs colle‘gues masculins. Presque un demi million de femmes cotisent de·ja‘ a‘ une caisse de pension qui de·favorise syste·matiquement les femmes par rapport aux hommes. Or ces femmes ne seront pas concerne·es par la modification le·gislative qui entrera en vigueur au mois de juillet 1999


title: Commission Regulation (EC) No 1085/98 of 27 May 1998 on the supply of rice as food aid

eurovoc_concepts:
EU aid
North Korea
aid system
food aid
rice

text: L 155/14 ‹ EN ‹ Official Journal of the European Communities 29. 5. 98 COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1085/98 of 27 May 1998 on the supply of rice as food aid THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 of 22 December 1995 on the common organisation of the market in rice (1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 192/98 (2), and in particular Articles 8(b) and 13(5) thereof, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1292/96 of 27 June 1996 on food-aid policy and food-aid manage- ment and special operations in support of food security (3), and in particular Article 24(1)(b) thereof, Whereas Regulation (EC) No 1292/96 lays down the list of countries and organisations eligible for Community aid and specifies the general criteria on the transport of food aid beyond the fob stage; Whereas, following the taking of a number of decisions on the allocation of food aid, the Commission has allo- cated cereals to certain beneficiaries; Whereas it is necessary to make these supplies in ac- cordance with the rules laid down by Commission Regu- lation (EC) No 2519/97 of 16 December 1997 laying down general rules for the mobilisation of products to be supplied under Council Regulation (EC) No 1292/96 as Community food aid (4); whereas it is necessary to specify the time limits and conditions of supply to determine the resultant costs; Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2351/91 (5) lays down the detailed rules applicable on the purchase of rice held by public agencies for the supply of food aid; Whereas, rice in the Community and the existence of sufficient stocks, such the availability of in view of produce should be used to supply, under certain condi- tions, food aid to North Korea; whereas, also, to ensure the supply for the available appropriations for this opera- tion, provision should be made to derogate from Article 5(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2351/91, which fixes the purchase price to be paid by the tenderer; Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 shall be mobilised in the Community, Cereals as Community food aid for supply to the recipient listed in Annex I, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2519/97 and under the conditions set out in the Annexes. The tenderer is deemed to have noted and accepted all the general and specific conditions applicable. Any other condition or reservation included in his tender is deemed unwritten. Article 2 By way of derogation from Article 5(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2351/91, the purchase price to be paid for the rice held by the Greek and Spanish agencies for the supply of Community food aid to North Korea shall be ECU 75/tonne. Article 3 This Regulation shall enter into force on the day follow- ing its publication in the Official Journal of the Euro- pean Communities. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 27 May 1998. For the Commission Franz FISCHLER Member of the Commission (1) OJ L 329, 30. 12. 1995, p. 18. (2) OJ L 20, 27. 1. 1998, p. 16. (3) OJ L 166, 5. 7. 1996, p. 1. (4) OJ L 346, 17. 12. 1997, p. 23. (5) OJ L 214, 2. 8. 1991, p. 51. 29. 5. 98 ‹ EN ‹ Official Journal of the European Communities L 155/15 ANNEX I LOTS A, B, C and D 1. Action Nos: 8/98 (A); 9/98 (B); 10/98 (C); 11/98 (D) 2. Beneficiary (2): North Korea 3. Beneficiary’s representative: Flood Damage Rehabilitation Committee, PO Box No 44, Pyongyang, (850 2) 382 70 00, fax: Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Contact: Ri Si Hong, Director, 381 46 60, telex: 5350KP/5351KP) (Tel. : 4. Country of destination: North Korea 5. Product to be mobilized (11): milled rice (product code 1006 30 98 9900) 6. Total quantity (tonnes net): 30 000 7. Number of lots: four (A: 10 000 tonnes; B: 10 000 tonnes; C: 5 000 tonnes; D: 5 000 tonnes) 8. Characteristics and quality of the product (3) (5) (10): see OJ C 114, 29. 4. 1991, p. 1 (II. A (1) (f)) 9. Packaging (8): see OJ C 267, 13. 9. 1996, p. 1 (1. 0 A (1) (c), (2) (c) and B (3)) 10. Labelling or marking (6) (7): see OJ C 114, 29. 4. 1991, p. 1 (II. A (3)) — Language to be used for the markings: English and Korean — Supplementary markings: ‘FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION’ 11. Method of mobilization of the product: purchase from: see Annex II. The purchased price to be paid for the rice in question shall be ECU 75 per tonne 12. Specified delivery stage: free at port of landing — landed (4) 13. Alternative delivery stage: free at port of shipment — fob stowed 14. (a) Port of shipment: — (b) Loading address: — 15. Port of landing: A and C: Haeju; B and D: Nampo 16. Place of destination: — — port or warehouse of transit: — — overland transport route: — 17. Period or deadline of supply at the specified stage (9): — first deadline: A and B: 7 — 20. 9. 1998; C and D: 6. 9. 1998 — second deadline: A and B: 21. 9 — 4. 10. 1998; C and D: 20. 9. 1998 18. Period or deadline of supply at the alternative stage: — first deadline: A and B: 20. 7 — 2. 8. 1998; C and D: 13 — 26. 7. 1998 — second deadline: A and B: 3 — 16. 8. 1998; C and D: 27. 7 — 9. 8. 1998 19. Deadline for the submission of tenders (at 12 noon, Brussels time): — first deadline: 11. 6. 1998 — second deadline: 25. 6. 1998 20. Amount of tendering guarantee: ECU 5 per tonne 21. Address for submission of tenders and tendering guarantees (1): Bureau de l’aide alimentaire, Attn Mr T. Vestergaard, Bâtiment Loi 130, bureau 7/46, Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 200, B-1049 Bruxelles/ Brussel (telex: 25670 AGREC B; fax: (32 2) 296 70 03 / 296 70 04 (exclusively)) 22. Export refund: no refunds applicable L 155/16 ‹ EN ‹ Official Journal of the European Communities 29. 5. 98 Notes: (1) Supplementary information: André Debongnie (Tel. : TorbenVestergaard (Tel. : (32 2) 295 14 65). (32 2) 299 30 50). (2) The supplier shall contact the beneficiary or its representative as soon as possible to establish which consignment documents are required. (3) The supplier shall deliver to the beneficiary a certificate from an official entity certifying that for the product to be delivered the standards applicable, relative to nuclear radiation, in the Member State concerned, have not been exceeded. The radioactivity certificate must indicate the caesium-134 and -137 and iodine-131 levels. (4) In addition to the provisions of Article 14(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2519/97, vessels chartered shall not appear on any of the four most recent quarterly lists of detained vessels as published by the Paris Memo- randum of Understanding on Port State Control (Council Directive 95/21/EC (OJ L 157, 7. 7. 1995, p. 1)). (5) The supplier shall supply to the beneficiary or its representative, on delivery, the following document: — phytosanitary certificate. (6) Notwithstanding OJ C 114, point II. A (3) (c) is replaced by the following: ‘the words “European Com- munity”’. (7) The marking in Korean must be made as follows on the reverse side of the packaging: European Community: Rice: For free distribution: (8) Since the goods may be rebagged, the supplier must provide 2 % of empty bags of the same quality as those containing the goods, with the marking followed by a capital ‘R’. (9) The final subparagraph of Article 14(14) of Regulation (EC) No 2519/97 applies. (10) Broken rice: 10 % maximum. (11) Pursuant to Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2519/97, the rice to be delivered must be manufactured from goods purchased from the public agencies mentioned in the Annex II. 29. 5. 98 ‹ EN ‹ Official Journal of the European Communities L 155/17 ANEXO II — BILAG II — ANHANG II — PAQAQTGLAII — ANNEX II — ANNEXE II — ALLEGATO II — BIJLAGE II — ANEXO II — LIITE II — BILAGA II Lote Parti Los Paqt˜ida Lot Lot Lotto Partij Lote Erä Parti A Cantidad parciales (en toneladas de c ´ascara) Totalmængde (tons i uafskallet ris) Gesamtmengen (in Tonnen von Rohreis) Sumokij ˜g pos ˜otgta (se t ˜omour qufio ˜u paddy) Total quantity (in tonnes of paddy rice) Quantité totale (en tonnes de riz paddy) Quantità totale (in tonnellate di risone) Totale hoeveelheid (in ton padie) Quantidade total (em toneladas de arroz paddy) Kokonaismäärä (tonnia paddy- eli raakariisiä) Total kvantitet (ton i paddyris) Cantidades parciales (en toneladas) Delmængde (tons) Teilmengen (in Tonnen) Leqij ˜er pos ˜otgter (se t ˜omour) Partial quantities (in tonnes) Quantités partielles (en tonnes) Quantitativi parziali (in tonnellate) Deelhoeveelheden (in ton) Quantidades parciais (em toneladas) Osittaismäärä (tonnia) Delkvantitet (ton) 18 000 12 259 Nombre, apellidos y dirección del almacenista Lagerholderens navn og adresse Name und Adresse des Lagerhalters Omolatep ˜ymulo jai die ˜uhumsg tou apohelatopoigt ˜g Name and address of storer Nom et adresse du stockeur Nome e indirizzo del detentore Naam en adres van de depothouder Nome e endereço do armazenista Varastoijan nimi ja osoite Lagerhållarens namn och adress Centro de Intervención de Marchena Delegación Provincial de Agricultura 41620 Marchena (Sevilla) (34) 95 484 39 00 Tel. Ritmo horario de carga (en toneladas) Læssekapacitet pr. time (tons) Verladekapazität (in Tonnen) Yqia˜ior quhl ˜or voqt ˜yseyr (se t ˜omour) Hourly loading rate (in tonnes) Rythme horaire de chargement (en tonnes) Ritmo orario di carico (in tonnellate) Laadtempo per uur (in ton) Ritmo de carregamento por hora (em toneladas) Lastausnopeus tunnissa (tonnia) Lastkapacitet per timma (ton) 300 8-15h (lun-ven / Mon-Fri) 4 834 907 Centro de Intervención del Fega de las Cabezas de San Juan. Delegación Provincial de Agricultura 41730 Las Cabezas de San Juan (Sevilla) (34) 95 587 10 55 Tel. + fax: 300 8-15h (lun-ven / Mon-Fri) Ctra. Maruanas S/N C. P. 14620 El Carpio (Córdoba) Tel. : (34) 95 18 02 19 150 8-15h (lun-ven / Mon-Fri) B 18 000 16 096 ‘Omospondia’ warehouse of Sindos, Thessaloniki Christoforos Pavlidis Agevee ‘Agricultural’ (30 31) 79 62 84; fax: 79 62 83 Tel. : 300/8h (first 1 300 tons) 120/8h for the rest 1 904 ‘Omospondia’ warehouse of Epanomi, Thessaloniki M. Kourkouta & Co. Ltd Tel. : (30 392) 423 66; fax: 421 07 C 8 500 7 556 ‘Omospondia’ warehouse of N. Halkidona, Thessaloniki Hellenic Cereal Co. Ltd Tel. + fax: (30 391) 237 05/232 05 944 Warehouse of Epanomi - Thessaloniki M. Kourkouta & Co. Ltd Tel. : (30 392) 423 66; fax: 421 07 D 8 500 8 500 Warehouse of Croccio - Volos Christoforos Pavlidis Agevee ‘Agricultural’ (30 422) 218 82; 218 85, fax: 219 28 Tel. : 350/8h/silo 300/8h/silo 350/8h/silo 450/8h/silo


title: WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1747/98 by Freddy BLAK to the Commission. Danish pensions legislation still discriminating against women

text: C 354/120 FI Euroopan yhteiso¤jen virallinen lehti 19. 11. 98 Vastaus (20. heina¤kuuta 1998) 1. Perustamissopimuksen 126 artiklan 1 kohdassa ma¤a¤ra¤ta¤a¤n, etta¤ (cid:148)yhteiso¤ myo¤ta¤vaikuttaa korkealaatuisen koulutuksen kehitta¤miseen rohkaisemalla ja¤senvaltioiden va¤lista¤ yhteistyo¤ta¤ seka¤ tarvittaessa tukemalla ja ta¤ydenta¤ma¤lla¤ ja¤senvaltioiden toimintaa pita¤en ta¤ysin arvossa ja¤senvaltioiden vastuuta opetuksen sisa¤llo¤sta¤ ja koulutusja¤rjestelmien ja¤rjesta¤misesta¤ seka¤ niiden sivistyksellista¤ ja kielellista¤ monimuotoisuutta(cid:148). 2. Latinan opetuksen sisa¤llytta¤minen tai sen palauttaminen ja¤senvaltioiden oppivelvollisuusopetukseen liittyy ja¤senvaltioiden vastuuseen opetuksen sisa¤llo¤sta¤ ja koulutusja¤rjestelmien ja¤rjesta¤misesta¤. Neuvosto ei ole saanut komissiolta ka¤sitelta¤va¤kseen ehdotuksia, joiden tarkoituksena olisi rohkaista ja¤senvaltioiden yhteistyo¤ta¤ kyseisessa¤ asiassa. (98/C 354/194) KIRJALLINEN KYSYMYS P-1737/98 komissiolle esitta¤ja¤(t): Luciano Schifone (NI) (20. toukokuuta 1998) Aihe: Euroopan komission tuki Campanian luonnonkatastrofissa Campanian aluetta on viime pa¤ivien aikana kohdannut vakava luonnonkatastrofi, joka on tuhonnut kokonaisia kylia¤, vaatinut satoja uhreja ja ja¤tta¤nyt tuhannet ihmiset kodittomiksi. Euroopan parlamentin puhemies Gil-Robles ilmoitti 11. toukokuuta pidetyssa¤ istunnossa Euroopan tuntevan solidaarisuutta ta¤ta¤ kovia kokenutta va¤esto¤a¤ kohtaan. Komission ja¤sen Monti antoi tiedonannon, jossa ha¤n totesi olevan mahdollista, etta¤ komissio pa¤a¤tta¤a¤ jonkinlaisesta konkreettisesta tuesta. Voisiko komissio na¤in ollen ilmoittaa, mita¤ ma¤a¤ra¤rahoja se aikoo myo¤nta¤a¤ Campanian alueen tuhoutuneille kunnille, koska ja millaisin muodollisuuksin se aikoo na¤in tehda¤? Komission puheenjohtajan Jacques Santerin komission puolesta antama vastaus (15. kesa¤kuuta 1998) Komissio muistuttaa, etta¤ se ilmoitti kantansa parlamentille 14. toukokuuta 1998 pidetyssa¤ kiireellisessa¤ keskustelussa, jossa ka¤siteltiin Campanian tulvien tuhoja. Samassa yhteydessa¤ komissio vahvisti aloitteet, jotka se oli alun perin ilmoittanut, ja tarkensi yksityiskohtia. Komissio kehottaa arvoisaa parlamentin ja¤senta¤ tutustumaan komission julistukseen ja Caccavalen kirjalliseen kysymykseen P-1618/98 komission antamaan vastaukseen. (98/C 354/195) KIRJALLINEN KYSYMYS P-1747/98 komissiolle esitta¤ja¤(t): Freddy Blak (PSE) (27. toukokuuta 1998) Aihe: Naisia syrjita¤a¤n edelleen Tanskan ela¤kelainsa¤a¤da¤nno¤ssa¤ Vaikka miesten ja naisten eriarvoinen kohtelu Tanskan ela¤kelainsa¤a¤da¤nno¤ssa¤ tulee olemaan kiellettya¤ 1. heina¤kuuta 1999 la¤htien, saa ainakin 450 000 tanskalaista naista ta¤ma¤n ja¤lkeenkin va¤hemma¤n ela¤ketta¤ kuin miespuoliset kollegansa. Melkein puoli miljoonaa naista maksaa maksuja ela¤kekassaan, joka ja¤rjestelma¤llisesti syrjii naisia. Heina¤kuun 1. pa¤iva¤na¤ 1999 voimaan tuleva lainmuutos ei koske na¤ita¤ naisia