title: WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3038/97 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Age discrimination

eurovoc_concepts:
anti-discriminatory measure
competition (EU)
elderly person
job access
older worker
recruitment

text: 16. 4. 98 SV Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning C 117/133 (98/C 117/178) SKRIFTLIG FR¯GA E-3038/97 fr(cid:229)n Amedeo Amadeo (NI) till kommissionen (1 oktober 1997) A¤mne: Diskriminering p(cid:229) grund av (cid:229)lder Regeringskonferensen skulle ha vidtagit (cid:229)tga¤rder mot diskriminering p(cid:229) grund av (cid:229)lder och fo¤rt in en artikel (6a) i det nya fo¤rdraget. Av de dokument att do¤ma, vilka har kommit mig till handa, verkar detta inte ha skett. Trots detta existerar problemet och vi konfronteras varje dag i v(cid:229)ra dagliga sysslor med ha¤ndelser som har med diskriminering att go¤ra. Detta p(cid:229)g(cid:229)r, ma¤rk va¤l, i en tid d(cid:229) de europeiska medborgarnas medel(cid:229)lder konstant och na¤stan p(cid:229)tagligt o¤kar. Kommissionen ombeds att vidta (cid:229)tga¤rder med anledning av detta, speciellt vad ga¤ller en harmonisering av de besta¤mmelser som reglerar uttagningsproven och respekten fo¤r dessa. Svar fr(cid:229)n Padraig Flynn p(cid:229) kommissionens va¤gnar (24 november 1997) Kommissionen vill informera parlamentsledamoten om att man i och med Amsterdam-fo¤rdraget har info¤rt en ny ra¤ttslig grund fo¤r antagande av gemenskaps(cid:229)tga¤rder som syftar till att beka¤mpa bland annat diskriminering p(cid:229) grund av (cid:229)lder (artikel 6a i EG-fo¤rdraget). Kommissionen kommer att o¤verva¤ga eventuella (cid:229)tga¤rder som a¤r la¤mpliga att vidta p(cid:229) detta omr(cid:229)de efter det att Amsterdam-fo¤rdraget har ratificerats. (98/C 117/179) SKRIFTLIG FR¯GA E-3039/97 fr(cid:229)n Amedeo Amadeo (NI) till kommissionen (1 oktober 1997) A¤mne: Kommissionens fo¤rsumlighet vad ga¤ller Phare-programmet EU:s Revisionsra¤tt har utarbetat en sa¤rskild rapport om det decentraliserade systemet fo¤r genomfo¤rande av Phare-programmet i de central- och o¤steuropeiska la¤nderna (1). Det a¤r ka¤nt att kommissionen har info¤rt ett decentraliserat genomfo¤randesystem fo¤r att sa¤kersta¤lla att programmet genomfo¤rs p(cid:229) ett ja¤mt sa¤tt och fo¤r att p(cid:229)skynda aktiveringen av de ekonomiska medlen. Programfo¤rvaltningesenheten som inom mottagarla¤ndernas nationella fo¤rvaltning a¤r anfo¤rtrodda med uppgiften att sko¤ta Phare-medlen, har bristfa¤llig personalstyrka och utbildning. Kommissionen har bidragit till att finansiera personalkostnader och kostnader i samband med enhetens verksamhet, men har inte faststa¤llt grundreglerna fo¤r denna finansiering, dess bokfo¤ring och kontroll. Revisionsra¤tten bekra¤ftar ocks(cid:229) att det intensiva utnyttjandet av teknisk assistans till sto¤d fo¤r verksamheten och administrationen, till programfo¤rvalt- ningsenhetens fo¤rdel, har varit kostsamt, sa¤rskilt p(cid:229) grund av den l(cid:229)ga konkurrensen vid utdelningen av kontrakten (som ofta var bristfa¤lliga vad ga¤ller insyn). En del fo¤rvaltningsenheter blev tilldelade oproportioner- ligt m(cid:229)nga kontrakt. Kommissionen har dessutom fo¤rsenat inra¤ttandet av ett kontrollsystem fo¤r programfo¤rvalt- ningsenheternas utgifter och har inte sa¤kersta¤llt en la¤mplig utva¤rdering av de program som har genomfo¤rts. Kommissionen ombedes att ra¤ttfa¤rdiga denna mycket allvarliga anklagelse. (1) EGT C 175, 9. 6. 1997, s. 4. (98/C 117/180) SKRIFTLIG FR¯GA E-3040/97 fr(cid:229)n Amedeo Amadeo (NI) till kommissionen (1 oktober 1997) A¤mne: Phare-programmet Revisionsra¤tten kritiserar kommissionens sa¤tt att tilla¤mpa reglerna fo¤r upphandling. Cirka 80 % av de Phare-medel som fo¤rvaltas p(cid:229) decentraliserad va¤g a¤r avsedda fo¤r upphandling av tja¤nster (tekniskt bist(cid:229)nd),


title: 98/194/EC: Commission Decision of 1 October 1997 concerning the extension of the 8 % investment premium for investment projects in the new Länder pursuant to the Finance Law 1996 (Only the German text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance)

eurovoc_concepts:
German Democratic Republic
Germany
State aid
investment aid
tax system
type of business

formats: html pdf print

text: L 73/38 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 12. 3. 98 COMMISSION COMMISSION DECISION of 1 October 1997 concerning the extension of the 8 % investment premium for investment projects in the new L(cid:132)nder pursuant to the Finance Law 1996 (Only the German text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) (98/194/EC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular to Articles 92 and 93 thereof, Having given the other Member States and interested parties, pursuant to Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty, a period in which to submit their comments, Having regard to the comments submitted, Whereas: Article 3 of the Investment Premium Law 1993 (InvZulG) was amended by Article 18(1) of the Finance Law 1996 (2) to the effect that the 8 % premium is now granted to investments which were begun after 31 December 1992 but before 1 July 1994 and which will be concluded before 1 January 1999. This extended the time-limit for the implementation of assisted investment projects by two years, but did not change the provisions governing the start of the investment. The Finance Law 1996 came into force on 1 January 1996. By letter dated 17 November the Federal Ministry of Finance informed the 1995, L(cid:132)nder tax authorities that the said provision must not be applied before the Commission has approved the aid pursuant to Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty. The letter was published in the Federal Tax Gazette (Bundes- steuerblatt) 1996, Series I, No 1. I II By decision dated 11 November 1992 (1), the Commission authorized an 8 % investment premium for investment projects in the new L(cid:132)nder begun before 1 July 1994 and completed before the end of 1996. The aid intensity of 8 % gross (approximately 5,2 % net) relates exclusively to the cost of acquiring assets for fixed investment. The investment premium is granted direct by Federal law, so that every undertaking which fulfils the statutory requirements can claim the premium without the author- ities having to take a discretionary decision. The premium consists of a reduction of corporation tax and can result in a negative tax claim by the State, so that instead of a tax reduction the recipient undertaking receives a sum of money. The Commission was informed of the amendment to the Investment Premium Law in a communication dated 19 December 1995, i. e. six working days before the entry into force of the Finance Law 1996; the amendment was therefore registered as a non-notified aid (NN 6/96). On 3 July 1996 the Commission decided, because the period in which the 8 % investment premium may be claimed was being extended, to initiate the procedure under Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty. Its reason for so doing was that the extension constituted additional State aid for investment projects which were begun before 1 July 1994 and which will be completed in 1997 and (1) State aid N 561/92, letter of 24 November 1992, ref. SG (92) D/16623. (2) BGBl. 1995, I-1250. 12. 3. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 73/39 1998, since no extra investment compared with the ori- ginal situation was being promoted. The measure would therefore not assist any new investment projects which could contribute to the regional economic development of the former GDR. Consequently, the aid would only boost the equity of the undertakings which before July 1994 had begun to invest it would accordingly have to be in the new L(cid:132)nder; regarded as operating aid, which, as the Commission has consistently held, is compatible with the common market only if certain conditions are met and the aid serves exclusively to assist the economic development of areas in accordance with Article 92(3)(a) of the EC Treaty. The Commission took the view, however, that the aid could also stimulate economic development outside these assisted areas, with the result the question was whether the aid could exceptionally be declared compat- ible with the common market. that Germany was informed by letter dated 31 July 1996 (1) of the initiation of the procedure and, like the other Member States and interested parties, was invited by publication of that letter in the Official Journal of the European Communities (2) to submit its comments. Germany submitted its comments by letter dated 9 September 1996, and the French undertaking Elf Aqui- taine SA (Elf) by letter dated 29 October 1996. On 30 October 1996, the French Government gave its views making reference to Elf’s submission. It is clear from Elf’s comments that the measure in question relates to invest- ment by the Elf subsidiary Mitteldeutsche Erd(cid:148)l-Raffin- erie (MIDER), which is building a new refinery at Leuna in Saxony-Anhalt. As a result of unforeseen technical is not res- difficulties, which the undertaking says it ponsible for, the investment has been delayed. Without the proposed extension of the time-limit, the investment premium for the entire project could not be claimed, which would put MIDER at a considerable economic disadvantage. The letters from Elf and the French Government were forwarded for comment to the Federal Republic of Germany by letter dated 26 November 1996. Between December 1996 and July 1997 the matter was discussed at several meetings between the German authorities and the Commission’s departments. III In Germany’s view, the extension of the time-limit for investment projects for which the 8 % investment premium can be claimed is compatible with the common market. The extension will avert a reduction of invest- (1) SG(96) D/7034. (2) OJ C 290, 3. 10. 1996, p. 8. In this way, ment aid for large projects where delays have occurred on account of in eastern the particular circumstances the equity of undertakings Germany. investing in the new L(cid:132)nder will be increased, thus contributing to their economic stability. According to Germany, it is not known how many cases are affected by the general extension of the time-limit for claiming the investment premium. Basically, the extension applies to all investment projects which were begun after 31 December 1992 and before 1 July 1994 and which had not been completed by the end of 1996. In the MIDER/Leuna 2000 case, which the competent authorities had in mind when they proposed the said provision, the undertaking could not conclude the invest- ment project in time by the end of 1996 on account of unforeseeable technical and administrative problems for which the undertaking could not be held responsible. The total aid package for the Leuna 2000 refinery would have than had been been some DEM 360 million lower accepted when agreement was concluded. For legal reasons, it was not possible to pass a Federal law just for the MIDER case. The Federal Govern- ment, however, declared its readiness to apply the Invest- ment Premium Law as amended by the Finance Law 1996 to MIDER only and to notify individually any further cases to which the amendment would apply. privatisation the IV The investment premium is State aid within the meaning of Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty and Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. The extension of the time-limit for investment projects in respect of which an 8 % premium can be requested from 2 1/2 to 4 years to 4 1/2 to 6 years constitutes additional State aid. How many investment projects might be covered by the general extension of the time-limit is not known. Ba- sically, investment projects which were begun after 31 December 1992 and before 1 July 1994 and which had not been concluded by the end of 1996. the new time-limits apply to all Undertakings which began investment projects between January 1993 and June 1994 took their decision in the full knowledge that projects which were not completed by the end of 1996 either would not qualify at all for the investment premium, since the finished part would not be regarded as a complete but smaller than planned investment, or, if the part completed in time is treated as investment, albeit smaller than planned, would a full qualify only to a certain extent. The particular problems which prevent implementation of complex investment projects on the territory of the former GDR, the swift L 73/40 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 12. 3. 98 such as organisational difficulties of regional and local authorities, possible environmental burdens and problems arising from the rules on the restitution of immovable property in the new L(cid:132)nder, were known and were the subject of comprehensive discussions before July 1994. Investment projects which were begun in the full know- ledge that they could not be concluded in time and in respect of which the investment premium cannot there- fore be claimed would nevertheless now be eligible for assistance, thus generating a windfall profit for undertak- ings which had originally calculated their investment in such a way that it would have been profitable even without such aid. Undertakings which have taken investment decisions regarding the 8 % investment premium without allowing time for investment-related risks have accepted invest- ment aid which turns out to be potentially lower than if they had met the requirements laid down in the Invest- ment Premium Law 1993, and despite those risks have regarded their investment as profitable. The extension of the time-limit does not generate any extra investment and will probably have no effect on the termination of invest- ment projects already begun. Aid which does not stimulate any additional investment cannot be regarded as investment aid. State aid which, accordingly, constitutes only an additional payment that should not have been taken into account or which, according to the rules on regional investment aid applying at the time of the investment decision, was uncertain is to be regarded as operating aid for increasing the equity of the undertaking concerned, as was already explained by Germany before the initiation of the procedure in its communication of 19 December 1995. In its Communication on the method for the application of Article 92(3)(a) and (c) of the EC Treaty to regional aid (1), the Commission explained that operating aid, despite the fact that it is such as seriously to distort competition, may exceptionally be regarded in assisted areas as compatible with the common market in accord- ance with Article 92(3)(a), if it is necessary for the main- tenance of the operation of existing plant. These consid- erations, however, do not apply to those undertakings which would benefit from the measure in question. Such undertakings decided before July 1994, with regard to the regional investment aid available under the law applicable at the time, to invest in the new L(cid:132)nder. Their invest- ments were calculated in such a way that they would be achievable and show a steady profit without operating aid. There are therefore no extraordinary circumstances which (1) OJ C 212, 12. 8. 1988, p. 2. would justify de facto operating aid in the form of an extension of the time-limit for claiming the 8 % invest- ment premium as a contribution to the regional develop- ment of the disadvantaged regions. This de facto operating aid would, moreover, not only stimulate the economy in eastern Germany. Undertakings which meet the conditions may also maintain plant else- where and could thus use the aid to finance activities outside eastern Germany. The aid in question does not contribute, therefore, to the achievement of one of the objectives referred to in Article 92(2) and (3) of the EC Treaty, which the recipient under- takings under normal market conditions could not achieve either by their own efforts or with the help of existing approved State aid. The investment decisions were taken in the knowledge that the aid in question cannot be claimed if the time-limits are not observed. Aid which does not contribute to the achievement of one of the objectives recognised as justification for the excep- tional approval of measures which distort competition cannot be regarded as compatible with the proper func- tioning of the common market (2). The Federal Government’s proposal to apply the amend- ment of the Investment Premium Law 1993 made by the Finance Law 1996 only to MIDER/Elf Aquitaine and to notify further cases individually in advance does not alter the assessment. The Finance Law is a law passed by the Bundestag which may be relied on directly by any under- taking which meets the general assistance conditions. The number of potential recipients cannot be determined with certainty. The scope of the relevant provision of the Finance Law 1996 is not limited to the case of MIDER/Elf Aquitaine. There is no provision stating that it is up to the author- ities to decide whether the premium will be granted. The commitment offered by Germany cannot effectively be made, since the Federal Government cannot declare a law passed by the Bundestag to be inapplicable or applicable on certain conditions. The authorities do not have the power to apply the relevant provision only in individual cases where it seems reasonable to them to do so. The relevant provision is therefore to be assessed with regard to all potential cases of application and not just to the MIDER case. The above comments, however, are without prejudice to a possible individual notification by Germany of particular measures modifying the aid package for MIDER’s invest- ment in eastern Germany. Such an amendment would be examined by the Commission with regard to the special circumstances of this particular investment and the pos- itive decision of the Commission on this project (3). V In conclusion, therefore, the Commission finds that the aid in question does not contribute to the promotion of additional in the new L(cid:132)nder and is not necessary for the maintenance of existing economic activ- investment (2) See also the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case 730/79 Philip Morris [1980] ECR I-2671, paragraph 16 et seq. (3) Letter SG(93) D/11541, OJ C 214, 7. 8. 1993, p. 9. 12. 3. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 73/41 ities in them. As a result, the aid does not contribute to the achievement of one of the objectives referred to in Article 92(2) and (3) of the EC Treaty and is not compat- ible therefore with the proper functioning of the common market. The aid scheme was wrongly brought into force on 1 January 1996 without prior approval by the Commission. The Commission has noted that Germany has instructed the authorities in the new L(cid:132)nder to apply the Law only after it has been approved by the Commission. This communication, however, cannot be opposed to the direct application of a Federal law which gives all potential recipients who meet the conditions a legal claim, without a discretionary decision by the authorities being neces- sary, HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: Article 1 Article 18(1) of the Finance Law 1996, which amends Article 3 of the Investment Premium Law 1993 to the effect that the 8 % investment premium is now granted for investment projects which were begun after 31 December 1992 and before 1 July 1994 and are completed before 1 January 1999 (instead of before 1 January 1997), introduces new, additional State aid for undertakings which have made investments in the new L(cid:132)nder. This aid is unlawful, since it was put into effect in disregard of Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty. The aid is incompatible with the common market, since it does not contribute to the achievement of one of the objectives referred to in Article 92(2) and (3) of the EC Treaty. Article 2 Article 18(1) of the Finance Law 1996 shall be repealed. Germany shall recover all aid which was granted pursuant to this provision. The aid shall be repaid in accordance with the procedures and provisions of German law with interest running from the date of grant of the aid calcu- lated on the basis of the rate serving as the reference interest rate used in assessing regional aid programmes. Article 3 Germany shall inform the Commission within two months of the date of notification of this Decision of the measures it has taken to comply herewith. Article 4 This Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany. Done at Brussels, 1 October 1997. For the Commission Karel VAN MIERT Member of the Commission


title: Avis du Comité économique et social sur la «Proposition de décision du Conseil instituant une procédure de consultation en ce qui concerne les relations entre États membres et pays tiers dans le domaine des transports maritimes ainsi que les actions relatives à ce domaine au sein des organisations internationales et une procédure d'autorisation pour des accords portant sur les transports maritimes»

eurovoc_concepts:
maritime transport
market access
member country
restriction on competition
third country

formats: html pdfa1b print


title: WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3020/97 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Improving the production and marketing of honey

eurovoc_concepts:
animal disease
apiculture
application of EU law
approximation of laws
competence of the Member States
honey
import policy
marketing
production improvement
third country

text: C 117/128 SV Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning 16. 4. 98 Svar fr(cid:229)n Hans Van den Broek p(cid:229) kommissionens va¤gnar (20 oktober 1997) Kommissionen a¤r va¤l medveten om den fara som a¤r fo¤renad med ka¤rnolyckor i de central- och o¤steuropeiska la¤nderna och i de nya oberoende staterna i f. d. Sovjetunionen. Av den anledningen har cirka 700 miljoner ecu anslagits 1990-1997 till Phare- och Tacis-programmen fo¤r ka¤rnsa¤kerhet. Oberoende konsulter har nyligen slutfo¤rt en interimsutva¤rdering av Phare- och Tacis-programmen vilken o¤verla¤mnades till Europarlamentet i juni 1997. Av utva¤rderingen framg(cid:229)r att det visserligen inte kan fo¤rnekas att det finns sv(cid:229)righeter i samband med genomfo¤randet, men att de flesta ka¤rnsa¤kerhetsprojekten a¤nd(cid:229) n(cid:229)r sina syften. Kommissionen underso¤ker fo¤r na¤rvarande vilka a¤ndringar som skulle kunna go¤ras i ka¤rnsa¤kerhetspolitikens inriktning och i genomfo¤randemekanismerna i denna sektor fo¤r att fo¤rba¤ttra programmens effektivitet. Inledande diskussioner har ocks(cid:229) a¤gt rum med medlemsstaterna, i Phare- och Tacis-kommitte·erna, och med de relevanta parlamentsutskotten (utskottet fo¤r miljo¤, folkha¤lsa och konsumentskydd, fo¤r forskning, teknologisk utveckling och energi samt budgetkontrollutskottet). Kommissionen a¤r fo¤r na¤rvarande i fa¤rd med att slutligt faststa¤lla sin st(cid:229)ndpunkt i denna fr(cid:229)ga p(cid:229) grundval av de reaktioner som den mottagit. Resultaten kommer att finnas med i den nya programcykeln fo¤r 1998 som bo¤rjar inom kort. (98/C 117/166) SKRIFTLIG FR¯GA E-3019/97 fr(cid:229)n Amedeo Amadeo (NI) till kommissionen (1 oktober 1997) A¤mne: Ba¤ttre produktion och salufo¤ring av honung Min fr(cid:229)ga ga¤ller fo¤rslaget till r(cid:229)dets fo¤rordning (EG) om allma¤nna tilla¤mpningsregler fo¤r (cid:229)tga¤rder som syftar till att fo¤rba¤ttra villkoren fo¤r produktion och salufo¤ring av honung inom gemenskapen (KOM(96)0596 › 96/0282 (CNS)) (1). Kan kommissionen sa¤kersta¤lla att de prioriterade m(cid:229)len i fo¤rslaget a¤ven innefattar program fo¤r yrkesutbildning fo¤r unga jordbrukare? (1) EGT C 378, 13. 12. 1996, s. 20. (98/C 117/167) SKRIFTLIG FR¯GA E-3020/97 fr(cid:229)n Amedeo Amadeo (NI) till kommissionen (1 oktober 1997) A¤mne: Ba¤ttre produktion och salufo¤ring av honung Min fr(cid:229)ga ga¤ller fo¤rslaget till r(cid:229)dets fo¤rordning (EG) om allma¤nna tilla¤mpningsregler fo¤r (cid:229)tga¤rder som syftar till att fo¤rba¤ttra villkoren fo¤r produktion och salufo¤ring av honung inom gemenskapen (KOM(96)0596 › 96/0282 (CNS)) (1). Kan kommissionen sa¤kersta¤lla att (cid:229)tga¤rder vidtas fo¤r att beka¤mpa alla de sjukdomar som drabbar bin? Dessa (cid:229)tga¤rder f(cid:229)r inte begra¤nsas till att endast innefatta beka¤mpning av varroakvalster. (1) EGT C 378, 13. 12. 1996, s. 20. (98/C 117/168) SKRIFTLIG FR¯GA E-3021/97 fr(cid:229)n Amedeo Amadeo (NI) till kommissionen (1 oktober 1997) A¤mne: Ba¤ttre produktion och salufo¤ring av honung Min fr(cid:229)ga ga¤ller fo¤rslaget till r(cid:229)dets fo¤rordning (EG) om allma¤nna tilla¤mpningsregler fo¤r (cid:229)tga¤rder som syftar till att fo¤rba¤ttra villkoren fo¤r produktion och salufo¤ring av honung inom gemenskapen (KOM(96)0596 › 96/0282 (CNS)) (1). Kommissionens fo¤rslag a¤r en uppfo¤ljning av det reflexionsdokument om europeisk biodling som


title: WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2999/97 by Graham MATHER to the Commission. New car price discrepancies between Member States

eurovoc_concepts:
EU Member State
application of EU law
competition law
motor car
national currency
price disparity
prices policy
single market

text: C 158/26 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 25. 5. 98 (98/C 158/32) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2999/97 by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission (1 October 1997) Subject: New car price discrepancies between Member States A recent edition of the BBC consumer affairs television programme (cid:145)Watchdog(cid:146) brought to the attention of millions of UK consumers that they could purchase new cars at a cost several thousand pounds cheaper in countries such as Belgium and the Netherlands than in the UK. For example, a Rover 214Si retails at £12 640 in the UK, yet only the equivalent of £9,570 in Belgium (75. 7% of the UK price). Such discrepancies clearly cannot simply be attributed to the current strength of sterling. 1. What facilities does the Commission have in place to monitor these discrepancies? 2. What factors lie behind the discrepancies, and to what extent does each of these factors figure? 3. What action is the Commission taking to redress these price discrepancies and thus ensure the homogeneity of the Single Market for the vehicle retail sector? Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (24 October 1997) 1. Since 1993, the Commission has been monitoring car price differences in the Community in its twice-yearly report on car prices (1). This publication is based on the recommended retail prices for the best-selling models across the Community, which the manufacturers submit on 1 May and 1 November to the Commission. 2. An analysis of the figures in the current report (1 May 1997) shows that the growing price discrepancies registered in 1996 and 1997 have, in fact, been due mainly to the strength of the British currency, rather than to changes in recommmended list prices. Incidentally, a similar situation of increasing price differentials was caused by the devaluation of the Italian currency in 1995 (2). In addition, the Commission has found (3) that pricing policies pursued by manufacturers in the individual Member States take into account taxes to be paid on car purchase. In Member States with high taxes, list prices tend to be lower than in those with no particular tax on car purchase, such as the United Kingdom. Finally, manufacturers decide their list prices according to economic considerations, such as demand patterns and market strategies. The Commission does not intervene in the pricing policies of car manufacturers, except in cases of 3. infringement of European competition rules. It has, however, underlined the necessity of introducing the euro as soon as possible (4). It considers that this is the most efficient way to avoid the monetary fluctuations which are one of the causes for price discrepancies incompatible with the idea and the principles of a common market. The introduction of the euro should also help ensure that prices are determined solely by economic factors. Member States, that are not yet part of the uro-area, can join the new exchange rate mechanism (ERM2), which will contribute to a reduction in exchange rate fluctuations against the uro. Finally, a growing price transparency, which the Commission(cid:146)s car price reports help to promote, is encouraging customers to acquire their vehicles in those Member States where prices and other sales conditions are most favourable. The tendency to do so is increasingly evident in the United Kingdom. This freedom, as assured by the provisions of the group exemption Regulation on motor vehicle distribution (5), is an important market-related factor contributing to harmonization of prices across the Community. In this context, also the Community type approval for new vehicles may be mentioned, as it presents an important accompanying measure facilitating re-exports by final consumers. (1) See for the most recent one IP/97/640 of 11. 7. 1997, but also IP/96/722 of 29. 7. 1996 and IP/96/145 of 15. 2. 1996 press releases. (2) (3) (4) (5) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of 28. 6. 1995 on motor vehicle distribution; OJ L 145, 29. 6. 1995. IP/95/768 of 24. 7. 1995. IP/97/113 of 14. 2. 1997. IP/97/640 of 11. 7. 1997


title: WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3016/97 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Illustrative nuclear programme for the European Union

eurovoc_concepts:
Central and Eastern Europe
Commonwealth of Independent States
EU Member State
EU programme
European Commission
European Parliament
nuclear industry
nuclear policy
nuclear safety
project evaluation

text: 16. 4. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 117/127 Joint answer to Written Questions E-3013/97 and E-3033/97 given by Mrs Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (24 October 1997) On 8 May 1996 the Commission announced its decision on how the financial reserve for the Community Initiatives was to be allocated. The reference allocation for the Urban Initiative in Italy for 1997-99 is ECU 11. 81 million for Objective 1 areas and ECU 6. 40 million for other areas (1995 indexed prices). In point 20 of its communication to the Member States (1) the Commission invited them to present operational programmes for financing under Urban. No allocations were made to specific areas of any Member State other than to split the amount allocated to each between Objective 1 and other areas. The Italian authorities have sent a proposal for programmes in the cities of Trieste, Lecce and Catanzaro. (1) OJ C 200, 10. 7. 1996 (98/C 117/164) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3014/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (1 October 1997) Subject: ERDF projects On 30 November 1995 the Commission published itsthe invitation to tender urban pilot projects under ERDF Article 10 on innovatory measures. Will the Commission state how many projects were submitted by Italy? Answer given by Mrs. Wulf-Mathies on behalf of the Commission (23 October 1997) Following the call for proposals (1) under Article 10 of the European Regional Development Fund Regulation (2) the Commission received 503 projects of which 119 were from Italy. The final choice was the result of application of a rigorous selection procedure to the large number of proposals submitted. Using the criteria set the Commission selected a total of 26 projects, 4 of which are in Italy, in Brindisi, Milan, Naples and Turin. (1) OJ C 319, 30. 11. 1995. (2) OJ L 193, 31. 7. 1993. (98/C 117/165) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3016/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (1 October 1997) Subject: Illustrative nuclear programme for the European Union With reference to the Commission(cid:146)s Communication on the nuclear industries in the European Union (an illustrative nuclear programm according to Article 40 of the Euratom Treaty) (COM(96) 339 final › CES 470/97) and given the potential hazards associated with nuclear power stations in the CEECs and the CIS, should concerns not be voiced regarding the extremely damaging impact which another large-scale nuclear accident would have on public opinion? The PHARE and TACIS programmes have proved valuable but are now the target of mounting criticism. Given that these programmes deal with nuclear safety, will the Commission review them urgently and then publish their findings?


title: WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3043/97 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. White Paper on railways

eurovoc_concepts:
EC Directive
EU law - national law
common transport policy
modernisation aid
national implementing measure
rail transport

text: 16. 4. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 117/135 › adoption of a change to restricted invitations to tender for PHARE (and TACIS) service contracts: the rules governing invitations to tender have been improved, with better information for tenderers and, in particular, disclosure of the composition of evaluation committees, and the promotion of greater diversity of contractors; › the new guidelines for PHARE prepared by the Commission in March, continuing with the improved integration of implementation structures for this programme into the partner countries’ (cid:145)normal(cid:146) structures, more unbundling and decentralisation towards those countries and Commission delegations, whose staffing would be increased, the tapping of new sources of expertise alongside consultancies, such as twinnings of institutions and administrations; › updating of the DIS Manual and its planned introduction before the end of this year, so as to combine the new provisions on transparency of contracts in a single document which also lays down in detail the procedures for (decreasing) aid for the operating costs of PMUs and provides a model for the transfer of know-how in programme management, with the aim of an effective reduction in dependence on technical assistance in this area. The Commission expects that as a whole these steps will remedy the chief shortcomings identified in the section of the report by the Court of Auditors to which the Honourable Member refers. (1) OJ L 356, 31. 12. 1977. (98/C 117/182) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3043/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (1 October 1997) Subject: White Paper on railways The Economic and Social Committee has issued an opinion on the White Paper: a strategy for revitalizing the Community(cid:146)s railways (COM(96) 421 final) (1). It is essential to sift through the directives and regulations and study their transposition into national laws. The actual implementation and achievements of these provisions used in the railways sector could thus be analysed so that Member States can learn from each other(cid:146)s experience and future fields of application can be examined. Will the Commission examine in particular whether implementation in the individual Member States is converging or drawing further apart? (1) OJ C 206, 7. 7. 1997, p. 23. Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (3 November 1997) The principal piece of Community legislation on the development of the railways is Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community(cid:146)s railways (1), which has had a considerable impact on the reorganisation of the railways in recent years and is the foundation of the Commission(cid:146)s strategy to revitalise the Community(cid:146)s railways set out in its white paper of 1996. However, the Commission fully accepts the importance of studying in each Member State exactly how the Directive has been implemented and what results it has given. It has therefore launched a wide-ranging study on the implementation and results of the Directive and intends to present a report to the Council and the Parliament early next year. As for the implementation of the Directive in national law, the Commission has found that three Member States have not yet implemented the article on access rights and has opened proceedings under Article 169 of the EC Treaty against them. (1) OJ L 237, 24. 8. 1991


title: SCHRIFTELIJKE VRAAG nr. 3035/97 van Amedeo AMADEO aan de Commissie. Belastingheffing op zware motorvoertuigen

eurovoc_concepts:
commercial vehicle
double taxation
excise duty
tax system
toll
transport infrastructure
transport price
vehicle tax

text: C 117/132 NL Publicatieblad van de Europese Gemeenschappen 16. 4. 98 (98/C 117/176) SCHRIFTELIJKE VRAAG E-3035/97 van Amedeo Amadeo (NI) aan de Commissie (1 oktober 1997) Betreft: Belastingheffing op zware motorvoertuigen In verband met het voorstel voor een richtlijn van de Raad betreffende de belastingheffing op zware motorvoertuigen die zijn aangepast voor het goederenvervoer over de weg voor het gebruik van sommige infrastructuren (COM(96)0331 def. › 96/0182 SYN) (1). Tolwegen zijn een toepassing van het territorialiteits- beginsel, maar in combinatie met motorrijtuigenbelastingen en accijnzen vormen zij een dubbele belastinghef- fing. Daarom luidt het verzoek om op langere termijn het bestaan van tolwegen op te heffen. Dankzij de technologische vernieuwingen, vooral de elektronische sturing, zou het mogelijk zijn om de dubbele belastingheffing te vermijden en zou tegelijkertijd het verkeer minder hinder ondervinden. (1) PB C 59 van 26. 2. 1997, blz. 9. Antwoord van de heer Kinnock namens de Commissie (7 november 1997) De Commissie is van mening dat brandstofaccijnzen en motorrijtuigenbelasting qua aard en doelstellingen verschillen van tolwegen. Daarom is zij het niet eens met de bewering dat de gelijktijdige toepassing daarvan dubbele belastingheffing betekent. Bovendien vindt de Commissie dat tolwegen, omdat er rechtstreeks verband is met de door het wegverkeer veroorzaakte kosten, een geschikt belastinginstrument vormen dat ter verkrijging van een efficie¤nt transport- systeem kan worden aangewend. Verwacht wordt dat de toepassing van geavanceerde van de weg gebruik makende technologie, die betaling mogelijk maakt zonder dat voertuigen moeten vertragen of stoppen, en waarbij een aan de ten grondslag liggende kosten gerelateerde differentiatie van tarieven mogelijk is, een verdere bijdrage zal leveren tot het transportsysteem als geheel. (98/C 117/177) SCHRIFTELIJKE VRAAG E-3037/97 van Amedeo Amadeo (NI) aan de Commissie (1 oktober 1997) Betreft: Lengtediscriminatie Het is absurd dat in het Europa van het jaar 2000 waarin de Europese Gemeenschap zich al 50 jaar inzet voor de bestrijding van discriminatie naar sekse, ras, etnische en maatschappelijke herkomst, invaliditeit, seksuele geaardheid, geloof enz. , zich nog steeds gevallen van lengtediscriminatie voordoen. Zo heeft in Italie¤ een pas afgestudeerde medicus om toelating verzocht tot de Scuola degli Allievi Ufficiali di Complemento (AUC) om daar zijn militaire dienst te verrichten. Hij is echter maar 1,63 cm lang, en als willekeurige limiet wordt een lengte van 1,65 aangehouden. Terwijl de toekomstige dienstplichtige over de beste papieren beschikt, is hij als eenvoudig soldaat opgenomen in het parachutistencorps. Het verzoek aan de Commissie luidt of zij er niet bij de lidstaten op kan aandringen dat zij niet langer de rechtsgelijkheid van de burgers met voeten treden. (De medicus over wie ik het hier heb, is dr. Andrea POMESANO uit Bergamo. ) Antwoord van de heer Flynn namens de Commissie (10 november 1997) De door de geachte afgevaardigde gestelde vraag valt niet onder de bevoegdheid van de Commissie. Bij het huidige gemeenschapsrecht vallen kwesties op het gebied van de militaire dienst immers uitsluitend onder de bevoegdheid van de lidstaten


title: SCHRIFTLICHE ANFRAGE Nr. 3034/97 von Amedeo AMADEO an die Kommission. SLIM: Pilotvorhaben

eurovoc_concepts:
EC Directive
EU control
EU law - national law
application of EU law
national implementing measure
single market

text: C 134/62 DE Amtsblatt der Europa¤ischen Gemeinschaften 30. 4. 98 Die Regierungskonferenz hat diese Mo¤glichkeit gepru¤ft und vereinbart, mit dem Vertrag von Amsterdam Artikel F Absatz 1 des Vertrags u¤ber die Europa¤ische Union folgenderma(cid:223)en zu a¤ndern: (cid:132)Die Union beruht auf den Grundsa¤tzen der Freiheit, der Demokratie, der Achtung der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten sowie der Rechtsstaatlichkeit; diese Grundsa¤tze sind allen Mitgliedstaaten gemeinsam. (cid:147) Artikel F Absatz 2 des Vertrags u¤ber die Europa¤ische Union sieht vor, da(cid:223) die Union (cid:132)die Grundrechte, wie sie in der [. ] Europa¤ischen Konvention zum Schutze der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten gewa¤hrleistet sind(cid:147), achtet. Au(cid:223)erdem wurden in den Vertrag u¤ber die Europa¤ische Union ein neuer Artikel F. 1 und in den EG-Vertrag ein neuer Artikel 236 u¤ber die Ma(cid:223)nahmen aufgenommen, die zu ergreifen sind, wenn ein Mitgliedstaat die Grundsa¤tze verletzt, auf denen die Union beruht. Gema¤(cid:223) dem neuen Artikel 6 a kann der Rat geeignete Vorkehrungen treffen, um Diskriminierungen aus Gru¤nden des Geschlechts, der Rasse, der ethnischen Herkunft, der Religion oder der Weltanschauung, einer Behinderung, des Alters oder der sexuellen Ausrichtung zu beka¤mpfen. (98/C 134/77) SCHRIFTLICHE ANFRAGE E-3034/97 von Amedeo Amadeo (NI) an die Kommission (1. Oktober 1997) Betrifft: SLIM: Pilotvorhaben Im Zusammenhang mit der (cid:132)Mitteilung der Kommission an den Rat und das Europa¤ische Parlament › Vereinfachung der Rechtsvorschriften im Binnenmarkt (SLIM): Pilotprojekt (KOM(96)204 end) wird die Kommission ersucht, die Umsetzung und Anwendung der EG-Rechtsetzung auf einzelstaatlicher Ebene entschlossen und aktiv u¤berwachen, um insbesondere zu vermeiden, da(cid:223) durch eine unvollsta¤ndige Umsetzung in einzelstaatliche Rechtsvorschriften oder sonstige Praktiken die Einheit des Gemeinschaftsmarktes beeintra¤ch- tigt wird. Antwort von Herrn Monti im Namen der Kommission (17. November 1997) Die einwandfreie Durchsetzung der gemeinsamen Regeln im gesamten Binnenmarkt hat fu¤r die Kommission ho¤chste Priorita¤t, wie es in Kapitel 5. 1 ihrer Mitteilung an das Europa¤ische Parlament und den Rat u¤ber Wirkung und Wirksamkeit der Binnenmarktma(cid:223)nahmen (1) hei(cid:223)t. Die Vereinfachung der Gemeinschaftsrichtlinien wurde ebenfalls als vorrangig eingestuft. Die Kommission lie(cid:223) ihrem Binnenmarktbericht einen Binnenmarkt-Aktionsplan (2) folgen, der vom Europa¤i- schen Rat befu¤rwortet wurde. Das erste strategische Ziel dieses Aktionsplans › Die Vorschriften wirksamer gestalten › umfa(cid:223)t fu¤nf Aktionen: Inkraftsetzung des Binnenmarktrechts, Schaffung eines Rahmens zur Rechtsdurchsetzung und Problemlo¤sung, besserer Zugang der Unternehmen zur richtigen Information, Vereinfachung und Verbesserung der einzelstaat- lichen und Gemeinschaftsvorschriften und Beseitigung der Schwachstellen im bestehenden Rechtsrahmen. Als Teil der ersten Aktion wurden die Mitgliedstaaten aufgefordert, bis 1. Oktober 1997 detaillierte Zeitpla¤ne fu¤r ihre Umsetzungsprogramme vorzulegen, um unbedingt alle Verspa¤tungen aufzuholen und die vor dem 1. Januar 1999 liegenden Umsetzungsfristen einzuhalten. Fast alle Mitgliedstaaten haben diese Zeitpla¤ne nunmehr vorgelegt, und die Kommission wird ihre Befolgung durch die Mitgliedstaaten u¤berwachen. (1) Dok. KOM(96) 520 endg. (2) Mitteilung der Kommission an den Europa¤ischen Rat, CSE (97) 1 endg


title: Dictamen del Comité Económico y Social sobre el tema «Balance y perspectivas del trabajo estacional y movimientos migratorios en el espacio rural»

eurovoc_concepts:
agricultural labour force
occupational migration
rural region
seasonal employment
seasonal migration


title: 97/658/EC: Commission Decision of 1 October 1997 concerning financial contribution by the Community towards the eradication of sheep pox in Greece (Only the Greek text is authentic)

eurovoc_concepts:
EU financing
Greece
animal disease
goat
sheep
slaughter premium


title: INTERROGAZIONE SCRITTA n. 2988/97 dell'on. Nikitas KAKLAMANIS alla Commissione. Relazione della Commissione sui porti europei

eurovoc_concepts:
Council of the European Union
European Commission
European Parliament
European Union
economic development
exchange of information
harbour installation
report
trans-European network
transport network

text: 16. 4. 98 IT Gazzetta ufficiale delle Comunita‘ europee C 117/123 L(cid:146)Unione europea ha espresso la sua ferma condanna contro la fatwa pronunciata nei confronti di Salman Rushdie: tale questione, come pure quelle del processo di Faradj Sarkuhi e del ritorno a Teheran degli ambasciatori degli Stati membri, e‘ attualmente in discussione nel quadro della politica estera e di sicurezza comune. (98/C 117/156) INTERROGAZIONE SCRITTA E-2987/97 di Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) alla Commissione (1o ottobre 1997) Oggetto: Catastrofe ecologica nel Mediterraneo causata da un(cid:146)alga mutata Negli ultimi anni si sta espandendo in modo incontrollabile nel Mediterraneo un tipo di alga tropicale mutata, la «Caulerpa tassifolia», importata in Europa per decorare l(cid:146)acquario di un giardino zoologico tedesco. L(cid:146)alga ha subito una mutazione che ha prodotto una nuova specie, che si espande a gran velocita‘ e resiste ad ogni tentativo di annientarla. Ovunque faccia la sua comparsa non esistono piu‘ coralli, spugne, granchi e qualunque altra forma di flora e fauna marina, per cui alla fine scompaiono anche i pesci. Tale nuova specie si espande a gran velocita‘ e provoca un(cid:146)enorme catastrofe ecologica nel sensibile Bacino mediterraneo. Puo‘ la Commissione dire come intende reagire e quali iniziative ha in animo di adottare per invertire la marcia verso la catastrofe alla quale il Mediterraneo si dirige con precisione matematica? Risposta data dalla sig. ra Bjerregaard a nome della Commissione (30 ottobre 1997) La Commissione ha cofinanziato dal 1992 al 1995, tramite lo strumento finanziario LIFE, un progetto internazionale destinato a studiare il problema dell(cid:146)espansione dell(cid:146)alga (Caulerpa taxifoglia) nel Mediterraneo e di prevenire un(cid:146)ulteriore evoluzione del fenomeno. Il progetto e‘ stato eseguito da gruppi francesi, spagnoli e italiani. Di fronte ai risultati di questo progetto e all(cid:146)espansione ininterrotta dell(cid:146)alga, la Commissione ha deciso nel 1995 di concedere un secondo finanziamento di LIFE ad un(cid:146)azione destinata a sperimentare tecniche di sradicamento dell(cid:146)alga e ad elaborare una strategia di controllo della sua espansione. Il progetto e‘ coordinato da un raggruppamento di interesse scientifico (GIS) Posidonie a Marsiglia presso il quale l(cid:146)onorevole parlamentare potra‘ trovare informazioni piu‘ dettagliate. Il GIS Posidonie ha organizzato in particolare il 19 e 20 settembre 1997 un colloquio internazionale sul controllo dell(cid:146)espansione di Caulerpa taxifoglia le cui relazioni dovrebbero essere pubblicate tra poco. Occorre notare che, mentre la Commissione, tramite lo strumento finanziario LIFE, partecipa allo studio del problema e alle fasi sperimentali di soluzione, le eventuali misure strutturali da adottare sono di competenza degli Stati membri interessati. (98/C 117/157) INTERROGAZIONE SCRITTA E-2988/97 di Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) alla Commissione (1o ottobre 1997) Oggetto: Relazione della Commissione sui porti europei Durante le consultazioni del Parlamento europeo con la Commissione ed il Consiglio relative alle reti transeuropee dei trasporti, la Commissione si e‘ espressamente impegnata a redigere e presentare all(cid:146)inizio del 1997 al Parlamento una relazione sulle misure da adottare per lo sviluppo dei porti europei. Puo‘ la Commissione dire se tale documento e‘ stato redatto e quando sara‘ consegnato al Parlamento?


title: ΓΡΑΠΤΗ ΕΡΩΤΗΣΗ αρ θ. 2979/97 του Christoph KONRAD προς την Επ τροπή. Θέματα ανταγωνισμού τα οποία αποτελούν σήμερα αντικείμενο διαφοράς μεταξύ της Ομοσπονδιακής Δημοκρατίας της Γερμανίας (ιδιαιτέρως των νέων ομοσπόνδων κρατιδίων "neue Bundeslaender") και της Επιτροπής (ΓΔ IV)

eurovoc_concepts:
European Commission
Federation State
German Democratic Republic
Germany
State aid
aid to undertakings
complaint to the Commission
control of State aid
restriction on competition

text: 30. 4. 98 EL Epi·shmh Efhmeri·da tvn Eyrvpai¤kv· n Koinoth·tvn C 134/47 (98/C 134/57) GRAPTH ERVTHSH E-2979/97 ypobolh· : Christoph Konrad (PPE) prow thn Epitroph· (1h Oktvbri·oy 1997) Ue·ma: Ue·mata antagvnismoy· ta opoi·a apoteloy·n sh·mera antikei·meno diafora·w metajy· thw Omospondiakh·w Dhmokrati·aw thw Germani·aw (idiaite·rvw tvn ne·vn omospo·ndvn kratidi·vn «neue Bundesla¤nder») kai thw Epitroph·w (GD IV) 1. Poie·w diadikasi·ew ele·gxoy pragmatopoioy·ntai sh·mera sthn Epitroph· sxetika· me tiw kratike·w enisxy·seiw poy pare·xontai se germanike·w epixeirh·seiw sthn Omospondiakh· Dhmokrati·a thw Germani·aw; 2. Poio· ei·nai akribv· w to antikei·meno toy ele·gxoy kai meta· apo· poie·w diamartyri·ew dienergei· ton e·legxo h Epitroph·; ˙ mh·pvw o e·legxow pragmatopoiei·tai me prvtoboyli·a thw Epitroph·w; 3. Poio·w ei·nai o ariumo·w tvn kratikv· n enisxy·sevn sta «neue Bundesla¤nder» se sxe·sh me ta «alte Bundesla¤nder» (palaia· omo·sponda krati·dia); 4. Poia· ta·sh proky·ptei, ba·sei toy ele·gxoy aytoy·, gia ta teleytai·a e·th, idiaite·rvw o·son afora· tiw kratike·w enisxy·seiw sta «neue Bundesla¤nder», to·so se sxe·sh me to y·cow thw oikonomikh·w eni·sxyshw o·so kai me ton ariumo· tvn periptv· sevn; 5. Pv· w proti·uetai h Epitroph· na meiv· sei se apodekto· epi·pedo ton ariumo· tvn kratikv· n enisxy·sevn sta «neue Bundesla¤nder» kai poie·w symfvni·ew synh·fuhsan epi· toy ue·matow aytoy· me thn kybe·rnhsh thw Omospondiakh·w Dhmokrati·aw thw Germani·aw; 6. Poia· ei·nai h ue·sh tvn ypoloi·pvn kratv· n melv· n thw Eyrvpai¤kh·w (cid:201)nvshw sxetika· me thn kata·stash ayth·; Apa· nthsh toy k. Van Miert ej ono·matow thw Epitroph· w (29 Oktvbri·oy 1997) H Epitroph· ejeta·zei epi· toy paro·ntow 59 ypoue·seiw xorh·ghshw enisxy·sevn prokeime·noy na ejakribv· sei 1. ea·n oi enisxy·seiw poy xorh·ghse h Omospondiakh· Dhmokrati·a thw Germani·aw symbiba·zontai me thn koinh· agora·. Stiw ypoue·seiw ayte·w den perilamba·nontai ta kauestv· ta enisxy·sevn, oy·te oi enisxy·seiw ston tome·a thw gevrgi·aw, thw aliei·aw kai tvn metaforv· n. 43 ypoue·seiw aforoy·n ta ne·a omo·sponda kra·th kai 16 ta palaia· omo·sponda kra·th. H diadikasi·a eje·tashw poy proble·petai sto a·ruro 93 para·grafow 2 thw synuh·khw EK kinh·uhke synolika· se 23 ypoue·seiw. Apo· ayte·w, 17 ypoue·seiw aforoy·n ta ne·a omo·sponda kra· th kai 6 ta palaia· omo·sponda kra·th. Orisme·new ypoue·seiw, gia tiw opoi·ew kinh·uhke h diadikasi·a eje·tashw, perie·xontai se kata·logo poy 2. diabiba·sthke sto Ajio·timo Me·low kai sth grammatei·a toy Koinoboyli·oy. To antikei·meno thw eje·tashw anafe·retai ston en lo·gv kata·logo. H Epitroph· parembai·nei to·so meta· apo· kataggeli·a antagvnistv· n tvn epixeirh·sevn poy e·laban eni·sxysh o·so kai kato·pin sxetikv· n plhroforiv· n apo· ta me·sa mazikh·w enhme·rvshw. 3. Prokeime·noy na apanthuei· to erv· thma ayto·, vw dei·kthw xrhsimopoih·uhke o ariumo·w tvn kratikv· n enisxy·sevn poy xorhgh·uhkan to 1997. To 1997, synolika· 51 apofa·seiw aforoy·san ta ne·a omo·sponda kra·th kai 14 ta palaia· omo·sponda kra·th. Gia thn apa·nthsh aytoy· toy ervth·matow apaitei·tai h diene·rgeia endelexoy·w eje·tashw. (cid:201)vw tiw 31 4. Dekembri·oy 1995, efarmo·sthkan diadoxika· dia·fora eidika· kauestv· ta («Treuhandregime»). Lo·gv tvn synolikv· n aytv· n egkri·sevn, h Epitroph· eje·tase mo·no e·nan mikro· ariumo· ypoue·sevn, periorizo·menh stiw pio shmantike·w. Kata· syne·peia, sta statistika· stoixei·a parathrei·tai ay·jhsh toy ariumoy· tvn ypoue·sevn. (cid:201)tsi, to prv· to epta·mhno toy 1997, h Epitroph· eje·dvse e·ji fore·w perisso·terew apofa· seiw apo· o·,ti olo·klhro to 1995. Anti·ueta, apo· tiw statistike·w proky·ptei mia ptvtikh· ta·sh o·son afora· to y·cow tvn enisxy·sevn. Vsto·so, ta sxetika· statistika· stoixei·a ephrea·zontai apo· shmantike·w memonvme·new ypoue·seiw, o·pvw h ypo·uesh BUNA to 1995, sto plai·sio thw opoi·aw xorhgh·uhkan enisxy·seiw peri·poy 10 dis. DEM. To 1997, h Epitroph· e·labe apofa·seiw gia th xorh·ghsh enisxy·sevn y·coyw 3,18 dis. DEM sta ne·a omo·sponda kra·th. Apo· thn 1h Ianoyari·oy 1996, h Epitroph· efarmo·zei toyw genikoy·w kano·new enisxy·sevn sta ne·a omo·sponda 5. kra·th. To·so h Epitroph· o·so kai h omospondiakh· kybe·rnhsh kinhtopoi·hsan shmantiko· epipro·sueto prosvpiko· gia thn antimetv· pish toy ayjhme·noy fo·rtoy ergasi·aw poy proe·kyce apo· thn efarmogh· tvn genikv· n kano·nvn enisxy·sevn sta ne·a omo·sponda kra·th. Sxetika· me to ue·ma ayto·, den zhth·uhke h gnv· mh tvn a· llvn kratv· n melv· n. H Epitroph· dy·natai, vsto·so, na 6. diapistv· sei sto plai·sio tvn drasthrioth·tvn thw o·ti ta a·lla kra·th me·lh yposthri·zoyn kata· kano·na tiw dra·seiw thw kai tiw prota·seiw thw