title: SCHRIFTELIJKE VRAAG E-1093/00 van Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) aan de Commissie. Antibiotica in kippeneieren.

eurovoc_concepts:
European social policy
Italy
antibiotic
egg
food safety

text: C 72 E/18 Publicatieblad van de Europese Gemeenschappen NL 6. 3. 2001 3. Hoe en met welke resultaten controleert de Commissie de controlemaatregelen harerzijds, en welke maatregelen zijn er om tekortkomingen op te heffen? (1) PB L 318 van 27. 11. 1998, blz. 63. Antwoord van de heer Fischler namens de Commissie (12 mei 2000) 1. De Commissie is zich er terdege van bewust dat het motorvermogen op vele manieren kan worden gemanipuleerd en dat daardoor de controle op het motorvermogen wellicht nooit geheel toereikend zal zijn. Voorschriften tot vaststelling van een maximumgrens voor het motorvermogen voor boomkorvaar- tuigen zijn evenwel noodzakelijk en zijn vervat in artikel 29 van Verordening (EG) nr. 850/98 van de Raad van 30 maart 1998 voor de instandhouding van de visbestanden via technische maatregelen voor de bescherming van jonge exemplaren van mariene organismen (1). 2. Technische voorschriften zijn misschien gemakkelijker en sneller te controleren. Als de maximum- grens voor het motorvermogen echter volledig door dergelijke voorschriften wordt vervangen, zouden vaartuigen, ongeacht grootte en motorvermogen, in de zogenaamde scholbox kunnen binnenvaren, waardoor deze eigenlijk overbodig zou worden en het effect van de maatregelen voor de instandhouding van jonge schol gedeeltelijk of geheel verloren zou gaan. De Commissie is bereid na te gaan of nog andere technische maatregelen (cid:129) waaronder de door het geachte parlementslid voorgestelde maatregelen (cid:129) kunnen worden genomen ter aanvulling van de beperking van het motorvermogen. De controle op en de rechtshandhaving ten aanzien van de communautaire voorschriften valt onder 3. de bevoegdheid van de lidstaten. Als een lidstaat een vaartuig onderschept dat de voorschriften overtreedt, moet deze lidstaat passende gerechtelijke maatregelen treffen. Helaas hebben sommige lidstaten niet altijd gebruik gemaakt van de maatregelen die zij kunnen nemen om te controleren of de wettelijke voor- schriften worden overtreden, bijvoorbeeld de controle van het brandstofverbruik van het vaartuig. De inspectiedienst van de Commissie moet erop toezien dat de lidstaten hun verplichtingen op passende wijze nakomen. De Commissie heeft de laatste jaren op dit punt een aantal onderzoeken verricht, op grond waarvan zij vermoedt (cid:129) echte bewijzen ontbreken echter (cid:129) dat er tekortkomingen zijn. Om daaraan een einde te maken dient te worden nagegaan hoe het motorvermogen in alle lidstaten op dezelfde wijze kan worden gemeten, waarbij er ook aan moet worden herinnerd dat tussen de lidstaten aanzienlijke verschillen bestaan terzake van de juridische interpretatie van de voorwaarden om het motorvermogen te bepalen. De Commissie neemt momenteel maatregelen om een Europese norm voor de meting van het motorver- mogen van vaartuigen te ontwerpen en zal wellicht in een volgend stadium communautaire voorschriften voorstellen om het gebruik van deze norm op te leggen. (1) PB L 125 van 27. 4. 1998. (2001/C 72 E/021) SCHRIFTELIJKE VRAAG E-1093/00 van Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) aan de Commissie (7 april 2000) Betreft: Antibiotica in kippeneieren In de maanden november en december heeft het Italiaanse consumentenvakblad (cid:132)Altroconsumo(cid:148) in verschillende supermarkten van de steden Rome en Milaan 32 verschillende verpakkingen met eieren gekocht en de inhoud onderzocht. De onderzochte eieren vielen in de categorie A, het waren dus eieren, die vers moeten worden gegeten en die van de beste kwaliteit moeten zijn. Daarbij werden in negen gevallen de in eieren verboden antibiotica sulfonamide en chinolonderivaat aangetoond. 6. 3. 2001 NL Publicatieblad van de Europese Gemeenschappen C 72 E/19 Tijdens de fok en ter voorkoming van ziekten krijgen de dieren geneesmiddelen. De eieren die in deze periode of onmiddellijk daarna worden gelegd, moeten begrijpelijkerwijze worden vernietigd. Dat geldt ook voor het geval dat de behandeling wordt stopgezet. Het is absoluut noodzakelijk een zekere termijn te laten verstrijken zodat de stoffen uit het organisme van de kippen kunnen worden uitgescheiden, en het is volstrekt duidelijk dat deze termijn niet in acht werd genomen. De consumptie van met antibiotica besmette eieren heeft tot gevolg dat bepaalde bacteriºn resistenter worden en de mens aan deze stoffen went, waardoor de doeltreffendheid van antibiotica in geval van ziekte wordt ondergraven. Kan de Commissie meedelen of deze problematiek haar bekend is en of zij maatregelen denkt te nemen om de bescherming van de consument en dus ook van de gezondheid van de burgers in de Unie te waarborgen? Antwoord van de heer Byrne namens de Commissie (9 juni 2000) Overeenkomstig bijlage II van Richtlijn 96/23/EG van de Raad van 29 april 1996 inzake controlemaat- regelen ten aanzien van bepaalde stoffen en residuen in levende dieren en producten daarvan (1), dient er toezicht te worden gehouden met betrekking tot antibiotica, waaronder sulfonamiden en quinolonen, in eieren, ongeacht of deze stoffen reeds zijn goedgekeurd voor de behandeling van leghennen. De Commissie heeft het Italiaanse nationale rapport met de resultaten over 1999 van het monitoring- programma niet ontvangen. Naar aanleiding van de vraag van het geachte parlementslid is aan de Italiaanse autoriteiten een vraag gericht over deze zaak en afhankelijk van het antwoord zullen maatregelen worden getroffen. (1) PB L 125 van 23. 5. 1996. (2001/C 72 E/022) SCHRIFTELIJKE VRAAG E-1115/00 van Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) aan de Commissie (11 april 2000) Betreft: Bescherming van dieren tijdens vervoer In 1999 heeft de Commissie vijf rapporten over veterinaire missies naar diverse lidstaten gepubliceerd waaruit blijkt dat richtlijn 91/628/EEG van de Raad inzake de bescherming van dieren tijdens het vervoer (1) (zoals gewijzigd bij richtlijn 95/29/EG van de Raad (2)) op grote schaal wordt geschonden. Welke stappen onderneemt de Commissie om de lidstaten erop te wijzen dat: 1. 2. zij routeplannen van de hand moeten wijzen waarin geen voorzieningen zijn opgenomen om schapen en runderen na een reistijd van 29 uur te lossen, te voederen en te drenken en 24 uur te laten rusten; (cid:132)eenvoudige(cid:148) voertuigen die niet voldoen aan verordening 411/98 van de Raad (3), niet mogen worden gebruikt om dieren langer dan 8 uur te vervoeren? (1) PB L 340 van 11. 12. 1991, blz. 17. (2) PB L 148 van 30. 6. 1995, blz. 52. (3) PB L 52 van 21. 2. 1998, blz. 8. Antwoord van de heer Byrne namens de Commissie (22 mei 2000) De Commissie is zich ervan bewust dat nog steeds vervoer van dieren in de Gemeenschap plaatsvindt dat niet in overeenstemming is met de bepalingen van Richtlijn 91/628/EEG van de Raad van 19 november 1991 inzake de bescherming van dieren tijdens het vervoer en tot wijziging van de Richtlijnen 90/425/ EEG en 91/496/EEG (1), gewijzigd bij Richtlijn 95/29/EG (2) van 29 juni 1995


title: PERGUNTA ESCRITA E-1086/00 apresentada por Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE-DE) à Comissão. Estudo sobre as necessidades de abastecimento de lombos de atum. Objectivos da Comissão.

eurovoc_concepts:
EU market
common organisation of markets
fishery product
market research
supply
suspension of customs duties
tariff quota

formats: html pdf print

text: 13. 3. 2001 PT Jornal Oficial das Comunidades Europeias C 81 E/17 Central e Oriental. Existem actualmente cada vez mais provas de que a redes albanesas, que antigamente costumavam usar como prostitutas sobretudo mulheres de origem albanesa, passaram a diversificar o seu recrutamento, fazendo-o agora sobretudo noutros pa(cid:237)ses da Europa de Leste, sendo presentemente em especial as mulheres moldavas as v(cid:237)timas destas redes criminosas. Foi confirmado por recentes relat(cid:243)rios que as redes de prostitui(cid:231)ªo albanesas sªo particularmente activas em ItÆlia, em Fran(cid:231)a, na BØlgica e no Reino Unido. Tais relat(cid:243)rios aludem igualmente ao uso de extrema violŒncia contra as v(cid:237)timas e (cid:224)s suas liga(cid:231)ıes a outras esferas do crime organizado. Embora se desconhe(cid:231)a a verdadeira escala do problema, dada a inexistŒncia de estat(cid:237)sticas fidedignas e vÆlidas, o problema da prostitui(cid:231)ªo (for(cid:231)ada) e da angaria(cid:231)ªo de mulheres para o efeito constitui motivo de sØria preocupa(cid:231)ªo no Conselho, que estÆ bem consciente da gravidade da situa(cid:231)ªo. No quadro do processo de alargamento da UE, o Conselho e onze Estados candidatos da altura aprovaram, em 28 de Maio de 1998, o «Pacto de prØ-adesªo sobre criminalidade organizada entre os Estados-membros da Uniªo Europeia e os pa(cid:237)ses candidatos da Europa Central e Oriental e Chipre», no qual sªo enumeradas diversas medidas prÆticas de combate (cid:224) criminalidade organizada, bem como a outras formas de crime graves, incluindo o trÆfico de seres humanos e as redes de imigra(cid:231)ªo ilegal. Como previsto no Cap(cid:237)tulo 24, «Coopera(cid:231)ªo no dom(cid:237)nio da Justi(cid:231)a e Assuntos Internos», a capacidade dos Estados candidatos para cumprirem as exigŒncias do acervo comunitÆrio no que respeita (cid:224) preven(cid:231)ªo e combate (cid:224) criminalidade organizada Ø monitorizada durante o processo de negocia(cid:231)ªo com vista (cid:224) sua adesªo. No relat(cid:243)rio apresentado ao Conselho Europeu de Lisboa pelo SecretÆrio-Geral/Alto Representante em articula(cid:231)ªo com a Comissªo, sobre a situa(cid:231)ªo nos Balcªs Ocidentais no dom(cid:237)nio da Justi(cid:231)a e dos Assuntos Internos Ø formulada a seguinte recomenda(cid:231)ªo em matØria de luta contra o crime organizado: «O problema do crime organizado tem de ser integrado no contexto de todo o Sudeste Europeu. Para que os esfor(cid:231)os de combate ao crime organizado tenham Œxito, terªo de tirar partido de uma coordena(cid:231)ªo alargada com outras iniciativas anti-crime na regiªo, assim como ao n(cid:237)vel europeu mais amplo. DeverÆ ser criada uma estratØgia e um plano de ac(cid:231)ªo em estreita rela(cid:231)ªo com o Pacto de PrØ-Adesªo sobre Criminalidade Organizada entre os Estados-membros da Uniªo Europeia e os Pa(cid:237)ses Candidatos da Europa Central e Oriental e Chipre de 28 de Maio de 1998. Este modelo poderÆ ser transposto para o Sudeste Europeu, no (cid:226)mbito do Processo de Estabiliza(cid:231)ªo e Associa(cid:231)ªo e sob a Øgide do Pacto de Estabilidade. O objectivo da estratØgia e do plano de ac(cid:231)ªo deverÆ ser promover uma estrutura policial eficiente, capaz de lutar contra o crime organizado, um sistema judiciÆrio dotado dos poderes necessÆrios e criar uma base jur(cid:237)dica adequada para o combate (cid:224) corrup(cid:231)ªo». No quadro do Pacto de Estabilidade, o Secretariado-Geral do Conselho participa de forma activa na elabora(cid:231)ªo da iniciativa relativa ao crime organizado na Europa do Sudeste e na ultima(cid:231)ªo de um programa completo de forma(cid:231)ªo policial, em geral, e de combate ao crime organizado, em particular destinado aos pa(cid:237)ses da regiªo (2001/C 81 E/018) PERGUNTA ESCRITA E-1086/00 apresentada por Carmen Fraga EstØvez (PPE-DE) (cid:224) Comissªo (7 de Abril de 2000) Objecto: Estudo sobre as necessidades de abastecimento de lombos de atum. Objectivos da Comissªo A Comissªo publicou um estudo encomendado pelo Conselho para conhecer as necessidades de abasteci- mento de lombos de atum ao mercado comunitÆrio. O referido estudo foi solicitado na sequŒncia da proposta da Comissªo de incluir no novo regulamento sobre a organiza(cid:231)ªo comum do mercado de produtos da pesca e da aquicultura uma suspensªo pautal indefinida para o referido produto. As conclusıes do referido estudo indicam, como entªo afirmaram o Parlamento Europeu e diversos Estados- -membros, que as necessidades reais de abastecimento de lombos de atum nªo vªo alØm de uma quantidade que oscila entre as 1 000 e as 2 000 toneladas anuais; que uma suspensªo pautal s(cid:243) beneficiaria uma parte da indœstria de conservas italiana e que, de qualquer modo, o referido benef(cid:237)cio seria meramente conjuntural, jÆ que as referidas empresas necessitariam de uma restrutura(cid:231)ªo profunda para melhorarem a sua estrutura de custos; que, alØm disso, a referida suspensªo indefinida geraria perdas entre as outras partes (a indœstria espanhola, os pa(cid:237)ses ACP e os pa(cid:237)ses latino-americanos, parceiros comerciais da UE) e que nem sequer beneficiaria o pa(cid:237)s exportador, a Tail(cid:226)ndia, que estÆ mais interessado em desenvolver o seu C 81 E/18 Jornal Oficial das Comunidades Europeias PT 13. 3. 2001 mercado de conservas de atum. Tendo em conta estas conclusıes e que, como foi dito, os Estados- -membros produtores e o Parlamento Europeu vinham a denunciar hÆ tempos a inutilidade do referido regime de suspensªo pautal e as graves consequŒncias da sua aplica(cid:231)ªo, Pergunta-se (cid:224) Comissªo: (cid:129) Qual foi o objectivo efectivo da Comissªo ao instaurar o referida suspensªo pautal? (cid:129) Que avalia(cid:231)ªo fez a Comissªo da gravidade das consequŒncias desta suspensªo, sabendo que esta era denunciada pelo sector, pelo Parlamento Europeu e pelo Estados-membros produtores? (cid:129) EstÆ a Comissªo consciente de que pode ser acusada de conivŒncia il(cid:237)cita com uma determinada empresa para a favorecer em detrimento da restante indœstria comunitÆria e dos pa(cid:237)ses ACP e SPG? (cid:129) Que confian(cid:231)a podem ter os cidadªos na Comissªo perante a irresponsabilidade com que sªo tomadas as decisıes? Resposta dada por Franz Fischler em nome da Comissªo (5 de Junho de 2000) A Comissªo lamenta as inexactidıes referidas na pergunta escrita do Sr. Deputado. A Comissªo gostaria de recordar que nªo tornou pœblico o estudo mencionado pelo Sr. Deputado. A Comissªo transmitiu o estudo unicamente ao Conselho e (cid:224) Comissªo de Pescas do Parlamento. Com efeito, o documento contØm nomeadamente um grande nœmero de dados sobre as empresas privadas comunitÆrias, espanholas, francesas e italianas (por exemplo as partes de mercado, o volume de neg(cid:243)cios, a posse de ac(cid:231)ıes), podendo a publica(cid:231)ªo desses dados ser prejudicial para a competitividade dessas empresas (ver c(cid:243)digo de conduta comum do Conselho e da Comissªo relativo ao acesso do pœblico aos documentos, executado pela Comissªo, em 8 de Fevereiro de 1994, pela Decisªo 94/90/CECA, CE, Euratom de 8 de Fevereiro de 1994 (1), com a redac(cid:231)ªo que lhe foi dada pela Decisªo 96/567/CECA, CE, Euratom (2)). (cid:201) tambØm inexacto afirmar que o estudo foi pedido na sequŒncia da proposta da Comissªo destinada a incluir no novo regulamento de organiza(cid:231)ªo comum de mercado dos produtos da pesca e da aquicultura uma suspensªo pautal para esse produto. Na realidade, Ø o resultado de um compromisso assumido pela Comissªo, a pedido do Conselho, aquando da adop(cid:231)ªo por este œltimo do Regulamento (CE) no 745/1999 do Conselho, de 30 de Mar(cid:231)o de 1999, relativo (cid:224) abertura e modo de gestªo de contingentes pautais comunitÆrios aut(cid:243)nomos para determinados produtos da pesca (3) para o ano de 1999 que previa, pelo terceiro ano consecutivo, um contingente pautal para os lombos de atum. No respeitante (cid:224) suspensªo pautal a que se refere o Sr. Deputado, a Comissªo recorda que, com o seu acordo, a referida medida nªo foi adoptada pelo Conselho aquando da aprova(cid:231)ªo da nova organiza(cid:231)ªo comum de mercado para os produtos da pesca e da aquicultura. Com efeito, foi encontrada uma solu(cid:231)ªo de compromisso (um contingente pautal plurianual de 4 000 toneladas) que preserva os interesses de todas as partes presentes e que foi apoiado por todos os Estados-membros produtores de atum. (1) (2) (3) JO L 46 de 18. 2. 1994. JO L 247 de 28. 9. 1996. JO L 96 de 10. 4. 1999. (2001/C 81 E/019) PERGUNTA ESCRITA E-1096/00 apresentada por Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) (cid:224) Comissªo (7 de Abril de 2000) Objecto: Impacto ambiental na constru(cid:231)ªo de um cais na Regiªo Aut(cid:243)noma da Madeira No vale do Porto Novo (concelho de Santa Cruz (cid:129) Regiªo Aut(cid:243)noma da Madeira), estÆ em constru(cid:231)ªo um cais, com financiamentos comunitÆrios, mais concretamente do Fundo de Desenvolvimento Regional (FEDER)


title: Nařízení Komise (ES) č. 738/2000 ze dne 7. dubna 2000 o zařazení určitého zboží do kombinované nomenklatury

eurovoc_concepts:
Combined Nomenclature
cable transport
hoisting equipment

text: 380 CS Úřední věstník Evropské unie 02/sv. 9 32000R0738 8. 4. 2000 ÚŘEDNÍ VĚSTNÍK EVROPSKÝCH SPOLEČENSTVÍ L 87/10 NAŘÍZENÍ KOMISE (ES) č. 738/2000 ze dne 7. dubna 2000 o zařazení určitého zboží do kombinované nomenklatury KOMISE EVROPSKÝCH SPOLEČENSTVÍ, s ohledem na Smlouvu o založení Evropského společenství, s ohledem na nařízení Rady (EHS) č. 2658/87 ze dne 23. čer- vence 1987 o celní a statistické nomenklatuře a o společném cel- ním sazebníku (1), naposledy pozměněné nařízením Komise (ES) č. 2626/1999 (2), a zejména na článek 9 uvedeného nařízení, vzhledem k těmto důvodům: (1) (2) (3) (4) K zajištění jednotného uplatňování kombinované nomen- klatury tvořící přílohu uvedeného nařízení je nezbytné přijmout opatření k zařazení zboží uvedeného v příloze tohoto nařízení. Nařízení (EHS) č. 2658/87 stanovilo všeobecná pravidla pro výklad kombinované nomenklatury a že se tato pravi- dla vztahují i na každou jinou nomenklaturu, která je na ní plně nebo částečně založena nebo k ní přidává další třídění a která je zřízena zvláštními předpisy Společenství za úče- lem uplatňování celních a jiných opatření týkajících se obchodu se zbožím. Podle uvedených všeobecných pravidel musí být zboží popsané ve sloupci 1 tabulky v příloze tohoto nařízení zařazeno na základě odůvodnění ve sloupci 3 do odpoví- dajících kódů KN uvedených ve sloupci 2. Je účelné, aby závazné informace o sazebním zařazení zboží do kombinované nomenklatury, které vydaly orgány členských států a které nejsou v souladu s tímto nařízením, mohla osoba, které byly tyto informace vydány, nadále používat po dobu tří měsíců v souladu s čl. 12 odst. 6 nařízení Rady (EHS) č. 2913/92 ze dne 12. října 1992, kte- rým se vydává celní kodex Společenství (3); naposledy pozměněného nařízením Rady a Evropského parlamentu (ES) č. 955/1999 (4). Opatření tohoto nařízení jsou, pokud jde o výrobky č. 1 až 4 a 6, v souladu se stanoviskem Výboru pro celní kodex. Výbor pro celní kodex nezaujal, pokud jde o výrobek č. 5 v tabulce v příloze, stanovisko ve lhůtě stanovené jeho předsedou, (5) (6) PŘIJALA TOTO NAŘÍZENÍ: Článek 1 Zboží popsané ve sloupci 1 tabulky v příloze se v kombinované nomenklatuře zařazuje do odpovídajících kódů KN uvedených ve sloupci 2 této tabulky. Článek 2 Závazné informace o sazebním zařazení zboží, které vydaly celní orgány členských států a které nejsou v souladu s tímto nařízením, mohou být podle čl. 12 odst. 6 nařízení Rady (EHS) č. 2913/92 nadále používány po dobu tří měsíců. Článek 3 Toto nařízení vstupuje v platnost dvacátým dnem po vyhlášení v Úředním věstníku Evropských společenství. Toto nařízení je závazné v celém rozsahu a přímo použitelné ve všech členských státech. V Bruselu dne 7. dubna 2000. Za Komisi Frederik BOLKESTEIN člen Komise (1) Úř. věst. L 256, 7. 9. 1987, s. 1. (2) Úř. věst. L 321, 14. 12. 1999, s. 3. (3) Úř. věst. L 302, 19. 10. 1992, s. 1. (4) Úř. věst. L 119, 7. 5. 1999, s. 1. 02/sv. 9 CS Úřední věstník Evropské unie 381 PŘÍLOHA Zařazení (Kód KN) (2) 3917 31 90 Odůvodnění (3) Zařazení se zakládá na všeobecných pravidlech 1, 3 písm. b) a 6 pro výklad kombinované nomenklatury, na poznámce 8 ke kapitole 39 a na kódů KN 3917, 3917 31 znění a 3917 31 90. Plastová trubka, která je rozhodujícím prvkem pro přepravu materiálu, určuje hlavní charakter výrobku. 3926 90 99 Zařazení se zakládá na všeobecných pravidlech 1, 3 písm. b) a 6 pro výklad kombinované nomenklatury a na znění kódů KN 3926, 3926 90 a 3926 90 99. Svazek plastových trubek, které jsou rozho- dujícím prvkem pro přepravu materiálu, určuje hlavní charakter výrobku. Popis zboží (1) 1. Ohebný výrobek používaný pro teplotně řízený rozvod plynů nebo kapalin. Skládá se z následujících částí (v pořadí zevnitř ven): — ohebná určená k přepravě materiálu odolávající tlaku 27,6 Mpa nebo více, plastová trubka — elektrický přepravní plátem, topný pás, který je od trubky oddělen hliníkovým — vrstva hliníkové fólie, která pokrývá přepravní trubku, topný pás a hliníkový plát, — izolovaný elektrický kabel k regulaci top- ného pásu, — vrstva netkaného materiálu, — vnější potah z ohebného syntetického materiálu. Výrobek se dováží na metry bez spojek 2. Ohebný výrobek používaný pro teplotně řízený rozvod plynů nebo kapalin. Skládá se z následujících částí (v pořadí zevnitř ven): — svazek ohebných plastových trubek urče- ných k přepravě materiálu, — elektrický přepravní plátem, je od topný pás, který trubky oddělen hliníkovým — vrstva hliníkové fólie, která pokrývá přepravní trubky, topný pás a hliníkový plát, — izolovaný elektrický kabel k regulaci top- ného pásu, — vrstva netkaného materiálu, — vnější potah z ohebného syntetického materiálu. Výrobek se dováží na metry bez spojek. Zařazení se zakládá na všeobecných pravidlech 1 a 6 pro výklad kombinované nomenklatury a na kódů KN 8705, 8705 90 znění a 8705 90 90. Vozidlo je motorovým vozidlem pro zvláštní účely čísla 8705. 3. Vozidlo vybavené hydraulickým zvedacím 8705 90 90 zařízením a pracovní plošinou. Vozidlo sestává z nákladního šasi s kabinou pro řidiče a spolucestující. Je poháněno die- selovým motorem. Je vhodné i k samostat- nému pohybu po veřejných komunikacích. Zvedací zařízení tvoří nedílnou součást vozi- dla. Skládá se z teleskopického vertikálně pohyblivého ramene, které může rotovat. Má pracovní plošinu o rozměrech 0,60 m x 1,20 m a bezpečnostní zábradlí. Ovládání zvedacího zařízení je umístěno na plošině. Vozidlo má čtyři zatahovací stabilizátory, které jsou po dobu, kdy je zvedací zařízení v provozu, spuštěny na zem. Maximální výška zvedacího zařízení je 12 m a užitečné zatížení 325 kg. Viz obrázek A. (*) (*) Obrázky jsou pouze ilustrativní. 382 CS Úřední věstník Evropské unie 02/sv. 9 Popis zboží (1) Zařazení (Kód KN) (2) Odůvodnění (3) Zařazení se zakládá na všeobecných pravidlech 1 a 6 pro výklad kombinované nomenklatury a na kódů KN 8427, 8427 10 znění a 8427 10 10. Toto vozidlo s vlastním pohonem je určeno k přepravě zboží a ke zvedání zboží a osob. Zařazení se zakládá na všeobecných pravidlech 1 a 6 pro výklad kombinované nomenklatury a na kódů KN 8428, 8428 90 znění a 8428 90 98. Toto vozidlo s vlastním pohonem není vhodné k přepravě zboží. Je určeno pouze ke zvedání zboží a osob. 4. Vozidlo vybavené hydraulickým zvedacím zařízením a pracovní plošinou a vidlicí. 8427 10 10 Vozidlo je vybaveno motorem na elektrické baterie, který uvádí do chodu zvedací zařízení a pohání vozidlo. Ovládání zvedacího zařízení je umístěno na pracovní plošině. Vozidlo není vhodné pro jízdu po veřejných komunikacích. Maximální výška zvedacího zařízení 2,50 m a užitečné zatížení 1 200 kg. je Viz obrázek B. (*) 5. Vozidlo vybavené hydraulickým zvedacím 8428 90 98 zařízením a pracovní plošinou. Vozidlo sestává z plošiny, na které je umís- těno zvedací zařízení a elektrický motor, který pohání vozidlo a zvedací zařízení. Ovládání zvedacího zařízení je umístěno na pracovní plošině. Vozidlo má čtyři velká kola (12,5 x 16"). Má stoupavost 25 % a maxi- mální rychlost 4,3 km/h. Pokud není taženo jiným motorovým vozidlem, není vhodné k jízdě po veřejných komunikacích. Zvedací zařízení tvoří nedílnou součást vozi- dla. Skládá se z teleskopického horizontálně a vertikálně se pohybujícího ramene. Má pra- covní plošinu o rozměrech 0,66 m × 1,5 m a bezpečnostní zábradlí. Maximální výška zvedacího zařízení 15,5 m a užitečné zatížení 227 kg. je Viz obrázek C. (*) 6. Hydraulické zvedací zařízení se čtyřmi koly 8428 90 98 a pracovní plošinou Zvedací zařízení má motor používaný k pohánění zvedacího ramene. Ovládání teleskopického ramene je umístěno na pra- covní plošině. Zvedací zařízení má čtyři zatahovatelné sta- bilizátory, které jsou po dobu, kdy je zvedací zařízení v provozu, spuštěny na zem. Nemá motor umožňující jízdu. Není vhodné pro jízdu po veřejných komunikacích. Zařazení se zakládá na všeobecných pravidlech 1 a 6 pro výklad kombinované nomenklatury kódů KN 8428, 8428 90 znění a na a 8428 90 98. Toto zvedací zařízení nemá vlastní pohon a není vhodné k přepravě zboží. Je určeno pouze ke zvedání zboží a osob. Hydraulické zvedací zařízení sestává z teles- kopického pohybujícího ramene. Má pracovní plošinu o rozměrech 0,66 m x 0,66 m a bezpečnostní zábradlí. vertikálně se Maximální výška zvedacího zařízení 12,8 m a užitečné zatížení 160 kg. je Viz obrázek D. (*) (*) Obrázky jsou pouze ilustrativní. 02/sv. 9 CS Úřední věstník Evropské unie 383


title: SCHRIFTLICHE ANFRAGE E-1087/00 von Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE-DE) an die Kommission. Spezifische Probleme der italienischen Konservenindustrie.

eurovoc_concepts:
European industrial area
Italy
cannery
common fisheries policy
fish

text: 13. 2. 2001 DE Amtsblatt der Europ(cid:228)ischen Gemeinschaften C 46 E/121 Antwort von Frau Wallstr(cid:246)m im Namen der Kommission (18. Mai 2000) Im Anschlu(cid:223) an die Petition 79/98 des Petitionsausschusses des Europ(cid:228)ischen Parlaments und die schrift- liche Anfrage 1824/99 von Herrn Nogueira Rom(cid:224)n (1) hat die Kommission Kenntnis von den Fakten erhalten, die die Frau Abgeordnete in Zusammenhang mit dem Bau eines Staudamms am Flu(cid:223) Umia in der N(cid:228)he der Gemeinde Caldas de Reis in Galizien nennt. Der von der Kommission diesbez(cid:252)glich von Amts wegen festgestellte Fall ist unter der Kennziffer B-1999/2271 registriert. Bei der Bearbeitung dieser Akte hat die Kommission die spanischen Beh(cid:246)rden um Auskunft zu dem vorstehend genannten Projekt und der durchgef(cid:252)hrten Umweltvertr(cid:228)glichkeitsstudie ersucht. Die Antwort der spanischen Beh(cid:246)rden ist mittlerweile eingegangen und wird derzeit von der Kommission gem(cid:228)(cid:223) der Richtlinie 85/337/EWG des Rates vom 27. Juni 1985 (cid:252)ber die Umweltvertr(cid:228)g- lichkeitspr(cid:252)fung bei bestimmten (cid:246)ffentlichen und privaten Projekten (2) gepr(cid:252)ft. Es ist zu beachten, da(cid:223) das Gebiet, in dem der von der Fraun Abgeordneten genannte Staudamm errichtet werden soll, von den spanischen Beh(cid:246)rden nicht als (cid:132)besonderes Vogelschutzgebiet(cid:147) gem(cid:228)(cid:223) Artikel 4 der Richtlinie 79/409/EWG des Rates vom 2. April 1979 (cid:252)ber die Erhaltung der wildlebenden Vogelarten (3) eingestuft wurde. Es handelt sich nach dem 1998 von nationalen Sachverst(cid:228)ndigen und Birdlife f(cid:252)r die Kommission erstellten Verzeichnis auch nicht um ein Gebiet, das von Fachwissenschaftlern als (cid:132)Gebiet f(cid:252)r die Erhaltung von Vogelarten(cid:147) eingestuft wurde. Au(cid:223)erdem haben die spanischen Beh(cid:246)rden dieses Gebiet nicht in ihrer nationalen Liste von Gebieten von gemeinsamem Interesse aufgef(cid:252)hrt, die nach der Richtlinie 92/43/EWG des Rates vom 21. Mai 1992 zur Erhaltung der nat(cid:252)rlichen Lebensr(cid:228)ume sowie der wildle- benden Tiere und Pflanzen (4) k(cid:252)nftig in das Netz Natura 2000 aufgenommen werden k(cid:246)nnten. Folglich scheint diese Angelegenheit unter Naturschutzgesichtspunkten in die ausschlie(cid:223)liche Zust(cid:228)ndigkeit der nationalen und regionalen spanischen Beh(cid:246)rden zu fallen. In jedem Fall wird die Kommission in ihrer Eigenschaft als H(cid:252)terin der Vertr(cid:228)ge die notwendigen Ma(cid:223)nahmen ergreifen, um die Einhaltung des Gemeinschaftsrechts im vorliegenden Fall zu gew(cid:228)hrleisten. (1) ABl. C 225 E vom 8. 8. 2000, S. 25. (2) ABl. L 175 vom 5. 7. 1985, S. 40. (3) ABl. L 103 vom 25. 4. 1979, S. 1. (4) ABl. L 206 vom 22. 7. 1992, S. 7. (2001/C 46 E/130) SCHRIFTLICHE ANFRAGE E-1087/00 von Carmen Fraga EstØvez (PPE-DE) an die Kommission Betrifft: Spezifische Probleme der italienischen Konservenindustrie (7. April 2000) Aus den Schlu(cid:223)folgerungen der Studie (cid:252)ber den Zulieferungsbedarf der Industrie der Gemeinschaft an Thunfischfilets geht hervor, da(cid:223) die Probleme der Wettbewerbsf(cid:228)higkeit dieser Industrie sich auf Struktur- probleme bestimmter italienischer Betriebe beschr(cid:228)nken (Kostenstruktur). Kann die Kommission in Anbetracht dessen mitteilen, was sie dazu veranla(cid:223)t hat, anzunehmen, da(cid:223) ein Strukturproblem einiger Unternehmen durch unterschiedslos angewandte Handelsma(cid:223)nahmen gel(cid:246)st werden kann, die die Wettbewerbsf(cid:228)higkeit der restlichen Industrie der Gemeinschaft verringern w(cid:252)rden, so wie sie in ihrem Vorschlag f(cid:252)r eine Verordnung f(cid:252)r die gemeinsame Marktorganisation f(cid:252)r Erzeugnisse der Fischerei und der Aquakultur vorgeschlagen werden? Teilt die Kommission die Schlu(cid:223)folgerungen dieser Studie? Beabsichtigt die Kommission, irgendeine Strukturma(cid:223)nahme zu ergreifen, durch die die Umstrukturierung dieser Unternehmen unterst(cid:252)tzt und die Wettbewerbsf(cid:228)higkeit gef(cid:246)rdert wird? C 46 E/122 Amtsblatt der Europ(cid:228)ischen Gemeinschaften DE 13. 2. 2001 Antwort von Herrn Fischler im Namen der Kommission (16. Mai 2000) Die Kommission ist nicht der Ansicht, da(cid:223) die Probleme der Wettbewerbsf(cid:228)higkeit der gemeinschaftlichen Thunfischkonservenindustrie allein auf Strukturprobleme bestimmter italienischer Betriebe beschr(cid:228)nkt sind. Sie empfiehlt die aufmerksame Pr(cid:252)fung der Studie, die im Auftrag der Kommission zu diesem Thema erstellt wurde. Darin wird auf bestehende und potentielle strukturelle Schw(cid:228)chen aller Unternehmen der Gemeinschaft hingewiesen. Selbstverst(cid:228)ndlich k(cid:246)nnen nur strukturelle Ma(cid:223)nahmen, die in erster Linie von den Wirtschaftsteilnehmern selbst beschlossen werden m(cid:252)ssen, auf lange Sicht die Wettbewerbsf(cid:228)higkeit dieser Unternehmen wieder- herstellen. Die Kommission ist ihrerseits bereit, diese Schritte zu unterst(cid:252)tzen, wenn sie sich in den In der Zwischenzeit Rahmen der Strukturprogramme der Mitgliedstaaten im Fischereisektor einf(cid:252)gen. k(cid:246)nnen konjunkturelle Ma(cid:223)nahmen, wie der Rat sie seit 1997 j(cid:228)hrlich in Form von Zollkontingenten f(cid:252)r Thunfischfilets trifft, eine f(cid:252)r die Thunfischkonservenindustrie der Gemeinschaft willkommene L(cid:246)sung bieten. Im Jahr 1997 wurde das Kontingent f(cid:252)r Thunfischfilets von Spanien zu 56 % und von Italien zu 44 % genutzt. Wie bereits in den Antworten auf die schriftlichen Anfragen E-756/00 bis E-761/00 von Herrn Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (1) festgestellt, kann die Kommission dem Inhalt dieser Studie insgesamt beipflichten, da sie eine gute Analyse der Fakten, Schwierigkeiten und strategischen Optionen des gesamten Sektors liefert. (1) ABl. C 26 E vom 26. 1. 2001, S. 104. (2001/C 46 E/131) SCHRIFTLICHE ANFRAGE E-1094/00 von Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) an die Kommission Betrifft: Baumwollanbau in Griechenland (7. April 2000) Gem(cid:228)(cid:223) der interministeriellen Entscheidung Nr. 38570/10. 2. 2000 des Landwirtschafts- und des Innen- ministeriums definiert der griechische Staat den Baumwollanbau als (cid:132)kontrollierte Anbauart(cid:147) und sieht Auflagen f(cid:252)r die betreffenden Erzeuger vor, was in der Praxis allerdings darauf hinausl(cid:228)uft, da(cid:223) ein Gro(cid:223)teil interessierter B(cid:252)rger keine Baumwolle anbauen darf. So k(cid:246)nnen z. B. Erzeuger, die bereits Baumwolle anbauen und ihre Produktion im Vergleich zum Durchschnittswert der letzten drei Jahre erh(cid:246)hen wollen, dies nicht tun, und Landwirte, die mit der Produktion beginnen wollen, k(cid:246)nnen dies nur unter der Bedingung, da(cid:223) sie die landwirtschaftlichen Fl(cid:228)chen durch Erbe erworben haben. K(cid:246)nnte die Kommission mir mitteilen, ob ihr diese Situation bekannt ist und, ob sie der Meinung ist, da(cid:223) diese und andere Bestimmungen der obengenannten interministeriellen Entscheidung Griechenlands mit den Gemeinschaftsvorschriften in Einklang stehen, und wenn nein, welche Ma(cid:223)nahmen sie zur Beendigung dieser Situation zu treffen gedenkt? Antwort von Herrn Fischler im Namen der Kommission (10. Mai 2000) Die Kommission ist vor kurzem (cid:252)ber die von dem Herrn Abgeordneten erw(cid:228)hnte Angelegenheit informiert worden. Zur Zeit l(cid:228)uft eine Anfrage bei den griechischen Beh(cid:246)rden, um die amtlichen, den eigentlichen Ministerialerla(cid:223) betreffenden Gesetzestexte zu erhalten. Die Kommission kann sich somit noch nicht zu diesem Thema (cid:228)u(cid:223)ern


title: Report from the Commission to the Budgetary Authority on guarantees covered by the general budget - situation at 31 December 1999

eurovoc_concepts:
Community budget
insured risk


title: Mitteilung der Kommission an das Europäische Parlament gemäß Artikel 251 Absatz 2, zweiter Unterabsatz des EG-Vertrages über den gemeinsamen Standpunkt des Rates zum Vorschlag für eine Richtlinie des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates zur Angleichung der Rechtsvorschriften der Mitgliedstaaten über den vorderen Unterfahrschutz von Kraftfahrzeugen und zur Änderung der Richtlinie 70/156/EWG des Rates ("Front underrun protection")

eurovoc_concepts:
approximation of laws
motor vehicle
safety standard
vehicle parts


title: Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee on the implementation of Decision 3052/95/CE in 1997 and 1998

eurovoc_concepts:
exchange of information
free movement of goods
marketing
single market
technical specification

formats: html pdf

text: COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 07. 04. 2000 COM(2000)194 final REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL,THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the implementation of Decision 3052/95/CE in 1997 and 1998 REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL,THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the implementation of Decision 3052/95/CE in 1997 and 1998 Executive summary Among the instruments necessary for the management of the single market, Decision 3052/95/EC plays a pivotal role. In a single market, products that have been lawfully produced and marketed in one Member State can also be marketed in any other Member State. However, there may be situations where a Member States’ authorities will have to restrict the circulation of a product, whether domestic or imported, on the market because the specific characteristics of that product present a danger to the consumer, the environment or public order in general. The single market therefore, whilst establishing the principle of free circulation of products, also charges Member States with the task of effectively protecting the legitimate interests of its citizens. The objective of Decision 3052/95/EC is to ensure that every decision by the authorities of a Member State which restricts the free circulation of goods legally marketed in other Member States is brought to the attention of the Commission and the other Member States as quickly as possible, allowing the latter to take any appropriate steps. Such transparency is the prerequisite for efficient decentralised management of the single market. It may also serve to detect areas where obstacles continue to exist and where harmonisation at Community level might be called for. Apart from Decision 3052/95/EC, a range of specific single market instruments provide for different forms of transparency: all New Approach Directives contain safeguard clauses which require Member States to signal temporary derogation to the rules of free circulation to the Commission and the Member States. Directive 92/59/EEC on product safety provides for a notification procedure whereby Member States notify the withdrawal from the market of a product that is unsafe. In contrast to these ex-post notifications, the information directive 98/34/EC provides for notification of all technical regulations prior to their adoption. Decision 3052/95/EC applies in the absence of any other specific obligation of notification. It can therefore be considered as the catch all provision or the “safety-net” for ensuring transparency of single market management. To date 102 measures have been notified under Decision 3052/95/EC. This seems low in comparison to the number of measures notified under specific instruments, such as the product safety directive or the information directive. Several factors are having an impact. First of all, the novelty of the instrument requires a certain amount of familiarisation/training of national administrations. Linked to that national authorities have difficulties in identifying Decision 3052/95/EC as the appropriate notification procedure within a range of transparency instruments. Communication between the Commission – central government administrations and decentralised local authorities is 2 sometimes hampered. Finally, economic operators rarely invoke Decision 3052/95/EC as a “right” to obtain adequate information and justification concerning product restrictions. This report concludes that information efforts on the working and the added value of Decision 3052/95/EC have to be stepped up at European, national and regional level. In addition, it raises the issue of a longer term reflection on “what kind of transparency” is required to manage the single market and how it can best be obtained. 3 INTRODUCTION Decision No 3052/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1995 establishing a procedure for the exchange of information on national measures derogating from the principle of the free movement of goods within the Community1 (hereafter referred to as "the Decision"), has been in force in the Member States since 1 January 1997. The Decision establishes an information procedure designed to ensure the transparency of measures adopted by the Member States by derogation from the principle of mutual recognition. The principle of mutual recognition is a cornerstone of the completion and functioning of the single market. It provides for freedom of movement in all Member States of products legally manufactured or marketed in another Member State. Only in exceptional and duly justified cases do the authorities of a Member State have the right to derogate from the principal of free movement. In this way, the single market establishes free movement of products, while charging the authorities of Member States with ensuring that the said free movement does not jeopardise the legitimate interests of EU citizens. There are two reasons why this Decision is an essential component of efficient management of the internal market. • It ensures that any decision made by a Member State which has the effect of restricting the free movement of goods is notifiable and transparent. Although a number of sectoral directives and the Directive on product safety lay down notification procedures, this Decision is valuable because it covers all the cases where no specific notification procedure is provided for. • The Decision’s goal of transparency is a corollary of the deliberately decentralised management practised by the authorities of the Member States. If a Member State adopts measures which restrict the free circulation of goods from another Member State, this must be brought to the attention of the remaining Member States and the Commission so that a rapid and appropriate solution may be found at Community level to actions which may call into question the free movement of goods and the legitimate interests of consumers. Article 11 of the Decision states that, within two years of its implementation, the Commission shall report to the European Parliament and the Council on its operation and shall propose any amendment it deems appropriate. The report is divided into three parts describing, firstly, the mechanics of the Decision, (1), then its implementation by Member States (2) and the Commission (3) during the first two years, in order to draw a number of conclusions (4). 1 OJ L 321, 30. 12. 1995, p. 1. 4 1. THE PROCEDURE PROVIDED FOR BY THE DECISION The Decision requires Member States to notify the Commission of all measures which restrict the free movement of goods or the marketing of a certain model or a certain type of product which is legally manufactured and sold in another Member State if the direct or indirect effect of the measure is a complete ban, a refusal to authorise its marketing, a requirement to modify the model or type of the product in question in order allow its (continued) marketing, or a withdrawal from the market. This notification must take place within 45 days of the date the measure was taken. The only formal condition is that an information sheet containing the particulars listed in the annex must be used. The Decision also provides for a number of exceptions to the notification requirement. In particular, notification is not required for judicial decisions, measures taken solely in pursuance of Community harmonisation measures, measures notified to the Commission under specific provisions, measures notified as drafts, or measures relating to the protection of public morality or public order. Finally, as required under Article 9 of the Decision, the Commission is required to provide Community-wide information on national measures notified pursuant to this procedure. The Commission is required to respect the principle of confidentiality, which includes professional secrecy, as referred to in Article 6 of the Decision. Also, without prejudice to unresolved cases, the Commission is required to provide information on any follow-up action decided on. The procedure laid down in the decision is described in a vade mecum that the Commission has sent to the Member States. 2. 2. 1 IMPLEMENTATION BY MEMBER STATES Implementation of the decision by Member States As required by the second sentence of Article 11 of the Decision, the relevant Commission department wrote to the Member States on 24 November 1998, asking them to pass on any relevant information on how they implement the Decision. A reminder was sent on 22 January 1999 to the Member States which had not replied by the deadline. Summaries of the information supplied by the Member States are provided below. Belgium In a letter dated 12 February 1999, the Belgian authorities informed the Commission that an inter-ministerial meeting specifically on preparing to implement the Decision had been held on 29 November 1996 in order to remind the relevant authorities of how to apply the Decision. At this meeting, CIBELNOR, a Belgian centre under the authority of the Belgian standards institute was designated as the Belgian contact point for the Decision. A further inter-ministerial meeting was held on 11 June 1998. The finality of the decision, the need for authorities to have contact points available, and the possibility of sanctions when the Decision was not applied were emphasised. A bilateral meeting between the Commission and the Belgian authorities took place on 23 September 1998. An effort is being made to have a 5 network of contact points in the relevant administrations follow up on the problematic point that there have not yet been any notifications from Belgium. Denmark In a letter dated 10 December 1998, the Danish authorities stated that the Danish Industrial Development Board’s circular No 145 of 11 September 1996 informed their departments of the procedure laid down in the Decision. Moreover, yearly information meetings are held to keep the departments informed. The Danish authorities forward the notifications from other Member States sent on by the Commission to the relevant departments and to certain professional organisations for their information and to learn of their opinion. Germany The German authorities, in a letter of 29 December 1998, stated that (as the Commission had been informed in a letter dated 17 December 1996) all Federal and regional authorities subject to the notification requirement under the Decision had been informed of this requirement. The German authorities pointed out that, during the period under consideration, 21 measures affecting health protection (food sector) had been notified by the national contact authority designated in accordance with Article 7 of the Decision. Spain In a note dated 26 February 1999, the Spanish authorities informed the Commission that a central contact point had been set up in the Secretaría de Estado de Política Exterior y para la Unión Europea. Contact points had also been established in every ministry affected by the Decision and all the Autonomous Communities. All the contact points are the same as those set up under Directive 98/34. The central contact point has prepared several notes concerning information on or interpretations of how the Decision is to be applied. The notes, the Decision and the vade mecum have all been sent to the contact points. For their part, the contact points of the various ministries and the Autonomous Communities prepared recommendations and information notes on the Decision which were then distributed to the authorities. The central contact point distributes the Spanish version of the notification sheet to the other contact points which are responsible for distributing them. An article on the Decision written for economic and social operators has been published in the Revista de Comercio Española. France In their note of 4 December 1998, the French authorities stated that the Decision had been the subject of a circular from the Prime Minister, dated 26 July 1996, relating to the reciprocal procedure on national measures derogating from the principle of the free movement of goods within the Community2. The circular defines the procedures which must be adhered to by the national authorities with regard to French notifications, and the treatment of notifications from other Member States. The annexes to the circular contain the vade mecum on the Decision and the notification sheet. 2 Prime Minister’s circular of 26 July 1996 establishing a procedure for the exchange of information on national measures derogating from the principle of the free movement of goods within the Community, published in the Official Journal of the French Republic of 31 July 1996, p. 11592. 6 Ireland In a letter dated 19 January 1999, the Irish authorities informed the Commission that the Decision had been implemented through an administrative procedure identical to the one used to apply Directive 83/189. It enables the authority responsible for implementing the Decision to formally notify all government departments and the public authorities concerned of their obligations under the Decision. Italy In a letter dated 30 December 1998, the Italian authorities confirmed that implementation of the Decision had been the subject of a Communication from the Ministry of Industry, Trade and the Craft Trades on 14 January 19973. It was addressed to all Italian administrations. Luxembourg The Luxembourg authorities indicated in their note of 21 December 1998 that the Ministry of Energy, which is responsible for this sector, had not issued a single notification of measures derogating from the principle of the free movement of goods since the Directive entered into force. The Netherlands In a letter dated 1 February 1999, the Dutch authorities reiterated that the Centrale Dienst voor In- en Uitvoer (CDIU) had been designated as the contact point pursuant to Article 7 of the Decision. They added that they had made the authorities responsible for implementing the Decision aware of the requirements set out in it and of the Commission’s vade mecum. Moreover, as part of the Interdepartementale Werkgroep Notificatie, a manual had been prepared to assist the services concerned with implementing the Decision. A copy of this manual was enclosed with the letter from the Dutch authorities. The Dutch authorities emphasised how useful the meeting with the Commission held on 27 April 1998 had been in preparing this manual, as the practical aspects of implementation had been addressed. They also suggested that discussion on these matters should continue, for example, at a future meeting of the Committee set up under Directive 98/34/EC. Moreover, a meeting of the national authorities was to be held in 1999 to compare experiences and restate the requirements laid down in the Decision. Austria On 30 December 1998, the Austrian authorities sent a fax containing detailed information on how they had implemented the Decision. Several meetings were organised by the Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs in 1996, during which the Decision, the vade mecum and the note were distributed. On 17 December 1996, the Council of Ministers adopted a circular on implementation of the Decision, which, together with the vade mecum and the note, was sent to the regional authorities, among others. 3 Communication of the Ministry of Trade and Industry No 16185 of 14 January 1997. Not published. 7 Portugal In a note dated 19 February 1999, the Portuguese authorities reiterated that their Decision 30/97 of 11 November 1997 had set up the Instituto Português da Qualidade as the national contact point responsible for the notification procedure instituted by the Decision. The Portuguese authorities stressed the efforts they had made to inform economic operators of the information collected under the Decision, most notably by setting up an Internet site. They also noted that, up to now, the majority of notifications concerned foodstuffs, medicines or chemicals. Finland In a letter of 12 January 1999, the Finnish authorities informed the Commission that the responsible departments had implemented the Decision by means of administrative cooperation between the authorities and administrative agreements. In this context, the departments took the following action: informing the other ministries and authorities of the content of the decision and that it had come into force, describing the sectors which were not subject to harmonisation and holding meetings and seminars on the application of the Decision. In addition, during a package meeting which took place on 9 October 1998, the relevant departments, in cooperation with the Internal Market DG, held a conference on the application of the decision. Sweden In a letter dated 23 December 1998, the Swedish authorities pointed out that regulation 1996:830 requires both national administrations and local authorities to provide the information relevant to the Decision. The national contact point has also laid down rules for its implementation4. In spite of the efforts already made, the relevant services recognise that additional action must be taken to ensure that the Decision is applied at all administrative levels, particularly locally and regionally, where the need for information is most strongly the Swedish authorities have raised several problems concerning the felt. Moreover, implementation of the Decision: the division between the different information procedures is unclear; the Decision does not cover the measures taken by certain private bodies; nor does it cover certain types de measures such as preliminary contacts, which may nonetheless affect the free movement of goods; obtaining information from other Member States is difficult; and lastly, they have some doubts concerning notifications of measures taken in fields that are in the process of harmonisation. United Kingdom In a letter dated 27 January 1999, the British authorities stated that they had not yet notified any measures up to that time. Their explanation for this is that the measures which require notification under this Decision have often already been notified under other notification procedures. The Decision was implemented in the United Kingdom via an administrative circular of 11 December 1996. Nonetheless, having recently examined how the Decision was being applied, the British authorities stated that new guidelines would soon be sent to the departments along with a reminder of their obligations under the Decision. The national authorities also stressed that they were eager to be kept informed of the conclusions that the 4 KFS 1996:3 : National Board of Trade rules for providing information on national measures derogating from the principle of the free movement of goods within the Community. 8 Commission drew from the notifications it received. Lastly, they emphasised that they were experiencing difficulty identifying the country of production of certain products, and thus in deciding whether measures affecting them were notifiable. As for the national authorities competent under Article 7 of the Decision, the Member States provided the Commission with the details of those which had been appointed to transmit or receive the information referred to in the Decision. The complete list of them is given in Annex I. 2. 2 Breakdown of notifications 2. 2. 1 Member States During 1997, the year in which the Decision came into force as set out in Article 12, the Commission received a total of 33 notifications from the following Member States (see Annex 2): - the French Republic (26 notifications); - the Federal Republic of Germany (four notifications); - the Republic of Finland (three notifications). In 1998 (see Annex 2), the number of notifications increased to 69. They were issued by just four Member States: - the Hellenic Republic (43 notifications); - the Federal Republic of Germany (18 notifications); - the French Republic (five notifications); - the Kingdom of Denmark (three notifications). However, the number of notifications remains unsatisfactory and must be increased, since it is apparent that numerous national measures which fall within the scope of the Decision have not been notified. As Annex 3 shows, the notified measures concern important sectors of the economy which are regularly the subject of national measures. The following Member States have not notified any measures: - Austria; - Belgium; - Spain; - Ireland; - Italy; - Luxembourg; - The Netherlands; 9 - Portugal; - Sweden; - United Kingdom. 2. 2. 2 European Economic Area In accordance with Decision No 16/97 of 26 March 1997 of the Joint Committee of the European Economic Area (EEA)5, the Decision is also applicable in all Signatory States of the EEA as from 1 December 1998. Consequently, pursuant to Article 109 of and Protocol 1 to the Agreement on the EEA, the Commission has, since 1 December 1998, been forwarding to the EFTA (European Free Trade Association) Surveillance Authority notifications which it receives pursuant to the Decision. The Surveillance Authority reciprocates by forwarding the notifications which it receives from the EEA member countries to the responsible Commission departments. Within the framework of cooperation provided for by Article 109 of the EEA Agreement, however, the EFTA Surveillance Authority may also have access to notifications received by the Commission between 1 January 1997 and 30 November 1998, during which time the Decision was in force in the European Union but not in the EEA. The fact that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has not forwarded notifications by the EEA countries to the Commission since 1 December 1998 is because the Decision only recently came into force in the EEA. This also explains why the Commission does not yet have any information on specific administrative arrangements. 3 3. 1 IMPLEMENTATION BY THE COMMISSION Internal procedures established by the Commission The unit responsible for implementing the Decision at the Commission is the department of the Internal Market DG which handles complaints about obstacles to the free movement of goods. When it receives the notification sheet, registers it and provides an acknowledgement of receipt. The notification sheet is then forwarded to the Commission departments which are responsible for the field affected by the notification. this department The sheet is then translated into all the EU languages and sent to all the Member States for their information and any observations. 3. 2 Action taken by the Commission to promote the implementation of the Decision The Commission held information sessions as part of the package meetings on the free movement of goods which are held with the Member States (Articles 28 to 30 of the EC Treaty). Other bilateral meetings between some Member States and the Commission also took place in order to solve problems as they arose. 5 Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 16/97 of 26 March 1997 amending Annexe II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement, OJ L 182, 10/12/1997, p. 49. 10 In addition, at the same time that Member States were adopting the Decision, the Commission adopted a vade mecum for it. It is designed to help the relevant national authorities determine which measures must be notified under the information procedure. The Commission distributed the vade mecum, in particular at the above-mentioned package meetings. Also, in accordance with Article 10 of the Decision, the Standing Committee established by Directive 98/34/EC (ex Directive 83/189/EEC) was kept informed of how the procedure was working and, in particular, of how Member States were implementing it. This Committee, and the Chairpersons of the package meetings at their meeting on 6 February 1998 and 12 February 19996, were also informed of certain practical issues and the difficulties of interpretation which had been encountered in the first two years of its implementation. Moreover, in order to improve implementation of the Decision and promote the transparency of national measures for the benefit of economic operators, the Commission used its meetings with the various professional organisations to inform them of the entry into force of the Decision and the implementation procedures. 3. 3 Coordination with other community instruments Article 8 of the Decision ensures that the different notification procedures are coordinated. To a great extent, management of the single market is decentralised and handled by the authorities in the Member States. The principle of administrative cooperation between Member States is the foundation of this decentralised management. Transparency of the actions undertaken by these authorities is the essential ingredient of this cooperation. Several kinds of instruments help to ensure it. 3. 3. 1 Notifications under the New Approach Directives The New Approach Directives lay down notification procedures which ensure that management measures, and in particular measures refusing mutual recognition of a product, remain transparent (e. g. directives on simple pressure vessels, toy safety, medical devices, gas lifts, safety of appliances, personal protective equipment, electromagnetic compatibility, machinery, etc. ). Under these Directives, freedom of movement is ensured for all products which comply with their requirements. Only in very specific circumstances may the Member States invoke the safeguard clause provided in the Directives to withdraw a product from the Market. The Commission must be notified of the withdrawal and will examine it according to the procedure provided for in the safeguard clause of the New Approach Directives. As a general indication, the 1997 and 1998 notification figures for some key directives are given in Annexes 4 and 5. 6 Meeting with representative of national authorities chairing the package meetings on the free movement of goods (Articles 28 to 30 of the EC Treaty) and on public procurement on 6 February 1998. 11 3. 3. 2 Notifications under Directive 92/59. Directive 92/59/CEE7 on product safety, like the Decision, may be considered to be a catch- all instrument. Directive 92/59/EC applies to all products intended for consumers or which may be used by them. It sets out a general requirement for safety which also covers risks which the specific Directives on technical harmonisation do not. Two notification procedures, one of which is an emergency procedure, are provided for. They concern measures adopted by Member States which restrict or block product’s access to their market. These procedures to notify emergency apply when no specific EU legislation lays down the requirement measures. The 1997 and 1998 notification figures for Directive 92/59 are given in Annexes 6 and 7. Sectoral analysis reveals toys and baby accessories made up a large part of notifications not related to foodstuffs in 1997 and 1998 (57% in 1997 and 17% in 1998). Cosmetic and hygiene products account for 17 % (1998) and 7% (1997) of these notifications. Lighters are also regularly notified (7% in 1997 and 26% in 1998). 3. 3. 3 Notification under Directive 98/34. Thirdly, Directive 98/34/EC8 provides for the notification of draft versions of technical regulations and rules on the services of the information society. There are two main differences between this notification procedure and those mentioned above: rules to be notified must be general, not specific, and notification takes place prior to the rules being adopted. This procedure has enabled over 6300 national drafts to be examined since 1984, thus helping to eliminate obstacles to the proper functioning of the internal market. Recent trends show a slight drop in the number of notifications: in 1998 the Commission received 604 compared to 670 in 1997 (to which must be added the 230 texts notified en bloc by the Dutch authorities as part of the regularisation of infringements of the Directive). In 1998, the following sectors, in decreasing order, were the subject of the bulk of the notifications: machinery, and and foodstuffs, construction. In 1997, the Commission issued 117 detailed opinions on drafts that were potentially contrary to Community law. In 1998, the number of detailed opinions dropped to 64. agricultural products telecommunications, transport 3. 3. 4 The Decision as a safety-net The Decision is designed to be a safety-net for the three kinds of transparency instruments in the context of managing the Internal Market, a national mentioned above. When, government withdraws from the market a product which was legally marketed in another Member State, they must notify this measure under the Decision if they are not already required to do so under another Community instrument (Article 8 of the Decision). The objective of the Decision is thus to ensure that the Commission and Member States are completely informed of the obstacles to trade in the internal market. In the absence of other relevant instruments, it should guarantee a quick and coordinated reaction of the Member 7 8 Council Directive No 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992 on general product safety, OJ L 228, 11. 08. 1992, p. 24. Directive No 98/34 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, OJ L 204, 21. 7. 1998, p. 37, as modified by Directive No 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 amending Directive 98/34/EC laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, OJ L 217, 5. 8. 1998, p. 18. 12 States managing the internal market, either to eliminate obstacles or to take efficient measures to protect consumers across Europe. Nonetheless, the statistics on notifications received in 1997 and 1998 (see below) must be borne in mind. Germany 4 France 26 1997 1998 Finland 3 Germany France Denmark Greece 18 5 3 43 Total 33 Total 69 3. 4 Follow-up on notifications Following up on notification is basically a two-step process: a prior appraisal process leads to a decision on the follow-up measures to be taken. As part of the appraisal process, the Commission department responsible for managing the instrument in question receives the notification from the Member State. This department then forwards the notification to the other Member States and to the sectoral and general departments of the Commission. When analysing the notification, the Commission may previously consult with a committee of experts or scientists if the notified measure is particularly technical and requires specific expertise. However, this has not yet been necessary. In other cases, when the justification provided by the Member State seems insufficient to carry out such an analysis, the Member State may be asked to provide further information9. Following this in-depth analysis, the Commission decides on how to follow-up on the notification. Essentially, one of the following two situations will occur: (cid:1) The notified measure is temporary and concerns a specific product. Generally, there is no particular follow-up to such cases, since they are isolated occurrences. The obstacle to the free movement of goods is not caused by differences between the regulations of the Member States of origin and of destination. Instead, the product’s technical specifications (e. g. design flaws, inadequate information for consumers, etc. ) are often the basis for the notified measure. (cid:1) 9 The notified measure reveals significant differences, or even incompatibility, between the regulations of the Member States of origin and of destination. In such cases, products or sectors for which the principle of mutual recognition is not enough to ensure the free movement of goods can be updated. As an example, many of the notifications received by See the case of notifications from France on obstacles to placing in vitro diagnostic devices on the market. 13 the Commission in the first two years after the Decision was implemented concerned obstacles to the marketing of enriched products (with vitamins and other nutrients). These notifications confirmed information which the Commission was already aware of and which indicated that Member States’ approaches differed significantly on these matters. In such cases, the Commission may begin by submitting the problem to the Technical Regulations Committee, which, under the Decision, is responsible for monitoring how it is applied and hearing the Member State’s points of view and, if necessary, come to a joint solution with them. On the other hand, when no solution can be found in this way, it may be necessary to undertake a harmonisation process. In this way, the notification procedure set up by the decision will have fulfilled its role of identifying fields where obstacles persist and lead to the adoption of the measures needed to eliminate them. Follow-up on notifications under Decision 3052/95/EC proper must be distinguished from any incidental follow-up that the Commission may undertake if the notification brings factors that require separate treatment under a different procedure to its attention. This is particularly the case of irrelevant notifications. A measure may not need to be notified, or may need to be notified under another instrument. In such cases, the Commission department responsible for implementing the Decision will forward the notification to the relevant department. A measure notified under Decision 3052/95/EC may also seem incompatible with Articles 28 and 30 of the EC Treaty which set out the principle of freedom of movement for goods. In such cases, the Commission, acting in its full capacity as the guardian of the Treaty, will examine in detail the justification for the measure (contacting Member States where necessary), and, if necessary, begin the infringement procedure set out in Article 226 EC. It should be emphasised that in the few cases where the Commission felt it was useful to begin the procedure, the notification was generally accompanied by or followed by a complaint. 4. ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSIONS During the first two years it was in force, the implementation of the decision did not provide the hoped for results. More specifically, the low number of notifications did not allow the Decision to fulfil its role, which is, above all, to be a special instrument providing information on how the internal market is functioning in practice in the field. As stated above, the implementation of the decision did not sufficiently enable the Commission to be better informed of the proper functioning of the principle of mutual recognition, nor to identify the sectors where it might be functioning poorly, which could justify a harmonisation proposal. Nor had the Decision fulfilled its role of providing a quick resolution to certain problems of free movement. The 45-day deadline set in Article 4 of the Decision was supposed to allow the Commission to be quickly informed of any problems concerning free movement and to contact the concerned Member State to promptly come to a joint solution. The Decision is supposed to be part of the Commission’s general policy aiming to speed up the processing of problems concerning free movement by preventing the procedures established by the Treaty from being triggered. Given the statistical information available – as poorly representative as it may be – it seems clear that the difficult start-up is due to practical problems with implementation. In fact, it appears that the idea of decentralised management of the internal market which is at the heart of the Decision is coming up against problems caused by a lack of information on how to apply the Decision itself and on its role among all of the transparency instruments in the internal market. 14 Nonetheless, one factor must not be forgotten. It takes time to break in a system of cooperation between 15 governments and the Commission. The experience gained with the implementation of Directive 98/34/EC would seem to indicate that implementation of the Decision should substantially improve in the years ahead. It took several years for the systematic notification of standards and technical regulations required under Directive 98/34/EC to become genuinely effective. Moreover, it should be noted that the efficiency of the transparency tools for managing the single market depends on applying them properly, which in turn requires the authorities in charge of applying it and the enterprises and citizens concerned to be well-informed. National governments, which are responsible for indicating a measure must be notified under the Decision, are poorly-informed of the mechanics of the Decision. Indeed, these measures are very often adopted by regional or decentralised authorities. Yet these authorities are not always in a position to fulfil their notification obligations under Community law. In part this is a challenge that must be met at national level, insofar as those who receive the information provided by the Commission or the departments of Member States’ central governments are not necessarily the national civil servants who must apply the Decision. The Commission will intensify its efforts to ensure effective implementation of the Decision by the Member States at local and national levels, as well as in economic sectors. To accomplish this, the following action will be taken: • Stepping up the awareness programmes on the existence and implementation of the Decision is advisable, particularly among regional or decentralised authorities. Drafting an explanatory booklet and holding seminars will be effective ways of informing the authorities about their obligations under Community law. • In order to support the measures provided for in point 1, and to encourage cooperation between Community, national and local authorities, the Commission will ask the Member States to submit annual reports as from 2000, listing the notifications issued and giving information on implementation of the Decision including any difficulties which have been encountered. In addition, the reports should include any relevant information forwarded by the regional or decentralised authorities. At the same time, the Commission encourages Member States to regularly provide the relevant authorities with training and information on the Decision. • Given that non-governmental bodies are sometimes a useful channel of cooperation for implementing Community law and can exert an influence which bolsters the respect of Community law, the Commission, in collaboration with the Member States, plans to hold regular meetings with the professional associations concerned. These meetings will make it possible to make more information available to the associations so that, over the long term, they will be able to act as relays for detecting measures which have not been notified, while remaining faithful to the proposals made by the Commission in its 1999 communication on the principle of mutual recognition10. • Though other channels which provide information exist, a system of disseminating the information affected by the Decision on an Internet site will be set up to keep economic 10 Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament of 16 June 1999 concerning mutual recognition in the context of the follow-up to the action plan for the single market. 15 operators and the relevant national authorities better informed of the existence and implementation of the procedure. • Given the effective advisory role played by the Standing Committee established by Directive 98/34/EC, the Commission will continue to keep the Committee regularly informed of the implementation of the Decision and will increase the role it plays in monitoring notifications and action taken under these operational measures. • The objectives of transparency and flexibility which the Decision emphasises are difficult to reconcile with any coercive action which might be justified by effective non- implementation of the Decision. This explains the limited number of procedures instituted against Member States which have failed to notify certain measures. The Commission will intensify its vigilance and determination regarding non-notification by the Member States. For this reason, as part of the administrative cooperation, the Commission will inform Member States of the follow-up to package meetings on cases which were brought to its attention by complaints and which should have been notified. Its departments will cooperate with the relevant authorities in Member States in order to uncover and clear up any suspicious or problematic situations, and any other uncertainties as to whether a national measure should be notified. In addition, an investigation into the transparency necessary for decentralised management of the single market could be undertaken. An overview of statistics on total notifications and those concerning the single market reveal an imbalance between these two instruments with regard to notifications and follow-up. It could be time for the transparency mechanisms required for decentralised management of the single market to be reassessed in order to improve how they work. At the same time, this reassessment should address the follow-up tools (standstill periods, creating a single office within the Commission for all notifications regardless of their legal basis, interventions by Member States, the Commission or scientific committees, etc. ). Its objective would be to provide national governments and the Community administration with ample, efficient means to manage the single market as efficiently as possible in the interests of enterprises and citizens. 16 ANNEX 1 Competent authorities under Decision 3052/95/EC BELGIUM CIBELNOR (c/o Institut belge de normalisation) Avenue de la Brabançonne, 29 1000 Bruxelles Tel: Fax: +32-2-738. 01. 11 +32-2-733. 42. 64 DENMARK Erhvervsfremme Styrelsen Internationale Tekniske Handelsvilkår Tagennsvej 137 2200 København N 3586. 86. 86 Tel: Fax: 3586. 86. 87 X400: C=DK; A=DK400; P=EFS; S=Journal GERMANY Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft Herr Dr. Winkel -Referat EB3 - D - 53107 BONN Tel: Fax: X400: C=DE; A=BUND400; P=BMW1; O=BONN1; S=BUERO-EB3 E-mail: BUERO-EB3@BONN1. BUND400. DE 00-49-228/615 ( - 4119 Herr Dr. Winkel - 2502 Herr Behrens; - 4398 Herr Schirmer) 00-49-228/615-2056 GREECE Ministry of Development Standardisation Body M. Evangelos E. Melagrakis ELOT 313 Acharnon St. GR - 11145 ATHENS Tel: Fax: X400: C=GR A=MASTER400 P=EURODYN O=GOV OU=YBET OU=GGB S=PBOX +(30 1) 228. 00. 01 +(30 1) 202. 68. 75 SPAIN Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores Dirección General de Asuntos técnicos de la Unión Europea D. Luis Antonio Rico C/ Padilla 46, planta 2E - 28006 MADRID Tel: 0034/1/563. 68. 70 Fax: 00/34/1/562. 48. 61 X400: C=es/ADMD=mensatex/PRMD=mae/ORG=sece/S=rico/G=luis 17 FRANCE SGCI Attn: M. Régis Rama “Carré Austerlitz” 2, Boulevard Diderot F - 75572 PARIS CEDEX 12 Tel: Fax: X400: C=FR; A=Atlas; P=IRIS; O=SGCI; S=SGCI-RENET regis. rama@sgci. finances. gouv. fr E-mail: +33-1-44. 87. 10. 60 +33-1-44. 87. 12. 96 IRELAND Single Market Unit Department of Tourism and Trade Mr. Ronnie Breen Kildare Street IRL - DUBLIN 2 Tel: Fax: X400: C=IE/admd=NA/prmd=ENTEMP/pn=BREENR E-mail:breenr@entemp. irlgov. ie +353-1-662. 14. 44 +353-1-676. 61. 54 ITALY Ministerio dell’Industria, del Commercio e dell’artigianato Direzione generale della produzione industriale Ispettorato tecnico, Divisione XIX - Roma Italia - ROMA (e-mail: min. ind. isp. tecnico. @agora. stm. it) X400: U=M. I. C. A. =ISPIND, P=DGS, A=MASTER400, C=IT Tel: Fax: +39-6. 4705. 3069 +39-6. 4788. 7748 S=Ispettorato tecnico, D= Classe>IPM, D=ID-NODO>BF9RM001, LUXEMBOURG Service de l’Energie de l’Etat M. Jean-Paul Hoffmann, Directeur Boîte postale 10 L - 2010 LUXEMBOURG Tel: Fax: Email: jean-paul. hoffmann@eg. etat. lu X400: C=LU; A=INFONET; P=EFS; O=EG; S=HOFFMANN; G=JEAN-PAUL +352-46. 97. 46. 1 +352-222. 524 THE NETHERLANDS Ministerie van Financiën Belastingdienst/Douane centrale dienst voor in-en uitvoer Afdeling O. R. Postbus 30003 9700 RD GRONINGEN 18 +(31 50) 523. 91. 78/ 523. 92. 75 +(31 50) 523. 92. 19 Tel: Fax: X400: C=NL A=400NET P=CDIU S=NOTIF OU1=CDIU AUSTRIA Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft Attn: Mme Maria Haslinger Abteilung II/5 Stubenring 1 A - 1011 WIEN Fax: 43/-1/715. 96. 51. 61 or 714. 27. 23 Tel: Email: maria. haslinger@bmwa. gv. at X400: C=AT; A=GV; P=BMWA; O=BMWA; G=Maria; S= Haslinger 43-1/711. 00-5453 PORTUGAL Instituto Português da Qualidade - IPQ Rua C à Avenida dos Três Vales 2825 Monte da Caparica Portugal Tel: Fax: +351-21-294. 81. 00 +351-21-294. 81. 01 / 294. 82. 22 FINLAND Ministry of Trade and Industry Trade department Section for Internal market Affairs P. O. Box 230 FIN - 00171 HELSINKI tel: +358-9-1601 (1603657 Antti Riivari, 160 3527 Pia Nieminen) Fax: +358/-9/-160/4022 X400: S=tuoteilmoitukset, O=ktm, P=vn, A= mailnte, C=fi SWEDEN Mrs. Kerstin Carlsson Kommerskollegium - U3 (National Board of Trade) P. O. Box 6803 113086 STOCKHOLM +46. 8. 690. 48. 00 Tel: Fax: +46. 8. 690. 48. 40 X400: C=SE, ADMD=400net, O=Komkoll, S=nat not point 19 UNITED KINGDOM Department of Trade and Industry Standards and Technical Regulations Directorate 2 Bay 327 151 Buckingham Palace Road UK - SW1W 9SS Tel: Fax: X400: S=TI; G=83189; O=DTI; OU1=TIDV; P=HMG DTI; A=GOLD 400; C=GB E-mail: 83189. ti@tidv. dti. gov. uk 0171. 215. 1488 0171. 215. 1529 M. Lars-Ake Erikson EFTA Surveillance Authority Senior Officer Goods Directorate 74 rue de Trèves B-1040 BRUXELLES 20 ANNEX 2 Statistical Information on Decision 3052/95/EC (Notifications per Member State) Member States 1997 1998 FRANCE GERMANY FINLAND BELGIUM DENMARK GREECE SPAIN IRELAND ITALY LUXEMBOURG THE NETHERLANDS AUSTRIA PORTUGAL SWEDEN UNITED KINGDOM 5 18 3 43 26 4 3 21 ANNEX 3 Notifications per sector 1997 Veterinary Medical Products (F: 5) = 5 Foodstuffs (D: 4; FI: 3) = 7 Pharmaceuticals (F : 21) = 21 Veterinary Medicinal Products (F : 5) = 5 Other (DK : 2) Chemicals (DK : 1) = 1 2 1998 = Foodstuffs (EL : 43; D : 18) = 61 Veterinary Medicinal Products (F: 5) = 5 Foodstuffs (D: 4; FI: 3) = 7 Pharmaceuticals (F : 21) = 21 Foodstuffs (EL : 43; D : 18) = 61 Chemicals (DK : 1) = 1 Veterinary Medicinal Products (F : 5) = 5 Other (DK : 2) = 2 22 ANNEX 4 Notifications under certain New Approach Directives (1997) LV Mach Toy GA EMC PV PPE MD Total 13 1 14 0 1 4 0 1 0 7 4 0 6 2 19 72 3 3 1 7 8 5 4. 8 1 2 2 Member State Belgium Denmark Germany Greece Spain France Ireland Italy Luxembourg The Netherlands Austria Portugal Finland Sweden United Kingdom 1 2 1 1 3 4 2 2 7 1 11 18 10 5 0 0 Total 23 9 Abbreviations : LV = “Low Voltage Directive”, Mach = “Machinery Directive”, Toy = “Toy Directive”, GA = “Gas appliances Directive”, EMC = “Electromagnetic Compatibility Directive”, PV = “Pressure Vessels Directive”, PPE = “Personal Protective Equipment Directive”, MD = “Medical Devices Directive”. 23 ANNEX 5 Notifications under certain New Approach Directives (1998) LV Mach Toy GA EMC PV PPE MD Total Member State Belgium Denmark Germany Greece 2 1 3 Spain 20 France Ireland Italy Luxembourg The Netherlands Austria Portugal Finland Sweden United Kingdom 15 13 19 50 12 Total 135. 2 3 1 2 8 6 2 4 24 2 5 28 3 1 4 1 8 5 35 0 27 1 0 2 0 17 13 0 24 52 17 13 8 35 0 2 0 201 Abbreviations : LV = “Low Voltage Directive”, Mach = “Machinery Directive”, Toy = “Toy Directive”, GA = “Gas appliances Directive”, EMC = “Electromagnetic Compatibility Directive”, PV = “Pressure Vessels Directive”, PPE = “Personal Protective Equipment Directive”, MD = “Medical Devices Directive”. 24 ANNEX 6 Notifications under Directive 92/59/EEC (1997) Member States Notifications (foodstuffs) Notifications (non-food products) Information Warning Article 8 Information Belgium Denmark Germany Greece Spain France Ireland Italy Luxembourg TheNetherlands Austria Portugal Finland Sweden UnitedKingdom EFTA TOTAL 1 1 1 2 5 1 1 12 3 2 10 2 5 19 16 1 1 2 2 2 3 11 6 8 6 1 2 8 3 4 2 3 3 1 1 1 6 2 1 65 54 18 25 ANNEX 7 Notifications under Directive 92/59/EEC (1998) Member States Notifications (foodstuffs) Notifications (non- food products) Information Warning Article 8 Information Belgium Denmark Germany Greece Spain France Ireland Italy Luxembourg TheNetherlands Austria Portugal Finland Sweden UnitedKingdom EFTA TOTAL 8 6 2 5 18 1 8 2 11 5 4 3 73 3 5 18 2 3 2 1 1 12 47 1 4 0 1 1 7 6 3 32 6 26 18 1 40 1 7 4 3 5 3 155 26


title: SCHRIFTLICHE ANFRAGE E-1103/00 von Paul Lannoye (Verts/ALE) an die Kommission. Durchführung der Richtlinie 94/62 Verpackung.

eurovoc_concepts:
EU environmental policy
packaging product
waste recycling

text: C 53 E/74 Amtsblatt der Europ(cid:228)ischen Gemeinschaften DE 20. 2. 2001 Wenn das Tr(cid:228)gerunternehmen ein Protexin-Dossier einreicht, das den Anforderungen von Richtlinie Juli 1996 (5)) entspricht und 70/524/EWG (letzte ˜nderung: Richtlinie des Rates 96/51/EG vom 23. nachweist, da(cid:223) das Probiotikum sich positiv auswirkt auf die Tierproduktion und auf tierische Erzeugnisse, so wird dieses Dossier einer unabh(cid:228)ngigen Einzelpr(cid:252)fung unterzogen, vorausgesetzt, es wird der Kommis- sion und den Mitgliedstaaten gem(cid:228)(cid:223) Artikel 4 Absatz 1 und 2 der Richtlinie 96/51/EG vorgelegt. (1) ABl. L 270 vom 14. 2. 1970. (2) ABl. L 334 vom 31. 12. 1993. (3) ABl. L 64 vom 7. 3. 1987. (4) ABl. L 208 vom 11. 8. 1994. (5) ABl. L 235 vom 17. 9. 1996. (2001/C 53 E/089) SCHRIFTLICHE ANFRAGE E-1103/00 von Paul Lannoye (Verts/ALE) an die Kommission Betrifft: Durchf(cid:252)hrung der Richtlinie 94/62 (cid:132)Verpackung(cid:147) (7. April 2000) In der Richtlinie 94/62/EG (1) des Europ(cid:228)ischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 20. Dezember 1994 (cid:252)ber Verpackungen und Verpackungsabf(cid:228)lle ist in Artikel 6 Absatz 1 vorgesehen, da(cid:223) sp(cid:228)testens zehn Jahre nach dem Zeitpunkt, zu dem diese Richtlinie umgesetzt sein mu(cid:223), ein Gewichtsprozentsatz der Verpak- kungsabf(cid:228)lle verwertet bzw. stofflich verwertet wird, der vom Rat (cid:132)mit Blick auf eine erhebliche Erh(cid:246)hung der genannten Zielvorgaben(cid:147) zu bestimmen sein wird. Im (cid:252)brigen hat der Rat gem(cid:228)(cid:223) Artikel 6 Absatz 3 b) der gleichen Richtlinie mit qualifizierter Mehrheit auf Vorschlag der Kommission sp(cid:228)testens sechs Monate vor Ende der ersten F(cid:252)nfjahresstufe die Zielvorgaben f(cid:252)r die zweite F(cid:252)nfjahresstufe festzulegen. Warum hat die Kommission bisher noch keinen dementsprechenden Vorschlag vorgelegt, wie es ihr gem(cid:228)(cid:223) der Richtlinie 94/62 des Europ(cid:228)ischen Parlaments und des Rates aufgetragen wird? (1) ABl. L 365 vom 31. 12. 1994, S. 10. Antwort von Frau Wallstr(cid:246)m im Namen der Kommission (5. Juni 2000) In Artikel 6 Absatz 3 Buchstabe b) und Artikel 6 Absatz 1 Buchstabe c) der 1994 verabschiedeten Richtlinie 94/62/EG des Europ(cid:228)ischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 20. Dezember 1994 (cid:252)ber Verpak- kungen und Verpackungsabf(cid:228)lle ist vorgesehen, da(cid:223) die Zielvorgaben f(cid:252)r die Verwertung und die stoffliche Verwertung erheblich erh(cid:246)ht werden m(cid:252)ssen. Der Kompromi(cid:223), den das Parlament und der Rat nach langwierigen Diskussionen im Vermittlungsausschu(cid:223) erzielten, sieht eine Reihe quantifizierter Zielvorgaben f(cid:252)r die Verwertung und die stoffliche Verwertung vor, die zun(cid:228)chst bis Mitte 2001 zu erreichen sind, und verpflichtet die Gemeinschaft in ihrer Eigenschaft als Gesetzgeber, diese Zielvorgaben in einer zweiten Phase, die bis Mitte 2006 abgeschlossen sein mu(cid:223), erheblich zu erh(cid:246)hen. Zu den zahlreichen Akteuren der Verpackungsindustrie geh(cid:246)ren unter anderem Unternehmen, Verbrau- cher, Umweltorganisationen und Beh(cid:246)rden. Sie alle haben unterschiedliche Interessen. Daher mu(cid:223) ein Dialograhmen geschaffen werden, der einen ausgewogenen Ansatz gew(cid:228)hrleistet. Auf diese Weise kann die Kommission die Situation besser einsch(cid:228)tzen und L(cid:246)sungsm(cid:246)glichkeiten entwickeln, um die Wirksamkeit der Richtlinie zu erh(cid:246)hen. Verschiedene Optionen wurden den Betroffenen und den Mitgliedstaaten vorgelegt und mit ihnen er(cid:246)rtert; welche Ma(cid:223)nahmen die Kommission letztendlich vorschlagen wird, wird zur Zeit noch intern gepr(cid:252)ft


title: WRITTEN QUESTION E-1087/00 by Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Problems peculiar to the Italian canning industry.

text: 13. 2. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/121 Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission (18 May 2000) The Commission was informed of the problems relating to the construction of a dam on the river Umia near Caldas de Reis in Galicia by petition 79/98 from Parliament(cid:146)s Committee on Petitions, and Written Question 1824/99 by Mr Nogueira RomÆn (1). The Commission decided to investigate the case and registered it under B-1999/2271. It asked the Spanish authorities to comment on the project and the environmental impact study which had been carried out. Their reply has just arrived and the Commission is now examining it with reference to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the impact of certain public and private projects on the environment (2). It should be noted that the area where the dam in question is due to be built has not been classified by the Spanish authorities as a special protection area for birds under Article 4 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (3). Neither was it identified by the scientific community as an (cid:145)important area for birds(cid:146) in the inventory prepared for the Commission in 1998 by national experts and Birdlife. Moreover, the Spanish authorities have not identified it as a site of Community importance for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (4). Therefore, as far as nature conservation is concerned, this case appears to be the responsibility of the Spanish national and regional authorities alone. At all events, the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, will take the necessary measures to ensure that Community law is complied with in the case in question. (1) OJ C 225 E, 8. 8. 2000, p. 25. (2) OJ C 175, 5. 7. 1985, p. 40. (3) OJ C 103, 25. 4. 1979, p. 1. (4) OJ C 206, 22. 7. 1992, p. 7. (2001/C 46 E/130) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1087/00 by Carmen Fraga EstØvez (PPE-DE) to the Commission (7 April 2000) Subject: Problems peculiar to the Italian canning industry According to the findings of the recent study of needs as regards supplies of tuna loins from Community industry, the difficulties encountered by the industry in being competitive are confined to structural problems relating to cost structure in certain Italian undertakings. In view of these facts, what led the Commission to believe that the answer to a structural problem affecting certain undertakings might lie in the indiscriminate trade measures it advocated in its proposal for a regulation on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products, which would reduce the competitiveness of the remainder of Community industry? Does it agree with the findings of the study? Does it intend to take any structural action to assist in the restructuring of the aforementioned under- takings and enhance their competitiveness? C 46 E/122 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13. 2. 2001 Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (16 May 2000) The Commission does not agree with the Honourable Member(cid:146)s assertion that the Community tuna industry is uncompetitive solely because a number of Italian firms face structural difficulties. The Honourable Member is invited to reread closely the study which the Commission asked to be drawn up on this matter and which highlights the fact that all Community firms in this sector are, or may potentially be, structurally weak. It is clear that the firms themselves are primarily responsible for taking structural measures, which constitute the only means of restoring their long-term competitiveness. For its part, the Commission is prepared to support such measures as fall within Member States(cid:146) structural programmes for fisheries. In the meantime, short-term measures (cid:129) such as the Council(cid:146)s annual opening, since 1997, of a tariff quota for tuna loins (cid:129) can go some way towards helping the Community(cid:146)s canned tuna industry. In 1997, for example, Spain and Italy respectively used up 56 % and 44 % of the tuna loin quota. As already indicated in its answer to Written Questions E-756/00 to E-761/00 by Mr Varela Suanzes- Carpegna (1), the Commission is largely able to endorse the study(cid:146)s content as a sound analysis of the circumstances, challenges and strategic options facing the sector as a whole. (1) OJ C 26 E, 26. 1. 2001, p. 104. (2001/C 46 E/131) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1094/00 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission (7 April 2000) Subject: Cotton-growing in Greece Under the Agricultural and Home Affairs Ministries(cid:146) Interministerial Decision No 38570/10. 2. 2000, the Greek State has designated cotton-growing as (cid:145)controlled(cid:146) cultivation and has imposed conditions on cotton producers. In practice, however, these have the effect of preventing cotton-growing for a large proportion of those concerned. Thus, for example, long-standing producers wishing to increase production above their average over the last three years may not do so, while new producers who wish to start growing may do so only if they have inherited the farming land. Could the Commission say whether it these arrangements and others contained in the above-mentioned Greek interministerial decision are consistent with Community legislation and, if not, what action it intends to take to remedy the situation? this situation, whether it considers that is aware of Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (10 May 2000) The Commission, recently informed of the situation to which the Honourable Member refers, has asked the Greek authorities for the texts covering the Decision, and thus cannot comment at this stage