title: 2000/336/EC: Commission Decision of 15 February 2000 on State aid implemented by Germany in favour of Kvaerner Warnow Werft GmbH (notified under document under C(2000) 516) (Only the German text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance)

eurovoc_concepts:
Germany
State aid
industrial restructuring
production capacity
restriction on competition
shipbuilding

text: L 120/12 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 20. 5. 2000 COMMISSION DECISION of 15 February 2000 on State aid implemented by Germany in favour of Kvaerner Warnow Werft GmbH (notified under document number C(2000) 516) (Only the German text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) (2000/336/EC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 88(2) thereof, Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, and in particular Article 14(1) thereof (1), to regard Council Directive Having of 21 December 1990 on aid to shipbuilding (2), as last amended by Directive 94/73/EC (3), and Council Directive 92/68/EEC of 20 July 1992 amending Directive 90/684/EEC on aid to shipbuilding (4), 90/684/EEC Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above (5) and having regard to their comments, Whereas: I. PROCEDURE (1) Commission staff conducted a monitoring visit to Kvaerner Warnow Werft GmbH (KWW) on 25 March in order to verify the 1999 with an external expert amount of excess production in 1998. It was concluded during the visit that production in 1997 had been 93 862 cgt, thereby exceeding the capacity limitation of (1) OJ L 83, 27. 3. 1999, p. 1. (2) OJ L 380, 31. 12. 1990, p. 27. (3) OJ L 351, 31. 12. 1994, p. 10. (4) OJ L 219, 4. 8. 1992, p. 54. (5) OJ C 245, 28. 8. 1999, p. 24. figure of 85 000 cgt by 8 862 cgt. This excess production in 1997 was based on the revised production figures for 1998, which were confirmed by Germany in its letter of 19 March 1999. Since Germany did not provide a revised report as regards 1997 production, the figure of 93 862 cgt was considered final. (2) By letter dated 20 July 1999, the Commission informed Germany that it had decided to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of this exceeding of the capacity limitation. (3) The Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official the European Communities (6). The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the measure. Journal of (4) The Commission received comments from interested parties. It forwarded them to Germany, which was given the opportunity to react. II. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE AID (5) By its decisions communicated to Germany by letters of 3 March 1993 (N 692/D/91), 17 January 1994 (N 692/J/91), 20 February 1995 (N 1/95), 18 October 1995 (N 637/95) and 11 December 1995 (N 797/95), the Commission approved restructuring aid for KWW in accordance with Directive 90/684/EEC to allow the comprehensive restructuring of the former East German shipyard. The aid was approved subject to a capacity restriction of 85 000 cgt per year, compliance with which is monitored by the Commission. (6) The Warnow Werft situated in Rostock- Warnem(cid:252)nde Pomerania, in Mecklenburg-Western Germany, was sold by the Treuhandanstalt to Norwegian shipyard, (6) See footnote 4. 20. 5. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 120/13 industrial group Kvaerner in October 1992. Pursuant to clause 27 of the sales contract, which Germany sent to the Commission under cover of a letter dated 30 October 1992 for scrutiny and approval, Kvaerner undertook until 31 December 2005, with regard to the Warnow to exceed its annual building capacity of yard, not 85 000 cgt unless the requirements based on the EC Treaty became less restrictive. (7) Directive amended 90/684/EEC, by Directive as 92/68/EEC, contains a derogation from the rules on operating aid applicable to other Community yards for the shipyards in the new L(cid:228)nder in order to create to undergo urgent the possibility for become to comprehensive and competitive. After the privatisation of Warnow Werft the Commission approved the restructuring aid for the yard in four tranches in accordance with the provisions of the abovementioned Directive. The total amount of aid approved by several decisions was as follows: restructuring these yards and N 692/D/91 (cid:151) Commission letter of 3 March 1993 (SG (93) D/4052): (cid:151) DEM 45,5 million operating aid, (cid:151) DEM 82,4 million operating aid in the form of an exemption from previous liabilities, (cid:151) DEM 127,5 million investment aid, (cid:151) DEM 27,0 million closure aid, N 692/J/91 (cid:151) Commission letter of 17 January 1994 (SG (94) D/567) (cid:151) DEM 617,1 million operating aid, N 1/95 (cid:151) Commission letter of 20 February 1995 (SG (95) D/1818) (cid:151) DEM 222,5 million investment aid, N 637/95 (cid:151) Commission letter of 18 October 1995 (SG (95) D/12821) (8) The aid was approved on condition that the yearly new building capacity did not exceed 85 000 cgt. The capacity limitation was included both in the notified sales contract (clause 27) concerning the privatisation of Warnow Werft and in the abovementioned Commission In the Commission decisions decisions communicated to Germany by the letters of 17 January 1994, 20 February 1995, 18 October 1995 and 11 December 1995 it was clearly stated that the Commission would be obliged to demand the recovery of the aid if the restriction of capacity was not complied with. authorising the aid. (9) In initiating the procedure the Commission noted that the main condition for the approval of the aid was an annual capacity limitation of 85 000 cgt. Such a limit was set in order to offset the distortive effect of the aid on the shipbuilding industry. According to the findings of the 25 March 1999 monitoring visit to KWW, the yard exceeded its annual new building capacity limitation of 85 000 cgt in 1997 by producing 93 862 cgt. This information indicated that an essential condition under which the aid was approved was not being complied with. (10) For this reason the Commission doubted whether the aid approved by it to allow the restructuring and continued operation of the former East German shipyard Warnow Werft (the relevant decisions being communicated to Germany by the letters of 3 March 1993 (N 692/D/91), 17 January 1994 (N 692/J/91), 20 February 1995 (N 1/95), 18 October 1995 (N 637/95) and 11 December 1995 (N 797/95)) was compatible any longer with the common market. III. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES (11) The Commission has received comments from KWW, the Association (Denmark) Jernskibs- og a Member of Danish Shipbuilders Maskinbyggerier i Danmark). (Foreningen af State and (cid:151) DEM 66,9 million investment aid, A. KWW’s comments N 797/95 (cid:151) Commission letter of 11 December 1995 (SG (95) D/15969) (cid:151) DEM 58,0 million investment aid. the total amount of aid concerned by Consequently, these decisions was EUR 372,5 million operating aid (DEM 745 million), EUR 237,45 million investment aid (DEM 474,9 million) and EUR 13,5 million closure aid (DEM 27,0 million). This results in total aid of EUR 623,45 million (DEM 1 246,9 million). (12) KWW’s comments concentrate on five main arguments. KWW’s first argument is that an obligation to limit actual production to a certain level was not imposed on it and that such an obligation cannot be derived from the Commission decisions either. The Commission decisions approving the aid imposed, not a production limitation, but a limitation of technical capacity. (13) KWW explains in its comments that the Commission was of the opinion that the capacity limitation was to be L 120/14 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 20. 5. 2000 achieved by technical measures and arrangements. The only condition imposed on KWW when the aid was approved was that the new yard to be built would allow a possible production of 85 000 cgt and that certain layout-related criteria (bottlenecks) of the yard which limit production should not be changed. This can be seen from the Commission decisions, which lay down the technical arrangements to be made in the yard in order to limit capacity. (14) According on to KWW, information actual the production which was communicated regularly to the Commission in the production reports was meant only to be additional information that was supposed to be used in order to decide, in case there were deviations, whether in fact the technical capacity limitation was breached or evaded. (15) KWW also explains in its comments that it has complied with the limitation of technical capacity as required by the Commission decisions approving the aid by carrying out the measures relating to the layout and the facilities of the yard and by keeping to them accordingly. No changes were carried out that had or would have changed this technical capacity. (16) Secondly, KWW argues that the it had not limitations of increased its approved technical capacity but rather was able to achieve a higher actual production within the framework capacity owing to of increased productivity and to a serial effect caused by building series of similiar ships. KWW was obliged only to adhere to the technical capacity restrictions but was free to produce as much as it could within those parameters. technical cannot (17) According to KWW, capacity limitation and production limitations are different concepts that should not be equated. Whereas capacity limitation in the sense of installation is a static concept limitation of a technical that is characterised by fluctuations and can change over time owing to increased productivity. Moreover, all yards strive constantly for increased productivity. Yards that develop better and more intelligent methods, being competitive as a result, are in the interests of the Community. production changed, actual be that (18) The third point raised by KWW in its comments is that not all the aid authorised by the Commission was in fact paid to the company. KWW argues the only non-cash aid granted to it was DEM 82,4 million granted in the form of release from previous liabilities. The yard had not received any other non-cash aid. Only the amount of DEM 549,559 million had been received by the yard in cash. Consequently, the Commission decided that the yard hat not complied with the Commission decisions approving the aid and therefore considered part of aid incompatible with the common market, only the aid in fact paid to the yard the if should be taken as the basis for calculating the amount of aid to be repaid. (19) KWW’s fourth comment is that the Commission must respect the principle of equal treatment in cases where it requires repayment of aid. In the case of MTW and Volkswerft (7), the Commission calculated the amount of aid to be recovered because of the capacity limitation on the basis of the total amount of operating aid alone without the investment aid. This manner of proceeding should be in this case the applied to KWW as well. In addition, yard in question was allowed to reduce its future production. taking into account the exceeding of (20) KWW also explains that, in the Commission decision on the reallocation of capacity of Elbewerft Boizenburg (8), the annual capacity of 22 000 cgt was valued at DEM 242 000 cgt. Since KWW’s actual production exceeded the annual capacity limitation of 85 000 cgt by only 8 862 cgt in 1997, the value expressed in the decision on reallocation of the capacity of Elbewerft Boizenburg should apply to the present decision as well. (21) The fifth point raised by KWW is that, if the Commission were to consider part of the aid incompatible with the common market, rate applicable to the repayment of the aid should be calculated from the time when the alleged breach began, i. e. from the time when the aid was subsequently rendered incompatible. the interest B. Denmark’s comments (22) Denmark stresses in its comments the importance of respecting the conditions and requirements linked to the approval of aid. These conditions are often the only protection against State aid being used merely to shift the employment problem from one Member State to another. (23) According case to Denmark, in the present the conditions linked to the approval of aid are such that the concrete assessment possibilities of the Commission are limited to checking the observance of capacity limitation. When the yard has obviously produced amounts exceeding the capacity limitation consistently over a period of years, this condition is undoubtedly not respected. It should be ensured that the aid recipient will not gain any economic benefit from the exceeding of the capacity limitation when this whole period of time is taken into account. (7) OJ C 344, 14. 11. 1997, p. 2. (8) State aid N 325/99, communicated to Germany by letter dated 5 August 1999 [SG(99) D/6192]. 20. 5. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 120/15 C. Comments of the Association of Danish Shipbuilders IV. GERMANY’S COMMENTS that is important (24) The Association of Danish Shipbuilders (Foreningen af Jernskibs- og Maskinbyggerier i Danmark) explains in its comments that KWW’s production has a direct impact on a market to the Danish yards. According to the Association, account should be taken in this connection of the fact that the yard has consistently exceeded its capacity limitation from the outset, i. e. from 1995 onwards. Not only was the capacity limitation exceeded year after year, but the amount of the excess has also increased: in 1996 it was less than 1 %; in 1997 already more than 10 %; and in 1998 more than 44 % (9). (25) The exceeding of the capacity limitation in 1997 is, in the opinion of the Association of Danish Shipbuilders, especially serious since the yard was supposed to reduce its production that year following the slight excess in 1996. On the contrary, it exceeded its capacity limitation and hid this excess production from the Commission, which was constantly monitoring the yard’s production. For this reason it was discovered only in March 1999 during an investigation into the exceeding of the capacity limitation in 1998. Neither the German authorities nor the yard reported the exceeding of capacity to the Commission. This constant breaching of the capacity limitation should be taken into account in assessing the case and steps must be taken to ensure that the yard does not gain any economic from the situation. advantage (26) The Association of Danish Shipbuilders also refers to the trend since 1992 which has led to the closure of many yards and to considerable job losses in the sector. It is therefore crucial for European yards that effective steps be taken globally to reduce the negative effects of overcapacity. Since this is not possible without the active support of the Community, it is important that the latter maintains its international credibility. An international be initiative consistent with a the simultaneous exceeding by a considerable margin of the Community’s own capacity limitation, as is the case here. overcapacities would not accepting of reduce to (28) Germany’s comments concentrate on the same points as KWW’s. (29) Firstly, Germany states that in its comments the Commission decisions approving the aid imposed, not a production limitation, but a limitation of technical capacity. The capacity limitation was to be achieved by technical measures and arrangements. The only condition imposed on KWW when the aid was approved was that the new yard to be built would allow a possible production of 85 000 cgt and that certain layout-related criteria (bottlenecks) of the yard which limit production should not be changed. The information on actual production which was communicated regularly to the Commission in the production reports was meant only to be additional information that was supposed to be used in order to decide, in case there were deviations, whether in fact the technical capacity limitation was breached or evaded. This was clear from the Commission decisions, which laid down the technical arrangements to be taken in the yard in order to limit capacity. technical capacity as (30) Germany explains that KWW had complied with the required by the limitations of Commission decisions approving the aid. No changes were carried out in the yard that had or would have changed this technical capacity and therefore the yard had exactly the layout and technical capacity required by the Commission. a higher (31) Secondly, Germany argues that KWW had not increased its approved technical capacity but was instead able to achieve actual production within the framework of the limitations of technical capacity owing to increased productivity and to the serial effect caused by building a series of similar ships. In Germany’s view, KWW was obliged only to adhere to the technical capacity restrictions but was free to produce as much as it could within those parameters. (27) According to the Association of Danish Shipbuilders, the capacity limitations of the former East German yards are, among other factors, a basis for the investment and production planning of other yards. Consequently, the arrangements made by other yards are affected by the exceeding of the capacity limitations. These limitations were to remain in place for 10 years and a flexible application of them was never planned. (9) Commission Decision 1999/675/EC of 8 July 1999 on KWW’s capacity limitation in 1998 (OJ L 274, exceeding of its 23. 10. 1999, p. 23). either. The yards (32) According to Germany, an obligation to limit actual production to a certain level was never imposed on KWW and such an obligation cannot be derived from the Commission decisions should be allowed to take part in the general progress of improved productivity. All Community yards should compete freely with each other, and in doing so the east German yards should not change their handicap, namely the restrictions installations, but surely their productivity on technical can develop. Yards that develop better and more intelligent methods, being more competitive as a result, are in the Community’s interest. L 120/16 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 20. 5. 2000 (33) Germany in its explains comments that capacity are different limitation and production limitations concepts that should not be equated. Whereas capacity limitation in the sense of limitation of a technical installation is a static concept that cannot be changed, actual production is characterised by fluctuations and can change over time owing to increased productivity. The improvement in KWW’s productivity is based, not on the granting of aid, but on the technical know-how of the Kvaerner group. (34) The third point raised by Germany is that the actual amount of aid paid to KWW is in fact much lower than the DEM 1,2 billion approved by the Commission. According to Germany, only the investment aid paid in cash is directly linked to the present yard and the capacity limitation imposed on it. V. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID (35) The Commission notes that the aid approved on the basis of Council Directive 90/684/EEC was considered compatible with the common market as it complied with Article 87(3)(e) of the EC Treaty. However, this applies laid down in the the conditions only so long as Commission decisions approving the aid in accordance with the abovementioned Directive are respected. Should the conditions for approving the aid not be complied with, the aid falls under the general prohibition in Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty and may therefore be considered incompatible with the common market, unless it can be declared compatible for other reasons. to Article to 10a(2), aid applicable (36) Article 10a of Directive 90/684/EEC as amended by Directive 92/68/EEC contains a derogation from the rules on operating to other Community shipyards for the yards in the former GDR in order to these yards to undergo urgent make it possible for become and and restructuring comprehensive competitive. According until 31 December 1993, operating aid for the shipbuilding and ship conversion activities of the yards situated in the former GDR may be considered compatible with the common market under certain conditions relating to the amount of aid and subject reporting obligation on the part of the German Government. One the conditions laid down in this provision is the of agreement of to carry out the German Government before 31 December 1995 a genuine and irreversible reduction of 40 % of shipbuilding capacity of the 545 000 cgt existing on 1 July 1990. to an annual (37) Investment aid is regulated in Article 6 of Directive 90/684/EEC and closure aid in Article 7. According to the yard or unless it in existing yards unless it Article 6(1), investment aid may not be granted for is linked to a investment restructuring plan which does not involve any increase in the shipbuilding capacity of is directly linked to a corresponding irreversible reduction of capacity of other yards in the same Member State over the same period. Article 6(3) provides that investment aid may be deemed compatible with the common market provided that the amount and intensity of such aid is justified by the extent of the restructuring involved. According to Article 7, aid to defray the normal costs resulting from the partial or total closure of shipbuilding or ship-repair yards may be considered compatible with the common market provided that the capacity reduction resulting from such aid is of a genuine and irreversible nature. (38) it the for Council Directive In the Commission proposal 92/68/EEC amending the seventh Directive on aid to shipbuilding (10), taking into account is stated that, the restructuring on conditions of impact of competition in the Community, a balance has to be the former GDR found between the restructuring of shipbuilding industry, which is only possible with the support of a substantial amount of State aid, and the possible negative influence on the competition conditions of other Community yards resulting from this aid. The grant of any extra aid above the current ceilings has to be accompanied by appropriate restructuring measures and capacity reductions. the compatibility of the German Government (39) One of the conditions laid down in Article 10a(2) of Directive 90/684/EEC for the operating aid with the common market is the agreement to carry out before of 31 December 1995 a genuine and irreversible reduction of 40 % of the shipbuilding capacity of 545 000 cgt existing on 1 July 1990. The corresponding maximum overall capacity for the shipyards situated and operating the former German Democratic in the territories of Republic amounts therefore to 327 000 cgt. Germany distributed this total capacity among the five remaining new building yards. In this contex the capacity for KWW was set at 85 000 cgt (11). (40) In its letter of 27 November 1992 to the Commission on the privatisation of Warnow Werft, Germany states that Kvaerner had contractually committed itself not to exceed the capacity of 85 000 cgt set for KWW before 1 January 2006. It is noted that clause 27 of Warnow Werft’s privatisation contract, entitled (cid:145)Limitation on Future Building Capacities(cid:146), reads as follows: (cid:145)Kvaerner undertakes up until 31 December 2005 with regard to Warnow yard not to exceed its annual building capacity (10) OJ C 155, 20. 6. 1992, p. 20. (11) The Commission would point out that the Court of First Instance confirmed, on 22 October 1996 the importance of the allocation of capacities to the individual yards for the legality of the aid decision in Case T-266/94, Skibsvaerftsforeningen and Others v Commission [1996] ECR II-1399, paragraphs 151 to 198. 20. 5. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 120/17 of 85 000 cgt unless the requirements based on the EEC Treaty are less restrictive from time to time(cid:146). (41) The Commission notes that the subsequently notified aid programme for the restructuring of the Warnow Werft yard was based on this annual capacity. (42) The total amount of EUR 623,45 million (DEM 1 246,9 million) of restructuring aid was approved in four tranches in five separate Commission decisions. The first decision releasing the first tranche of aid was communicated to Germany by letter dated 3 March 1993 (N 692/D/91). In this decision it is stated that, although the independent study carried out on the Commission’s instructions had established that the new building capacity of Warnow Werft was unlikely to exceed the 85 000 cgt set by the German Government as the contribution of this yard to the maximum available east German capacity of 327 000 cgt, future monitoring was deemed necessary during the implementation of the investment programme in order the reduction of the shipbuilding capacity was carried out. to ensure that technical laid down, with the difference (43) The second decision was communicated to Germany by letter dated 17 January 1994 (N 692/J/91). In this decision the same provision as the one mentioned above was further monitoring was deemed necessary in order to ensure that the restriction of shipbuilding capacity was complied the German Government was with. reminded capacity non-compliance with limitation would oblige the Commission to request reimbursement of all aid. In addiction, that that the (44) In the third decision, communicated to Germany by letter dated 20 February 1995 (N 1/95), it was again stated that further monitoring of compliance with the capacity limitation was still needed. In addition, it was stated that the German Government had given an assurance that the yard would comply with its capacity limitation. The German Government was again reminded that non-compliance with the capacity limitation would oblige the Commission to request reimbursement of all aid. (45) The fourth decision was communicated to Germany by letter dated 18 October 1995 (N 637/95) and the fifth by letter dated 11 December 1995 (N 797/95). In both decisions it was provided that further monitoring would the actual and planned be necessary to ensure that production complied with the capacity limit. The same remarks as above on Germany’s assurance that the capacity limitation would be complied with by the yard and on the possibility of recovery of all aid in case of non-compliance were repeated in the decisions. (46) The Commission notes capacity limitation of 85 000 cgt was one of the main conditions annual that the limitation was for the approval of the aid. The aid was approved on the basis of the restructuring notified to the Commission. This annual incorporated in Warnow Werft’s privatisation contract, which was approved by the Commission as part of the restructuring programme. In addition, the obligation to comply with the capacity limitation of 85 000 cgt was expressly mentioned in all other Commission decisions approving the aid except the first one, dated 3 March 1993. In these decisions it was also expressly stated that, in case of non-compliance with the Commission would be this capacity limitation, obliged to request the reimbursement of all aid. (47) During the monitoring visit to the yard on 25 March 1999 it was confirmed that KWW’s production was 93 862 cgt in 1997. This figure of excess production in 1997 was based on the revised production figures for 1998, which were confirmed by Germany in its letter of 19 March 1999. Since Germany did not provide a revised report as regards 1997 production, the figures are considered confirmed and uncontestable. This means that KWW exceeded its limitation of annual 85 000 cgt by 8 862 cgt in 1997. capacity (48) The Commission notes that an essential condition for the approval of aid, i. e. compliance with the annual capacity limitation of 85 000 cgt as laid down in the Commission decisions approving the aid in accordance with Directive 90/684/EEC as amended by Directive 92/68/EEC, was not met in 1997. (49) The objective of amending Directive 90/684/EEC by Directive 92/68/EEC was to allow the urgent and comprehensive restructuring of the shipbuilding industry in the former GDR in order for it to become competitive. The Commission acknowledges that capacity limitations were introduced in this context in order to offset the distortive effect the State aid granted to the East German It also shipyards has on competition in this sector. stresses a as limitation, compensating factor and as an essential condition for approval of the aid and hence for the compatibility of the aid with the common market, is not complied with, rendered incompatible with the common the aid is market. that, when this capacity (50) In its decision concerning aid to MTW-Schiffswerft and Volkswerft Stralsund (12) the Commission concluded that MTW had slightly exceeded its capacity limitation in 1996. The compensation for this excess was determined on the basis that MTW had to reduce its production correspondingly the following year and the amount of the operating aid to be granted to it the following year was reduced by an amount that corresponded to the excess. the consequences of the excess were accordingly determined on the basis of the excess financial question, matching in production consequences of this breach to the gravity of it, that is to the amount of the excess. the scale of the (12) See footnote 7. L 120/18 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 20. 5. 2000 (51) The Commission notes that the purpose of the concept the of recovery of aid in case of non-fulfilment of conditions laid down for the approval of aid in the Commission decision is to remind the aid recipient of its obligation to comply with these conditions and to make the consequences of non-compliance clear. The aim and actual effect of the recovery of aid is to seek to recreate the status quo ante by annulling the negative effect on competition caused by the illegal aid, the illegality of which is caused by the non-compliance with the conditions set for the approval of the aid and hence for its compatibility with the common market. In this case limitation. the Consequently, the Commission to MTW- aid Schiffswerft Stralsund (13) the scale of exceeding the capacity limitation indicates the scale of distortion of competition in question. and following the concerning decision condition breached is reasoning of capacity the (52) Since the scale of exceeding the capacity limitation indicates the scale of distortion of competition in question, the Commission considers that the amount of aid which corresponds to the exceeding of the capacity limitation is to be considered incompatible with the common market. (53) The Commission notes that aid which is incompatible with the common market must be recovered. (54) The in that notes Commission decisions communicated to Germany by letters of 17 January 1994, 20 February 1995, 18 October 1995 and 11 December 1995 it stated that the Commission will be obliged to request the recovery of all aid if the restriction of capacity is not complied with. its (55) Following the reasoning in the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 September 1998 in Case T-140/95 Ryanair Limited v Commission (14) it should be examined whether, by declaring only the amount of aid which corresponds to the exceeding of the capacity limitation incompatible with the common market and hence subject to recovery, the Commission departs from the scope of its previous decisions on granting the aid in which it is stated that the Commission will be obliged to request the restriction of capacity is not complied with. the recovery of all aid if (56) The aim and actual effect of the recovery of aid is to seek to recreate the status quo ante by annulling the negative effect on competition caused by the illegal aid. Following the reasoning of the Commission decision concerning aid to MTW-Schiffswerft and Volkswerft Stralsund (15), the (13) See footnote 7. (14) [1998] ECR II-3327. (15) See footote 7. scale of exceeding the capacity limitation indicates the scale of distortion of competition in question. of the (57) Since the amount of aid which corresponds to the declared exceeding capacity incompatible, it is subject to recovery. The recovery seeks to annul the capacity limitation on competition, whereby the purpose and actual effect of the recovery are fulfilled. the negative effects of the exceeding of limitation is (58) The Commission therefore considers that, by declaring the amount of aid which corresponds to the exceeding of the capacity limitation incompatible with the common market in this case, it does not depart from the scope of the conditions of its previous decisions in a way that would have an effect on the aim, purpose and effect of the negative those conditions, namely annulment of effect on competition. in its by four tranches (59) The Commission therefore concludes that the part of the aid of EUR 623,45 million (DEM 1 246,9 million) granted to Kvaerner Warnow Werft and approved by the Commission decisions communicated to Germany by its letters of 3 March 1993 (N 692/D/91), 17 January 1994 (N 692/J/91), 20 February 1995 (N 1/95), 18 October 1995 (N 637/95) and 11 December 1995 (N 797/95) which the annual capacity corresponds to the exceeding of is no longer limitation of 85 000 cgt by 8 862 cgt compatible with Article 87(3)(e) of the EC Treaty and is therefore incompatible with the common market pursuant to Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty. (60) In their comments, both Germany and KWW contest the Commission’s observation that capacity limitation of 85 000 cgt was the main condition for approval of the aid. They claim that the approval was conditional only on the approved and examined production facilities being retained in accordance with the restructuring programme and investment plans. an annual the investment plan and monitor (61) The Commission notes that compliance both with the investment programme and with the capacity limitation were conditions for approval of the aid. It is a constant practice of the Commission in all restructuring aid cases to approve its compliance. Nevertheless, this does not alter the fact that another essential condition for the approval of the aid was compliance with the annual capacity limitation. The total amount of aid was approved in five separate in four of which it is expressly Commission decisions, mentioned that monitoring is necessary in order to ensure that the restriction of the shipbuilding capacity is these five decisions respected. Germany is reminded that, in case of non-compliance with the capacity limitation, the Commission would be obliged to request reimbursement of the aid in question. In three of the German Government had given an assurance that the these decisions In addition, stated that in four of is it 20. 5. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 120/19 comply with its there is no doubt about limitation. yard would the capacity Consequently, limitation of 85 000 cgt being a condition for the approval of the aid and for the compatibility of the aid with the common market. capacity (62) The second argument raised by both KWW and Germany is that the capacity gains due to productivity increases should be conceded to the yards. Capacity limitation and production limitation are different concepts and KWW was bound, not by a production limitation, but by a technical capacity limitation based on a limitation of its yard to increase capacity which allowed the productivity within the technically fixed parameters. exceeding of capacity for 1997. its capacity limitation in 1996 from its (66) Considering the above, the Commission notes that there is no doubt that KWW was fully aware of the nature and meaning of the capacity limitation of 85 000 cgt imposed on it. (67) The third argument advanced by both KWW and Germany was that the aid in fact received by KWW was less than the total amount of aid approved by the Commission. Only the amount of aid actually received should be taken as a basis for calculating the potential recovery. for (63) The Commission notes that KWW titled its production report the first half of 1995, submitted to the Commission by Germany under cover of a letter dated (cid:145)Report on compliance with the 16 August 1995, capacity limitation(cid:146). for 1996, submitted to the Commission by Germany under cover of a letter dated 17 February 1997, (cid:145)Production limitation by EU Commission(cid:146). Moreover, the Commission, in its letters of 18 and 19 November 1996 to Germany, requested the latter to inform the yards to comply strictly with their capacity limitations in 1996 and subsequent years. titled its report It (64) (65) In its letter of 3 March 1997 to Germany the Commission points out that KWW exceeded its capacity limitation slightly in 1996 and that the planned production for 1997 was also very close to the limit. It asks Germany to take the necessary measures to correct the situation. In its letter of 14 April 1997 to Germany the Commission once again asks Germany to intervene to see that the yard changes its production plan in order not to exceed its capacity limit. the Bundesanstalt In its letter to the Commission of 1 April 1997, Germany f(cid:252)r vereinigungsbedingte states that Sonderaufgaben (BvS) had asked KWW to respect its capacity limitation of 85 000 cgt when planning its production for 1997. As a result, KWW would submit a new plan for 1997 in which the capacity limit was respected. Further, in its letter of 6 June 1997 to the Commission, Germany explains that KWW’s capacity in 1997 will be reduced by the amount of the slight excess in 1996, i. e. 92 cgt, so that in 1997 it would have a reduced capacity limit. Germany stressed that this was a non-recurring situation and, in general, division of capacity between different years to compensate for excess was not possible. This had been clearly explained to the yard as well. Germany also states that it had explained to the yard that even a slight exceeding of capacity limitations could not be accepted in the future and that to deducting the 92 cgt KWW had committed itself (68) The Commission notes that, in the case of the restructuring of KWW, the major part of the operating aid for loss compensation was non-cash aid transferred to the yard as assets at the time of privatisation and that KWW had indeed received these assets. The Commission continuously monitored the restructuring of the yard and twice a year until the end of 1995 (end of restructuring) received an auditor’s report on the restructuring of KWW, the so-called (cid:145)spill-over report(cid:146) (16). The auditor’s report of December 1995 (17) sets out in detail the aid received up to 31 December 1995. It shows that by 31 December 1995 the yard had received all other aid instead of approved by the Commission, except the of approved that date only received (cid:145)Wettbewerbshilfe(cid:146), DEM 62,5 million, is DEM 10,5 million less (cid:145)Wettbewerbshilfe(cid:146) than approved by the Commission. of DEM 73 million it had at that amount that, (69) The auditor’s report on the actual use made of the restructuring aid as per end of 1996, which was submitted by Germany at the Commission’s request on 30 June 1999, confirms the final losses relating to the restructuring. According to this report, the final amount of (cid:145)Wettbewerbshilfe(cid:146) paid for loss compensation was indeed DEM 62,5 million. (70) Consequently, the Commission notes that KWW has received DEM 10,5 million less (cid:145)Wettbewerbshilfe(cid:146) as operating aid approved for loss compensation than authorised by the Commission. The total amount of aid received by KWW is accordingly EUR 367,25 million (16) This obligation to submit the (cid:145)spill-over(cid:146) reports is based on Article 10a(2)(d) of Directive 90/684/EEC. The report submitted to the Commission covered the period until the end of 1995, that is until the restructuring of the yard was completed. (17) Arthur Andersen Wirtschaftspr(cid:252)fungsgesellschaft Steuerberatungs- gesellschaft mbH: Stellungnahme zu den Angaben der Kvaerner Warnow Werft GmbH in Zusammenhang mit bis zum 31. Dezember 1995 erhaltenen Beihilfen. last L 120/20 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 20. 5. 2000 (DEM 734,5 million) EUR of 237,45 million (DEM 474,9 million) of investment aid and EUR 13,5 million (DEM 27 million) of closure aid, or EUR 618,2 million (DEM 1 236,5 million) all told. operating aid, (71) KWW’s fourth argument is that the Commission must respect the principle of equal treatment in cases where it requires repayment of aid. It refers to the Commission and decisions Elbewerft Boizenburg (19). concerning MTW and Volkswerft (18) the case aid. Consequently, yards against payment of DEM 242 000 was to be concerned considered assessing the compensation for allocation of capacities. The present case, on the other hand, concerns calculation of the amount of aid that needs to be reimbursed owing to the exceeding of the capacity limitation. Consequently, the criterion in the present case is not the value of the capacity as in the case of reallocation, but the total amount of aid received. Since, moreover, in this case the facts are not comparable, the principle of equal treatment. there is no breach of are The very different. (72) As regards the fact that in the case of MTW the aid repayment was calculated on the basis of operating aid alone, the Commission notes that the two yards MTW and KWW are not directly comparable since their situation and the factors relating to their restructuring programmes financing programmes of the two yards were structured differently, since in the case of MTW the new investments were financed mainly by credits. For this reason, the distortion the of competition caused by the slight exceeding of capacity limitation by 1 637 cgt in 1996 could be neutralised by the reduction of operating aid only. This is not so in the case of In in the present case KWW has exceeded its addition, capacity limitation by some 10 % (= 8 862 cgt), which corresponds to the production capacity of half of a medium-sized container ship. With this order of magnitude, the investment aid is also covered by the excess so that in accordance with Article 6 of Directive 90/684/EEC, unlike in the case of MTW Schiffswerft GmbH, it is necessary also to include the investment aid in the aid calculation. the restructuring of KWW. (73) As regards the reduction of future production, the Commission notes that in the case of MTW it allowed the yard to compensate for its slight exceeding of its capacity limitation in 1996 the following year due to the exceptional circumstances that had caused this excess. The exceeding of the capacity limitation by 1 637 cgt in 1996 was caused by the fact that the size of the ship changed following a change in the ship’s design required by the customer. This situation is of a very different nature from that in the present case, where KWW has in the Commission’s opinion deliberately exceeded its capacity limitation by a very considerable amount. (74) As regards the value given to the cgts in the case of the the former Elbewerft reallocation of the capacity of Boizenburg yard, the Commission notes that here too the situation and the facts of the two cases are not directly comparable. the capacity of the closed Elbewerft yard to the other east German yards, the question was to establish whether the allocation of these capacities to the other east German the reallocation of In the case of (18) See footnote 7. (19) See footnote 8. (75) The fifth point raised by KWW is that, if the Commission were to consider part of the aid incompatible with the common market, rate applicable to the repayment of aid should be calculated from the time the alleged breach began, from the time the aid was subsequently rendered incompatible. the interest i. e. (76) Pursuant the (EC) No 659/1999 to Regulation the Commission is recovery of required to order incompatible, unlawful aid. The Commission notes that, according to Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No interest is to be payable from the date on 659/1999, the which the unlawful aid was at beneficiary. It is the opinion of the Commission that the breach of an essential condition for the approval of the aid leads automatically to the incompatibility of the aid with the common market throughout the period during which the aid recipient was bound by this condition (cid:150) in this case the capacity limitation. the disposal of (77) The Commission stresses of the that four five Commission decisions approving the aid explicitly state that, if the capacity limitation is not complied with, all aid is to be paid back. In the Commission’s opinion, this implies that a breach of an obligation to comply with the capacity limitation abolishes retroactively the legal basis for the granting of the aid. For this reason this case is to be considered similar to a case where the unlawfulness of the aid exists from the beginning and therefore it is to be dealt with accordingly. (78) For the reasons stated in points 35 to 77 above, the Commission concludes that the part of the aid of EUR 618,2 million (DEM 1 236,4 million) granted to Kvaerner Warnow Werft and approved by the Commission in four tranches by its decisions communicated to Germany by letters of 3 March 1993 (N 692/D/91), 17 January 1994 (N 692/J/91), 20 February 1995 (N 1/95), 18 October 1995 (N 637/95) and 11 December 1995 (N 797/95) which corresponds the annual capacity limitation of 85 000 cgt by 8 862 cgt is no longer compatible with Article 87(3)(e) of the EC Treaty. As no other basis of compatibility exists or has indeed been invoked by Germany or KWW, this part of the aid is incompatible with the common market pursuant to Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty. to the exceeding of 20. 5. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 120/21 (79) The Commission has considered various options in determining the amount of the incompatible aid and has come to the following conclusion. (80) The Commission notes that the duration of KWW’s annual capacity limitation of 85 000 cgt is 10 years. It has calculated the amount to be recovered by using the proportional approach. Consequently, the Commission has calculated the proportion of the excess of 85 862 cgt in relation to the total of the capacity limitation during the 10-year period (85 000 cgt), which gives the proportion of 1,04 % as the amount of unlawful aid. (81) Consequently, of the aid of amount incompatible aid corresponds to the proportion of the excess in relation to the total capacity limitation calculated on the basis EUR 367,25 million (DEM of operating 734,5 million) and investment aid of EUR 237,45 million (DEM 474,9 million), i. e. EUR 604,7 million (DEM 1 209,4 million) in total, paid to KWW. Consequently, the amount of aid which is considered incompatible with the common market on the basis of KWW’s exceeding of its capacity limitation in 1997 is EUR 6,3 million (DEM 12,6 million). This aid must be recovered. (82) The Commission notes that in its decision to initiate the procedure in this case (20) it stated that the closure aid of EUR 13,5 million (DEM 27 million), approved by the Commision in its decision communicated to Germany by its letter of 3 March 1993, has been paid to finance the redundancy pay and other social measures in favour of former workers. As the yard has passed on these monies to its former employees, the Commission will not seek the recovery of this amount. For this reason the closure aid is not included in the above calculation. (83) The Commission stresses that the sums to be recovered must bear interest from the date on which they were made available to the recipient until their actual recovery. The recovery must be effected in accordance with the law and the interest must be procedures of national calculated on the basis of the reference rate used for calculating the grant equivalent of regional aid. VI. CONCLUSIONS (84) The Commission concludes that in 1997 KWW exceeded its annual capacity limitation of 85 000 cgt by 8 862 cgt. This the Commission in its decisions communicated to Germany by letters of 3 March 1993, 17 January 1994, 20 February 1995, 18 October 1995 and 11 December limitation was capacity annual set by 1995 as an essential condition for approval of a total of EUR 623,45 million (DEM 1 246,9 million) of aid in accordance with Directive 90/684/EEC, as amended by Directive 92/68/EEC, and hence for the compatibility of the aid with the common market pursuant to Article 87(3)(e) of the EC Treaty. (85) Since it is the opinion of the Commission that the scale of the exceeding of the capacity limitation determines the scale of distortion of competition in question, the Commission considers that the amount of aid which corresponds to the exceeding of the capacity limitation of 85 000 cgt by 8 862 cgt in 1997 no longer fulfils the conditions of Article 87(3)(e) of the EC Treaty and is therefore common market pursuant to Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty. incompatible with the (86) The aid amount of EUR 6,3 million (DEM 12,6 million) is therefore incompatible with the common market and must be recovered. The sum to be recovered must bear interest from the date on which it was made available to the recipient until its actual recovery, HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: Article 1 Aid which Germany has implemented in favour of Kvaerner Warnow Werft GmbH amounting to EUR 6,3 million (DEM 12,6 million) incompatible with the common market pursuant to Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty. is Article 2 1. Germany shall take the necessary measures to recover from the recipient the aid amounting to EUR 6,3 million (DEM 12,6 million). Recovery shall be effected without delay 2. and in accordance with the procedures of German law, provided that they allow the immediate and effective execution of the Commission’s decision. To this end and in the event of proceedings before the German courts, Germany shall take all necessary steps which are available under its law, including provisional measures, without prejudice to Community law. (20) See footnote 4. 3. The sum to be recovered shall bear interest from the date on which it was made available to the recipient until its actual L 120/22 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 20. 5. 2000 Interest shall be calculated on the basis of recovery. the reference rate used for calculating the grant equivalent of regional aid. Article 4 This Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany. Article 3 Done at Brussels, 15 February 2000. Germany shall inform the Commission, within two months of notification of this Decision, of the measures taken to comply with it. For the Commission Mario MONTI Member of the Commission


title: Regulamento (CE) n.o 341/2000 da Comissão, de 15 de Fevereiro de 2000, relativo à fixação da taxa de câmbio aplicável a determinadas ajudas directas e medidas de carácter estrutural ou ambiental

eurovoc_concepts:
agricultural guidance
aid per hectare
environmental policy
exchange rate
structural policy

formats: html pdf print

text: 16. 2. 2000 PT Jornal Oficial das Comunidades Europeias L 43/19 REGULAMENTO (CE) N. o 341/2000 DA COMISSÃO de 15 de Fevereiro de 2000 relativo à fixação da taxa de câmbio aplicável a determinadas ajudas directas e medidas de carácter estrutural ou ambiental A COMISSÃO DAS COMUNIDADES EUROPEIAS, Tendo em conta o Tratado que institui a Comunidade Europeia, Tendo em conta o Regulamento (CE) n. o 2799/98 do Conselho, de 15 de Dezembro de 1998, que estabelece o regime agromo- netário do euro (1), Tendo em conta o Regulamento (CE) n. o 1410/1999 da Comissão, de 29 de Junho de 1999, que altera o Regulamento (CE) n. o 2808/98 que estabelece normas de execução do regime agromonetário do euro no sector agrícola (2) e, nomeadamente, o seu artigo 2. o, Considerando o seguinte: (1) (2) (3) Em conformidade com o disposto no artigo 42. o do Regulamento (CE) n. o 2342/1999 da Comissão (3) que estabelece normas de execução do Regulamento (CE) n. o 1254/1999 do Conselho (4), que estabelece a organi- zação comum de mercado no sector da carne de bovino, a data de apresentação do pedido constitui o facto gerador para determinar o ano de imputação dos prémios para os animais que são objecto dos regimes de prémios no sector da carne. A conversão em moeda nacional dos montantes dos prémios é calculada, em conformidade com o disposto no artigo 43. o do citado regulamento, com base na média, calculada pro rata temporis, das taxas de câmbio aplicáveis durante o mês de Dezembro do ano anterior ao ano de imputação. Nos termos do disposto no n. o 2 do artigo 4. o do Regulamento (CE) n. o 2808/98 da Comissão, de 22 de Dezembro de 1998, que estabelece normas de execução do regime agromonetário do euro no sector agrícola (5), com a última redacção que lhe foi dada pelo Regula- mento (CE) n. o 1410/1999, o facto gerador da taxa de câmbio, relativamente aos montantes de carácter estru- tural ou ambiental, é o dia 1 de Janeiro do ano em que é tomada a decisão de concessão da ajuda. Nos termos do n. o 3 do artigo 4. o do Regulamento (CE) n. o 2808/98, a taxa de câmbio a aplicar é a média, calculada pro rata temporis, das taxas de câmbio aplicáveis durante o mês que precede a data do facto gerador. Em conformidade com o artigo 12. o do Regulamento (CE) n. o 293/98 da Comissão, de 4 de Fevereiro de 1998, que fixa os factos geradores aplicáveis no sector das frutas e produtos hortícolas, no sector dos produtos transformados à base de frutas e produtos hortícolas e, parcialmente, no sector das plantas vivas e dos produtos da floricultura, bem como a determinados produtos enumerados no anexo I do Tratado CE, e que revoga o (1) JO L 349 de 24. 12. 1998, p. 1. (2) JO L 164 de 30. 6. 1999, p. 53. (3) JO L 281 de 4. 11. 1999, p. 30. (4) JO L 160 de 26. 6. 1999, p. 21. (5) JO L 349 de 24. 12. 1998, p. 36. Regulamento (CE) n. o 1445/93 (6), com a última redacção que lhe foi dada pelo Regulamento (CE) n. o 1410/1999, a taxa de câmbio aplicável para a conversão anual, em moeda ncional, do montante máximo por hectare da ajuda ao melhoramento da qualidade e da comercialização no sector dos frutos de casca rija e das alfarrobas, fixado no artigo 2. o do Regulamento (CEE) n. o 790/89 do Conselho (7), com a última redacção que lhe foi dada pelo Regulamento (CE) n. o 1825/97 da Comissão (8), é igual à média, calculada pro rata temporis, das taxas de câmbio aplicáveis durante o mês que precede o dia 1 de Janeiro do período anual de refe- rência, na acepção do artigo 19. o do Regulamento (CEE) n. o 2159/89 da Comissão (9), com a última redacção que lhe foi dada pelo Regulamento (CE) n. o 1363/95 (10). Nos termos do n. o 2 do artigo 6. o do Regulamento (CEE) n. o 2700/93 da Comissão, de 30 de Setembro de 1993, que estabelece normas de execução do prémio em bene- fício dos produtores de carne de ovino e de caprino (11), com a última redacção que lhe foi dada pelo Regula- mento (CE) n. o 1410/1999, a taxa de conversão a aplicar ao montante do saldo dos prémios no sector da carne de ovino é igual à média, calculada pro rata temporis, das taxas de câmbio aplicáveis durante o mês que precede o último dia da campanha a título da qual o prémio é concedido. Nos termos do n. o 1 do artigo 6. o do Regulamento (CEE) n. o 2700/93, a taxa de conversão a aplicar ao montante do pagamento por conta dos prémios no sector da carne de ovino é igual à média, calculada pro rata temporis, das taxas de câmbio aplicáveis durante o mês que precede o primeiro dia da campanha a título da qual o prémio é concedido, (4) (5) ADOPTOU O PRESENTE REGULAMENTO: Artigo 1. o A taxa de câmbio a aplicar: 1. — aos montantes dos prémios do sector da carne de bovino referidos no Regulamento (CE) n. o 1254/1999, — ao montante máximo por hectare da ajuda à comerciali- zação no sector dos frutos de casca rija e das alfarrobas, fixado no artigo 2. o do Regulamento (CEE) n. o 790/89, e — aos montantes de carácter estrutural ou ambiental referidos no artigo 5. o do Regulamento (CE) n. o 2799/98, consta do anexo I. (6) JO L 30 de 5. 2. 1998, p. 16. (7) JO L 85 de 30. 3. 1989, p. 6. (8) JO L 260 de 23. 9. 1997, p. 9. (9) JO L 207 de 19. 7. 1989, p. 19. (10) JO L 132 de 16. 6. 1995, p. 8. (11) JO L 245 de 1. 10. 1993, p. 99. L 43/20 PT Jornal Oficial das Comunidades Europeias 16. 2. 2000 A taxa de câmbio a aplicar ao montante do prémio e do saldo referido no n. o 6, quarto parágrafo, do 2. artigo 5. o do Regulamento (CE) n. o 2467/98 do Conselho (1) e ao montante de dedução referido no artigo 4. o do Regulamento (CEE) n. o 3493/90 do Conselho (2) consta do anexo II. A taxa de câmbio a aplicar ao montante do pagamento por conta referido no n. o 6, segundo 3. parágrafo, do artigo 5. o do Regulamento (CE) n. o 2467/98 e ao montante de dedução referido no artigo 4. o do Regulamento (CEE) n. o 3493/90 consta do anexo III. O presente regulamento entra em vigor no sétimo dia seguinte ao da sua publicação no Jornal Oficial das Comunidades Europeias. Artigo 2. o O presente regulamento é obrigatório em todos os seus elementos e directamente aplicável em todos os Estados-Membros. Feito em Bruxelas, em 15 de Fevereiro de 2000. Pela Comissão Franz FISCHLER Membro da Comissão (1) JO L 312 de 20. 11. 1998, p. 1. (2) JO L 337 de 4. 12. 1990, p. 7. 16. 2. 2000 PT Jornal Oficial das Comunidades Europeias L 43/21 ANEXO I Taxa de câmbio referida no n. o 1 do artigo 1. o 1 EUR = (média 1. 12. 1999 — 31. 12. 1999) 7,44023 Coroa dinamarquesa 329,655 8,58622 0,626674 Dracma grega Coroa sueca Libra esterlina ANEXO II Taxa de câmbio referida no n. o 2 do artigo 1. o 1 EUR = (média 2. 12. 1999 — 1. 1. 2000) 7,44036 Coroa dinamarquesa 329,705 8,58643 0,626326 Dracma grega Coroa sueca Libra esterlina ANEXO III Taxa de câmbio referida no n. o 3 do artigo 1. o 1 EUR = (média 31. 12. 1999 — 2. 1. 2000) 7,44048 Coroa dinamarquesa 329,762 8,58502 0,626045 Dracma grega Coroa sueca Libra esterlina


title: Entschließung des Europäischen Parlaments zu dem Entwurf der Mitteilung der Kommission an die Mitgliedstaaten über die Leitlinien für eine Gemeinschaftsinitiative betreffend die transeuropäische Zusammenarbeit zur Förderung einer harmonischen und ausgewogenen Entwicklung des europäischen Raums (INTERREG) (KOM(1999) 479 - C5-0243/1999 - 1999/2178(COS))

eurovoc_concepts:
EU initiative
cross-border cooperation
economic development
enlargement of the Union
regional development
sustainable development
town and country planning
transport policy

formats: pdf print

text: 29. 11. 2000 DE Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften C 339/47 Dienstag, 15. Februar 2000 fordert die Kommission und die Mitgliedsstaaten auf, die Durchführung einer umfassenden Informa- 24. tions- und Werbekampagne für die neue Initiative URBAN sicherzustellen; 25. fordert die Kommission und die Mitgliedstaaten dazu auf, vollständige und transparente Informatio- nen über die Auswahlverfahren und die im Rahmen der Gemeinschaftsinitiative URBAN angewandten Methoden bereitzustellen sowie es regelmäßig über die Durchführung von URBAN zu unterrichten; 26. begrüßt die Schaffung eines horizontalen Mechanismus im Rahmen dieses Fonds, um den Aus- tausch von Informationen über vorbildliche Verfahren zu ermöglichen und innovative Ansätze für die Stadterneuerung in den Vordergrund zu stellen; fordert die Kommission auf, es gemäß dem Verhaltenskodex darüber in Kenntnis zu setzen, welche 27. Agenturen an diesen Tätigkeiten beteiligt sein werden; beauftragt seine Präsidentin, diese Entschließung der Kommission und den Regierungen der Mit- 28. gliedstaaten zu übermitteln. 4. Harmonische und ausgewogene Entwicklung des europäischen Raums (INTERREG) A5-0028/2000 Entschließung des Europäischen Parlaments zu dem Entwurf der Mitteilung der Kommission an die Mitgliedstaaten über die Leitlinien für eine Gemeinschaftsinitiative betreffend die transeuropäi- sche Zusammenarbeit zur Förderung einer harmonischen und ausgewogenen Entwicklung des europäischen Raums (INTERREG) (KOM(1999) 479 7 C5-0243/1999 7 1999/2178(COS)) Das Europäische Parlament, 7 in Kenntnis des Entwurfs einer Mitteilung der Kommission (KOM(1999) 479 7 C5-0243/1999), 7 gestützt auf Artikel 299 Absatz 2 des EG-Vertrags, 7 in Kenntnis der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1260/1999 vom 21. Juni 1999 mit allgemeinen Bestimmungen über die Strukturfonds (1), 7 in Kenntnis der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1783/1999 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 12. Juli 1999 über den Europäischen Fonds für regionale Entwicklung (2), 7 unter Hinweis auf den zwischen dem Europäischen Parlament und der Kommission vereinbarten Verhaltenskodex vom 6. Mai 1999 für die Durchführung der Strukturpolitiken durch die Kommis- sion (3), 7 unter Hinweis auf seine Entschließung vom 3. Mai 1994 zur Gemeinschaftsinitiative für grenzüber- greifende Zusammenarbeit und ausgewählte Energienetze INTERREG II (4), 7 unter Hinweis auf seine Entschließung vom 28. März 1996 zur Gemeinschaftsinitiative für transnatio- nale Zusammenarbeit auf dem Gebiet der Raumordnung INTERREG IIC (5), 7 unter Hinweis auf seine Entschließung vom 16. Mai 1997 zur grenzüberschreitenden und interregio- nalen Zusammenarbeit (6), 7 unter Hinweis auf seine Entschließung vom 2. Juli 1998 zur Raumordnung und zum Europäischen Raumentwicklungskonzept (7), (1) ABl. L 161 vom 26. 6. 1999, S. 1. (2) ABl. L 213 vom 13. 8. 1999, S. 1. (3) ABl. C 279 vom 1. 10. 1999, S. 488. (4) ABl. C 205 vom 25. 7. 1994, S. 116. (5) ABl. C 117 vom 22. 4. 1996, S. 70. (6) ABl. C 167 vom 2. 6. 1997, S. 245. (7) ABl. C 226 vom 20. 7. 1998, S. 42. C 339/48 Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften DE 29. 11. 2000 Dienstag, 15. Februar 2000 7 in Kenntnis der Schlußfolgerungen des Europäischen Rates von Berlin vom 24. und 25. März 1999, denen zufolge der Gemeinschaftsinitiative INTERREG mindestens 50 % der für Gemeinschaftsinitiati- ven vorgesehenen Mittel für Verpflichtungen zugewiesen werden, wobei besonderes Augenmerk den grenzüberschreitenden Tätigkeiten 7 insbesondere mit Blick auf die Erweiterung sowie auf Mitglied- staaten, die ausgedehnte gemeinsame Grenzen mit den Beitrittsländern haben, und auf Länder, die eine gemeinsame Grenze mit der Union haben, 7 und einer besseren Koordinierung mit PHARE, TACIS und MEDA gilt, 7 in Kenntnis der Interinstitutionellen Vereinbarung vom 6. Mai 1999 über die Haushaltsdisziplin und die Verbesserung des Haushaltsverfahrens (1) und der zugehörigen Finanziellen Vorausschau, 7 in Kenntnis der Vereinbarungen des für Raumordnung, städtische und regionale Politik zuständigen Ministerrats vom 4. und 5. Oktober 1999 in Tampere, 7 in Kenntnis des Jahresberichts des Rechnungshofs zum Haushaltsjahr 1998 (2), 7 gestützt auf Artikel 160 seiner Geschäftsordnung, 7 in Kenntnis des Berichts des Ausschusses für Regionalpolitik, Verkehr und Fremdenverkehr sowie der Stellungnahmen des Ausschusses für Beschäftigung und soziale Angelegenheiten und des Ausschusses für Industrie, Außenhandel, Forschung und Energie (A5-0028/2000), A. B. C. D. E. F. G. in Anbetracht der historischen Schwierigkeiten der Grenzregionen (Binnen- und Küstenregionen), die durch das Vorhandensein der Grenze wirtschaftlich, sozial und kulturell voneinander abgeschnitten waren und dadurch zu Randgebieten der jeweiligen Staaten wurden, in der Erwägung, daß die nationalen Grenzen kein Hindernis für eine ausgewogene Entwicklung, den räumlichen Zusammenhalt und die Integration des europäischen Raums darstellen dürfen, in der Erwägung, daß die Grenzgebiete bei der Einleitung einer gemeinsamen Umweltpolitik auf Schwierigkeiten gestoßen sind, wodurch eine in sich geschlossene Bewirtschaftung der Ökosysteme erschwert wurde und wird, in Anbetracht der institutionellen, wirtschaftlich und sozialen (einschließlich Migration) Bedeutung der grenzüberschreitenden, transnationalen und interregionalen Zusammenarbeit für die europäische Eini- gung sowie ihres Beitrags zu Frieden, Sicherheit, Stabilität, räumlichem Zusammenhalt und Achtung der Rechte von Minderheiten, in der Erwägung, daß sich die Rahmenbedingungen für die Grenzregionen durch die Schaffung des Binnenmarkts und der Wirtschafts- und Währungsunion sowie die bevorstehende Erweiterung der Union um die Länder Mittel- und Osteuropas sowie um Malta und Zypern, ändern; in der Erwägung, daß daher die Liste der im Rahmen der grenzüberschreitenden Zusammenarbeit förderfähigen Gebiete aktualisiert werden muß, um diesen neuen Gegebenheiten Rechnung zu tragen, in der Erwägung, daß der Prozeß der Erweiterung der Europäischen Union um weitere Länder Schritte zur sozialen, wirtschaftlichen und räumlichen Integration einschließen muß, in der Erwägung, daß der europäische Raum im Hinblick auf eine harmonische Entwicklung der Union als Einheit gesehen werden muß und daß die Integration der Grenzgebiete ein wesentliches Element der Entwicklung einer zukünftigen europäischen Raumordnungspolitik darstellt, die auf der Umsetzung des im Rahmen der Europäischen Raumentwicklungsperspektive vorgesehenen Polyzen- trismus basiert, H. in Anbetracht der Tatsache, daß die interregionale Zusammenarbeit einen wichtigen Beitrag zur Ein- bindung der lokalen und regionalen Gebietskörperschaften in den Prozeß der europäischen Integration leistet, I. J. in der Erwägung, daß eine aktivere Beteiligung und eine allgemeine Aufwertung der Rolle der lokalen und regionalen Gebietskörperschaften in bezug auf die Gemeinschaftsinitiativen gefördert werden muß, wobei zu berücksichtigen ist, daß die lokalen und regionalen Gebietskörperschaften aufgrund des unterschiedlichen rechtlichen Rahmens und des unterschiedlichen Entwicklungsstands auf beiden Seiten der Grenze nur sehr eingeschränkte Möglichkeiten für eine Zusammenarbeit haben, in der Erwägung, daß mittels Gemeinschaftsinitiativen nur solche Maßnahmen zu finanzieren sind, die einen gemeinschaftlichen Mehrwert darstellen oder versuchen, die durch die Gemeinschaftlichen För- derkonzepte (GFK) erfaßten Probleme zu beheben, (1) ABl. C 172 vom 18. 6. 1999, S. 1. (2) ABl. C 349 vom 3. 12. 1999, S. 1. 29. 11. 2000 DE Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften C 339/49 Dienstag, 15. Februar 2000 K. L. in der Erwägung, daß schädliche Auswirkungen durch die parallele Entwicklung unterschiedlicher Infrastrukturprojekte auf beiden Seiten der Grenze vermieden werden müssen und daß es erforderlich ist, gemeinsame Entwicklungsstrategien mit innovativen Konzepten im Hinblick auf die Verwaltungs- organe zu gewährleisten, angesichts der breiten Zustimmung, die die Gemeinschaftsinitiative INTERREG II gefunden hat, und der Tatsache, daß ihr anerkannter Erfolg zur Schaffung einer echten Raumordnungspolitik der Gemeinschaft beitragen könnte, 1. begrüßt die Fortführung von INTERREG; stellt mit Zufriedenheit fest, daß wesentliche, in früheren Berichten des Parlaments zu INTERREG enthaltene Empfehlungen von der Kommission in ihrem vorliegen- den Entwurf von Leitlinien aufgegriffen wurden; unterstützt die prioritäre Stellung von INTERREG III sowie die entsprechende finanzielle Dotierung; 2. bedauert die späte Vorlage des Entwurfs durch die Kommission und die Tatsache, daß weder die Regionen noch repräsentative regionale Organisationen in die Vorbereitung des Entwurfs eingebunden waren; fordert die Kommission in diesem Zusammenhang auf, in Zukunft insbesondere im Rahmen der Programmierung und Umsetzung der drei Bereiche von INTERREG eine stärkere Einbindung der regiona- len Ebene sicherzustellen; 3. stellt mit Besorgnis fest, daß durch die verspätete Vorlage des Entwurfs durch die Kommission eine direkte Verbindung zwischen INTERREG II und INTERREG III nicht möglich ist; bedauert, daß dadurch Planungsunsicherheiten und Finanzierungslücken entstehen; fordert, daß die Planungszeiträume künftig genau mit dem Geltungszeitraum für die Gemeinschaftsinitiativen zusammenfallen, um eine kontinuierli- chere Programmplanung zu gewährleisten; 4. hält es für notwendig, die bereits im Rahmen von INTERREG II eingeleiteten Initiativen zu fördern, um die Ergebnisse aus den ersten INTERREG-Programmen zu nutzen und die schon begonnenen Projekte der überbetrieblichen und der interadministrativen Zusammenarbeit zu Ende zu führen; bedauert und bemängelt, daß bevor ihm von der Kommission die Leitlinien für INTERREG III vorge- 5. legt wurden, nicht eine genaue Bestandsaufnahme hinsichtlich INTERREG II vorgenommen wurde, die es ermöglicht hätte, daraus Lehren für die neue Programmgeneration zu ziehen; wünscht, daß ihm rechtzeitig für seine Prüfung der Halbzeit-Bewertung von INTERREG III eine Bilanz 6. hinsichtlich INTERREG II vorgelegt wird; 7. ist besorgt über die Folgen, die sich durch die verspätete Einleitung von INTERREG III für die begün- stigten Regionen ergeben und insbesondere über den drohenden Verlust von Finanzmitteln für diesen Zeit- raum zwischen dem Ende der Anwendung von INTERREG II und der tatsächlichen Einleitung von INTER- REG III und fordert die Kommission auf, die Folgen ihrer Versäumnisse abzuwenden; wünscht, daß ihm so bald wie möglich eine Übersicht über die Inanspruchnahme der für das Pro- 8. gramm INTERREG II bewilligten Mittel vorgelegt wird; 9. hält eine Ausweitung der im Rahmen der grenzüberschreitenden Kooperation förderfähigen Gebiete auf alle Regionen der Adria für unverzichtbar, damit INTERREG als Instrument zur Stärkung der Zusam- menarbeit mit den Regionen der Adria und des Balkan genutzt und das Ziel einer Konsolidierung der wirtschaftlichen, sozialen und politischen Stabilität dieser Gebiete weiterverfolgt werden kann; 10. wünscht im Hinblick auf die Erweiterung der Europäischen Union um Malta und im Zuge des Prozesses von Barcelona die Aufnahme jener sizilianischer Provinzen, die eine Seegrenze zu diesem Bewer- berland haben, in die Liste der im Rahmen der grenzüberschreitenden Kooperation förderfähigen Gebiete; 11. teilt die Ansicht der Kommission, daß die grenzüberschreitende, transnationale und interregionale Kooperation weiter vertieft werden muß; stellt fest, daß die gewonnenen Erfahrungen eine ausreichende Garantie dafür sein sollten, daß im Rahmen von INTERREG III eine echte grenzüberschreitende Zusam- menarbeit möglich sein wird; 12. begrüßt, daß die Zusammenarbeit im Rahmen der Programme INTERREG 7 PHARE (CBC = cross border cooperation) auf regionaler und mehrjähriger Grundlage entwickelt worden ist, wobei die lokalen Behörden eine bedeutende Rolle spielen, und hofft, daß eine entsprechende Zusammenarbeit auch im Rah- men der Programme INTERREG 7 TACIS (CBC) entwickelt wird; C 339/50 Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften DE 29. 11. 2000 Dienstag, 15. Februar 2000 begrüßt es, daß die Begleit- und die Lenkungsausschüsse, die Verwaltungsbehörden und die Zahl- 13. stellen einen wirklich grenzübergreifenden bzw. transnationalen Charakter haben müssen; gibt zu bedenken, daß sich die Beschlüsse der Mitgliedstaaten zur Verbesserung der Klimasituation 14. und zur CO2-Reduzierung in der von INTERREG III geförderten grenzübergreifenden und transnationalen Zusammenarbeit widerspiegeln müssen; 15. begrüßt die Ausrichtung in jene drei Bereiche, die sich aus der Zusammenfassung entsprechender Prioritäten der laufenden Programmplanungsperiode ergeben; macht jedoch Vorbehalte geltend, bis es Kenntnis von der Beurteilung der Ergebnisse von INTERREG II hat; 16. begrüßt die Festlegung von finanziellen Quoten für die einzelnen Ausrichtungen sowie die indika- tive Aufteilung nach Mitgliedstaaten und hält eine flexible Marge für IIIA und IIIB für sinnvoll; fordert die Kommission jedoch auf, dafür zu sorgen, daß die Mitgliedstaaten die INTERREG-Mittel nicht für die bloße Umsetzung ihrer nationalen politischen Leitlinien verwenden, und darauf zu achten, daß die Entwicklung der begünstigten Regionen gerecht gefördert wird, indem diese Regionen ihre Quoten so aufteilen, daß die Mittel zugunsten der förderfähigen Gebiete gerecht gestaffelt werden, wobei insbesondere dem Bedarf die- ser Regionen und ihrer Kapazität, Projekte durchzuführen, Rechnung getragen wird; 17. sieht in der indikativen Liste der Kooperationsthemen für IIIA ausreichend Ansatzpunkte für quali- tativ hochwertige, grenzüberschreitende Projekte; erkennt, daß sich die Liste der förderfähigen Gebiete aus den derzeitigen Kooperationsräumen ableitet; bedauert, daß die Gebiete in Insellage und in äußerster Rand- lage in bezug auf IIIA nicht hinreichend berücksichtigt werden, obwohl anerkannt worden ist, daß diese Gebiete besonderer Aufmerksamkeit bedürfen; fordert die Kommission daher auf, klare und unanfechtbare Fördergrundsätze festzulegen, den Mitgliedstaaten jedoch im Rahmen der vorhandenen Haushaltsmittel mehr Flexibilität bei der Auswahl der Kooperationsräume für IIIA einzuräumen; 18. ist der Auffassung, daß in der grenzüberschreitenden Zusammenarbeit gesteigerter Wert auf die Verbesserung der Voraussetzungen für die Wirtschaftstätigkeit kleiner und mittlerer Unternehmen, insbe- sondere von Kleinstunternehmen und Handwerksbetrieben gelegt werden muß, da diese Unternehmen die meisten Arbeitsplätze schaffen und in Zeiten wirtschaftlicher Probleme ein stabilisierender Faktor sind; 19. begrüßt die Möglichkeit, Netze lokaler Dienstleistungen und Entwicklungs- und Beschäftigungsini- tiativen durch die Ausrichtung A zu unterstützen und erwartet, daß diese ausreichend Berücksichtigung finden; betont auch die zentrale Bedeutung der Förderung regionaler Verkehrsverbindungen und Energie- 20. versorgungsprojekte in den Grenzregionen innerhalb der Union und an ihren Grenzen; befürchtet im Fall von IIIB und im Zusammenhang mit den diesbezüglichen Mitteln eine zu starke 21. inhaltliche Einschränkung und schlägt auch hier eine nicht erschöpfende Liste der Maßnahmen vor, die für die gemeinschaftliche Kofinanzierung in Betracht kommen; wünscht, daß die Kooperationsräume im Rah- men der Ausrichtung IIIB denjenigen der derzeitigen Ausrichtung IIC entsprechen, um die bestehende Zusammenarbeit zwischen den Regionen nicht zu gefährden, wobei den Regionen in extremer Randlage besondere Aufmerksamkeit zu widmen ist; fordert die Kommission auf, klarzustellen, in welchem Umfang IIIA-Aktivitäten durchgeführt werden können, um die Zusammenarbeit zwischen Insel- und Küstenregio- nen zu verstärken; ist mit der Kommission der Meinung, daß im Rahmen von Ausrichtung IIIB ausgewählte Maßnah- 22. men praktische, sichtbare und innovative Ergebnisse zeitigen sollen; 23. mißt gerade im Hinblick auf den zu erzielenden Mehrwert der Gemeinschaftsinitiative der Ausrich- tung C große Bedeutung bei; bedauert die geringe budgetäre Dotierung von IIIC; fordert die Kommission auf, die Modalitäten für die Umsetzung dieser Ausrichtung zu präzisieren; fordert die Kommission auf, die Regionalbehörden in die Vorbereitung, Verwaltung und Umsetzung dieser Ausrichtung einzubinden und insbesondere die Kooperation zwischen Gebieten aus unterschiedlichen Kooperationsräumen im Rahmen der regionalen Zusammenarbeit zu ermöglichen; 24. begrüßt den Ansatz der Kommission, Netzwerke zur interregionalen und interkommunalen Zusam- menarbeit zu unterstützen; betont hier noch einmal die Kohärenz zwischen INTERREG III C und den EU- Programmen für eine dezentralisierte Zusammenarbeit im Bereich der Außenpolitik sowie die Möglichkei- ten für europäische lokale Gemeinden, einen integrierten internationalen Erfahrungsaustausch sowie Zusammenarbeit zu entwickeln; 29. 11. 2000 DE Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften C 339/51 Dienstag, 15. Februar 2000 25. ist der Auffassung, daß die Zusammenarbeit an den Binnengrenzen zur unproblematischen Abwick- lung alltäglicher Angelegenheiten der Bürger führen muß; erwartet daher, daß die Projekte des Programms auch die Verwirklichung der Grundrechte der Arbeitnehmer, Sozial- und Krankheitsschutz sowie die Frei- zügigkeit fördern; 26. fordert die Kommissionsdienststellen auf, die verschiedenen Instrumente 7 ISPA, MEDA, PHARE, SAPARD, TACIS und EEF 7, die in Drittländern für Kooperationsprojekte eingesetzt werden, besser mit INTERREG abzustimmen; weist erneut darauf hin, daß diese Abstimmung der Instrumente eine unverzicht- bare Voraussetzung für eine echte Kooperation ist; fordert die Kommission erneut auf, die Schaffung eines einzigen gemeinsamen Fonds zu prüfen; fordert die Kommission auf, ihm vor dem 1. Juni 2000 ihren Bericht über die Maßnahmen zur Verbesserung der Koordinierung von INTERREG mit den verschiedenen obengenannten Gemeinschaftsinstrumenten vorzulegen; bekräftigt, daß im Hinblick auf die unterschiedlichen rechtlichen und politischen Gegebenheiten in 27. der Union eine stärkere Flexibilität im Zusammenhang mit den Kompetenzen der Regionen und Gemein- den erforderlich ist; fordert die Kommission deshalb auf, zum Zwecke einer wirkungsvolleren Zusammen- arbeit die Schaffung von gemeinsamen Verwaltungsorganen mit transnationalem und grenzüberschreiten- dem Charakter zu unterstützen; 28. ist der Ansicht, daß die Kommission, wenn sie die Anwendung der Leitlinien der allgemeinen Rege- lung gewährleisten will, darauf achten muß, daß die Mitgliedstaaten und die Gebietskörperschaften die Wirtschafts- und Sozialpartner über Grundsatzerklärungen hinaus am gesamten Planungs- und Durchfüh- rungsprozeß des Programms effektiv beteiligen und diese Beteiligung prüfen; 29. fordert die Kommission und die Mitgliedstaaten auf, die Rolle und Verantwortung der Regionen an den EU-Grenzen nicht nur in der Erarbeitung regionaler Entwicklungskonzepte, sondern auch in der Umsetzung ihrer Kompetenzen zu stärken; das bedeutet auch, daß ein Teil der technischen Hilfe den Regionen dafür zur Verfügung gestellt werden soll; stellt fest, daß transnationale Projekte mit Drittländern im Rahmen von INTERREG oftmals an 30. fehlenden Finanzierungsmöglichkeiten in diesen Ländern scheitern; 31. ersucht daher die Kommission dringend, dafür zu sorgen, daß die verfahrensmäßigen Unvereinbar- keiten, beispielsweise zwischen PHARE-CBC-Verordnung und den INTERREG-Leitlinien nicht zu einer Blockade der EFRE-kofinanzierten Projekte führen; 32. erinnert daran, daß 50 % der Arbeitslosigkeit auf strukturelle Arbeitslosigkeit zurückzuführen ist, erwartet daher, daß die zur Verfügung gestellten INTERREG-Mittel die nationalen Maßnahmen zur Förde- rung der Beschäftigung ergänzen; betont die Bedeutung der Gemeinschaftsinitiativen für die Verbesserung der Beschäftigung in dünn besiedelten Gebieten; 33. fordert die Kommission auf, die Interventionen in den Mitgliedstaaten, für die INTERREG-Mittel zur Verfügung gestellt werden, genau zu bewerten, die Komplementarität mit anderen Strukturfondsinterven- tionen genau zu überwachen und die Kontrollmaßnahmen anzuwenden; fordert die Kommission nachdrücklich auf, darauf zu achten, daß die Durchführung von Vorhaben 34. im Rahmen von INTERREG nicht gegen die allgemeinen Rechtsvorschriften der Gemeinschaft verstößt; weist darauf hin, daß durch die möglichen neuen Aspekte im Rahmen von INTERREG der EFRE 35. seine Verwaltungskapazität in den Bereichen, in denen zur Zeit noch Erfahrung fehlt, wie z. B. Humanres- sourcen, Chancengleichheit, Fremdenverkehr, ländliche Entwicklung oder Förderung der Beschäftigung, beweisen muß; lehnt die Zuhilfenahme eines externen Dienstleistungsanbieters als Büro für technische Assistenz 36. durch die Kommission kategorisch ab; fordert die Kommission auf, sich hinsichtlich der Finanzierung der technischen Hilfe an die Bestim- 37. mungen von Artikel 23 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1260/1999 zu halten; 38. begrüßt es, daß eine europäische Beobachtungsstelle für die grenzüberschreitende, transnationale und interregionale Zusammenarbeit herangezogen wird, um die Entwicklung des räumlichen Zusammen- halts, der Raumordnung und des Verhältnisses zwischen Zentrum und Randregionen zu überwachen und so die bestehenden Ungleichgewichte zu ermitteln; C 339/52 Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften DE 29. 11. 2000 Dienstag, 15. Februar 2000 ist der Auffassung, daß eine finanzielle Einbeziehung der regionalen und lokalen Akteure bzw. eine 39. verstärkte Beteiligung der lokalen Verbände und des privaten Sektors unerläßlich ist; 40. fordert die Kommission und die Mitgliedstaaten auf, lokale und regionale Behörden, das Europäische Parlament und den Ausschuß der Regionen an der Ausarbeitung eines Arbeitsprogramms für die Beobach- tungsstelle zu beteiligen; 41. bedauert es, daß die Mitteilung der Kommission keine Empfehlungen an die Mitgliedstaaten enthält, die darauf abzielen, die innerstaatlichen Verfahren und Rechtsvorschriften für die Einreichung und Prüfung der Vorhaben durch die innerstaatlichen Behörden sowie für die Finanzierung, Durchführung und Kon- trolle zu vereinfachen; fordert die nationalen Behörden und die Gebietskörperschaften auf, die Zahlungen an die End- 42. empfänger so rasch wie möglich abzuwickeln; 43. fordert die Kommission auf, es regelmäßig über die Durchführung von INTERREG zu unterrichten, eine größtenteils gerechtfertigte Forderung in Anbetracht des unvollständigen Charakters ihres Vorschlags; beauftragt seine Präsidentin, diese Entschließung der Kommission und den Regierungen der Mit- 44. gliedstaaten zu übermitteln. 5. Entwicklung des ländlichen Raums (Leader+) A5-0024/2000 Entschließung des Europäischen Parlaments zu dem Entwurf einer Mitteilung der Kommission an die Mitgliedstaaten über die Leitlinien für die Gemeinschaftsinitiative für die Entwicklung des ländlichen Raums (Leader+) (KOM(1999) 475 7 C5-0259/1999 7 1999/2185(COS)) Das Europäische Parlament, 7 in Kenntnis des Entwurfs einer Mitteilung der Kommission (KOM(1999) 475 7 C5-0259/1999), 7 unter Hinweis auf seine Entschließung vom 5. Mai 1994 zur Zukunft der Gemeinschaftsinitiativen im Rahmen der Strukturfonds (Leader II), (1) 7 in Kenntnis der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1260/1999 des Rates vom 21. Juni 1999 mit allgemeinen Bestimmungen über die Strukturfonds (2) ab dem Jahr 2000, 7 unter Hinweis auf seine Entschließung vom 19. November 1998 (3) und seinen Beschluß vom 6. Mai 1999 (4) zu den allgemeinen Bestimmungen über die Strukturfonds, 7 in Kenntnis des Verhaltenskodex für die Durchführung der Strukturpolitiken durch die Kommission, (5) 7 unter Hinweis auf die Schlußfolgerungen des Europäischen Rates von Berlin vom 24. /25. März 1999, 7 unter Hinweis auf die Interinstitutionelle Vereinbarung vom 6. Mai 1999 zwischen dem Europäischen Parlament, dem Rat und der Kommission über die Haushaltsdisziplin und die Verbesserung des Haus- haltsverfahrens (6) sowie die Finanzielle Vorausschau, die integraler Bestandteil dieser Vereinbarung ist, 7 gestützt auf Artikel 47 Absatz 1 seiner Geschäftsordnung, 7 in Kenntnis des Berichts des Ausschusses für Landwirtschaft und ländliche Entwicklung sowie der Stellungnahme des Ausschusses für Regionalpolitik, Verkehr und Fremdenverkehr (A5-0024/2000), (1) ABl. C 205 vom 25. 7. 1994, S. 412. (2) ABl. L 161 vom 26. 6. 1999, S. 1. (3) ABl. C 379 vom 7. 12. 1998, S. 164. (4) ABl. C 279 vom 1. 10. 1999, S. 292. (5) ABl. C 279 vom 1. 10. 1999, S. 488. (6) ABl. C 172 vom 18. 6. 1999, S. 1


title: ΓΡΑΠΤΗ ΕΡΩΤΗΣΗ E-0386/00 υποβολή: Vasco Graça Moura (PPE-DE) προς την Επιτροπή. Πληρωμές στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση Κατάρτισης στη Δημοσιογραφία (ΕΕΚΔ).

eurovoc_concepts:
EU financing
communications profession
vocational training

text: C 303 E/186 Epi·shmh Efhmeri·da tvn Eyrvpai¤kv·n Koinoth·tvn EL 24. 10. 2000 H Epitroph· den gnvri·zei ta stoixei·a sta opoi·a anafe·retai o k. boyleyth·w. Oi plhrofori·ew poy pare·xei den arkoy·n v·ste na ejetastei· endelexv·w h kata·stash. Se ayto· to sta·dio den ypa·rxoyn peisth·ria gia dia·krish lo·gv iuage·neiaw. Par(cid:146) o·la ayta·, h Epitroph· ei·nai diateueime·nh na ejeta·sei thn en lo·gv peri·ptvsh efo·son diateuoy·n perisso·tera stoixei·a. (2000/C 303 E/211) GRAPTH ERVTHSH E-0377/00 ypobolh·: John McCartin (PPE-DE) prow thn Epitroph· (14 Febroyari·oy 2000) Ue·ma: Forologikh· apallagh· gia tiw mikre·w epixeirh·seiw Mporei· h Epitroph· na epishma·nei an proetoima·zei nomouetike·w prota·seiw poy ua epitre·poyn thn apallagh· tvn mikrv·n epixeirh·sevn apo· thn apai·thsh xorh·ghshw a·deiaw ek me·royw thw Epitroph·w gia tiw kratike·w enisxy·seiw; Ea·n nai, perilamba·nontai kai oi forologike·w apallage·w; Po·te proble·petai na oristikopoihuoy·n oi prota·seiw ayte·w; Apa·nthsh toy k. Monti ej ono·matow thw Epitroph·w (22 Marti·oy 2000) Sy·mfvna me ton kanonismo· toy Symboyli·oy (EK) ariu. 994/98 thw 7hw Marti·oy 1998, gia thn efarmogh· tvn a·rurvn 92 kai 93, thw synuh·khw EK (sh·mera a·rura 87 kai 88), sxetika· me orisme·new kathgori·ew orizonti·vn kratikv·n enisxy·sevn (1), h Epitroph· ejoysiodotei·tai na ekdi·dei kanonismoy·w gia thn ejai·resh orisme·nvn kathgoriv·n me·trvn orizo·ntiaw eni·sxyshw apo· thn ypoxre·vsh koinopoi·hshw. Oi kathgori·ew, oi opoi·ew kaly·pton- tai apo· ayto·n ton kanonismo·, perilamba·noyn enisxy·seiw prow tiw mikromesai·ew epixeirh·seiw (MME). Stiw 28 Ioyli·oy 1999, h Epitroph· yioue·thse e·na sxe·dio kanonismoy· apallagh·w gia enisxy·seiw prow MME, to opoi·o ua ekdouei· sthn Epi·shmh Efhmeri·da tvn EK. H Epitroph· skopey·ei na ekdo·sei ton kanonismo· me·xri ton Ioy·lio 2000. O kanonismo·w ua ori·sei me·xri poio o·rio e·ntashw ua apalla·sontai orisme·new enisxy·seiw apo· thn ypoxre·vsh koinopoi·hshw. Oi enta·seiw ayte·w efarmo·zontai asxe·tvw me thn morfh· tvn enisxy·sevn kai kata· syne·peia isxy·oyn vw prow tiw forologike·w ekptv·seiw h· apallage·w ype·r tvn MME. (1) EE L 142 thw 14. 5. 1998. (2000/C 303 E/212) GRAPTH ERVTHSH E-0386/00 ypobolh·: Vasco Graça Moura (PPE-DE) prow thn Epitroph· (15 Febroyari·oy 2000) Ue·ma: Plhrvme·w sthn Eyrvpai¤kh· (cid:201)nvsh Kata·rtishw sth Dhmosiografi·a (EEKD) Gia poioyw lo·goyw h Genikh· Diey·uynsh Paidei·aw kai Politismoy·, anti·ueta me tiw analhfuei·sew desmey·seiw, den e·xei ako·mh kataba·lei sthn Eyrvpai¤kh· (cid:201)nvsh Kata·rtishw sth Dhmosiografi·a (EEKD) to 50 % toy ko·stoyw tvn sxedi·vn poy aforoy·n sta e·th 1998 kai 1999; Po·te proble·petai na pragmatopoihuoy·n oi en lo·gv plhrvme·w; Poia morfh· sth·rijhw prow thn EEKD proble·petai gia to tre·xon e·tow; 24. 10. 2000 EL Epi·shmh Efhmeri·da tvn Eyrvpai¤kv·n Koinoth·tvn C 303 E/187 Apa·nthsh thw k. Reding ej ono·matow thw Epitroph·w (30 Marti·oy 2000) H Epitroph· diathrei· kale·w sxe·seiw me thn Eyrvpai¤kh· (cid:201)nvsh Kata·rtishw sthn Dhmosiografi·a (EJTA) kai ektima· idiai·tera to pro·gramma· thw gia thn epimo·rfvsh tvn mellontikv·n eyrvpai·vn dhmosiogra·fvn. H Epitroph· parei·xe eth·sia xrhmatodotikh· yposth·rijh se dia·fora sxe·dia «Euroreporter» ta teleytai·a de·ka xro·nia h opoi·a e·ftase tiw 200 000 € ethsi·vw. Oi kauysterhme·new plhrvme·w ek me·royw thw Epitroph·w ofei·lontai kyri·vw sthn kauysterhme·nh ypobolh· tvn telikv·n ekue·sevn apo· th Grammatei·a thw EJTA xvri·w tiw opoi·ew den mporoy·n na gi·noyn desmey·seiw gia ne·ew aith·seiw. H telikh· e·kuesh thw EJTA gia to 1997 kai h ai·thsh gia to 1998 ypoblh·uhkan poly· arga· v·ste na ejasfalistei· xrhmatodotikh· eni·sxysh apo· thn Epitroph· gia to 1998. H Epitroph· den e·xei th dynato·thta yposth·rijhw programma·tvn anadromika·. (cid:211)son afora· to «Euroreporter» 1999, to prv·to 50 % thw symbolh·w e·xei h·dh katablhuei· kai to ypo·loipo ua katablhuei· mo·liw h Epitroph· la·bei apo· thn EJTA toyw telikoy·w logariasmoy·w gia to 1999. Kami·a epi·shmh ai·thsh den e·xei ako·ma ypoblhuei· apo· thn EJTA sthn Epitroph· gia to e·tow 2000. (2000/C 303 E/213) GRAPTH ERVTHSH E-0389/00 ypobolh·: Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) prow to Symboy·lio (16 Febroyari·oy 2000) Ue·ma: Genetike·w analy·seiw stiw opoi·ew ypo·keintai oi metana·stew sthn Elbeti·a To thleoptiko· pro·gramma «Mise au Point» thw gallo·fvnhw elbetikh·w thleo·rashw TSR, gnvstopoi·hse thn perasme·nh Kyriakh· thn y·parjh eno·w nomosxedi·oy poy h·dh bri·sketai sta xe·ria thw omospondiakh·w symboy·loy Ruth Metzler. Sy·mfvna me thn ekpomph·, to en lo·gv nomosxe·dio proble·pei pvw oi ypoch·fioi metana·stew poy epikaloy·ntai to dikai·vma thw oikogeneiakh·w syne·nvshw ua ypo·keintai mellontika· se analy·seiw genetikoy· xarakth·ra poy aposkopoy·n sthn epalh·ueysh toy ba·simoy tvn isxyrismv·n toyw. Lamba·nontaw ypo·ch to gegono·w o·ti ypa·rxei symfvni·a metajy· Eyrvpai¤kh·w (cid:201)nvshw kai Elbetikh·w Synomospon- di·aw: 1. Me poio tro·po skopey·ei h Eyrvpai¤kh· (cid:201)nvsh na antidra·sei e·nanti se ayta· ta anhsyxhtika· dei·gmata jeno·foboy xarakth·ra ta opoi·a, sthn prokeime·nh peri·ptvsh, parape·mpoyn se nazistike·w praktike·w; 2. Ti· skopey·ei na pra·jei h Portogalikh· Proedri·a toy Symboyli·oy, e·xontaw ypo·ch o·ti polya·riumoi je·noi poli·tew, ana·mesa stoyw opoi·oyw kai poli·tew poy kata·gontai apo· dia·fora kra·th me·lh, zoyn kai erga·zontai sth xv·ra ayth·; Apa·nthsh (13 Aprili·oy 2000) To Symboy·lio den mporei· na la·bei ue·sh gia to ue·ma tvn programma·tvn poy ekpe·mpei h thleo·rash sthn opoi·a anafe·retai h Ajio·timh Kyri·a Boyleyth·w. (2000/C 303 E/214) GRAPTH ERVTHSH P-0390/00 ypobolh·: Liam Hyland (UEN) prow thn Epitroph· (8 Febroyari·oy 2000) Ue·ma: `rnhsh toy Israh·l na douei· uev·rhsh eiso·doy (VISA) se poli·tew tvn HPA Stiw 10 Oktvbri·oy 1999, apagorey·thke h ei·sodow sto Israh·l se 25melh· oma·da miaw kauolikh·w filanurvpikh·w orga·nvshw apo· thn Komhtei·a Wexford thw Irlandi·aw, env· para·llhla ta en lo·gv a·toma ype·sthsan kakometa- xei·rish apo· thn astynomi·a kai sykofanth·uhkan apo· ta MME. Meta· apo· pare·mbash ychla· istame·nvn


title: SKRIFTLIG FRÅGA E-0387/00 från Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) till kommissionen. Galiciska båtar bordade av den irländska örlogsflottan.

eurovoc_concepts:
Galicia
Ireland
common fisheries policy
fishing regulations

text: C 374 E/64 Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning SV 28. 12. 2000 (2000/C 374 E/074) SKRIFTLIG FR¯GA E-0387/00 fr(cid:229)n Camilo Nogueira RomÆn (Verts/ALE) till kommissionen ˜mne: Galiciska b(cid:229)tar bordade av den irl(cid:228)ndska (cid:246)rlogsflottan (15 februari 2000) Under de senaste dagarna har galiciska b(cid:229)tar som fiskat i Gran Sol-zonen flera g(cid:229)nger prejats av enheter ur den irl(cid:228)ndska flottan, med motiveringen att tekniska oegentligheter f(cid:246)relegat. B(cid:229)tarna har sl(cid:228)ppts fria efter att ha betalat ett symboliskt b(cid:246)tesbelopp, men de ekonomiska f(cid:246)rluster som uppst(cid:229)tt d(cid:229) b(cid:229)tarna h(cid:229)llits kvar och inte kunnat fiska (cid:228)r mycket stora. K(cid:228)nner kommissionen till dessa h(cid:228)ndelser, som st(cid:228)ndigt upprepar sig, och de p(cid:229)tryckningar de galiciska fiskeb(cid:229)tarna uts(cid:228)tts f(cid:246)r? Anser kommissionen att de irl(cid:228)ndska myndigheternas beteende (cid:228)r korrekt? Svar fr(cid:229)n Franz Fischler p(cid:229) kommissionens v(cid:228)gnar (13 mars 2000) Kommissionen k(cid:228)nner inte till de h(cid:228)ndelser som parlamentsledamoten tar upp. Kommissionen ber parlamentsledamoten att l(cid:228)mna utf(cid:246)rliga upplysningar f(cid:246)r att den skall kunna g(cid:246)ra de efterforskningar som kr(cid:228)vs. (2000/C 374 E/075) SKRIFTLIG FR¯GA P-0392/00 fr(cid:229)n Inger Sch(cid:246)rling (Verts/ALE) till kommissionen ˜mne: Offentlighetsprincipen och meddelarskyddet (8 februari 2000) I svensk press har kommission(cid:228)r Neil Kinnock h(cid:228)vdat att offentlighetsprincip och meddelarskydd enligt svensk modell inte passar f(cid:246)r EG-kommissionen. Enligt Kinnocks mening skulle tydligen viktiga beslut fattas informellt om offentlighetsprincipen inf(cid:246)rdes och meddelarskyddet skulle leda till ett ut(cid:246)kat hemlig- hetsmakeri. Kinnock har vidare h(cid:228)vdat att Paul van Buitenen f(cid:246)rvandlats fr(cid:229)n en god uppgiftsl(cid:228)mnare som avsl(cid:246)jade fusk inom kommissionen till en ond uppgiftsl(cid:228)mnare som verkar f(cid:246)r att svartm(cid:229)la kommissionen som institution. Kan kommission(cid:228)r Kinnock n(cid:228)rmare f(cid:246)rklara p(cid:229) vilka grunder han har dragit slutsatsen att offentlighets- principen och meddelarskyddet skulle f(cid:229) motsatt effekt till den avsedda om de anv(cid:228)ndes inom EU? Kan kommission(cid:228)ren mer detaljerat beskriva vad det (cid:228)r i Paul van Buitenens agerande som gjort att han f(cid:246)rvandlats fr(cid:229)n en god till en ond uppgiftsl(cid:228)mnare? Svar fr(cid:229)n Neil Kinnock p(cid:229) kommissionens v(cid:228)gnar (24 mars 2000) Kommission publicerade nyligen sitt f(cid:246)rslag till f(cid:246)rordning om allm(cid:228)nhetens tillg(cid:229)ng till Europaparlamen- tets, r(cid:229)dets och kommissionens handlingar (1). I f(cid:246)rslaget fastst(cid:228)lls principer och regler som kommissionen anser n(cid:246)dv(cid:228)ndiga f(cid:246)r att s(cid:228)kerst(cid:228)lla (cid:246)ppenhet betr(cid:228)ffande institutionernas information f(cid:246)r de europeiska medborgarna. Vid f(cid:246)rslagets f(cid:246)rberedande beaktade kommissionen b(cid:229)de de positiva erfarenheter som erh(cid:229)llits i samband med uppf(cid:246)randekodexen (2), medlemsstaternas lagstiftning om tillg(cid:229)ng till handlingar, s(cid:228)rskilt god praxis i de nordiska l(cid:228)nderna, och gemenskapernas s(cid:228)rskilda situation. Parlamentet och r(cid:229)det kommer att diskutera denna text och slutligen lagstifta om denna fr(cid:229)ga