title: Commission Regulation (EC) No 2506/98 of 19 November 1998 fixing the export refunds on rice and broken rice

eurovoc_concepts:
export refund
rice

text: 20. 11. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 311/15 COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2506/98 of 19 November 1998 fixing the export refunds on rice and broken rice THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, (EC) No 444/98 (5) should be used; whereas account should be taken of this when the refunds are fixed; Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Whereas Article 13 (5) of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 defines the specific criteria to be taken into account when the export refund on rice and broken rice is being calcu- lated; Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 of 22 December 1995 on the common organization of the market in rice (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2072/98 (2), and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 13 (3) thereof, Whereas the world market situation or the specific re- quirements of certain markets may make it necessary to vary the refund for certain products according to destina- tion; Whereas Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 provides that the difference between quotations or prices on the world market for the products listed in Article 1 of that Regulation and prices for those products within the Community may be covered by an export refund; Whereas Article 13 (4) of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95, provides that when refunds are being fixed account must be taken of the existing situation and the future trend with regard to prices and availabilities of rice and broken rice on the Community market on the one hand and prices for rice and broken rice on the world market on the other; whereas the same Article provides that it is also important to ensure equilibrium and the natural develop- ment of prices and trade on the rice market and, further- more, to take into account the economic aspect of the proposed exports and the need to avoid disturbances of the Community market with limits resulting from agree- ments concluded in accordance with Article 228 of the Treaty; Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1361/76 (3) lays down the maximum percentage of broken rice allowed in rice for which an export refund is fixed and specifies the percentage by which that refund is to be reduced where the proportion of broken rice in the rice exported exceeds that maximum; Whereas a separate refund should be fixed for packaged long grain rice to accommodate current demand for the product on certain markets; Whereas the refund must be fixed at least once a month; whereas it may be altered in the intervening period; Whereas it follows from applying these rules and criteria to the present situation on the market in rice and in particular to quotations or prices for rice and broken rice within the Community and on the world market, that the refund should be fixed as set out in the Annex hereto; Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are the Management in accordance with the opinion of Committee for Cereals, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 The export refunds on the products listed in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 with the exception of those listed in paragraph 1 (c) of that Article, exported in the natural state, shall be as set out in the Annex hereto. Whereas export possibilities exist for a quantity of 2 000 tonnes of rice to certain destinations; whereas the pro- cedure laid down in Article 7 (4) of Commission Regula- tion (EC) No 1162/95 (4), as last amended by Regulation (1) OJ L 329, 30. 12. 1995, p. 18. (2) OJ L 265, 30. 9. 1998, p. 4. (3) OJ L 154, 15. 6. 1976, p. 11. (4) OJ L 117, 24. 5. 1995, p. 2. Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on 20 November 1998. (5) OJ L 56, 26. 2. 1998, p. 12. L 311/16 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 20. 11. 98 This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 19 November 1998. For the Commission Franz FISCHLER Member of the Commission to the Commission Regulation of 19 November 1998 fixing the export refunds on rice and broken rice ANNEX Product code Destination (1) (ECU/tonne) Amount of refunds Product code Destination (1) 1006 20 11 9000 1006 20 13 9000 1006 20 15 9000 1006 20 17 9000 1006 20 92 9000 1006 20 94 9000 1006 20 96 9000 1006 20 98 9000 1006 30 21 9000 1006 30 23 9000 1006 30 25 9000 1006 30 27 9000 1006 30 42 9000 1006 30 44 9000 1006 30 46 9000 1006 30 48 9000 1006 30 61 9100 1006 30 61 9900 1006 30 63 9100 1006 30 63 9900 1006 30 65 9100 01 01 01 — 01 01 01 — 01 01 01 — 01 01 01 — 01 02 03 04 01 04 01 02 03 04 01 04 01 02 03 04 89,00 89,00 89,00 — 89,00 89,00 89,00 — 89,00 89,00 89,00 — 89,00 89,00 89,00 — 111,00 — — — 111,00 — 111,00 — — — 111,00 — 111,00 — — — 1006 30 65 9900 1006 30 67 9100 1006 30 67 9900 1006 30 92 9100 1006 30 92 9900 1006 30 94 9100 1006 30 94 9900 1006 30 96 9100 1006 30 96 9900 1006 30 98 9100 1006 30 98 9900 1006 40 00 9000 01 04 05 — 01 02 03 04 01 04 — 01 02 03 04 01 04 — 01 02 03 04 01 04 — 05 — — (ECU/tonne) Amount of refunds 111,00 — — — 111,00 — — — 111,00 — — 111,00 — — — 111,00 — — 111,00 — — — 111,00 — — — — — (1) The destinations are identified as follows: 01 Liechtenstein, Switzerland, the communes of Livigno and Campione d’Italia; refunds fixed under the procedure laid down in Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1162/95 in respect of a quantity of 2 000 tonnes of milled rice equivalent, 02 Zones I, II, III, VI, Ceuta and Melilla, 03 Zones IV, V, VII (c), Canada and Zone VIII excluding Suriname, Guyana and Madagascar, 04 Destinations mentioned in Article 34 of amended Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87, 05 Ceuta and Melilla. NB: The zones are those defined in the Annex to amended Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2145/92


title: Risoluzione legislativa recante il parere del Parlamento europeo sulla proposta di regolamento (CE) del Consiglio concernente che modifica il regolamento (CE) n. 2236/95 che stabilisce i principi generali per la concessione di un contributo finanziario della Comunità nel settore delle reti transeuropee (COM(98)0172 C4-0283/98 98/0101(SYN)) (Procedura di cooperazione: prima lettura)

eurovoc_concepts:
EU aid
energy grid
printing
sectoral aid
trans-European network
transmission network
transport network


title: Résolution législative portant avis du Parlement européen sur la proposition de règlement du Conseil relative au Fonds social européen (COM(98)0131 C4-0287/98 98/0115(SYN)) (Procédure de coopération: première lecture)

eurovoc_concepts:
EAGGF
European Regional Development Fund
European Social Fund
Structural Funds
structural policy


title: Reglamento (CE) n° 2497/98 de la Comisión de 19 de noviembre de 1998 sobre la expedición de certificados de exportación en el sector vitivinícola

eurovoc_concepts:
GATT
export licence
export refund
tariff negotiations
viticulture

formats: pdf print

text: 20. 11. 98 ES Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas L 311/3 REGLAMENTO (CE) No 2497/98 DE LA COMISI(cid:222)N de 19 de noviembre de 1998 sobre la expedici(cid:155)n de certificados de exportaci(cid:155)n en el sector vitivin(cid:146)cola LA COMISI(cid:222)N DE LAS COMUNIDADES EUROPEAS, Visto el Tratado constitutivo de la Comunidad Europea, Visto el Reglamento (CE) no 1685/95 de la Comisi(cid:155)n, de 11 de julio de 1995, por el que se establece un r(cid:130)gimen de expedici(cid:155)n de certificaci(cid:155)n de exportaci(cid:155)n en el sector vitivin(cid:146)cola (1), cuya (cid:156)ltima modificaci(cid:155)n la constituye el Reglamento (CE) no 1354/97 (2), y, en particular, el apar- tado 3 de su art(cid:146)culo 3, Considerando que el apartado 7 del art(cid:146)culo 55 del Regla- mento (CEE) no 822/87 del Consejo, de 16 de marzo de 1987, por el que se establece la organizaci(cid:155)n com(cid:156)n del mercado vitivin(cid:146)cola (3), cuya (cid:156)ltima modificaci(cid:155)n la cons- tituye el Reglamento (CE) no 1627/98 (4), limita la conce- si(cid:155)n de restituciones por exportaci(cid:155)n de productos del sector vitivin(cid:146)cola a los vol(cid:156)menes y gastos acordados en el Acuerdo de agricultura celebrado en el marco de las negociaciones comerciales multilaterales de la Ronda Uruguay; Considerando que el art(cid:146)culo 3 del Reglamento (CE) no 1685/95 establece las condiciones que deben cumplirse para que la Comisi(cid:155)n pueda adoptar medidas especiales a fin de evitar que se sobrepase la cantidad prevista o el presupuesto disponible en el marco de ese Acuerdo; Considerando que, seg(cid:156)n la informaci(cid:155)n de que dispone la Comisi(cid:155)n a 18 de noviembre de 1998 sobre las solici- tudes de certificados de exportaci(cid:155)n, existe el riesgo de que se supere la cantidad disponible hasta el 15 de enero de 1999, contemplada en el apartado 1 del art(cid:146)culo 1 bis del Reglamento (CE) no 1685/95, si no se imponen restricciones a la expedici(cid:155)n de certificados de exporta- ci(cid:155)n con fijaci(cid:155)n anticipada de la restituci(cid:155)n; que, por ello, es conveniente aplicar un porcentaje (cid:156)nico de acep- taci(cid:155)n de las solicitudes presentadas entre el 16 y el 17 de noviembre de 1998 y suspender hasta el 15 de enero de 1999 tanto la expedici(cid:155)n de certificados para las solici- tudes presentadas como la propia presentaci(cid:155)n de solici- tudes, HA ADOPTADO EL PRESENTE REGLAMENTO: Art(cid:146)culo 1 1. Los certificados de exportaci(cid:155)n con fijaci(cid:155)n antici- pada de la restituci(cid:155)n del sector vitivin(cid:146)cola cuyas solici- tudes se hayan presentado entre el 16 y el 17 de noviembre de 1998 en virtud del Reglamento (CE) no 1685/95 se expedir(cid:145)n por un m(cid:145)ximo del 47,9 % de las cantidades solicitadas. 2. Quedan suspendidas hasta el 15 de enero de 1999 la expedici(cid:155)n de certificados de exportaci(cid:155)n de productos del sector vitivin(cid:146)cola cuyas solicitudes se hayan presen- tado a partir del 18 de noviembre de 1998 as(cid:146) como, desde el 20 de noviembre de 1998 la propia presentaci(cid:155)n de solicitudes de certificados de exportaci(cid:155)n. Art(cid:146)culo 2 El presente Reglamento entrar(cid:145) en vigor el 20 de noviembre de 1998. El presente Reglamento ser(cid:145) obligatorio en todos sus elementos y directamente aplicable en cada Estado miembro. Hecho en Bruselas, el 19 de noviembre de 1998. Por la Comisi(cid:155)n Franz FISCHLER Miembro de la Comisi(cid:155)n (1) DO L 161 de 12. 7. 1995, p. 2. (2) DO L 186 de 16. 7. 1997, p. 9. (3) DO L 84 de 27. 3. 1987, p. 1. (4) DO L 210 de 28. 7. 1998, p. 8


title: Ψήφισμα σχετικά με την ελευθερία έκφρασης στην Αλγερία

eurovoc_concepts:
Algeria
freedom of expression
freedom of the press


title: Dictamen del Comité de las Regiones sobre la «Propuesta de Decisión del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo por la que se establece la segunda fase del programa de acción comunitario en materia de educación SÓCRATES»

eurovoc_concepts:
EU programme
action programme
education policy
vocational training
young person


title: Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the 'Proposal for a Council Decision adopting the third phase of the trans-European cooperation scheme for higher education Tempus III (2000-2006)'

eurovoc_concepts:
Central and Eastern Europe
EU programme
cooperation policy
cross-border cooperation
higher education

formats: html pdf print

text: C 51/86 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 22. 2. 1999 Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Proposal for a Council Decision adopting the third phase of the trans-European cooperation scheme for higher education Tempus III (2000-2006)’ (1999/C 51/14) THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS, having regard to the proposal for a Council decision adopting the third phase of the trans-European cooperation scheme for higher education Tempus III (2000-2006) (COM(98) 454 final — 98/0246 CNS) (1); having regard to the decision of the Council on 1 October 1998, under the first paragraph of Article 198c of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to consult the Committee of the Regions on this matter; having regard to its Bureau decision of 13 May 1998 to instruct Commission 7 — Education, Vocational Training, Culture, Youth, Sport & Citizens’ Rights — to draw up the relevant opinion; having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 301/98 rev. ) adopted by Commission 7 on 1 October 1998 (rapporteur: Ms Morsblech), unanimously adopted the following Opinion at its 26th plenary session of 18 and 19 November 1998 (meeting of 19 November). 1. Introduction 1. 1. This opinion deals with the Proposal for a Council Decision adopting the third phase of the trans-European cooperation scheme for higher edu- cation Tempus III (2000-2006). The proposal seeks to launch a third phase of the Tempus programme for the period 2000-2006. 1. 2. The Council decided to adopt the Tempus higher education programme on 7 May 1990 (Council Decision 90/233/EEC). Tempus was designed to encourage the development and restructuring of higher education in the eligible countries and was initially adopted for a three-year period beginning on 1 July 1990. It was subsequently decided to extend this initial phase to the end of June 1994 (Council Decision 92/240/EEC). 1. 3. On 29 April 1993, the Council adopted a second phase of the Tempus programme for a further four years starting on 1 July 1994 (Council Decision 93/246/EEC). On 21 November 1996, the Council decided to extend this second Tempus phase by two years from 1998 to 2000 (Council Decision 96/663/EC). 1. 4. At its plenary session of 19 September 1996, the Committee of the Regions adopted an Opinion on the Proposal for a Council Decision amending Decision 93/246/EEC of 29 April 1993 adopting the second phase of the trans-European cooperation scheme for higher education (Tempus II 1994-1998) (2). In this opinion, the Committee of the Regions endorsed the Tempus higher education programme. The opinion welcomed the rede- fined Tempus II objectives set out in the proposed Council decision, and backed the plan to ensure that the programme dovetailed into the spending priorities of the Tacis and Phare programmes. The COR endorsed the general objectives outlined in the proposed decision, i. e. the development and overhaul of curricula in priority areas, the reform of higher education structures and establishments and their management, and the develop- ment of vocational training, in particular by improving and increasing links with industry, in order to make up for the lack of skills at higher education level becoming apparent in the economic reform process. The Com- mittee of the Regions broadly supported the Tempus objectives, particularly in the context of economic and social reform. The Committee felt that Tempus should be used to help those countries preparing to join the single market as part of a pre-accession strategy in the move from assistance to co-operation programmes. 1. 5. Moreover, at its plenary session of 20 September 1995, the Committee of the Regions adopted an opinion on the role of local and regional authorities in education and training for central and eastern Europe provided through the European Union (3). In this opinion, the (1) OJ C 270, 29. 8. 1998, p. 9. (2) CdR 193/96 fin — OJ C 34, 3. 2. 1997, p. 49. (3) CdR 298/95 — OJ C 100, 2. 4. 1996, p. 98. 22. 2. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 51/87 Committee stressed the importance of decentralized and pluralist structures within which democratic local and regional government can play an influential role in the economic and social development of central and eastern Europe. It also underlined the tremendous value of EU-CEEC local and regional cooperation, not least in education and training. The Committee opinion noted that the Tempus programme appeared to have been very successful and should be developed further to allow central and eastern European universities to play a greater role in the partnerships. 1. 6. On 29 May 1998, the Commission adopted a working document on bilateral and multilateral cooperation between the Member States of the European Union and the central and east European countries in the area of higher education(1), noting that complementarity between the different types of actions was likely to result in increasing synergy. The Commission indicated that it would endeavour, through Tempus III and the new generation of education and training programmes, to consolidate and then further extend the scope of cooperation in order to pave the way for the establish- ment of a genuine external dimension whereby the European education area can come into its own. 2. General comments 2. 1. The Tempus programme was based on the European Council’s 1989 request to the Commission to submit proposals for action in the field of higher education to back up the reform process in the countries of central and eastern Europe. The COR still considers this objective to be fundamental, albeit the focus in a number of partner countries which have been eligible to take part in the scheme from the outset has now shifted more to pre-accession objectives and preparing the ground for European Union membership. 2. 2. The Committee feels that the Tempus higher education programme reflects the European Union’s political commitment to cooperation and dialogue with the countries of central and eastern Europe, the new independent states and Mongolia. The Committee shares the Commission’s view that, as part of this cooperation, top priority has to be given to education and training and to human resource development. 2. 3. In addition, the field of education, higher edu- cation and training offers an excellent forum for regional cooperation, and can also help strengthen the regional level. (1) SEC(1998) 909 final. 2. 4. Particularly in the case of the new independent states, Mongolia and the non-associated countries of central and eastern Europe, the Committee agrees that the EU has a key role in helping promote stability in this region. The COR would stress that support for education, higher education and training — i. e. the remit of the Tempus programme — is an excellent means of promoting such stability. 2. 5. At the same time, in the associated countries of central and eastern Europe, education, higher education and training can be a key factor both in reshaping the system of government and in structural change. Depending on eligible countries’ stage of development and the length of time they have been involved in the programme, Tempus has grown in importance; from supporting the restructuring of higher education systems, it has moved on to promoting educational cooperation, backing up participation in EU programmes, and, finally, helping pave the way for European Union membership. This evolution has been accompanied by a greater emphasis on the specifics of the higher education system in each partner country, as has become clear, for example, with regard to curricula, higher education structures and training opportunities. 2. 6. Indeed, the implementation of the Tempus pro- gramme is linked to the national support priorities set in the individual partner countries. There should always be a direct connection between these national priorities and the individual countries’ strategy in the run-up to EU accession. 2. 7. For the countries of central and eastern Europe, Tempus has also always been, as planned, an appropriate means of cooperation with the regions of the EU Member States. 2. 8. In its first phase (1990-1994), Tempus was the only policy tool to support higher education reform in the individual countries concerned and, at the same time, to give central and eastern European universities access to international cooperation. 2. 9. In the second phase (1994-1998), Tempus was expanded to give the associated countries of central and eastern Europe access to the European Union’s Leonardo and Socrates programmes. At the same time, Tempus developed a scheme for establishing national priorities to reflect the specific characteristics of each individual country. 2. 10. Overall, this second phase saw the objective shift from assistance to cooperation, with the partner countries increasingly in a position to work together with the EU in education and higher education. This C 51/88 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 22. 2. 1999 was an essential development, enabling education, train- ing and higher education to help prepare the associated countries of central and eastern Europe for EU accession. 3. Specific comments 2. 11. Tempus was also extended to the new indepen- dent states and to Mongolia at the start of the second phase. 3. 1. The Committee of the Regions shares the Com- mission’s view that Tempus has proved an effective tool in the restructuring and ongoing development of higher education. As far as the associated countries of central and 2. 12. eastern Europe are concerned, the focus of the current extension of the second phase (1998-2000) is increasingly on helping prepare for EU accession. More importance is also attached to assisting participation in and promoting links with EU programmes. 3. 2. The Committee agrees that the positive impact of the Tempus programme also extends to universities’ overall remit. For example, in the Committee’s view, vocational and university training links in with efforts to facilitate and promote the reforms needed in industry and government. As a result, Tempus can undoubtedly claim to be instrumental in the development of demo- cratic society. The Committee shares the Commission’s view 2. 13. that universities in the associated countries of central and eastern Europe are able to play an active part in preparing their respective countries for EU membership. The COR would point out, however, that development levels clearly vary, not only within the associated countries themselves, but also within their higher edu- cation establishments. The Committee agrees that, since 1994, Tempus 2. 14. has also proved beneficial in the new independent states and Mongolia, which are involved in the Tacis programme. 2. 15. The COR would stress the particular import- ance of universities in building up international cooper- ation, particularly in the Tacis countries, whose post- Soviet Union transition is in many ways fraught with difficulty. Alongside assistance in expanding education and higher education systems, it can be especially important for universities in these countries to pool experiences and work together among themselves, given the largely comparable point of departure following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. 2. 16. The COR is pleased that the joint European projects (JEPs) have proved a focus of Tempus activities. The Committee feels that the basic idea behind these projects — cooperation between a university in an eligible country and two partners from EU Member States — is, together with other factors, fundamental to the ongoing success of the Tempus programme. 2. 17. extremely important and successful feature of Tempus venture and have been very useful development of the programme to date. The COR also feels that mobility grants are an the in the The COR shares the view that Tempus has done 3. 3. much to promote the closer alignment of university standards and study opportunities between the EU Member States and the countries of central and eastern Europe. 3. 4. The Committee would stress the close link between the economic development of the eligible countries and investments in education. For this reason too, the Committee endorses the decision to establish Tempus within the purview of the Phare and, in particular, the Tacis programmes. 3. 5. Finally, the Committee would stress Tempus’ role in significantly strengthening the ability of CEEC universities to cooperate with the EU. Tempus has thus done much to ensure that universities in central and eastern European countries are able to take part in the Socrates and Leonardo programmes. 3. 6. The Committee of the Regions feels that the opening-up of the Socrates and Leonardo programmes to the countries of central and eastern Europe fits in particularly well with pre-accession support. The Committee expects that involvement in Socrates and Leonardo will further deepen cooperation between CEEC universities and the EU. Such cooperation is also an opportunity to maintain and continue to develop machinery established under Tempus auspices. 3. 7. The Committee believes that the main focus of Tempus’ work in promoting the changes needed in government and society lies in particular with the Tacis countries. The COR endorses the remit of Tempus and Tacis to date, not least in backing the development of independent, decentralized and diversified higher education systems and helping universities further econ- omic and social reform in their respective countries. 22. 2. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 51/89 3. 8. In particular, the COR would stress that, as far as the Tacis countries are concerned, one of the major objectives is to strengthen the regional aspects of higher education and its development. 3. 9. Given Tempus’ positive track record to date, the COR explicitly welcomes the proposal for a Council decision adopting a third phase of the programme covering the period from 2000 to 2006. 3. 14. The Committee shares the Commission’s view that, of the Phare countries remaining eligible under Tempus, Albania in particular will continue to be dependent on considerable support. The COR also sees a broad need for support in the countries of the former Yugoslavia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. For these countries, the Committee feels it is essential to press ahead with the Tempus programme. The COR expects that this will also give a further boost to the requisite development of a democratic and pluralist society in these European countries too. 3. 10. The Committee notes that the countries eligible to take part in Tempus are the Tacis countries — i. e. the new independent states and Mongolia — and, within the purview of the Phare programme, the non-associated countries of central and eastern Europe. The proposal excludes from Tempus the associated countries of central and eastern Europe involved in the Phare programme. In the Committee’s view, this represents a crucial new departure from Tempus’ approach up to now. 3. 15. For the non-associated Phare countries of cen- tral and eastern Europe, the COR welcomes Tempus’ stronger focus on regional aspects (particularly in the countries of the former Yugoslavia), as well as on modernizing national and local administrations, estab- lishing efficient machinery for higher education adminis- tration and utilizing the findings of Tempus projects carried out in the associated countries. 3. 11. The COR basically shares the view that the same objectives and priorities of education and higher education policy apply to the beneficiaries of Tempus III as they did to countries taking part in the Tempus programme at the start. The Committee feels that it is perfectly permissible to compare the points of departure in education and higher education in the associated countries of central and eastern Europe at the start of the 1990s with the current situation in the non-associated and Tacis countries. 3. 12. The COR firmly backs the Commission view that any interruption of Tempus would slow up or even halt changes to the higher education system. The Committee notes that if the programme were not extended, there would no longer be any EU higher education support mechanism for the countries eligible under Tempus III. 3. 13. The Committee feels that opening up the Socrates and Leonardo programmes to the associated countries of central and eastern Europe is a positive step which can help strengthen and promote both the ongoing development of CEEC education and higher education systems, and cooperation in this field between these countries the EU. The Committee of the Regions expects a further increase in CEEC involvement in the Socrates and Leonardo programmes. However, in the case of the associated countries of central and eastern Europe, the Committee feels that inclusion in the Socrates and Leonardo programmes is no substitute for Tempus higher education support, from which these countries are excluded under the Tempus III proposal. The COR feels that, under the current Com- 3. 16. mission proposal, future Tempus activities will focus on the new independent states and Mongolia. The Committee thereby backs the key objectives put forward by the Commission, particularly the promotion of diversification, decentralization and autonomy in higher education, a stronger regional dimension in this field, an overhaul of curricula, teacher training, introduction of new teaching methods and a modernized university administration. Furthermore, the Committee expects that universities will be given support to make a real contribution to structural change in industry and society. 3. 17. The COR welcomes the hitherto generally positive assessment of Tempus’ track record in the Tacis countries. This, the Committee feels, confirms its view that the objectives set to date should continue to be pursued as proposed. 4. Conclusions The Committee would stress that the current 4. 1. political and financial difficulties in various successor states of the former Soviet Union, in particular the largest of these, the Russian Federation, call for sustained support to promote the tough structural switch to a democratic and pluralist society. For this reason, it is impossible to exaggerate the need for the stabilizing impact of EU policy. There is thus no doubt in the Committee’s mind that the Tacis programme and, in this context, the Tempus higher education programme remain fully justified. C 51/90 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 22. 2. 1999 4. 2. The Committee of the Regions notes that even after ten years of Tempus support, the countries of central and eastern Europe still require assistance in the ongoing development of their higher education systems, although the situation naturally varies from one country to the next. Against this backdrop, the Committee is uneasy about the proposal to discontinue Tempus in all the associated countries. states of the former Soviet Union in particular, one of the key tasks of the EU is stability-building. The Committee of the Regions would point out that debar- ring all associated CEEC from the Tempus programme would alter the nature of the programme; instead of helping preparing for EU accession, its entire remit would be to promote stability in eastern Europe. 4. 3. The COR would point out the significant differ- ences which exist in the stages of development reached by the different CEEC and their education and higher education systems. The split among the applicant CEEC into one group admitted to first-wave accession negotiations and a second group which will be eligible at most for the second wave, serves to highlight these differences. 4. 4. It seems justified to discontinue Tempus support for the first wave of applicant countries — Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia and Estonia — since standards in these countries are moving closer to European levels. The Committee of the Regions agrees that, in this case, it is tenable to restrict assistance to participation in EU support programmes. The Com- mittee does not of course deny that continuing Tempus support for this group of countries taking part in the first round of accession negotiations could help bring them into line with EU standards faster. However, given the need to use EU resources efficiently, the Committee feels that, for these countries, it is defensible to discon- tinue support. 4. 5. However, with regard to the second group of associated CEEC (Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Latvia and Lithuania), the Committee of the Regions wonders whether it is not too early to discontinue Tempus support across the board. In the Committee’s view, consideration should be given to whether individual countries from this group should be able to continue to take part in Tempus or whether transitional assistance should be provided under the Phare programme. 4. 6. In this context, the COR would point out that one of the main objectives of the Tempus programme is to prepare for EU accession and to help universities in the partner countries reach a stage at which cooperation becomes possible. It is therefore a problem when countries seeking EU membership are debarred from the Tempus programme even though their education and higher education systems are still very far removed from the level of development required for accession. The associated central and eastern European countries thus differ from the new independent states and the non- associated CEEC, which have no need for help in preparing for EU accession since there are no plans for them to join. In contrast, when it comes to the successor 4. 7. For the entire group of associated countries of central and eastern Europe, consideration should be given to whether support measures should be provided under the Socrates and Leonardo programmes to make CEEC involvement in the programmes easier. 4. 8. Furthermore, the Committee of the Regions advocates that the Tempus programme should continue to focus on the joint European projects. The Committee feels that this kind of support, based on project implementation, is also particularly important since it ensures direct university involvement. 4. 9. The COR feels strongly that increasing efforts should be made to involve universities from the associ- ated countries of central and eastern Europe in the JEPs. In this way, the CEEC universities given support during Tempus’ first ten years should be integrated into the programme so that they can pass on their findings and experience to universities from the Tacis and non-associated countries. The Committee of the Regions considers that 4. 10. including universities from the associated countries of central and eastern Europe in the JEPs and the Tempus programme would also help promote regional cooper- ation between the applicant CEEC and their eastern neighbours. The COR would advocate stepping up this form of regional cooperation between the associated countries of central and eastern European, the Tacis countries and the non-associated CEEC. The Committee feels that work should begin even at this stage to ensure that the regional development on both sides of any future EU eastern external border is underpinned by network of cooperation between the various regions. In the Committee’s view, 4. 11. the development of decentralized and regional machinery is also a particularly important objective of education and higher education policy. It feels, however, that the development of such machinery must at the same time be accompanied by a strengthening of local, and in particular regional administrative arrangements. Tempus support must, in the COR’s view, also strengthen the regions in the partner countries. This can be achieved, for example, 22. 2. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 51/91 by expanding universities in the regions, thereby helping realize the structural policy objective of enhanced regional centres. Moreover, the Committee of the Regions feels it is important to link education and higher education systems, and their future development, with the development of local authorities. The Committee of the Regions believes that 4. 12. particular importance attaches to cooperation between universities and the regional administration and to universities’ role in building up and modernizing the machinery of regional administration. At the same time, this must benefit the growth of administrative structures in the regional authorities, boosting these authorities’ capacity to cooperate with the EU and the further development of the education and higher education system itself. 4. 13. The Committee feels that, to foster the ongoing development of democracy and pluralism, not least in the new independent states, new political, economic and social machinery must be set in place. In this context, the Committee believes it is particularly important to develop local and regional structures. Support from the Tempus programme must therefore also help reinforce these structures. 4. 14. The COR advocates that, increasingly, inter- faces should be established between universities and companies as part of the Tempus programme. In the Committee’s view, interaction between the findings of applied research and the needs of industry and companies in the partner countries is essential if Tempus support is to have a broad-based, constructive impact. 4. 15. The COR also advocates that, as part of the Tempus programme, universities in the partner countries should increasingly work towards training the specialists particularly needed to build up a democratic and structured administration and develop a well- functioning economy. The Committee feels that con- sideration must thereby also be given to the needs of the emerging regional authorities. Brussels, 19 November 1998. 4. 16. As part of the programme, the Committee would encourage the establishment of a new scheme centred on fostering study opportunities for eastern Europeans in western Europe and vice versa, thus making it easier for both sides to get to know each other. Markedly multicultural curricula should be an essential element of a scheme of this kind. 4. 17. The Committee feels that Tempus must also be used to expand the scope for regional and cross-border cooperation between EU regions and regions of the central and eastern European countries and the new independent states. In the Committee’s view, universities are particularly important in building up regional and cross-border cooperation. In the partner countries, this can help reinforce regional structures and make for a balanced structural policy. 4. 18. The Committee believes that it is particularly important to share and disseminate the findings and results of the Tempus higher education projects within the partner countries. In the Committee’s view, more work is needed to make sure that the partner countries systematically encourage — and take steps to ensure — the sharing of findings and results with other universities not covered by Tempus support. 4. 19. Finally, the Committee would stress univer- sities’ remit, particularly in the new independent states, to foster awareness and knowledge in building up a democratic and pluralist state. Tempus must also help universities in their important task of promoting a change of thinking in the partner countries. therefore, the Committee of 4. 20. Overall, the Regions very much welcomes the proposal for a Council decision adopting a third phase of Tempus. The COR broadly endorses the objectives set out in the proposal and its focus on the new independent states. However, the Committee would note that the exclusion of the entire group of associated countries of central and eastern Europe from Tempus support could run counter to the needs of some of these countries and their pre-accession concerns. The President of the Committee of the Regions Manfred DAMMEYER


title: Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 2498/98 af 19. november 1998 om fastsættelse af eksportrestitutioner inden for svinekødssektoren

eurovoc_concepts:
export refund
pigmeat

text: L 311/4 DA De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende 20. 11. 98 KOMMISSIONENS FORORDNING (EF) Nr. 2498/98 af 19. november 1998 om fastsættelse af eksportrestitutioner inden for svinekødssektoren KOMMISSIONEN FOR DE EUROPÆISKE FÆLLESSKABER HAR (cid:190) under henvisning til Europæiske Fællesskab, traktaten om oprettelse af Det under henvisning til R(cid:134)dets forordning (EØF) nr. 2759/75 af 29. oktober 1975 om den fælles markedsordning for svinekød (1), senest ændret ved akten vedrørende Østrigs, Finlands og Sveriges tiltrædelse og ved forordning (EF) nr. 3290/94 (2), særlig artikel 13, stk. 3, andet afsnit, og ud fra følgende betragtninger: I henhold til artikel 13 i forordning (EØF) nr. 2759/75 kan forskellen mellem verdensmarkedspriserne og pri- serne inden for Fællesskabet p(cid:134) de produkter, som er nævnt i artikel 1, stk. 1, i forordningen, udlignes af en eksportrestitution; anvendelsen af disse regler og kriterier p(cid:134) den nuværende markedssituation inden for svinekødssektoren fører til at fastsætte restitutionen som nedenfor angivet; for s(cid:134) vidt ang(cid:134)r produkter henhørende under KN-kode 0210 19 81 bør restitutionen begrænses til et beløb, som tager hensyn til dels de kvalitative karakteristika for hvert af produkterne henhørende under denne KN-kode og dels den forventede udvikling med hensyn til produkti- onsomkostningerne p(cid:134) verdensmarkedet; det er dog hensigtsmæssig for visse typiske italienske produkter henhørende under KN-kode 0210 19 81 at sikre opret- holdelsen af Fællesskabets deltagelse i den internationale handel; p(cid:134) grund af konkurrencebetingelserne i visse tredjelande, som traditionelt er de vigtigste importlande for produkter henhørende under KN-kode 1601 00 og 1602 bør beløbet for disse produkter fastsættes under hensyntagen til denne situation; restitutionen kan kun ydes for nettovægten af spiseligt affald, idet vægten af eventuelle ben indeholdt i disse tilberedninger dog fratrækkes; ifølge artikel 13 i forordning (EØF) nr. 2759/75 kan situa- tionen i den internationale handel eller de særlige krav p(cid:134) visse markeder gøre det nødvendigt at differentiere resti- tutionen for de produkter, der er nævnt i artikel 1 i forordning (EØF) nr. 2759/75, alt efter bestemmelse; restitutionerne bør fastsættes under hensyn til ændrin- gerne i den nomenklatur over eksportrestitutioner, der er fastsat ved Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 3846/ 87 (3), senest ændret ved forordning (EF) nr. 2138/98 (4); de i denne forordning fastsatte foranstaltninger er i over- ensstemmelse med udtalelse fra Forvaltningskomit(cid:130)en for Svinekød — UDSTEDT FØLGENDE FORORDNING: Artikel 1 Fortegnelsen over de produkter, ved hvis udførsel den i artikel 13 i forordning (EØF) nr. 2759/75 omhandlede eksportrestitution ydes, samt restitutionsbeløbene fast- sættes som angivet i bilaget. Artikel 2 Denne forordning træder i kraft den 23. november 1998. Denne forordning er bindende i alle enkeltheder og gælder umiddelbart medlemsstat. i hver Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den 19. november 1998. P(cid:134) Kommissionens vegne Franz FISCHLER Medlem af Kommissionen (1) EFT L 282 af 1. 11. 1975, s. 1. (2) EFT L 349 af 31. 12. 1994, s. 105. (3) EFT L 366 af 24. 12. 1987, s. 1. (4) EFT L 270 af 7. 10. 1998, s. 4. 20. 11. 98 DA De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende L 311/5 til Kommissionens forordning af 19. november 1998 om fastsættelse af eksportrestitutioner inden for svinekødssektoren BILAG Produktkode Restitutionens destination (1) Restitutionsbeløb Produktkode Restitutionens destination (1) Restitutionsbeløb (ECU/100 kg netto) (ECU/100 kg netto) 0203 11 10 9000 0203 12 11 9100 0203 12 19 9100 0203 19 11 9100 0203 19 13 9100 0203 19 15 9100 0203 19 55 9110 0203 19 55 9310 0203 21 10 9000 0203 22 11 9100 01 02 01 02 01 02 01 02 01 02 01 01 02 01 01 02 01 02 (1) Destinationerne er følgende: 01 Alle bestemmelssteder 02 Rusland. 40,00 70,00 40,00 70,00 40,00 70,00 40,00 70,00 40,00 70,00 25,00 40,00 70,00 25,00 40,00 70,00 40,00 70,00 0203 22 19 9100 0203 29 11 9100 0203 29 13 9100 0203 29 15 9100 0203 29 55 9110 0210 11 31 9110 0210 11 31 9910 0210 12 19 9100 0210 19 81 9100 0210 19 81 9300 1601 00 91 9000 1601 00 99 9110 1602 41 10 9210 1602 42 10 9210 1602 49 19 9120 01 02 01 02 01 02 01 01 02 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 40,00 70,00 40,00 70,00 40,00 70,00 25,00 40,00 70,00 90,00 90,00 20,00 95,00 76,00 28,00 25,00 62,00 34,00 25,00 NB: Produktkoderne, herunder henvisninger til fodnoter, er fastsat i Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 3846/87