title: Second report from the Commission on citizenship of the Union

eurovoc_concepts:
European Ombudsman
European citizenship
Treaty on European Union
access to information
border control
civil rights
diplomatic protection
free movement of persons
fundamental rights
public awareness campaign

text: COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 27. 05. 1997 COM(97) 230 final SECOND REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION on Citizenship of the Union EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Citizenship of the Union conferred on nationals of all Member States by the Maastricht Treaty is meant to make the process of European integration more relevant to their individual participation, strengthening the protection of their rights and promoting the idea of an European identity. citizens by increasing The practical benefits that it engenders are clearly additional to those arising from national citizenship as Union citizenship cannot be acquired or for that matter lost without the acquisition or the loss of the nationality of a Member State. The purpose of this second report, drawn up by the Commission in accordance with Article SE, is to assess the application of the specific provisions relating to citizenship of the Union contained in Part II of the Treaty during the years 1994-1996. During this time progress has been made towards the implementation of the rights specificaHy related to citizenship. The necessary legislative framework for the new rights has been adopted. This said, in practice some of th~ rights are not yet fully applied. Voting :ights in the Member State of residence The right to take part in European Parliament elections is a reality also for all those Union citizens who reside in a Member State of which they are not nationals. The same cannot be said of the right to participate in local elections, as some Member States still have to implement the relevant Directive. An improvement in the participation of Union citizens requires efforts on the part of the institutions and the Member States to improve the information available to citizens. Although some progress should be registered following such initiatives as "Citizens First", further efforts should be deployed as closely as possible to the citizens themselves. Commitment to improve citizens' participation as candidates should be made focusing on promoting their participation in the political life of the host country. Consular and diplomatic protection in third countries Rules have been adopted to provide consular protection to Union citizens in third countries where their own Member State is not represented. Similarly, rules for the delivery of an Emergency Travel Document have also been agreed to. These instruments are not of the same binding nature as those adopted under EC rules. Since Member States have not yet introduced the necessary administrative procedures or change in their legislation, the right to consular and diplomatic protection is not yet fully implemented, on the basis of the provisions of the Treaty. Nevertheless Member States pursue, on an informal, bilateral basis, the application of the provisional guidelines agreed in May 1993. The right to petition the European Parliament and to apply to the Ombudsman The long established practice of the European Parliament of accepting petitions from anyone resident in a :Member State continues to prove its worth as an important Hnk between citizens and the institutions. From the end of the last legislature (93/94) to the first half of the 96/97 parliamentary year, a total of 4. 131 petitions were addressed to the European Parliament. The First European Ombudsman was appointed on 12 July 1995. Since taking office to the end of December 1996 the Ombudsman has received 1. 140 complaints. Given that he has been active for just over one year, an overall appraisal of the impact of his work, on the institutions and on the citizens cannot yet be made. Nevertheless, as the function of the Ombudsman is to render the institutions more open and democratically accountable, his action has been an incentive for the institutions under scrutiny inappropriate to remedy administrative practices. • fJIIIIt' c: 0 c = CL. ,. ,. c :c. , N. ,. ,. \. J • • • Freedom of movement and of residence Citizens still face difficulties when seeking to exercise their rights of free movement and residence. The right to reside in another Member State is still subject ·to different provisions applicable to different categories of citizens as secondary Community law is made up of two Regulations and nine Directives. Yet a single set of rules which would clarify the for equitable existing application may not be introduced due to the lack of common legal basis in the EC Treaty. law and provide At present, the only way to re-cast the secondary legislation also to take account of the full implications of the introduction of citizenship of the Union seems to be a revision of Article BA. From a supplementary legal basis it could be upgraded to a specific legal basis apt to revise the complex body of secondary legislation. This would certainly increase the transparency of Community ease implementation measures and increase the citizens' understanding of the rights effectively conferred. law, The way forward: improving awareness and access to citizens rights The introduction of citizenship of the Union has raised citizens expectations as to the rights they expect to see conferred and enforced. Citizens are entitled to be aware of these rights and to have them honoured in practice by the Member States. Otherwise citizens will regard EU citizenship as a vague and distant concept. The Commission submits that the present entitlements could be further reinforced through two main lines of action : • a permanent information effort guaranteeing citizens access to simple and factual information concerning their rights, and • a special effort on the part of the Commission and Member States to ensure that the rights are effectively enforced In the following months, the Commission will look into issues linked with freedom of movement of people in the light of the Report to the by the High Level Panel presented Commission on 18 March 1997, the priority areas indicated in the Action Plan for the Single Market and of the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Conference on the revision of the Treaties. The reactions from the Council and the European Parliament to this report as well as the feedback from the Citizens First! initiative will further assist the Commission to identify further steps that may be taken. ,. t I. • '1 • ------------··------··--- - c: 0 c :!) • f/llllll' page Introduction. 6 I. THE NEW RIGHTS INTRODUCED BY THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION. 7 1. The right to participate in elections for the European Parliament and in municipal elections in the Member State of residence. 7 1. 1 Common principles. :. 7 1. 2 The citizens reactions in the last European Parliament elections. 9 1. 3 The application of Directive 94/80 to municipal elections held in 1996. 9 1. 4 Improving the citizens' participation. 10 2. consular and diplomatic protection in the making. 11 3. Nonjudicial means of protecting citizens' rights. 12 3. 1 The right to petition the European Parliament. 12 3. 1. 1 The experience in the last three parliamentary years. 12 3. 2 The right to apply to the European Ombudsman. 13 11. THE RIGHTS CONFERRED PRIOR TO THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION. 14 4. Right of free movement. :. 14 4. 1 Article BA of the EC Treaty: right of entry and residence of citizens of the U nion. l4 4. 2. Experience of the past three years. 15 4. 3 Failure to revise provisions on right of residence. 16 4. 4 Need to revision of Article BA. 17 4. 5 Article 7 A and elimination of controls on persons at internal frontiers. l7 Ill. THE WAY FORWARD: IMPROVING AWARENESS AND ACCESS TO CITIZENS RIGHTS. 18 ··- ----------·-"" :··--•· r •~r 'r. •. • • • "~'. ; ,_J • * *. Introduction Citizenship of the Union conferred on nationals of all Member States is meant to make the process of European integration more relevant to the individual citizens by increasing the their protection of their rights and promoting the idea of an European identity. strengthening participation, Today, a series of general rights and benefits derived from the European Union are being used and enjoyed by ever larger numbers of EU citizens, notably as a result of the development of the Single Market. These include the rights to work and buy goods and services in other Member States and to enjoy greater choice of goods and services and more competitive prices, as well as guaranteed levels of consumer and health protection and equal opportunities in the workplace In addition to these general rights, Part II of the EC Treaty contains specific provisions relating to citizenship of the Union and lists seven different rights that are the subject of the present report. As Union citizenship cannot be acquired or for that matter lost without the acquisition or the loss of the nationality of a Member State, the benefits that it engenders are clearly additional to those arising from national citizenship'. They may be grouped in the following four categories: • a personal right to free movement and residence subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in the treaty and secondary law; • electoral rights in European Parliament and the place of in municipal elections residence; • protection by diplomatic and consular authorities of any Member State in a third country where the citizen's own Member State is not represented; • access to non-judicial means of redress, through access to the Ombudsman and a right to petition the European Parliament. This diverse set of rights is subject to different conditions. Generally speaking the rights stemming from citizenship of the Union cannot, for instance, be invoked in domestic situations which are purely internal to a Member State. Some of the entitlements such as the electoral rights can only be exercised in a Member State other than that of origin, whilst others such as access to the Ombudsman or to petition the European Parliament are extended to all natural and legal persons residing or having their registered office in a Member State. Yet despite certain limitations, in practice the introduction of a citizenship of the Union has raised citizens' expectations as to the rights that they expect to see conferred and protected especially when they move to another Member State. These rights and the Union as a whole, will be credible in the eyes of citizens only insofar as they can be applied in practice. In fart citizenship of the Union can only pursue thP objective set out in Article B of the Treaty: to strengthen the protection of the rights and interests of the nationals of the Member States - if the entitlements conferred are dearly known and are enforceable. Penalty for failure is that citizenship of the Union may appear to be a distant concept for citizens engendering confusion as to its means and objectives even fuelling anti-EU feelings. from decide provisions assessment, the Council, The purpose of this report, drawn up by the Commission to comply with Article 8 E (1) of the Treaty, is to assess the application in practice of Union citizenship. On the basis of acting this unanimously on a proposal the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, may to strengthen, or add to, the rights already conferred which may be adopted by Member States. In the meantime, issues relating to rights stemming from citizenship of the Union are also in the process of being dealt with by the Intergovernmental Conference for the revision of the Treaties. This report however does not deal with the protection of universal human rights which is one of the issues presently being Intergouvernmental discussed Conference. the by But whether new rights are added or. the present ones simply reinforced, citizens concerns must remain at the forefront of European if a closer union between the people of Europe is ever to be achieved integration, This second report on citizenship spans the years 1994 to 19962 and is divided into three sections. The first one deals with the new rights introduced by the Treaty on European Union. The second section reviews the rights already in the establishment of a place, prior to 1 Member States retain full competence to determine who Is to bP considered their own nationals for Community purposes Declaration n"2 annexed to the final Act of theTreaty on European Union ' The first Commission report on citizenship COM (93) 702 final of 21 December 1993. • • • •. 6 •. , * • * citizenship of the Union and relating to freedom of movement. In both cases, the entitlements conferred are described, the progress of their implementation analysed and their effectiveness examined. Finally, the third section looks forward to the ways in which the present entitlements may further reinforced. be I. THE NEW RIGHTS INTRODUCED BY THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION Alongs!dc the establishment of a citizenship of the Union, Part II of the EC Treaty conferred on citizens of the Union the following new set of rights: • • • the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in European Parliament and in local elections in the Member State of residence - Article 8 B (1) and (2) the right to diplomatic and consular assistance in countries in which a Union citizen's Member State is not represented - Article BC the right for the Union citizen to submit a petition to the European Parliament and to apply to the Ombudsman - Article 8 D 1. The right to participate in elections for the European Parliament and in municipal elections in the Member State of residence 1. 1 Common principles Article 8 B of the EC-Treaty confers on Union citizens resident in another Member State of which they are not nationals the right to participzte in their Member State of residence, as voters or as candidates, in elections to the European Parliament and in municipal elections. For the exercise of these rights, Council unanimously acopted in 1993 and 1994 two Directives containing detailed arrangements to be implemented by Member States: Directive 93/109 for European Parliament elections and Directive 94/80/EC for municipal elections3 • Although both these instruments contain provisions specific to the elections to which they refer, they are bound by the following common principles: • Ne harmonization of electoral laws - Both directives refrain from any attempt to harmonize national electoral laws. They mere!y introduce basic rules meant to allow non-nationals to exercise their rights, in so far as possible, under the same conditions as nationals. Their provisions do not hinder, for instance, preferential treatment already given by Member States in favour of some Union citizens only. Moreover, in the case of European Parliament elections, Directive 93/109 is without prejudice to Article 138 (3) on the introduction of an uniform electoral procedure. · ,. ·:··. ·· -. , ·;·. ,. c. , • Freedom of choice- Union citizens are free to choose whether or not to exercise their rights in their Member State of residence. In the case of European Parliament elections, due to the prohibition on double voting in the same election, this implies the need to opt between the Member State of residence and that of origin. In municipal elections, voting in the Member State of residence does not automatically entail the loss of the equivalent right in the Member State of origin: it is up to Member States themselves to regulate the conditions under which their nationals residing outside their electoral territory retain their electoral rights4 • • Equal access to electoral rights - On the basis of the principle of non-discrimination EU citizens are to benefit from electoral rights under the same conditions as nationals of the State of residence, provided that they by conditions fulfill imposed the 3 Council Directive 93/109 of6 December 1993 in OJ L329/34 of 30. 12. 1993. Council Directive 94/80 of 19 December 1994 in OJ L 368 of 31. 12. 1994, recently modified by Council Directive 93/60/EC of 13 May 1996 In OJ L 122112 of 22. 5. 1996 to Include, the references to basic local government units In the three new Member States. • Eleven MS do not permit their own nationals to vote or to stand If they reside outside their territory. Greek and Italian voters Uving abroad must travel back to their country of origin to vote. Only France and Spain allow Its citizens resident abroad retain their voting rights in full. •. •. •. • 7 • • • • • • to important exception the electoral law of that Member State with regard to its own nationals. This includes·for instance, access the same appeal to procedures with regard to omissions or errors in the electoral roll or in the application to stand, maintenance on the electoral roll under the same conditions a~ nationals, etc. An this rule concerns the first entry on to the electoral roll in the Member State of residence. In the case of European Parliament elections it must be requested by the citizen in order to safeguard his/her freedom of choice. In the case of municipal elections, Member States which do not have compulsory voting are free to choose between an automatic entry on the roll or one on request. Most Member States make use of an automatic entry into the electoral roll as this appears more cost a wider allows effective participation. and for • Extra-territorial effect of the rules on disqualification of candidates - The idea behind this principle is to prevent citizens regaining their civic rights simply by moving from one Member State to another. In the case of European Parliament elections persons deprived of the right to stand as candidates in their own Member State are ~trictly forbidden from being elected in another Member Stc. te. In the case of !Tlunicipa! elections, M~ember States are free to choose whether on not to preclude citizens who have lost their right to stand in their Member State of residence from running for office. BB to be exceptionally • Derogations only if warranted by a specific situation in a Member State - Minimum residence requirements for foreign Union citizens only are, in principle, incompatible with the non-discrimination rule. However permits Article derogations from the principle of equai treatment introduced where warranted by the specific situation in a Member State. Both Directives recognize that Member States whose proportion of non-national Union citizens exceeds 20% of eligible voters may be granted a derogation. the case of European Parliament In elections, the minimum residence period that may be requested before granting electoral rights may not exceed 5 and 1 0 years for voters and candidates respectively. Luxembourg is the only Member State to apply such a derogation. In the case of municipal elections, the minimum residence period must not exceed the term for which the municipal in authority is elected in the case of voters, the case of this and, · or double candidates. Two Member States benefit from such a derogation, Luxembourg and Belgium. The latter however !r. ay only impose minimum residence periods for voters in a limited number of mcnidpaHties and is required to signal its intention to do so one year before the ballot takes place. • An adequate info. 71Jation campaign - Member States have the obligation to inform Union citizens resident in their te:-ritory in good time and in an appropriate marmer of their new electoral rights. This a particularly important aspect of the new entitlements which cannot be fully exercised in the absence of proper information. This being said, there are provisions that specifically address issues recurrer. t only in European Parliament or in municipal elections. Thus the two Directives differ as far as the following provisions are concerned. • A single vote and a single candidature for the European Parliament elections - In conformity with the 1976 Act on the election of MEPs5 , no one may vote or stand as a candidate in more than one 1'. 1ember State in the same election. In order to avoid dcuble voUng and double candidature, !•vfember States · exchange information on their nat!onals exercising their rights abroad. • Certain posts reserved to nationals only in municipal elections - The directive allows for Member States to reserve the posts of mayor and deputy mayor to their own nationals. In most Member States, the mayor and to a large extent also the aldermen exercise state devolved functions such as, for instance, overseeing the local police forces. This derogation the principle of non discrimination is therefore in conformity with the provisions of Articles 48 ( 4) and 55 according to which the exercise of state devolved functions may be reserved for nationals. Its implementation however must be carried out in the respect of the principle of proportionality and it may not restrict more than necessary the possibility for other Member States' nationals to be elected. to 5 Act concerning the election of the representatives of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage annexed to Council Decision 76/787/EC of 20. 9. 1976 In OJ L278 of 8. 10. 1976 modified by Council Decision 1 February 1993in 0] L 33/15 of 9. 2. 1993. • '* •· 8 * • • * •· •. • ~ -- -------~----·--- -· • 1. 2 The citizens' reaction in the last European Parliament elections. A low participation rate Before the introduction of Article 8B (2), five Member States had already extended electoral rights to nationals from other Member States resident in their territory, subject to certain conditions6 • Today all Union citizens resident in a Member State of which they are not nationals have had the opportunity to vote in elections to the European Parliament. Directive 93/109 was applied to the June 1994 elections and to the first elections held in the three new Member States in September 1995 and in October 1996. the that adoption The reasons for this relatively low participation are many and may partly. be explained by the novelty of the rights. It should also be considered and implementation of the new rules allowed for very little time to fully inform both the citizen and the competent national authorities. Adopted in December 1993, Directive 93/109 required Member States to introduce the necessary laws for its implementation by 1st February 1994 and was first applied barely four months after, in the June EP elections. Strict delays for registration coupled with insufficient information seem to have excluded a number of potential voters. Expatriates may exercise these rights either by correspondence or proxy, or in a consulate. Given the fact that members of the European Parliament are elected on national lists, numerous citizens preferred to vote for a candidate of their country of origin to whom they could relate in a well known political context". The Commission is in the process of submitting an evaluation report on the application of the directive to the last EP elections which also includes data on the elections held in Sweden in September 1995 and in Finland and Austria in October 1996. A detailed analysis of the issues mentioned above may be found therein. 1. 3 The application of Directive 94/80/EC to municipal elections held in 1996 Implementation Jaws not yet adopted by a/1 the Member States Prior to the adoption of Directive 94/80 in December 1994, local voting rights were extended to residents from other ·Member States in Ireland, Denmark, the Netherlands, the United Spain, Sweden, Finland and Kingdom. With the exception of Ireland, these rights were subject to certain conditions such as residence periods or reciprocity agreements. The Directive aJlowed Member States a period of two years to adapt their internal legislation to give Union citizens the right to participate in local elections. Throughout this time there has been great attention on the part of individual meps and citizens at large to the introduction of this new right and the deadline of 1st January 1996 was closely monitored through information, petitions and for requests parliamentary questiqns 11 '. r:. Q c :J. ,. t. : ltrl QJ ,N ·~ l1f. ,. ,. Apart from these teething problems, a more fundamental point must be considered. Elections to the European Parliament are elections to a single institution and hence the principle of "one man-one vote" applies. A Union citizen who decides to vote in his Member State of residence must renounce the possibility to vote in his Member State of origin. The need to make this choice was a realit~ for most expatriate Union citizens because all the Member States with the exception of Ireland grant voting rights in European Parliament elections to their nationals living abroad. • Ireland. Belgium, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom (Irish citizens only) and Italy (candidates only). 7 Ms Wlhnya Zimmermann, a Dutch citizen, resident In Germany. • Eurobarometer surveys n•4t, July 1994. • A spontaneous enquiry of officials of the European Institutions to which roughly 2'){, of the staff replied revealed that the most important reason preventing them from voting in their Member State of residence was the fact that the election campaign was focused exclusively on Issues. Cf also Eurobarometer survey n•4J on the possible factors Influencing the vote. internal policy w Over 19 parliamentary questions and 8 petitions In the reference period. • • • • 9. • * • • The first time Union citizens took part in municipal elections on the basis of the Directive was in Berlin in October 1995. Since then, the Directive has been applied in elections and by-elections in Luxembourg, Italy, in various German and Austrian Uinder, in Finland and in the United Kingdom. Electoral data on the level of participation of Union citizens is at present not complete as it is not systematically compiled for non-nationals. The only indicative turnout figures for the non national electorate concern the German Land of Bavaria and the Austrian Land of Vienna. In Bavaria, taken as a whole, non-national voter turnout varied between 21%-25%. In Vienna the percentage of EU voters was 35,5%. In both cases, the participation of non-nationals was below the average of that of national voters. The Commission is required to submit a report on the application of the directive within a year of the holding of scheduled municipal elections in all the Member States, that is by 2001. It will also have to present, by 31 December 1998, a report the justification residence requirements for non-national Union citizens in Luxembourg and Belgium is examined. for mmtmum in which 1. 4 Improving the citizens' participation Increasing the information available and promoting access to candidatures ~n,:····. the partt~ipatfon of Union. c~tl%,~5. Fi :'. ,. and forernostthete was ~la,cko~,itlfomtati~l'l·flbQ~~. ~>~ra · ally. ~!;:Jhe. · ·. n~·· · ··1:can lo ( · The first problem is relatively easy to tackle. Vast information campaigns such as "Citizens First!" coupled with the efforts on the part of Member States and a greater familiarity with time, the new rights should provide. sufficient information to citizens. Member States should of course be the front-runners in providing information as this is an obligation they have to comply with on the basis of Article 12 of Directive 109/93 and article 11 of Directive 94/80. in The second problem is morP complex and requires careful consideration. The presPnt. 10 "' prov1s10ns of the Treaty P1ereiy grant voting rights without mentioning other poH~Jcal rights such as the right of association ar:d freeC:. om o~ expression. Yet the iatter are ~DtrinsicaHy pre conditions for the meaningfu! exercise of the former. International law itself and the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECI1R) in particular, to which Article ~· of the Treaty refers, considers the politica! status of non nationals as a matter doseiy connected with national sovereignty. Articles 10 (2) , ! 1 ( 1) and 14 of the Convention grant the freedom of expression, of peaceful assembly and of association irrespective of nationality. Yet its Article 16 allows thr contracting parties to impose restrictions on the political activities of aliens' 2 • The accession of to the European Community to the ECHR is at present being discussed in the framework of the Intergovernmentc:I Conference. to everybody, Some Member States have corresponding rules in their legislaHon. These rules subject the political activity of non-nationals to a number of conditions, such as the prohibition of becoming a member of a political party for example or a general obligation of political neutrality as far as policy questions in the host Member State are concerned. The link between voting rights and the participation in the political debate is all the more clear if we consider that in some Member States only political parties are entitled to present candidates for European Parliament and local elections. " Cf the forthcoming Commission Report on the Monitoring of Community law in 1996 - COM {97) 600. The Commission has decided to issue reasoned opinions in the case of France, Greect•, Belgium, Spain, Sweden, Austria (partial implementation) and Finland (partial implementation). It should be noted that in Sweden although the Directive has not been Implemented. foreign residents have been able to vote since the 70s, subject to a period of residence in the country. ' 1 1\ recent judgement the European Court of Human Hlghts (Case 5/1994/452/53 i, Piermont vs France. ) seems to suggest that tht· notion of alien In Article 16 of the echr should not be applied to nationals of the EU Member States. But In the absence of furth(•r clarification of this Interpretation. the reference In /\rtlclc I" cannot be said to guarantee automatically the enjoyment or political rights by Union dtlzens residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals. Nor can one draw ou the case law of the European Court of justice concerning constitutional trad!llon~ rommonto tlw Member States as gerwr<1l ptlnciples of law rights conferred by the Treaty. But the benefits that may ensue from its appHcation. ~n terms of a greater integration of Union citizens in their host Member State are most likely to be felt on~inthelong~rm. Voting rights for non-nationals Union citizens are indeed the most important of the new 11 cfr also Resolution of the European Parliament on the constitutional status of European political parties adopted on 10. 12. 1!J96 - Doe PE 254. 448 2. Consular and diplomatic protection in the making The legislative framework established Article 8C establishes the right to protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of any Member State in third countries where the citizen's Member State is not represented, on the same conditions as nationals of that State. It also indicates that the implementing rules are to be adopted by the Member States. This provision is echoed in Article ]. 6. The potential practical impact of this rule is not negligible. At present, there are only five non EU countries where all Member States are • On the other hand there are represented' 4 seventeen countries where only two Member States are represented. In May 1993 a first set of guidelines for the protection of unrepresented Union citizens by Member States' missions in third countries was adopted, and came into force four months later. Work on the legislative framework has since continued and an important step forward was taken on 19 December 1995. The Representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting within the Council adopted two Decisions, the first regarding protection for citizens of the Union by diplomatic and consular representations' 5 and the second on the implementing measures to be adopted by consular officials 16 • Governments of the Member States meeting within the Council, Jay down the rules for the delivrance of an emergency travel document' 7 (ETD). The ETD may be issued, for one return journey. to EU nationals who find themselves in distress whilst in a third country because, for example, their travel documents have been lost or stolen. As with the 1995 Decisions. these provisions will take effect only when all the Member States have adopted the necessary procedures for their application. To make these arrangements known to the public in general. the Member States and the Commission agreed on the text of a common leaflet "Consular protection for citizens of the European Union"' 8 • It spells out clearly the practical steps to be taken by citizens in distress and the type of assistance that can be expected from Embassies and Consulates of other Member States. On top of the distribution of this leaflet that each Member State may decide for its own nationals, the leaflet will be available in Commission's representations in third countries and will be inserted in the "Citizens First" information initiative. Given that these rules are not yet implemented an evaluation at this stage is not possible. t 1 " Russian Federation, japan, USA, China and Switserland " Decision 95/553/EC In Oj L 314/73 of28. 12. 1995 " Not published in the Official Journal " Decision !l6/40!J/CFSP In Oj I. HiH/4 of6. 7. 1!l!l6 '" Doe SN :~230/!Jfi of 17 June 199(i CIJ. r. : 't , Q. i,. r. : i"' c:. ,. N • ul '-J ,. , 11 • • * •. • • • • 3~ Non-judicial means of protecting the rights of citizens of the Union there has been, procedure refer to the Union's sphere of activity. As this includes second and third pillar issues (common foreign and security policy and co-operation in the fields of Justice and Home affairs) in practice. an enlargement of the scope. At present tlw Committee of Petitions of the European Parliament considers petitions admissible if they relate to the contents of the Treaties or to secondary legislation, if they refer to matters relevant to foreseeable developments in the Community or if they relate to the activities of institution or Community body. The an Commission has, for its part followed this broad interpretation of the rules by the Committee of Petitions. 3. 1. 1 The experience in the last three parliamentary years A steady flow of petitions Petitions are an important link between citizens and the institutions. They provide the latter with a picture of the concerns and needs of individual citizens, highlight shortcomings in - Community legislation or in administrative action and reflect current public opinion. To the citizens themselves they are a wide means of recourse, subject to less strict admissibility criteria than the complaints to the Commission or/and the Ombudsman. In establishing a citizenship of the Union. the Treaty also provided non-judicial mechanisms for the protection of citizens. These means of recourse, free of charge, are the rights to petition the European Parliament and to address the European Ombudsman. complaints to of their perception Although the EP and the Ombudsman are empowered with quite distinct tasks. the citizens' specific competence is not as yet firmly established as is shown by the number of inadmissible petitions and complaints. Consequently there have been extensive efforts to establish coordinating procedures between these two bodies in order to ensure that a citizen's grievances can actually be dealt with. Therefore, the Committee on Petitions and the Ombudsman now exchange, complaints and petitions. where appropriate and with the authors' consent. 3. 1 The right to petition the European parliament A wide ranging access Article 8D gives every Union citizen the right to petition the European Parliament. included provisions This however is not entirely a new entitlement as it already existed in the internal rules of procedure of the European Parliament. In fact. in can be traced back as far as 1953 when the ECSC Assembly for petitions in its internal rules. Article 8D's added value is to have upgraded an institutional practice into a right with a specific legal basis which entitles the European Parliament to request co-operation and information both from the European institutions and national authorities. borders. and raised. •. Most of these petitions are forwarded by the EP the the Commission which provides to Article 138D of the Treaty indicates that petitions must fall within the Community's field of activity whereas the Parliament's rules or '" Cl'r aunllal n·ports of the Committee 011 pP! it ions (Does I' I·. ~ i IUI!Jii, PI·: ~ 1'/. li I;,; I'E 212. ;,()0, I'E 20H. 02!l). * jlo • • ,. • 12 • • • * • information required or, if appropriate, opens infringement procedures against the Member State concerned for violation of Community law. During the period covered by this report 14 cases of su:!pected infringenwnts detected as a dIre et result of a petition to the European ParHmnr·nt 2r:. may be submitted, the procedure to be foUowe,d in the inquiries and the details of co operation with the other institutions. Although a satisfactory outcome cannot be achieved for all petitions, due to the limited powers of the institutions involved, in some individual cases the EP and the Commission's intervention has led to national laws being amended, international agreements being signed and administrative authorities reviewing illegal practices21 • In order to improve the way In which petitions are processed there is a constant and fruitful dialogue between the Commission and the Committee of Petitions. enterprises private and. ,. c: ~ 3. 2 The right to apply to the Ombudsman The European Unions first Ombudsman Article BD (2) stipulates that every citizen of the Union may apply to the Ombudsman. The framework for his action is laid down in Article 138e which further extends this right to all natural or legal persons residing or having their registered office in a Member State. As with the right of petition, the right to address the Ombudsman is available to all legal residents whether or not they are citizens of the Union. The task of the Ombudsman is to investigate cases of alleged maladministration in the activities of the Community institutions and bodies, with the exception of the Court of Justice and the Court of First instance acting in their judicial capacity. Acts of national authorities22 or of international organisations are excluded from the Ombudsman's scope. The Ombudsman conducts enquiries, totally independently. either on his own initiative or following a complaint. He cannot however order an administrative authority to change a decision or grant redress, by awarding damages or annulling administrative decisions. This role is reserved for the Court of First Instance and the European Court of Justice acting in their judicial capacity. Detailed rules on the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties were adopted by the European Parliament on 9 March 199423 • These rules, known as the Statute of the Ombudsman, set out the conditions under which a complaint Since taking up office to the end of December 1996, the Ombudsman has received 1. 140 complaints. Of aiJ the complaints received the examination of admissibility has been completed in 921 cases. Only 34% of these complaints turned out to be within the mandate of the Ombudsman. The main the institutions subject to European Commission the European Parliament (19 cases) the Council of the European Union (4 cases) and the Court of Auditors (5 cases). Out of the 210 cases where inquiry has been started, l 02 were closed by the end of December 1996. No maladmlnlstration was found in 82 cases27 inquiries are ( 187 cases). • :~~• Cf. Commission's 12th (1994). 13th "(1995) ~:~nnual reports on monitoring the application of Community law, respectively 0) C 254/ I of 29. 10. 1994, OJ C 303/ I of 14. 10. 1996. Cf. also the forthcoming 14th Report for 1996 · clt 2 ' Examples of specific cases may be found In the annual reports of the Committee of Petitions. 22 This exclusion Is applicable even if the national authority In question Is responsible for the Implementation of Community law or policies. 2' European Parliament Decision 94/262/ECS/EC/Euratom of 9 March 1994 on the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties In Oj L 113/15 of 4. 5. 1994. This decision was adopted after the Commission issued Its opinion and the Council gave Its approval. 2 ' In OJ L 225/17 of 22. 9. 1~96 "' In Oj C 234/1 of 12 August 1996. Cfr also the EP reaction to the report, Doe PE 217. 098 2 " Doe ME 0006 not yet published ;, SEC (97) 731 of 20 February 1997. • • * •. 13 • • • '* • * • •. ln:;. ll u1 \c,:;s and the c!tizen. s 'c~annm yet bt' made. Nevertheless, it should be kept in mind that the function of the Ombudsman is to make the institutions more open and democratically accountable, and his action is inevitably an incentive for the institutions under scrutiny to remedy inappropriate administrative practices. In 1996, the Ombudsman initiated three investigations on his own initiative, all of which relate to information and transparency. The first concerns the rules of access to documents followed by Community institutions other than the Commission and Council, where a code of conduct is already in place28 • The second focuses on information in the recruitment procedure and the third one deals with the information given to citizens who complain to the Commission alleging a breach of Community law. • Code of conduct concerning pubbc assess to Council and Commission documents (93/730/EC) In OJ L 340/41 of 31. 12. 1993 11. THE RIGHTS CONFERRED PRIOR TO THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION 4. Right to free movement The free movement of persons comprises two concepts, each of which falls within the scope of a different line of reasoning under the Treaty. Article Sa, which is found in Part '1\vo of the Treaty, entitled "Citizenship of the Union", confers on every citizen of the Union the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject certain conditions. Article 7a, on the other hand, found • in Part One, entitled which "Principles", falls within the scope of the establishment of the internal market and provides for free movement without controls at internal Community This elimination of controls applies to all persons, irrespective of their nationality, since Article 7 a would otherwise be deprived of any practical effectiveness. 29 frontiers. to is For reasons of clarity, the evolution in the last three years of the rights enshrined in Article Sa and Article 7 a will be treated separately below. * ------- • • • • * * • 14 4. 1 Article Ba of the EC Treaty: right of entry and residence of citizens of the Union Complex legislation The concept of free movement was reinforced by the Treaty on European Union: as a right conferred on every citizen of the Union, it is now regarded as a fundamental and personal. right, within the European Community, which may be exercised outside the context of an economic activity. , In its White Paper on European Social Policy30 the Commission also indicated, with a view to the establishment of citizenship of the Union and the internal market, the need to review the conditions laid down in secondary legislation for the exercise of the free movement of persons. a Commission Communication of 8 May 1992, SEC (92) 877 ftnal • COM (94)333, 27. 7. 1994 Article Sa does not, however, constitute a comprehensive legal base from which all rights relating to the free movement of citizens of the Union derive. It cannot take the place of other existing legal bases dealing with specific categories of persons, in respect of which secondary legislation lays down distinctions and limitations. 1. Reguiatior. (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of moverileni: the Community; 31 for workers within 2. Council Directive 68/360/EEC of 15 the abo!ition of October 1968 on restrictions on moveme~'1t and residence within the Community for workers of Member States and their families; 32 3. Councii :Oirective 73/ 148/EEC of 21 May 1973 a:: the :1bolition of restrictions on movement and the Community for nationals of Member States with regard to establishment and the p:-ovislon of services; 33 residence within 4. Regulatior. (EEC) No 1251/70 of the Commission of 29 June 1970 on the right of workers to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been employed in that State;34 5. Council Directive 75/34/EEC of 17 December 197 4 concerning the right of nationals of a Member State to remain in the territory of another Member State after having pursued therein an activity in a self employed capacity; 35 6. Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence; 36 7. Council Directive 90/365/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence for employees and self-employed persons who have ceased their occupaUonal activity; 37 8. Council Directive 93/96/EEC of 29 October 1993 on the right of residence for students;38 9. Council Directive 64/221 /EEC of 25 February 1964 on the co-ordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or pubJic health; 39 10. Council Directive 7 2 I 194 I EEC of 18 May 1972 extending to workers exercising the right to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been employed in that State the scope of Directive 64/221/EEC; 40 11. Council Directive 75/35/EEC of 17 December 197 4 extending the scope of Directive 64/221 /EEC to include nationals of a Member State who exercise the right to remain in the territory of another Member State after having pursued therein an activity in a self-employed capacitt'. 4. 2 Experience of the past three years Mixed results Implementation of the rights laid down by Community law in connection with the free movement of persons has led the Commission to the following findings: • transposal in the Member States of the Council Directives, particularly those on the right of residence of retired persons, students and persons having ceased work has not always been carried out satisfactorily, which has led the Commission to initiate a number of infringement procedures. Of the ten procedures orjginally (new Member States exciuded) for failing to transpose these three Directives properly, seven are still under way, while the procedure for failing to trans1:mse the two Directives on retired persons and persons initiated " OJ L 257/475, 19. 10. 1968, English Special Edition: Series-! 68(II} " OJ L 257/485, 19. 10. 1968, English Special Edition: Series·! 68(II) '' 0] L 172/14, 28. 6. 1973 " Oj L 142/24, 30. 6. 1970 " 0] L 14/10,20. 1. 1975 :111 Oj L 180/26. 13. 07. 1990 37 Oj L 1 80/28, 13. 07. 1990 "" OJ L 317/59, 18. 12. 1993 '"' 01 L 56/117, 4. 4. 1964, English Special Edition: Series· I (63·64). "' 0] L 121/32, 26. 5. 1972 " OJ L 14/14, 20. 1. 1975 ,. ,. :N. , ,. filii/Ill t. l •. * • • and propose solutions. The Panel's Report, which was presented to the Commission on 18 March, covered these situations at some length and will have to be the subject of a detailed examination by the Institutions. 4. 3 Failure to revise provisions on right of residence Several legal bases the Since [ast Commission Report on Citizenship, no new legal provisions aimed at facilitating or simplifying the right to reside freely within the territory of the Member States has been adopted. having ceased work resulted in Germany being censured by the Court of Justice 42 • Where employed persons are concerned, the Court of justice censured Belgium in its judgment of 20 February 1997 (Case C- 344/95) for infringing the provisions on residence arrangements and formalities. or particularly • application of the rights which citizens can claim under Community law comes up against problems concerning mainly incorrect restrictive administrative practices. Reference may be made in this respect to the practice of requesting a whole series of documents not law as a required under Community condition for the issue of a residence permit or visa to a member of the family of a citizen of the Union. 43 is ill-adapted Community Jaw to certain particular situations. The Green Paper on "Education - Training - Research: The obstacles to transnational mobility" iisted some examples, such as that of trainees and voluntary workers. 44 the right of residence in the Union is often wrongly perceived by citizens as an unconditional right applicable to all, even nationals in their own Member State. This is particularly true in the case of a national in his own Member State whose family members are nationals of a third country. This situation is in principle not covered by secondary legislation 45 whereas such a right is enjoyed by citizens of the Union who are not nationals of the Member State concerned. As a result of the indivisible nature of citizenship of the Union, such a distinction is regarded with disfavour, particularly where national provisions on family reunification are stricter from those Community law. Certain Member States, however, apply the same principles of of in Community circumstances. deriving both than sets law , • the remaining shortcomings and obstacles to full exercise of the free movement of persons require legislative initiatives to be • These obstacles stem mainly from taken46 the changes in the scope of free movement within the Union, consisting in a shift away from the freedom of movement of workers towards a freedom of movement of persons that more closely resembles the situation within a single Member State. On 24 January 1996, the Commission, aware as it was of these difficulties, appointed a High Level Panel on the Free Movement of Persons to examine problems in this area, assess them. *. • • 16 • - - - - - - - - • • * • • The need to revise those legal instruments, which has already been identified by the Commission 47 , was confirmed by the Brussels European Council However, this objective could not be achieved by the Commission on account of the legal and institutional problems associated with such a revision 49 in December 1993 4 R. • The drawing up of a single instrument grouping together in a coherent manner all the secondary legislation applicable to citizens of the Union and their families comes up major legal obstacles in the existing context of the EC Treaty. The obstacles stem from the diverse " 12th, 13th and 14th annual reports by the Commission on monitoring the application of Community law, supra; Court of justice judgment of 20 March 1997, Case C-96/97, not yet published. " 1994 Commission Report "The Community Single Market". Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Luxembourg, page 50. " COM (96) 462 final. " judgement 7 July 1992, case C370/90, ECR. 1992, 1-4265. •• In 1989, the Commission presented proposals aimed, inter alia. at Improving residence conditions for employees: 0] C 100/(i, 21. 4. 1989; 0] c 119, 15. 5. 1990. 47 Commission report to the European Council on the adaptation of Comnnmlty legislation to the subsidiarity principle: COM (93) 545 final. 24. 11. 1993. •• Conclusions of the European Council: Bulletin EC 12 1993. point 1. 14. •• Report 011 the functioning of the Treaty on European Union. SEC (95) 731, pp. 8 and 33. nature of the legal bases of the existing instruments, for which Article Sa of the EC Treaty cannot be substituted as a single, comprehensive legal basis. Differences also exist in the procedures for adopting these texts. combined should generate entry and residence rights in the Member States of the Union, as is the case with political rights. However, Article 8a is merely a supplementary base which cannot replace other more specific bases, most of which relate to certain categories, such as Articles 49, 54, 56 and 6 of the EC Treaty. Directive i 64/221/EEC i Council [ Directive 68/360/EEC 1 r Council I Regulat:on I (EEC) No J1612/6s Article 49 codecJslon 189b- codecision Article 49 ! 189b- I I ! codeclsion 1 1 I c. 0 c ~ jj Article 49 &- I C~unc~l 1 Directive 56 (2) I 72/194/EEC r--- --------------- ~--~--- __________ t __________ -------- 1 189b - Council Directive 1 codecision i 189b-. codecision i Article 54 (2) 1 Article 63 (2) , 73/ 148/EEC 1 ! Counc;J- --+ ~cl;235. I Directive 75/34/EEC r----------r----------- Council Directive 75/35/EEC Article 56 (2) Article 235 Qual. maj. after ::::::;after EP opinion 189b- codecision Unanimity after EP opinion ~- - I Unanimity after - I Council Article 235 1 D i r e c t iv e / I EP opinion 90/364/EEC t I Article 235 I 90/365/EEC I [ Council Directive I ~-Co~~~ Article 7 EEC (6 t -1 : , ; l;g~~- / Unanimity after , EP I [ Directive j 93/96/EEC ~ommi~~~n Regulation (EEC) j No 1251/70 t 1 Co~~~~~ion. /' after consulting EC) : I Article -48(3) (d) i I 1 -----~ __ EP I 4. 4 Need for revision of Article Ba A single legal instrument ln citizenship of With Articles 8 and Sa of the EC Treaty, the free movement of persons becomes the main element the Union, Conceptually, these Articles constitute both the point of convergence between a number of rights (those existing prior to the entry into force of the Treaty on European Union and those referred therein which have subsequently been created) and the point of departure for new developments. Logically speaking, therefore, these articles 4. 5 Article 7 a and the elimination of controls on persons at internal frontiers European Union According to the Single European Act, the internal market was to be completed by 31 December 1992 with the establishment of an As regards the area without frontiers. elimination of controls on persons at internal frontiers, the debates held In all the Institutions of the Union indicate that views differs as to both the objective sought and the means of achieving it. Measures aimed at achieving a high level of security in the area without frontiers, which condition the elimination of controls on persons irrespective of nationality, have not yet aH been adopted or Implemented. Moreover, some of these measures are based on the EC treaty, while others may be applied only within the scope of Title VI of the Treaty on European Union. ,. , COM(95) 347, OJ C 289/16, 30. 10. 1995, COM(95) 346, OJ C 306/5, 17. 11. 1995, COM{95)348, OJ C 307/ltl, 18. 11. 1995. Two of these ;Jroposals have been amended following an opinion by the EP: see COM{97) 106 flnal of 20. 3. 1997. Flanking measures already approved and Implemented Include: Cour!cll Regulat!o~ {EC) No 2317/95 of 25 September 1995 determining the thlro rountrlt~s whose nationals m~st be In possession of visas when crossing the cxll!rnal borders of the Member States, OJ I. 254, 3. 10. 1995: Council Regulation (EC) No 1683/95 of 29 May 1995 laylnz down a uniform format for visas, OJ L 164 , 14. 7. 1995. Those stlll under discussion Include the draft Convention, ;>roposed by the Commission, on the control of persons crossing the external frontiers of the Member States, OJ C 11. \ 5. 1. 1994. * • • 17 * • • * • • • • • Citizens of the Union will not have tangible evidence of the full effects of the internal market until controls on persons at internal frontiers have been eliminated. Schengen and revision of the Treaties Spain, Belgium, the context of Since 26 March 1995, seven Member States (Germany, France, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Portugal) have achieved an area without internal frontiers within the Schengen Convention: these Member States have abolished controls on persons, irrespective of their nationality, at their common frontiers and have implemented all the flanking measures necessary to establish an area that is both free and secure. Work is under way to enable three other Member States which have signed the Schengen agreements (Italy. Greece and Austria) to join this area without frontiers in the course of 1997. On 19 December 1996, the instruments relating to the accession of Denmark, Finland and Sweden the Schengen agreements were signed, as was a cooperation agreement with Norway and Iceland aimed at maintaining in force the Nordic Union's arrangements on passports. Consequently, the Schengen Group now has thirteen members. to The Schengen initiative has always been aimed at achieving the objective of Article 7 a: the Intergovernmental Conference is therefore examining integrating the possibility of Schengen into the Treaty as a means of achieving this objective throughout the Union. This examination falls within the scope of the more general discussion on the possibility of introducing the principle of flexibiHty into the Treaty. Ill. THE WAY FORWARD: IMPROVING AWARENESS AND ACCESS TO CITIZENS RIGHTS related to EU Citizenship of the Union is a reality. As a result of the Union, citizens now enjoy a range of In the past rights affecting their daily lives. three years, further concrete progress has been made towards the implementation of rights citizenship. specifically Legislation has been adopted by the EU's Council of Ministers giving EU nationals living in another Member State the right to vote in European Parliament and municipal elections in their country of residence. EU governments have agreed rules on providing consular protection in third countries to EU nationals whose own Member State is not represented. The European Ombudsman has been to consider complaints about appointed administrative irregularities by the Community institutions or bodies. Citizens are entitled to be aware of the rights conferred on them by the EU and to have these rights honoured in practice by the Member States. Otherwise, citizens will regard EU citizenship as a vague, intangible concept which means very little in reality. Citizens will feel that the EU is of direct benefit to them if the Commission and the Member States together ensure that: • * •. -· • 18 • ~-~~-~--~-----·- • • * • • Communication Raising awareness- promoting dialogue "Citizens First" was launched on 26th November 1996 to increase people's awareness about the rights and opportunities they have in the Union. The initiative represents the most information exercise ever comprehensive the Commission and the undertaken by European Parliament, who are working in close co-operation with the Member States and non governmental organisations. It was put in place as part of the commitment to bring the Union closer to the citizen entered into by President Santer the inaugural address European Parliament in January 1995. in his to The mechanism is simple. People are informed by means of advertising and the press that they enjoy rights as a result of the EU. and are invited to call a free or low cost telephone number or consult an Internet site to obtain more information. In response to their particular interests, individuals can request, or download directly from the Internet, short, user-friendly guides on general topics. These guides are available in the 11 official EU languages, plus Luxembourgish, Welsh, Gaelic, Catalan, Basque and Galician. The guides are supported by a large number of detailed factsheets that explain exactly what the citizen must do in each Member State in order to exercise particular individual rights. The factsheets provide useful contact points with the national authorities and indicate the means of recourse available to citizens. Each national factsheet is available in all the Union's official languages. In terms of direct action to obtain guides and factsheets, over 450,000 people have contacted Citizens First. Over 200,000 have made phone calls, and over 250 000 people have downloaded more than 1. 7 million documents from the Citizens First Internet site. Calls have been coming in from every country in the EU. The highest response levels so far are from Italy, Spain, France and Germany. As a percentage of households, Ireland and Spain have the highest rates. Strong responses are also evident from Luxembourg, Portugal, Greece and Finland. People witi1 specific practical problems can use of the Citizens First "Signpost Service". They simply call the same telephone number to be put in touch with an expert who gives them informal guidance about their problem and "signpostse them back to the relevent national and local organisations for further· help. The aim of th2 Signpost Service is to reinforce the role of national and local bodies who are responsible for administering Community law. rights, recognition The most common themes characterising the first 1,000 Signpost cases relate to social security of the qualifications, the registration of vehicles, rights of residence and establishment, double taxation, equality of treatment and issues on studying in another Member State. The inquiries received are being analysed by the Commission with a view to identifying where legislation should be simplified, or better enforced or where administrative procedures could be improved. buying goods and services in the Single Market, travelling equal opportunities and health issues. throughout the EU, A permanent effort is required on the part of the Commission, the Parliament and the Member States to guarantee that a high level of factual information which may be constantly updated will provide citizens with a reliable source of information for the exercise of their rights. This need for a permanent effort to inform citizens has also been highlighted by the conclusions of the High Level Panel on the free movement of people chaired by Mme. Simone Veil. Building on experience the Commission considers that a permanent mechanism is necessary for dialogue with citizens on their right and how to exercise them and has now put forward specific proposals. These initiaves should help to make the process of European integration more relevant to the individual citizens. Enforcement Reinforcing co-operation - increasing transparency ,, c for prime responsibility the The implementation of Community law lies with the Member States themselves. This role has to be particulary active since, according to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice, national jurisdictions may oblige Member States to pay financial compensation to a plaintiff for a damage linked to a breach of Community law51. That said the Commission, in its capacity as guardian of the Treaties, must make sure that Member States fulfil their responsibilities. From a citizen's point of view the prime concern is to have the rights conferred thoroughly enforced. This entails access to speedy and effective complaints channels. Member States should set up clearly identified contact points for citizens who encounter a problem either in their own or in another Member. Nevertheless co-operation with Member States · could further be increased, for instance through the extension of the co-operation between national administrations, already in place for the enforcement of Single Market legislation, to areas dealing specifically with Citizens First is also granting support to projects run mainly by non-governmental organisations designed to spread the message of rights for citizens in the Single Market. Four Guides are now being prepared for publication in the Autumn. The topics to be covered are ~· judgement 14. 11. 1991. Joined cases C6-9/90, ECR, 1991, I-5357 (Frankovlch), Judgement 5. 3. 1996, joined cases C-46-48/93, ECR 1996, I-1029 (Brasserle du P6cheur), Judgement 23. 5. 1996, case C-5/94, ECR 1996, I-2553 {Lomas),Judgement 8. 10. 1996, case C- 178/94, ECR 1996 {Dillenkofer). *. 19 • • •. _, • citizens rights 52 • This would allow for example to increase bilateral information exchanges between the Commission's services and the authorities concerned with implementation in the Member States in order to identify problem areas and avoid erroneous application of the agreed rules. of Iv1ember States also need to have more effective channels amongst themselves to exchange information. Member States should set up specific 'clearing houses' their for resolving problems notified by communication counterparts in other Member States. These decentralised structures should resolve as many pi'Oblems concerning citizens' rights as possible on a pragmatic basis and quickly, thus avoiding the need fer legal proceedings. Where informal contacts fail to resolve a problem, legal proceedings may still be necessary. In this case, citizens have the option to invoke EU law at the national level and possibly obtain financial compensation for damages which they suffer as a result of the breach of Community law. However, there are two major obstacles to putting this option into practice. First, the complexity of the rules and secondly a lack of knowledge of EU law on the ?art of lawyers, judges and other legal practitioners within the Member States. The Robert Schuman project is an example of how a better knowledge of Community law may be fostered. 3ut further efforts should be deployed towards a simplification and an increased knowledge of the existing rules. the constantly For its part the Commission will continue to monitor application of Community law and follow up on individual complaints submitted by citizens50 • In pursuing its obligation to check whether the rules have been implemented correctly, the Commission will not hesitate to highlight discrepancies between Member States' political statements of support for the Single Market and their actual record on respecting the rules concerni•--. g citizens' EU rights. Through greater transparency in its infringement procedures, the Commission will encourage ";Jeer pressure" from other Member States, plus pressure from citizens, on Member States whc fail to ensure that citizens' EU rights are scrupulously Infringement respected. proceedings themselves should be further accelerated se that complaints from :ndividuai citizens are followed up as quickly as possible. To achieve this, a re-allocation of reso·. 1rces within the Commission's services will he necessary. Commission infringement proceedings against individuar Member States will therefore continue to play a crucial role, particularly where there are persistent prcblert1s and/or where Member States refuse w cooperate with informal attempts to resolve a problem. New initiatives In the following months, the Commission will look into issues linked with freedom of movement of people in the light of the Report to the by the High Level Panel presented Commission on 18 March 1997, the priority areas indicated in the Action Plan for the Single Market and of the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Conference on the revision of the Treaties. The reactions from the Council and the European Parliament to this report as well as the feedback from the Citizens First! initiative will further assist the Commission to identify further steps that may be taken. ' 2 Cf. Council Resolution of 8 July 1996 on cooperation between administration s for the enforcement of legislation In the Internal market which calls on the Commission and the Member States to examine as a matter of priority the possibility of reinforcing administrative cooperation In the other aereas, In C 224/4 of 1. 8. 1996. Cf. also Council Resolution of 16 June 1994 In OJ C 179/1 of 1. 7. 1994 and Commission's progress report COM (96) 20 final of 29. 1. 1996. OJ " A standard form to submit complaints to the Commission is published In 0] C 26/7 of 1. 2. 1989. Citizens are encouraged to use it but complaints may also be filed simply by addressing a letter to the Commission containing as much Information about the case as possible. ~. · ~,~. ). 20 •. • • • • •


title: SCHRIFTLICHE ANFRAGE Nr. 1768/97 von Iñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO an die Kommission. Evaluierung des PHARE-Programms

eurovoc_concepts:
Central and Eastern Europe
EU aid
aid programme
aid system
economic cooperation

formats: html print


title: VERORDENING (EG) Nr. 937/97 VAN DE COMMISSIE van 27 mei 1997 tot vaststelling van forfaitaire invoerwaarden voor de bepaling van de invoerprijzen van bepaalde soorten groenten en fruit

eurovoc_concepts:
citrus fruit
fruit vegetable
import price
stone fruit


title: QUESTION ECRITE no 1780/97 de Giulio FANTUZZI à la Commission. Bilan de l'application des règlements (CEE) 2078/92 et 2080/92

eurovoc_concepts:
Council of the European Union
EC Regulation
EU aid
EU programme
application of EU law
environmental protection
forestry policy
means of agricultural production
report

formats: html pdf print

text: 10. 2. 98 FR Journal officiel des Communaute·s europe·ennes C 45/101 (98/C 45/124) QUESTION E· CRITE E-1780/97 pose·e par Giulio Fantuzzi (PSE) a‘ la Commission (27 mai 1997) Objet: Bilan de l(cid:146)application des re‘glements (CEE) 2078/92 et 2080/92 Il est pre·vu a‘ l(cid:146)article 10 du re‘glement (CEE) 2078/92 (1), concernant des me·thodes de production agricole compatibles avec les exigences de la protection de l(cid:146)environnement ainsi que l(cid:146)entretien de l(cid:146)espace naturel, et a‘ l(cid:146)article 8 du re‘glement (CEE) 2080/92 (2), instituant un re·gime communautaire d(cid:146)aides aux mesures forestie‘res en agriculture, que trois ans apre‘s la date de leur mise en vigueur dans les E· tats membres, la Commission pre·sente au Parlement europe·en et au Conseil un bilan d(cid:146)application de ces deux re‘glements. La Commission peut-elle expliquer pourquoi elle n(cid:146)a pas encore pre·sente· de rapport re·pondant a‘ cette 1. obligation? Voudrait-elle indiquer si elle compte faire le ne·cessaire en la matie‘re et dans quels de·lais elle pre·voit de le 2. faire? (1) (2) JO L 215 du 30. 7. 1992, p. 85. JO L 215 du 30. 7. 1992, p. 234. Re·ponse donne·e par M. Fischler au nom de la Commission (18 juin 1997) La Commission est tenue de pre·senter des bilans d(cid:146)application dans un de·lai de trois ans apre‘s la mise en (cid:156)uvre des programmes. La plupart des programmes relevant des re‘glements 2078/92 et 2080/92 ont e·te· adopte·s en 1994-1995, et certains en 1996 seulement. Par conse·quent, la Commission est actuellement en train d(cid:146)e·laborer les rapports concernant la mise en (cid:156)uvre de ces deux re‘glements pour les premie‘res anne·es. Elle pre·voit de les pre·senter au Parlement et au Conseil dans le courant de l(cid:146)anne·e. (98/C 45/125) QUESTION E· CRITE E-1781/97 pose·e par Manuel Porto (PPE) a‘ la Commission (27 mai 1997) Objet: Abandon unilate·ral de l(cid:146)accord de l(cid:146)Uruguay Round Le commerce international doit se fonder sur des re‘gles clairement e·tablies et applique·es, condition essentielle pour permettre aux acteurs e·conomiques de programmer avec assurance leurs activite·s. A‘ partir de l(cid:146)Uruguay Round, les pays de l(cid:146)Union europe·enne ont fait preuve d(cid:146)un effort d(cid:146)ouverture d(cid:146)une importance fort particulie‘re en ce qui concerne les importations dans le secteur de l(cid:146)industrie textile et de la confection: des centaines de milliers d(cid:146)emplois e·taient en effet en cause. C(cid:146)est la raison pour laquelle un accord est intervenu sur la mise en place d(cid:146)un processus graduel, qui devait permettre de mettre en perspective les restructurations et les reconversions qui s(cid:146)ave·raient ne·cessaires. Comment comprendre a‘ pre·sent le recul constate· par rapport a‘ ce qui e·tait assure·? Comment comprendre en particulier que l(cid:146)on puisse accepter qu(cid:146)un accord ne soit pas applique· unilate·ralement, portant ainsi pre·judice aux pays et aux re·gions les plus pauvres, pour viser certains avantages pour les exportations de pays et re·gions les plus riches?


title: Vēstuļu apmaiņa attiecībā uz nolīgumu starp Eiropas Kopienu un Meksikas Savienotajām Valstīm par stipro alkoholisko dzērienu apzīmējumu savstarpējo atzīšanu un aizsardzību

eurovoc_concepts:
Mexico
designation of origin
marketing standard
originating product
product designation
spirits
trade agreement (EU)

formats: pdf print

text: 118 LV Eiropas Savien(cid:2)bas Ofici(cid:1)lais VÅstnesis 03/21. sÅj. 21997A0611(02) 11. 6. 1997. EIROPAS KOPIENU OFICI´LAIS V˙STNESIS L 152/27 VÅstu(cid:1)u apmai(cid:2)a attiec(cid:3)b(cid:4) uz nol(cid:3)gumu starp Eiropas Kopienu un Meksikas Savienotaj(cid:4)m Valst(cid:3)m par stipro alkoholisko dzÅrienu apz(cid:3)mÅjumu savstarpÅjo atz(cid:3)(cid:5)anu un aizsardz(cid:3)bu 1. vÅstule God(cid:1)tais kungs, Man ir tas gods atsaukties uz nol(cid:2)gumu starp Eiropas Kopienu un Meksikas Savienotaj(cid:1)m Valst(cid:2)m par stipro alkoholisko dzÅrienu apz(cid:2)mÅjumu savstarpÅjo atz(cid:2)(cid:3)anu un aizsardz(cid:2)bu. —aj(cid:1) sakar(cid:1) es vÅlos apstiprin(cid:1)t (cid:3)o: Neatkar(cid:2)gi no 4. panta 2. punkta noteikumiem Meksikas Savienot(cid:1)s Valstis un Kopiena ir vienoju(cid:3)(cid:1)s, ka minÅt(cid:1) nol(cid:2)guma II pielikum(cid:1) stipr(cid:1) alkoholisk(cid:1) dzÅriena (cid:1)tekila(cid:2) aizsardz(cid:2)bas dÅ(cid:4) apz(cid:2)mÅjumu (cid:1)tekila(cid:2) neliegs izmantot Sp(cid:1)nijas KaralistÅ viena gada p(cid:1)rejas laik(cid:1) no dienas, kad st(cid:1)jas spÅk(cid:1) nolikums, ja vietÅjie ra(cid:3)ot(cid:1)ji ap(cid:5)emsies nepalielin(cid:1)t eso(cid:3)o produkciju. Attiec(cid:2)b(cid:1) uz Sp(cid:1)nij(cid:1) ra(cid:3)oto apz(cid:2)mÅto stipro alkoholisko dzÅrienu (cid:1)tekila(cid:2) nolikuma 19. panta 1. punkta pirmaj(cid:1) teikum(cid:1) paredzÅtie noteikumi st(cid:1)jas spÅk(cid:1) no viena gada p(cid:1)rejas laika beigu datuma. Bß(cid:3)u pateic(cid:2)gs, ja apstiprin(cid:1)siet, ka Meksikas Savienoto Valstu vald(cid:2)ba piekr(cid:2)t (cid:3)(cid:2)s vÅstules saturam. God(cid:1)tais kungs, lßdzu, pie(cid:5)emiet manus visaugst(cid:1)kos cie(cid:5)as apliecin(cid:1)jumus. Eiropas Savien(cid:1)bas Padomes v(cid:2)rd(cid:2) 03/21. sÅj. LV Eiropas Savien(cid:2)bas Ofici(cid:1)lais VÅstnesis 119 2. vÅstule God(cid:1)tais kungs, Man ir tas gods apliecin(cid:1)t, ka esmu sa(cid:5)Åmis (cid:3)(cid:1)du jßsu vÅstuli ar (cid:3)(cid:2)sdienas datumu: (cid:1)Man ir tas gods atsaukties uz nol(cid:2)gumu starp Eiropas Kopienu un Meksikas Savienotaj(cid:1)m valst(cid:2)m par savstarpÅjo atz(cid:2)(cid:3)anu un stipro alkoholisko dzÅrienu apz(cid:2)mÅjumu aizsardz(cid:2)bu. —aj(cid:1) sakar(cid:1) es vÅlos apstiprin(cid:1)t (cid:3)o: Neatkar(cid:2)gi no 4. panta 2. punkta noteikumiem Meksikas Savienot(cid:1)s valstis un Kopiena ir vienoju(cid:3)(cid:1)s, ka minÅt(cid:1) nol(cid:2)guma II pielikum(cid:1) stipr(cid:1) alkoholisk(cid:1) dzÅriena (cid:1)tekila(cid:2) aizsardz(cid:2)bas dÅ(cid:4) apz(cid:2)mÅjumu (cid:1)tekila(cid:2) neliegs izmantot Sp(cid:1)nijas KaralistÅ viena gada p(cid:1)rejas laik(cid:1) no dienas, kad st(cid:1)jas spÅk(cid:1) noli- kums, ja vietÅjie ra(cid:3)ot(cid:1)ji ap(cid:5)emsies nepalielin(cid:1)t eso(cid:3)o produkciju. Attiec(cid:2)b(cid:1) uz Sp(cid:1)nij(cid:1) ra(cid:3)oto apz(cid:2)mÅto stipro alkoholisko dzÅrienu (cid:1)tekila(cid:2) nolikuma 19. panta 1. punkta pirmaj(cid:1) teikum(cid:1) paredzÅtie noteikumi st(cid:1)jas spÅk(cid:1) no viena gada p(cid:1)rejas laika beigu datuma. Bß(cid:3)u pateic(cid:2)gs, ja apstiprin(cid:1)siet, ka Meksikas Savienoto Valstu vald(cid:2)ba piekr(cid:2)t (cid:3)(cid:2)s vÅstules saturam. (cid:2) Man ir tas gods apstiprin(cid:1)t, ka mana vald(cid:2)ba piekr(cid:2)t Jßsu vÅstules saturam. God(cid:1)tais kungs, lßdzu, pie(cid:5)emiet manus visaugst(cid:1)kos cie(cid:5)as apliecin(cid:1)jumus. Meksikas Savienoto Valstu vald(cid:1)bas v(cid:2)rd(cid:2) 120 LV Eiropas Savien(cid:2)bas Ofici(cid:1)lais VÅstnesis 03/21. sÅj. Hecho en Bruselas, el veintisiete de mayo de mil novecientos noventa y siete. UdfÇrdiget i Bruxelles den syvogtyvende maj nitten hundrede og syvoghalvfems. Geschehen zu Br(cid:4)ssel am siebenundzwanzigsten Mai neunzehnhundertsiebenundneunzig. ﬄcime stir Bqun(cid:2)kker, stir e(cid:3)josi evt(cid:4) Laou w(cid:3)kia emmiaj(cid:5)sia emem(cid:6)mta ept(cid:4). Done at Brussels on the twenty-seventh day of May in the year one thousand nine hundred and ninety- seven. Fait (cid:5) Bruxelles, le vingt-sept mai mil neuf cent quatre-vingt-dix-sept. Fatto a Bruxelles, add(cid:6) ventisette maggio millenovecentonovantasette. Gedaan te Brussel, de zevenentwintigste mei negentienhonderd zevenennegentig. Feito em Bruxelas, em vinte e sete de Maio de mil novecentos e noventa e sete. Tehty Brysseliss(cid:7) kahdentenakymmenenten(cid:7)seitsem(cid:7)nten(cid:7) p(cid:7)iv(cid:7)n(cid:7) toukokuuta vuonna tuhatyhdeks(cid:7)nsa- taayhdeks(cid:7)nkymment(cid:7)seitsem(cid:7)n. Som skedde i Bryssel den tjugosjunde maj nittonhundranittiosju. 03/21. sÅj. LV Eiropas Savien(cid:2)bas Ofici(cid:1)lais VÅstnesis 121 Por la Comunidad Europea For Det EuropÇiske FÇllesskab F(cid:4)r die Europ(cid:7)ische Gemeinschaft Cia tgm Euqypa(cid:7)j(cid:6) Joim(cid:5)tgta For the European Community Pour la CommunautØ europØenne Per la Comunit(cid:5) europea Voor de Europese Gemeenschap Pela Comunidade Europeia Euroopan yhteisçn puolesta P(cid:8) Europeiska gemenskapens v(cid:7)gnar Por el Gobierno de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos


title: 97/361/EG: Besluit van de Raad van 27 mei 1997 inzake de sluiting van de overeenkomst tussen de Europese Gemeenschap en de Verenigde Mexicaanse Staten betreffende de wederzijdse erkenning en bescherming van de benamingen van gedistilleerde dranken

eurovoc_concepts:
Mexico
alcoholic beverage
marketing standard
preparation for market
product designation
trade agreement (EU)

formats: html pdfa1b print


title: Decisão do Comité Económico e Social relativa ao acesso do público aos documentos do C.E.S.

eurovoc_concepts: Publications Office of the European Union


title: Komisjoni otsus, 27. mai 1997, mis käsitleb teatavate jäätmesektori direktiivide liikmesriikides rakendamise aruannete küsimustikke (nõukogu direktiivi 91/692/EMÜ rakendamine)

eurovoc_concepts:
EU Member State
dangerous substance
exchange of information
form
packaging product
waste management

text: 358 ET Euroopa Liidu Teataja 15/3. kd 31997D0622 19. 9. 1997 EUROOPA ÜHENDUSTE TEATAJA L 256/13 KOMISJONI OTSUS, 27. mai 1997, mis käsitleb teatavate jäätmesektori direktiivide liikmesriikides rakendamise aruannete küsimustikke (nõukogu direktiivi 91/692/EMÜ rakendamine) (97/622/EÜ) EUROOPA ÜHENDUSTE KOMISJON, võttes arvesse Euroopa Ühenduse asutamislepingut, direktiivi 75/442/EMÜ artikkel 16 on asendatud direktiivi 91/692/EMÜ artikliga 5, milles nõutakse, et liikmesriigid edastak- sid komisjonile teatavate ühenduse direktiivide rakendamist käsit- leva teabe sektori aruande kujul; võttes arvesse nõukogu 23. detsembri 1991. aasta direktiivi 91/692/EMÜ teatavate keskkonnaalaste direktiivide rakendamis- aruannete standardiseerimise ja ratsionaliseerimise kohta, (1) eriti selle artikleid 5 ja 6 ning VI lisa, see aruanne tuleb esitada kas küsimustike või vormide alusel, mille koostab komisjon direktiivi 91/692/EMÜ artiklis 6 sätesta- tud korras; juuli 1975. aasta direktiivi võttes arvesse nõukogu 15. 75/442/EMÜ jäätmete kohta, (2) viimati muudetud direktiiviga 96/350/EMÜ, (3) võttes arvesse nõukogu 12. detsembri 1991. aasta direktiivi 91/689/EMÜ ohtlike jäätmete kohta, (4) viimati muudetud direk- tiiviga 94/31/EÜ, (5) võttes arvesse Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 20. det- sembri 1994. aasta direktiivi 94/62/EÜ pakendite ja pakendijäät- mete kohta (6) esimene sektori aruanne hõlmab ajavahemikku 1998—2000 (vii- mane kaasa arvatud); käesoleva otsusega ettenähtud meetmed on kooskõlas eespool mainitud direktiivi artikli 6 kohaselt moodustatud komitee arva- musega, ning arvestades, et: direktiivi 91/689/EMÜ artikli 8 lõikes 1 nõutakse, et liikmesriigid edastaksid komisjonile teavet selle direktiivi rakendamise kohta direktiivi 75/442/EMÜ artikli 16 lõikes 1 sätestatud aruannetega; Artikkel 1 ON VASTU VÕTNUD KÄESOLEVA OTSUSE: direktiivi 94/62/EÜ artiklis 17 nõutakse, et liikmesriigid edastak- sid komisjonile teavet selle direktiivi rakendamise kohta vastavalt direktiivi 91/692/EMÜ artiklile 5; Käesolevaga võetakse vastu siinsele otsusele lisatud küsimustikud, mis on seotud direktiividega 91/689/EMÜ ja 94/62/EÜ. (1) EÜT L 377, 31. 12. 1991, lk 48. (2) EÜT L 194, 25. 7. 1975, lk 39. (3) EÜT L 135, 6. 6. 1996, lk 32. (4) EÜT L 377, 31. 12. 1991, lk 20. (5) EÜT L 168, 2. 7. 1994, lk 28. (6) EÜT L 365, 31. 12. 1994, lk 10. Artikkel 2 Liikmesriigid kasutavad neid küsimustikke direktiivi 91/692/EMÜ artikli 5 ja direktiivi 94/62/EÜ kohaselt komisjonile esitatavate sektori aruannete koostamise alusena. 15/3. kd ET Euroopa Liidu Teataja 359 Käesolev otsus on adresseeritud liikmesriikidele. Artikkel 3 Brüssel, 27. mai 1997 Komisjoni nimel komisjoni liige Ritt BJERREGAARD 360 ET Euroopa Liidu Teataja 15/3. kd LISA KÜSIMUSTIKE NIMEKIRI 1. Nõukogu 12. detsembri 1991. aasta direktiiviga 91/689/EMÜ (ohtlike jäätmete kohta, (1) viimati muudetud direktiiviga 94/31/EÜ (2)) seotud küsimustik. 2. Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 20. detsembri 1994. aasta direktiiviga 94/62/EÜ (pakendite ja pakendijäätmete kohta) (3) seotud küsimustik. (1) (2) (3) EÜT L 377, 31. 12. 1991, lk 20. EÜT L 168, 2. 7. 1994, lk 28. EÜT L 365, 31. 12. 1994, lk 10. 15/3. kd ET Euroopa Liidu Teataja 361 KÜSIMUSTIK liikmesriikide aruannete jaoks, mis tuleb esitada direktiivi 91/689/EMÜ (ohtlike jäätmete kohta, viimati muudetud direktiiviga 94/31/EÜ) siseriiklikusse õigusesse ülevõtmise ja rakendamise kohta Varem esitatud teavet ei ole vaja korrata, kuid tuleb märkida, kus ja millal see teave on esitatud. 1. a) Kas komisjonile on esitatud siseriiklikud õigusaktid, millega direktiiv 91/689/EÜ võetakse üle siseriiklikusse õigusesse? I. SISERIIKLIKUSSE ÕIGUSESSE ÜLEVÕTMINE b) Eitava vastuse korral märkida põhjused. 2. a) Kas komisjonile on esitatud siseriiklikud õigusaktid, millega nõukogu otsus 94/904/EÜ (millega kehtestatakse nõukogu direk- tiivi 91/689/EMÜ artikli 1 lõike 4 esimese taande kohaselt ohtlike jäätmete nimistu) võetakse üle siseriiklikusse õigusesse? b) Eitava vastuse korral märkida põhjused. 3. a) Kas muudel kui otsuses 94/904/EÜ loetletud jäätmetel on direktiivi 91/689/EMÜ III lisas loetletud omadusi vastavalt kõnealuse direktiivi artikli 1 lõike 4 teisele taandele? II. DIREKTIIVI RAKENDAMINE b) Jaatava vastuse korral märkida, kas juhtumist/juhtumitest on komisjonile teatatud? c) Eitava vastuse korral märkida põhjused. 4. a) Kas on vastu võetud meetmed ohtlike majapidamisjäätmete ja ohtlike tavajäätmete eristamiseks? b) Jaatava vastuse korral märkida üksikasjad. 5. a) Kas artikli 2 lõike 1 kohased vajalikud meetmed on võetud? b) Jaatava vastuse korral märkida üksikasjad. c) Eitava vastuse korral märkida põhjused. 6. a) Kas artikli 2 lõigete 2—4 kohased vajalikud meetmed on võetud? b) Jaatava vastuse korral märkida üksikasjad. c) Eitava vastuse korral märkida põhjused. 7. a) Kas on vastu võetud artikli 3 lõike 2 kohase vabastamise üldisi eeskirju? b) Jaatava vastuse korral märkida üksikasjad. c) Jaatava vastuse korral ja kui artikli 3 lõikes 2 osutatud eeskirjad ei ole saadetud komisjonile, märkida põhjused. (Jah/Ei) (Jah/Ei) (Jah/Ei) (Jah/Ei) (Jah/Ei) (Jah/Ei) (Jah/Ei) (Jah/Ei) 362 ET Euroopa Liidu Teataja 15/3. kd 8. a) Kas pädevad asutused teostavad ohtlike jäätmete tootjate suhtes asjakohaseid perioodilisi kontrolle vastavalt artikli 4 lõikele 1? b) Jaatava vastuse korral märkida sagedust käsitlevad üksikasjad. 9. a) Kas ohtlike jäätmete tootjad ning artikli 4 lõikes 2 osutatud ettevõtted või asutused on kohustatud pidama registreid vastavalt direktiivi 75/442/EMÜ artiklile 14? b) Jaatava vastuse korral märkida üksikasjad, sealhulgas kasutatava tüüpvormi kohta. 10. a) Kas artikli 5 lõike 1 kohased vajalikud meetmed on võetud? b) Jaatava vastuse korral märkida üksikasjad. c) Eitava vastuse korral märkida põhjused. 11. a) Kas on koostatud jäätmekäitluskavad vastavalt artiklile 6? b) Eitava vastuse korral märkida põhjused. c) Jaatava vastuse korral märkida, kas need jäätmekäitluskavad on koostatud eraldi või direktiivi 75/442/EMÜ artiklis 7 osutatud üldiste jäätmekäitluskavade raames. d) Kui need jäätmekäitluskavad on koostatud direktiivi 75/442/EMÜ artiklis 7 osutatud üldistest kavadest eraldi, märkida võima- luse korral üksikasjad, näidates ära, kas mõned arvud on hinnangulised: e) Jaatava vastuse korral: kas jäätmekäitluskavad on avalikustatud? f) Eitava vastuse korral märkida põhjused. 12. a) Kas on esinenud olukordi, kui on võetud vajalikke meetmeid, sealhulgas tehtud ajutisi erandeid direktiivist 91/689/EMÜ vasta- valt artiklile 7? b) Kui vastus on jaatav, kuid komisjonile ei ole sellest teatatud, märkida mitteteatamise põhjused. (Jah/Ei) (Jah/Ei) (Jah/Ei) (Jah/Ei) (Jah/Ei) (Jah/Ei) 15/3. kd ET Euroopa Liidu Teataja 363 KÜSIMUSTIK liikmesriikide aruannete jaoks, mis tuleb esitada direktiivi 94/62/EÜ (pakendite ja pakendijäätmete kohta) siseriiklikusse õigusesse ülevõtmise ja kohaldamise kohta Varem esitatud teavet ei ole vaja korrata, kuid tuleb märkida, kus ja millal see teave on esitatud. 1. a) Kas komisjonile on esitatud üksikasjad õigusnormide kohta, mis on kehtestatud direktiivi järgimiseks? I. SISERIIKLIKUSSE ÕIGUSESSE ÜLEVÕTMINE b) Eitava vastuse korral märkida põhjused. 2. a) Kas on kavas lisaks allpool nimetatutele võtta edaspidi vastu muid meetmeid, mis kuuluvad direktiivi raamesse ja mille suhtes kehtib artiklis 16 sätestatud teatamiskohustus? b) Jaatava vastuse korral märkida, kas komisjoni on teavitatud nendest meetmetest vastavalt artiklile 16? c) Eitava vastuse korral märkida põhjused. 3. a) Kui on algatatud programme, mille eesmärgid on artikli 6 lõike 1 punktides a ja b nimetatutest ulatuslikumad, siis kas need ees- märgid on edastatud komisjonile vastavalt artikli 6 lõikele 6? b) Eitava vastuse korral märkida põhjused. 1. a) Kas pakendijäätmete tekkimise vältimiseks vastavalt artiklile 4 on võetud muid kui artiklis 9 sätestatud meetmeid? II. DIREKTIIVI KOHALDAMINE b) Eitava vastuse korral märkida põhjused. c) Kirjeldada võetud meetmeid, osutades kõikidele nõupidamistele ettevõtjatega. 2. a) Kas on võetud meetmeid korduvkasutussüsteemide soodustamiseks vastavalt artiklile 5? b) Jaatava vastuse korral kirjeldada meetmeid. 3. a) Kas on võetud vajalikud meetmed vastavalt artiklile 7, et luua süsteeme kasutatud pakendite ja/või pakendijäätmete tagastami- seks ja/või kogumiseks ning süsteeme kogutud pakendite ja/või pakendijäätmete korduv- või taaskasutamiseks ning ringlusse- võtuks? b) Eitava vastuse korral märkida põhjused. c) Jaatava vastuse korral märkida üksikasjad võetud meetmete ja loodud süsteemide kohta. 4. Võttes arvesse artiklis 6 osutatud taaskasutamiseks ja ringlussevõtuks seatud eesmärke, täita ja lisada küsimustikule artikli 12 lõike 3 kohaselt vastuvõetud vorm, märkides ära andmete saamiseks kasutatud meetodi. (Jah/Ei) (Jah/Ei) (Jah/Ei) (Jah/Ei) (Jah/Ei) (Jah/Ei) 364 ET Euroopa Liidu Teataja 15/3. kd 5. a) Kas ringlussevõetud pakendijäätmetest saadud materjalide kasutamist on soodustatud vastavalt artikli 6 lõikele 2? b) Jaatava vastuse korral kirjeldada meetmeid. 6. Kuidas on artikli 6 lõike 1 punktides a ja b osutatud meetmed ja eesmärgid avaldatud vastavalt artikli 6 lõikele 4? Kirjeldada riigi elanikkonna ja ettevõtjate teavitamise kampaaniaid. 7. Milliseid meetmeid on võetud vastavalt artiklile 13, tagamaks et pakendi kasutajad saavad selles artiklis sätestatud teavet? 8. a) Kas teie riigis on siseriiklikke standardeid, mis on seotud artiklile 9 vastavate oluliste nõuetega ja artiklile 11 vastavate raskeme- tallide kontsentratsioonitasemetega? b) Jaatava vastuse korral märkida, kas nendest on komisjonile teatatud? c) Eitava vastuse korral märkida põhjused. 9. a) Kas direktiivi 75/442/EMÜ artikliga 7 nõutavad jäätmekäitluskavad sisaldavad eraldi peatükki pakendite ja pakendijäätmete käit- lemise kohta vastavalt direktiivi 94/62/EÜ artiklile 14? b) Eitava vastuse korral märkida põhjused. 10. a) Kas on kasutusele võetud artikli 15 kohased majandushoovad, et saavutada direktiivis seatud eesmärke? b) Jaatava vastuse korral täpsustada võetud meetmed. (Jah/Ei) (Jah/Ei) (Jah/Ei) (Jah/Ei) (Jah/Ei)


title: PREGUNTA ESCRITA n. 1777/97 de los diputados Angela SIERRA GONZÁLEZ , Laura GONZÁLEZ ÁLVAREZ , María SORNOSA MARTÍNEZ , Carlos CARNERO GONZÁLEZ a la Comisión. Líneas de cooperación con el pueblo saharaui

eurovoc_concepts:
EU aid
Western Sahara
aid system
aid to refugees
food aid
health policy
technical cooperation


title: Padomes Lēmums (1997. gada 27. maijs) par nolīguma noslēgšanu starp Eiropas Kopienu un Meksikas Savienotajām Valstīm par stipro alkoholisko dzērienu nosaukumu savstarpēju atzīšanu un aizsardzību

text: 106 LV Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis 03/21. sēj. 31997D0361 11. 6. 1997. EIROPAS KOPIENU OFICIĀLAIS VĒSTNESIS L 152/15 PADOMES LĒMUMS (1997. gada 27. maijs) par nolīguma noslēgšanu starp Eiropas Kopienu un Meksikas Savienotajām Valstīm par stipro alko- holisko dzērienu nosaukumu savstarpēju atzīšanu un aizsardzību (97/361/EK) EIROPAS SAVIENĪBAS PADOME, 2. pants ņemot vērā Eiropas Kopienas dibināšanas līgumu un jo īpaši tā 113. pantu kopā ar 228. panta 2. punkta pirmo teikumu, Ar šo Padomes priekšsēdētājs pilnvarots izraudzīties personas, kurām piešķirtas pilnvaras parakstīt šo nolīgumu. ņemot vērā Komisijas priekšlikumu, tā kā nolīguma noslēgšana starp Eiropas Kopienu un Meksikas Savienotajām Valstīm par stipro alkoholisko dzērienu nosau- kumu savstarpēju atzīšanu un aizsardzību veicinās stipro alko- holisko dzērienu tirdzniecības apstākļu uzlabošanu attiecīgajos tirgos Eiropas Kopienā un Meksikas Savienotajās Valstīs saskaņā ar līdztiesības, savstarpēja izdevīguma un savstarpīguma princi- piem; tā kā tāpēc būtu vēlams apstiprināt minēto nolīgumu; tā kā, lai veicinātu dažu nolīguma noteikumu īstenošanu, Komi- sija jāpilnvaro veikt vajadzīgos tehniskos pielāgojumus saskaņā ar 15. pantu Padomes 1989. gada 29. maija Regulā (EEK) Nr. 1576/89, ar kuru nosaka vispārējos noteikumus par stipro alkoholisko dzērienu definīciju, aprakstu un noformējumu (1), IR PIEŅĒMUSI ŠO LĒMUMU. 1. pants Ar šo Eiropas Kopienas vārdā apstiprina nolīgumu starp Eiropas Kopienu un Meksikas Savienotajām Valstīm par stipro alkoholisko dzērienu nosaukumu savstarpēju atzīšanu un aizsardzību, kā arī vēstuļu apmaiņu, kas uz to attiecas. Šim lēmumam pievienoti pirmajā daļā minētie dokumentu teksti. 3. pants Padomes priekšsēdētājs sniedz nolīguma 22. panta 1. punktā paredzēto paziņojumu (2). 4. pants Lai piemērotu šā nolīguma 18. pantu, ar šo Komisija ir tiesīga noslēgt vajadzīgos tiesību aktus, ar kuriem groza nolīgumu, ievērojot Regulas (EEK) Nr. 1576/89 15. pantā noteikto procedūru. 5. pants Apvienotajā komitejā, kas minēta nolīguma 17. pantā, Kopienu pārstāv Komisija, kurai palīdz dalībvalstu pārstāvji. Šo lēmumu publicē Eiropas Kopienu Oficiālajā Vēstnesī. 6. pants Briselē, 1997. gada 27. maijā Padomes vārdā — priekšsēdētāja W. SORGDRAGER (1) OV L 160, 12. 6. 1989. , 1. lpp. Regula, kurā jaunākie grozījumi izdarīti ar Regulu (EK) Nr. 3378/94 (OV L 366, 31. 12. 1994. , 1. lpp. ). (2) Nolīguma spēkā stāšanās datumu publicē Eiropas Kopienu Oficiālajā Vēstnesī


title: INTERROGAZIONE SCRITTA n. 1864/97 dell'on. Marianne THYSSEN alla Commissione. Studio sull'impatto della proposta di direttiva del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio concernente i prodotti a base di cacao e di cioccolato destinati all'alimentazione umana

eurovoc_concepts:
Cameroon
European Commission
cocoa
comparative study
confectionery product
economic consequence
product designation
product quality
proposal (EU)
vegetable fats

text: C 45/114 IT Gazzetta ufficiale delle Comunita‘ europee 10. 2. 98 Il principale obiettivo della direttiva e‘ quello di evitare la creazione di rifiuti di imballaggio, oltre a quello di incoraggiare il riutilizzo degli imballaggi, il riciclaggio ed altre forme di recupero dei medesimi e quindi ridurre il volume finale dei rifiuti di imballaggio. Gli incentivi al riutilizzo sono un(cid:146)opzione legittima che gli Stati membri possono scegliere conformemente al trattato. La Commissione non condivide il giudizio negativo espresso dall(cid:146)onorevole parlamentare sulla direttiva, pur ritenendo necessario analizzare caso per caso eventuali situazioni atte a suscitare barriere ingiustificate agli scambi e forme di protezionismo nazionale, fenomeni che farebbero riscontro ad un(cid:146)inadeguata attuazione della direttiva. La Commissione intende esaminare attentamente i casi eventuali di questo tipo. (1) GU L 365 del 31. 12. 1994. (98/C 45/143) INTERROGAZIONE SCRITTA P-1864/97 di Marianne Thyssen (PPE) alla Commissione (27 maggio 1997) Oggetto: Studio sull(cid:146)impatto della proposta di direttiva del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio concernente i prodotti a base di cacao e di cioccolato destinati all(cid:146)alimentazione umana Nella sua risposta all(cid:146)interrogazione scritta E-2838/96 (1) sull(cid:146)esistenza di uno studio obiettivo per quanto concerne l(cid:146)impatto della proposta della Commissione di direttiva sui prodotti a base di cioccolato sul funzionamento del mercato interno e sulle economie dei paesi in via di sviluppo, la Commissione fa sapere al punto 3 che sta realizzando uno studio macro-economico sugli effetti delle fluttuazioni del corso del cacao e della revisione della direttiva europea concernente la composizione del cioccolato sull(cid:146)economia del Camerun. Tale studio potrebbe essere esteso in un secondo momento ad altri paesi, in particolare ai paesi ACP. Le sue conclusioni erano attese verso la fine del 1996. La Commissione ha portato a termine detto studio e, in caso affermativo, quando e‘ prevista la 1. pubblicazione delle sue conclusioni? 2. Puo‘ far sapere la Commissione quali sono le conclusioni principali di tale studio? 3. Prevede la Commissione, come annunciato nella risposta alla gia‘ citata interrogazione scritta, di estendere lo studio relativo al Camerun agli altri paesi ACP produttori di cacao? In tal caso, quando sono attese le conclusioni? (1) GU C 83 del 14. 3. 1997, pag. 77. Risposta data dal signor Bangemann a nome della Commissione (9 luglio 1997) Lo studio al quale la Commissione fa riferimento nella sua risposta all(cid:146)interrogazione scritta E-2838/96 e‘ stato affidato ad esperti esterni alla Commissione. Sino ad ora sono pervenuti solo risultati intermedi. Visto che tali risultati non rispondono interamente al mandato dato agli esperti, la Commissione intende chiedere un approfondimento dello studio. La Commissione intende infatti fornire un mezzo di aiuto sostanziale per poter valutare con la massima esattezza l(cid:146)impatto della proposta di direttiva in oggetto. Dopo un suo attento esame, la Commissione potrebbe estenderne la portata ad altri paesi produttori di cacao, soprattutto dell(cid:146)Africa, dei Caraibi e del Pacifico (ACP). Per quanto concerne la pubblicazione delle conclusioni, la Commissione non puo‘ ancora indicare una data precisa


title: SCHRIFTLICHE ANFRAGE Nr. 1786/97 von Christine ODDY an die Kommission. Anerkennung eines Europäischen Diploms für Psychotherapie

eurovoc_concepts:
behavioural sciences
equivalence of diplomas
free movement of workers
medical specialisation
professional association
psychiatry
recognition of diplomas
traineeship