title: ΓΡΑΠΤΗ ΕΡΩΤΗΣΗ αρ θ. 128/98 του John IVERSEN προς την Επ τροπή. Mεταφορές μόσχων και ανώτατα όρια βάρους

eurovoc_concepts:
Belgium
Netherlands
calf
disclosure of information
marketing
protection of animals
slaughter of animals
slaughter premium
transport of animals
weight and size

text: C 223/120 EL Epi·shmh Efhmeri·da tvn Eyrvpai¤kv· n Koinoth·tvn 17. 7. 98 (98/C 223/153) GRAPTH ERVTHSH P-0128/98 ypobolh· : John Iversen (PSE) prow thn Epitroph· (22 Ianoyari·oy 1998) Ue·ma: Metafore·w mo·sxvn kai anv· tata o·ria ba·royw Sthn apa·nthsh thw Epitroph·w sthn yp(cid:146) ariumo·n R-3757/97 (1) erv· thsh yposthri·zetai, xvri·w apodeiktika· stoixei·a, o·ti oi kaly·teroi prow sfagh· mo·sxoi poy e·xoyn ba·row 300 kilv· n mporoy·n na apofe·royn sfa·gio ba· royw a·nv tvn 160 kilv· n. Ako·ma kai an uevrhuei· h plhrofori·a ayth· vw svsth·, apo· mauhmatikh· a· poch parame·nei ady·naton na epiteyxuei· vw me·sow o·row ta 162 kila· gia o·loyw toyw zv· ntew mo·sxoyw me ba·row ka·tv tvn 300 kilv· n. Sthn e·kuesh COM (97) 165 symperilamba·netai sthn seli·da 12, pi·nakaw me katanomh· tvn mo·sxvn poy esfa·ghsan sthn Ollandi·a kata· thn peri·odo apo· ton Deke·mbrio toy 1997 e·vw thn 12h ebdoma·da toy 1997. Sthn dey·terh sth·lh anafe·rontai oi mo·sxoi, oi opoi·oi anejarth·tvw primodo·thshw gia prv· imh empori·a, paradi·dontai s(cid:146) ayte·w tiw kathgori·ew ba·royw, dhladh· sy·mfvna me thn katanomh· toy 1995. Aytoi· oi 84. 464 mo·sxoi e·xoyn, kata· me·son, o·ron ba·row 118,7 kilv· n. Ea·n symperilhfuoy·n sth sth·lh II oi kathgori·ew ba·royw e·vw 165 kila·, ei·nai mauhmatikv· w ady·naton oi ypo·loipoi 384. 150 mo·sxoi poy paradi·dontai se peri·odo 16 ebdoma·dvn sthn Ollandi·a, na topouethuoy·n kata· te·toion tro·po stiw kathgori·ew ba·royw, v· ste oi synolikoi· 368. 614 mo·sxoi na e·xoyn, kata· me·son o·ro, ba·row 162 kilv· n. Ako·ma kai ea·n ypoue·soyme o·ti oi ypo·loipoi 284. 150 mo·sxoi e·xoyn ba·row 162 kilv· n, o me·sow o·row parame·nei mo·non 154 kila·. Dedome·noy o·ti o·loi oi ypo·loipoi mo·sxoi fysika· den ei·nai dynato·n na paradi·dontai e·xontaw zvntano· ba·row 300 kilv· n kai «kalh· e·vw a·risth ana·ptyjh», anagkastika· ua pre·pei na ypa·rxei ka·poio la·uow sta ollandika· kai belgika· stoixei·a poy diabiba·zontai sthn Eurostat. 1. Mporei· h Epitroph· na para·sxei stoixei·a tekmhri·vshw o·son afora· to me·so ba· row tvn sfagi·vn apo· mo·sxoyw me zvntano· ba·row ka·tv tvn 300 kilv· n; 2. Mporei· h Epitroph· na para·sxei stoixei·a o·son afora· toyw mo·sxoyw poy e·xoyn sfagei· to 1995 sthn Ollandi·a kai to Be·lgio, katanemhme·na se kathgori·ew ba·royw; Ea·n ayto· den uevrhuei· dynato·n, mporei· h Epitroph· na para·sxei mi·a kat(cid:146) ekti·mhsh katanomh· se kathgori·ew 3. ba·royw tvn mo·sxvn poy e·xoyn sfagei· sthn Ollandi·a kai sto Be·lgio e·xontaw kata· me·son o·ro ba·row sfagi·oy 162 kilv· n; (1) EE C 120. Apa· nthsh toy k. Fischler ej ono·matow thw Epitroph· w (13 Febroyari·oy 1998) H Epitroph· sygkentrv· nei tiw plhrofori·ew poy apaitoy·ntai gia thn apa·nthsh sthn erv· thsh poy te·uhke. De ua paralei·cei na gnvstopoih·sei to syntomo·tero to apote·lesma tvn ereynv· n thw. (98/C 223/154) GRAPTH ERVTHSH P-0129/98 ypobolh· : Eva Kjer Hansen (ELDR) prow thn Epitroph· (23 Ianoyari·oy 1998) Ue·ma: Periektiko·thta xhmikv· n oysiv· n sta yfa·smata Apo· e·reynew poy pragmatopoih·uhkan se yfa·smata proe·kyce o·ti perie·xoyn syxna· mega·lew poso·thtew xhmikv· n oysiv· n metajy· tvn opoi·vn sygkatale·gontai: formaldey(cid:143)dh, azv-xrvstike·w oysi·ew, dioji·nh kai parasitokto·na kauv· w kai bare·a me·talla o·pvw xalko·w, xrv· mio, koba·ltio, ceyda·rgyrow kai nike·lio. Ypa·rxoyn ypoci·ew o·ti oi oysi·ew ayte·w prokaloy·n karki·no, allergi·ew, e·kzema kai bla·bew sta anurv· pina e·mbrya. Dedome·noy o·ti den ypa·rxoyn koinoi· kano·new epish·manshw kai apago·reyshw tvn oysiv· n aytv· n sthn EE, kai o·ti paro·moioi kano·new ypa·rxoyn se ela·xista mo·no kra·th me·lh, oi katanalvte·w bri·skontai se a·tyxh kata·stash


title: INTERROGAZIONE SCRITTA n. 4161/97 dell'on. Leonie van BLADEL al Consiglio. Preoccupazione circa la possibile presa in ostaggio di cittadini dell'UE da parte del Suriname

eurovoc_concepts:
EU relations
Netherlands
Surinam
arrest
civil war
human rights
illegal restraint

formats: html pdf print

text: 2. 10. 98 IT Gazzetta ufficiale delle Comunita‘ europee C 304/11 (98/C 304/15) INTERROGAZIONE SCRITTA E-4161/97 di Leonie van Bladel (UPE) al Consiglio (22 gennaio 1998) Oggetto: Preoccupazione circa la possibile presa in ostaggio di cittadini dell(cid:146)UE da parte del Suriname E(cid:146) il Consiglio a conoscenza dei 27 arresti di civili e militari compiuti il 25 ottobre 1997 in Suriname a 1. seguito della preparazione di un cosiddetto colpo di Stato? 2. Sa il Consiglio che nel frattempo e‘ stato reso noto, tra l(cid:146)altro dall(cid:146)organizzazione per la difesa dei diritti dell(cid:146)uomo «Moiwana (cid:146)86», che un gran numero delle persone arrestate che avrebbero preso parte al presunto colpo di Stato del 25 ottobre 1997 hanno subito gravi maltrattamenti? E(cid:146) consapevole il Consiglio che attraverso maltrattamenti o torture si possono facilmente estorcere alle 3. persone arrestate dichiarazioni che chiamino in causa stranieri, tra cui olandesi, per la preparazione dell(cid:146)inscenato colpo di Stato del 25 ottobre 1997? 4. Non teme il Consiglio che le dichiarazioni del Consigliere di Stato Desi Bouterse sul coinvolgimento di potenze straniere, tra cui i Paesi Bassi, nella preparazione del presunto colpo di Stato e le minacce pronunciate da Bouterse attraverso i mezzi di informazione contro tali potenze straniere, tra cui i Paesi Bassi, possano portare all(cid:146)arresto o alla presa in ostaggio di cittadini stranieri, tra cui olandesi, in seguito a denunce per partecipazione all(cid:146)inscenato colpo di Stato raccolte sulla base di dichiarazioni delle persone arrestate e sottoposte a torture? Ha il Consiglio elaborato un piano professionale per poter intervenire con successo nel momento in cui la 5. situazione succitata fosse posta in essere dalle autorita‘ del Suriname? (98/C 304/16) INTERROGAZIONE SCRITTA E-4162/97 di Leonie van Bladel (UPE) al Consiglio (22 gennaio 1998) Oggetto: Inquietudine per la situazione dei diritti dell(cid:146)uomo nel Suriname E(cid:146) il Consiglio a conoscenza dei 27 arresti di civili e militari compiuti il 25 ottobre 1997 in Suriname a 1. seguito della preparazione di un cosiddetto colpo di Stato? E(cid:146) il Consiglio disposto a censurare la condotta del ministro olandese degli Affari esteri per aver dato 2. l(cid:146)ordine di consegnare alla giustizia del Suriname uno dei cosiddetti sospetti che nell(cid:146)ottobre 1997 si e‘ presentato in mutande all(cid:146)Ambasciata olandese per presentare domanda di asilo, mentre e‘ noto che l(cid:146)8 dicembre 1982 in occasione di un precedente presunto colpo di Stato 15 persone arrestate con l(cid:146)accusa di aver preso parte a un cosiddetto colpo di Stato sono state giustiziate in base alla legge marziale a Paramaribo? 3. Sa il Consiglio che Desi Bouterse ha pubblicamente minacciato, per essersi macchiati di tradimento, vari eminenti cittadini del Suriname, tra i quali il militante per i diritti umani Stanley Rensch e i giornalisti Iwan Brave e Johnny Kamperveen, nonche· il quotidiano Ware Tijd? Quali conseguenze pensa il Consiglio di poter trarre in proposito? (98/C 304/17) INTERROGAZIONE SCRITTA E-4163/97 di Leonie van Bladel (UPE) al Consiglio (22 gennaio 1998) Oggetto: Misure in caso di presa in ostaggio di cittadini dell(cid:146)UE da parte del Suriname E(cid:146) il Consiglio a conoscenza dei 27 arresti di civili e militari compiuti il 25 ottobre 1997 in Suriname a 1. seguito della preparazione di un cosiddetto colpo di Stato? 2. Non pensa il Consiglio che le accuse che il Consigliere di Stato del Suriname Desi Bouterse ha recentemente formulato attraverso i mezzi di informazione surinamesi circa il coinvogimento di potenze straniere, tra cui i Paesi Bassi, nella preparazione del presunto colpo di Stato costituiscano una reazione dell(cid:146)ex dittatore alle indagini compiute dalla giustizia olandese in collaborazione con la DEA americana sui traffici di droga di Bouterse che hanno portato di recente all(cid:146)emissione di un mandato internazionale di ricerca e di estradizione nei suoi confronti?


title: WRITTEN QUESTION No. 4226/97 by Cristiana MUSCARDINI , Gianfranco FINI , Amedeo AMADEO , Roberta ANGELILLI , Spalato BELLERE' , Marco CELLAI , Gastone PARIGI , Sebastiano MUSUMECI , Salvatore TATARELLA , Antonio TRIZZA to the Council. Return of the assets of Holocaust victims

eurovoc_concepts:
Germany
National Socialism
central bank
gold
theft
war
war crime
war damage
war victim

text: 17. 7. 98 SV Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning C 223/75 Svar fr(cid:229)n Martin Bangemann p(cid:229) kommissionens va¤gnar (12 mars 1998) Kommissionen a¤r medveten om de problem som ledamoten har tagit upp och delar hennes oro. 1. Kommissionen har aktivt arbetat med dessa fr(cid:229)gor i mer a¤n tv(cid:229) (cid:229)r och har nyligen antagit ett fo¤rslag till handlingsplan fo¤r att fra¤mja trygg anva¤ndning av Internet (1) och ett fo¤rslag till r(cid:229)dets rekommendation fo¤r skyddet av minder(cid:229)riga och den ma¤nskliga va¤rdigheten inom de audiovisuella tja¤nsterna och informations- tja¤nsterna (2). 2. Handlingsplanen utgo¤r en grund fo¤r gemenskapens samfinansiering av ett europeiskt na¤tverk med speciella telefonnummer fo¤r rapportering av olagligt inneh(cid:229)ll s(cid:229)som barnporr, fo¤r europeiska filtrerings- och va¤rderings- system och fo¤r (cid:229)tga¤rder fo¤r fra¤mjande av medvetenheten. Handlingsplanen ger ocks(cid:229) sto¤d fo¤r (cid:229)tga¤rder under r(cid:229)dets rekommendation fo¤r europeisk samordning na¤r det ga¤ller (cid:229)tga¤rder p(cid:229) nationell niv(cid:229) inom sja¤lvreglerings- omr(cid:229)det. Inom dessa tv(cid:229) (cid:229)tga¤rdsomr(cid:229)den kommer a¤ven det internationella samarbetet att sta¤rkas. 3. Kommissionen har ocks(cid:229) varit aktivt engagerad i r(cid:229)dets diskussioner under den tredje pelaren och i diskussionerna mellan de (cid:229)tta (inbegripet Kanada, Japan, Ryssland och Fo¤renta staterna samt Tyskland, Frankrike, Italien och Fo¤renade kungariket) fo¤r att ta fram ra¤ttsliga och tekniska mekanismer som ger mo¤jlighet till la¤glig internationell lagstiftningsrespons i fr(cid:229)ga om datorrelaterade brott. Kommissionen a¤r engagerad i genomfo¤randet av den handlingsplan fo¤r beka¤mpning av organiserad brottslighet som godka¤nts av Europeiska r(cid:229)det i Amsterdam och som inneh(cid:229)ller en rekommendation om att beka¤mpa den kriminella anva¤ndningen av nya teknologier. 4. Dessa (cid:229)tga¤rder bidrar p(cid:229) ett betydande sa¤tt till att fo¤rebygga att barnpornografi sprids p(cid:229) Internet. (1) EGT C 48, 13. 2. 1998. (2) KOM(97) 570 slutlig. (98/C 223/93) SKRIFTLIG FR¯GA E-4226/97 fr(cid:229)n Cristiana Muscardini (NI), Gianfranco Fini (NI), Amedeo Amadeo (NI), Roberta Angelilli (NI), Spalato Bellere· (NI), Marco Cellai (NI), Gastone Parigi (NI), Sebastiano Musumeci (NI), Salvatore Tatarella (NI) och Antonio Trizza (NI) till r(cid:229)det A¤mne: ¯tersta¤llande av egendom som tillho¤rt fo¤rintelsens offer (22 januari 1998) I hela Europa talar pressen bera¤ttigat ofta och med ofo¤ra¤ndrad sinnesro¤relse om fo¤rintelsen och dem som o¤verlevt denna fruktansva¤rda tragedi. Ett halvt sekel efter fo¤rintelsen har man inte a¤nnu lo¤st problemet med att (cid:229)tersta¤lla den egendom som stals fr(cid:229)n offren eller som fo¤rvarats i kreditinstitut och banker i de olika la¤nderna. Inte heller har man a¤nnu klargjort vad som skedde med det guld som nationalsocialisterna stal. Med beaktande av de legitima kraven fr(cid:229)n de o¤verlevande och deras lagliga arvingar anmodas r(cid:229)det att uppge om det a¤mnar uto¤va alla ta¤nkbara p(cid:229)tryckningar mot de bero¤rda regeringarna, oberoende av om de a¤r medlemmar av Europeiska unionen eller inte, i syfte att avskaffa denna uppenbara ora¤ttvisa? Svar (27 april 1998) Eftersom gemenskapen inte har n(cid:229)gon beho¤righet p(cid:229) detta omr(cid:229)de kan r(cid:229)det inte uto¤va p(cid:229)tryckningar p(cid:229) de bero¤rda regeringarna i denna fr(cid:229)ga. I m(cid:229)nga la¤nder, inbegripet Europeiska unionens medlemsstater, genomfo¤rs nu utredningar av kommitte·er och andra oberoende organ fo¤r att kasta ljus o¤ver fr(cid:229)gorna om vad som har ha¤nt med den egendom som tillho¤rde fo¤rintelsens offer samt vad som har ha¤nt med det guld som stals av nazisterna i de ockuperade la¤ndernas centralbanker. Internationella konferenser om dessa fr(cid:229)gor har h(cid:229)llits och ytterligare konferenser a¤r planerade


eurovoc_concepts:
export refund
rice

formats: pdf print

text: 23. 1. 98 ‹ SV ‹ Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning L 18/23 KOMMISSIONENS FÖRORDNING (EG) nr 164/98 av den 22 januari 1998 om fastställande av exportbidrag för ris och brutet ris EUROPEISKA GEMENSKAPERNAS KOMMISSION HAR ANTAGIT DENNA FÖRORDNING med beaktande av Fördraget om upprättandet av Euro- peiska gemenskapen, det förfarande som föreskrivs i artikel 7. 4 i kommissio- nens förordning (EG) nr 1162/95 (3), senast ändrad genom förordning (EG) nr 932/97 (4). Detta bör beaktas när exportbidragen fastställs. förordning (EG) nr 3072/95 anges de I artikel 13. 5 i särskilda kriterier som skall beaktas när exportbidrag för ris och brutet ris beräknas. med beaktande av rådets förordning (EG) nr 3072/95 av den 22 december 1995 om den gemensamma organisa- tionen av marknaden för ris (1), särskilt artikel 13. 3 andra stycket i denna, och Situationen på världsmarknaden eller de särskilda kraven för vissa marknader kan göra det nödvändigt att differen- tiera bidragen för vissa produkter efter destination. med beaktande av följande: Enligt artikel 13 i förordning (EG) nr 3072/95 får skill- naden mellan noteringarna eller priserna på världsmark- naden för de produkter som är förtecknade i artikel 1 i den förordningen och priserna för dessa produkter inom gemenskapen täckas av ett exportbidrag. Enligt artikel 13. 4 i förordning (EG) nr 3072/95 skall när bidragen fastställs hänsyn tas dels till den aktuella situa- tionen och den framtida utvecklingen i fråga om priser på och tillgång till ris och brutet ris på gemenskapsmarkna- den, dels till priserna på ris och brutet ris på världsmark- naden. Enligt samma artikel är det också viktigt att säker- ställa jämvikt och en naturlig utveckling av priser och handel på rismarknaden och att dessutom beakta de ekonomiska aspekterna av den planerade exporten och behovet av att undvika störningar på gemenskapsmark- naden liksom de begränsninger som härrör från de avtal som slutits i överensstämmelse med artikel 228 i fördra- get. I kommissionens förordning (EEG) nr 1361/76 (2) fast- ställs den högsta procentandel av brutet ris som är tillåten i ris för vilket exportbidrag fastställts samt anges med vilken procentandel bidraget skall minskas om propor- tionen brutet ris i det exporterade riset överstiger denna högsta andel. Ett särskilt bidrag bör fastställas för förpackat långkornigt tillgodose den aktuella efterfrågan på vissa ris för att marknader. Bidraget måste fastställas minst en gång i månaden och får ändras under månadens lopp. Tillämpningen av dessa bestämmelser och villkor på den nuvarande situationen på rismarknaden och särskilt på noteringarna eller priserna på ris och brutet ris inom gemenskapen och på att bidragen bör fastställas i enlighet med bilagan till denna förordning. världsmarknaden medför De åtgärder som föreskrivs i denna förordning är förenliga med yttrandet från Förvaltningskommittén för spannmål. HÄRIGENOM FÖRESKRIVS FÖLJANDE. Artikel 1 Exportbidragen för de produkter som anges i artikel 1 i förordning (EG) nr 3072/95, med undantag av produkter enligt punkt 1 c i den artikeln, och som exporteras i obearbetad form skall fastställas i enlighet med bilagan till denna förordning. Det finns möjlighet att exportera en kvantitet av 1 000 ton ris till vissa destinationer. Det är lämpligt att tillgripa Denna förordning träder i kraft den 23 januari 1998. Artikel 2 (1) EGT L 329, 30. 12. 1995, s. 18. (2) EGT L 154, 15. 6. 1976, s. 11. (3) EGT L 117, 24. 5. 1995, s. 2. (4) EGT L 135, 27. 5. 1997, s. 2. L 18/24 ‹ SV ‹ Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning 23. 1. 98 Denna förordning är till alla delar bindande och direkt tillämplig i alla medlemsstater. Utfärdad i Bryssel den 22 januari 1998. På kommissionens vägnar Franz FISCHLER Ledamot av kommissionen till kommissionens förordning av den 22 januari 1998 om fastställande av exportbidrag för ris och brutet ris BILAGA Produktnummer Bestämmelseland (1) Bidragsbelopp Produktnummer Bestämmelseland (1) Bidragsbelopp (ecu/ton) (ecu/ton) 1006 20 11 9000 1006 20 13 9000 1006 20 15 9000 1006 20 17 9000 1006 20 92 9000 1006 20 94 9000 1006 20 96 9000 1006 20 98 9000 1006 30 21 9000 1006 30 23 9000 1006 30 25 9000 1006 30 27 9000 1006 30 42 9000 1006 30 44 9000 1006 30 46 9000 1006 30 48 9000 1006 30 61 9100 1006 30 61 9900 1006 30 63 9100 1006 30 63 9900 1006 30 65 9100 01 01 01  01 01 01  01 01 01  01 01 01  01 02 03 05 01 05 01 02 03 05 01 05 01 02 03 05 105,00 105,00 105,00  105,00 105,00 105,00  105,00 105,00 105,00  105,00 105,00 105,00  131,00 137,00 142,00 131,00 131,00 131,00 131,00 137,00 142,00 131,00 131,00 131,00 131,00 137,00 142,00 131,00 1006 30 65 9900 1006 30 67 9100 1006 30 67 9900 1006 30 92 9100 1006 30 92 9900 1006 30 94 9100 1006 30 94 9900 1006 30 96 9100 1006 30 96 9900 1006 30 98 9100 1006 30 98 9900 1006 40 00 9000 01 05 04  01 02 03 05 01 05  01 02 03 05 01 05  01 02 03 05 01 05  04   131,00 131,00 137,00  131,00 137,00 142,00 131,00 131,00 131,00  131,00 137,00 142,00 131,00 131,00 131,00  131,00 137,00 142,00 131,00 131,00 131,00  137,00   (1) Följande bestämmelseländer: 01 Liechtenstein, Schweiz och kommunerna Livigno och Campione d’Italia. 02 Zonerna I–III och VI, Ceuta och Melilla. 03 Zonerna IV, V, VII c, Kanada och zon VIII med undantag av Surinam, Guyana och Madagaskar. 04 Ceuta och Melilla: exportbidragen skall fastställas i enlighet med den ordning som föreskrivs i artikel 7. 4 i förordning (EG) nr 1162/95 för en kvantitet av 1 000 ton. 05 Bestämmelseländer angivna i artikel 34 i kommissionens ändrade förordning (EEG) nr 3665/87. Obs. : Zonerna är de som anges i bilagan till kommissionens ändrade förordning (EEG) nr 2145/92


title: PREGUNTA ESCRITA n. 4207/97 del Gerardo FERNÁNDEZ-ALBOR a la Comisión. Libro azul sobre la pesca en la Unión Europea

eurovoc_concepts:
Community fisheries
aquaculture
common fisheries policy
consultation procedure
fishery management
fishing regulations
report

text: C 196/102 ES Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas 22. 6. 98 Sin embargo, si bien la Comisio·n respeta la competencia exclusiva de los Estados miembros en este asunto, dicha institucio·n, en el marco de la aplicacio·n de Comenius, cap(cid:14)·tulo II del programa So·crates, apoya y financia numerosas actividades que fomentan la integracio·n, en la ensen(cid:152)anza escolar, de las materias relativas a la Comunidad. Asimismo, esta· previsto crear, en el transcurso de este an(cid:152)o, una red tema·tica sobre la ciudadan(cid:14)·a europea. Dicha red agrupara· centros de ensen(cid:152)anza y otras instituciones que trabajan en este a·mbito, y sus funciones sera·n, ante todo, catalogar la informacio·n pertinente en el a·mbito de la ciudadan(cid:14)·a europea y organizar, por un lado, la difusio·n de las buenas pra·cticas en cuanto a la ensen(cid:152)anza de las materias relacionadas con la Comunidad y, por otro, eventos que contribuyan tanto al desarrollo de proyectos sobre dichas materias como al mayor impacto de estos u·ltimos en los sistemas educativos. (98/C 196/142) PREGUNTA ESCRITA E-4207/97 de Gerardo Ferna·ndez-Albor (PPE) a la Comisio·n (21 de enero de 1998) Asunto: Libro azul sobre la pesca en la Unio·n Europea Las diversas vicisitudes que se han ido produciendo en el a·mbito pesquero de la Unio·n Europea han conducido a una nueva situacio·n de hecho en todo el conjunto del sector, que requiere reflexionar y reorientar toda la dimensio·n pesquera comunitaria. Por ello, en opinio·n de determinadas agrupaciones pesqueras de los Estados miembros convendr(cid:14)·a mirar hacia atra·s, considerar el presente y establecer las correspondientes previsiones para el futuro. ¿Estima, en consecuencia, la Comisio·n que convendr(cid:14)·a elaborar un libro azul sobre la situacio·n de la pesca en el conjunto comunitario, de forma que se puedan establecer criterios y previsiones que consoliden el sector, sin temor a altibajos y sobresaltos que incidan negativamente en un sector tan fra·gil de nuestro entorno econo·mico como el pesquero? Respuesta de la Sra. Bonino en nombre de la Comisio·n (13 de febrero de 1998) Como ya ha sen(cid:152)alado en varias ocasiones, tanto al Parlamento Europeo como a otros organismos, la Comisio·n iniciara· un amplio proceso de consultas con todas las partes interesadas en particular, el sector pesquero, sobre la pol(cid:14)·tica pesquera comu·n (PPC) a partir de 2002. La Comisio·n tiene intencio·n de llevar a cabo estas consultas mediante un cuestionario y la celebracio·n de reuniones en los Estados miembros en 1998 y 1999. Tras el proceso de consultas, la Comisio·n redactara· un informe destinado al Parlamento y al Consejo sobre la situacio·n del sector pesquero en la Comunidad, de conformidad con el apartado 2 del art(cid:14)·culo 14 del Reglamento (CEE) no 3760/92 por el que se establece un re·gimen comunitario de la pesca y la acuicultura (1). (1) DO L 389 de 31. 12. 1992. (98/C 196/143) PREGUNTA ESCRITA E-4215/97 de Francesco Baldarelli (PSE) a la Comisio·n (21 de enero de 1998) Asunto: Respeto de los derechos del consumidor y de las reglas de libre competencia en Italia Hace diecisiete an(cid:152)os un ciudadano italiano, Gaetano Di Bari, inicio· procedimientos judiciales que lo enfrentan a la estructura italiana de una gran compan(cid:152)(cid:14)·a internacional fabricante de ma·quinas para oficina. El sen(cid:152)or Di Bari era el representante para una zona del centro de Italia de las ma·quinas fabricadas por dicha empresa


title: ΓΡΑΠΤΗ ΕΡΩΤΗΣΗ αρ θ. 4204/97 του Jose GARCIA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL προς την Επ τροπή. Ατζέντα 2000 και Στόχος 1: ΑΕΠ 1993-1997

eurovoc_concepts:
EU aid
EU regional policy
European Investment Bank
Eurostat
Structural Funds
gross domestic product
regional aid
regional statistics
terms for aid

text: C 323/16 EL Epi·shmh Efhmeri·da tvn Eyrvpai¤kv· n Koinoth·tvn 21. 10. 98 Po·so h·tan to me·so eiso·dhma kata· ta e·th 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 kai 1997 stiw perife·reiew poy anafe·rontai katvte·rv; Anatolikh· Makedoni·a, Uessali·a, Krh·th, Pelopo·nnhsow, Kentrikh· Ella·da, ˙peirow, Attikh·, Io·nioi Nh·soi, Axai(cid:143)a, Sterea· Ella·da (Ella·da) Hainaut (Be·lgio) Uoyriggi·a, Brandemboy·rgo, Anatoliko· Beroli·no, Sajoni·a-`nxalt, Sajoni·a, My·nster (Germani·a) Galiki·a, Estremadoy·ra, Castilla y Leon, Ue·oyta kai Meli·gia, Koino·thta Bale·ntsiaw, Astoyri·a, Andaloysi·a, Kana·riew Nh·soi, Murcia (Ispani·a) Valenciennes, Avesnes, Douai, Korsikh·, Yperpo·ntioi Nomoi· (Galli·a) Ulster, Connaught, Leinster (Irlandi·a) Molise, Apoyli·a, Sikeli·a, Basilicata, Sardhni·a, Kalabri·a, Campania (Itali·a) Flevoland (Ka·tv Xv· rew) Burgerland (Aystri·a) Bo·reia Portogali·a, Alentejo, Algarve, Lissabv· na, Vale do Tejo, Ke·ntro (Portogali·a) Islands, Highlands, Merseyside, Bo·reia Irlandi·a (Hnvme·no Basi·leio) (98/C 323/21) GRAPTH ERVTHSH E-4204/97 ypobolh·: Jose· Garc(cid:14)·a-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) prow thn Epitroph· (21 Ianoyari·oy 1998) Ue·ma: Atze·nta 2000 kai Sto·xow 1: AEP 1993-1997 O geniko·w dieyuynth·w thw Diey·uynshw Perifereiakh·w Politikh·w kai Synoxh·w k. Eneko Landa·buru a·fhse na ennohuei· se dhlv· seiw toy ston Ty·po poy e·ginan to Noe·mbrio o·ti e·ndeka eyrvpai¤ke·w perioxe·w, metajy· tvn opoi·vn kai h Bale·ntsia (thw Ispani·aw), pro·keitai na ekpe·soyn apo· to kauestv· w toy Sto·xoy 1 sy·mfvna me tiw prota·seiw thw Epitroph·w v· ste na meivuoy·n ta diarurvtika· posa· prin apo· thn e·ntajh tvn ne·vn xvrv· n. Thn ekti·mhsh ayth· e·kane me ba·sh prosvrina· dedome·na poy bri·skontai sth dia·uesh thw Epitroph·w. Be·baia, gia th sygkekrime·nh peri·ptvsh thw thw Bale·ntsiaw, oi epi·shmew statistike·w toy Eurostat dei·xnoyn o·ti ayth· h ayto·nomh koino·thta ei·xe to 1993 AEP i·so me to 74,9% toy eyrvpai¤koy· me·soy o·roy kai to 1994 h· analogi·a h·tan ako·ma xamhlo·terh, dhladh· 73,6%. To katv· flio gia th e·ntajh ston Sto·xo 1 ei·nai to 75%, pra·gma poy den epitre·pei kami·a a·mesh ske·ch sxetika· me mh· ekplh·rvsh tvn apaitoyme·nvn proy¤poue·sevn ek me·royw thw Bale·ntsiaw. Se peri·ptvsh xrh·shw toy y·coyw toy me·soy eisodh·matow tvn perifereiv· n kata· thn peri·odo 1993-1997 vw krithri·oy gia ton ypologismo· toy AEP, kaui·statai shmantikh· h gnv· sh tvn makrooikonomikv· n dedome·nvn aytv· n tvn perifereiv· n gia ka·ue e·tow gia to opoi·o xorhgoy·ntai enisxy·seiw. Po·so h·tan to perifereiako· AEP kata· ta e·th 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 kai 1997 stiw perife·reiew poy anafe·rontai katvte·rv; Anatolikh· Makedoni·a, Uessali·a, Krh·th, Pelopo·nnhsow, Kentrikh· Ella·da, ˙peirow, Attikh·, Io·nioi Nh·soi, Axai(cid:143)a, Sterea· Ella·da (Ella·da) Hainaut (Be·lgio) Uoyriggi·a, Brandemboy·rgo, Anatoliko· Beroli·no, Sajoni·a-`nxalt, Sajoni·a, My·nster (Germani·a) Galiki·a, Estremadoy·ra, Castilla y Leon, Ue·oyta kai Meli·gia, Koino·thta Bale·ntsiaw, Astoyri·a, Andaloysi·a, Kana·riew Nh·soi, Murcia (Ispani·a) Valenciennes, Avesnes, Douai, Korsikh·, Yperpo·ntioi Nomoi· (Galli·a) Ulster, Connaught, Leinster (Irlandi·a) Molise, Apoyli·a, Sikeli·a, Basilicata, Sardhni·a, Kalabri·a, Campania (Itali·a) Flevoland (Ka·tv Xv· rew) Burgerland (Aystri·a) Bo·reia Portogali·a, Alentejo, Algarve, Lissabv· na, Vale do Tejo, Ke·ntro (Portogali·a) Islands, Highlands, Merseyside, Bo·reia Irlandi·a (Hnvme·no Basi·leio)


title: ΓΡΑΠΤΗ ΕΡΩΤΗΣΗ αρ θ. 4144/97 του Mirja RYYNAENEN προς την Επ τροπή. Σημασία της αναδάσωσης ως μέσου για τον περιορισμό των αερίων που προκαλούν το παγκόσμιο φαινόμενο του θερμοκηπίου

eurovoc_concepts:
EU financing
afforestation
development aid
fire protection
forest conservation
greenhouse gas
pollution control measures
third country
tropical forest
wood industry

formats: html print


title: SCHRIFTLICHE ANFRAGE Nr. 4197/97 von José GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL an die Kommission. Agenda 2000 und Ziel 1: Erwerbsbevölkerung 1993-1997

text: 21. 10. 98 DE Amtsblatt der Europa¤ischen Gemeinschaften C 323/13 (98/C 323/16) SCHRIFTLICHE ANFRAGE E-4197/97 von Jose· Garc(cid:14)·a-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) an die Kommission (21. Januar 1998) Betrifft: Agenda 2000 und Ziel 1: Erwerbsbevo¤lkerung 1993-1997 Der Generaldirektor fu¤r Regionalpolitik und Koha¤sion, Eneko Landa·buru, zog Ende November vor der Presse in Erwa¤gung, elf europa¤ische Regionen, darunter Valencia (Spanien) aus den Ziel-1-Regionen herauszunehmen, und zwar in U¤ bereinstimmung mit den Vorschla¤gen der Kommission zur Ku¤rzung der Mittel der Strukturfonds im Hinblick auf den Beitritt neuer La¤nder. Diese Scha¤tzung erfolgte auf der Grundlage vorla¤ufiger Daten, u¤ber die die Kommission verfu¤gt. Nichtsdestot- rotz geht aus den offiziellen Statistiken von Eurostat fu¤r den konkreten Fall Valencia hervor, da(cid:223) das Pro-Kopf-BIP dieser autonomen Region 1993 74,9% des Gemeinschaftsdurchschnitts betrug und 1994 noch niedriger war, na¤mlich 73,6%. Der Schwellenwert, um unter das Ziel 1 zu fallen, liegt bei 75%, weshalb nichts darauf hindeutet, da(cid:223) Valencia in unmittelbarer Zukunft die objektiven Bedingungen nicht mehr erfu¤llen wird. Sollte das durchschnittliche Einkommen wa¤hrend des Zeitraums 1993-1997 als Kriterium dienen, um das BIP zu berechnen, ist es wichtig, die makroo¤konomischen Daten dieser Regionen in jedem einzelnen der in Betracht kommenden Jahre zu kennen. Wie hoch war in den Jahren 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 und 1997 der Anteil der Erwerbsbevo¤lkerung an der Gesamtbevo¤lkerung in den unten aufgefu¤hrten Regionen? A¤ tolien, Mazedonien, Thessalien, Kreta, Peloponnes, Zentralgriechenland, Epirus, Attika, Ionische Inseln, Achaia, griechisches Festland (Griechenland) Hennegau (Belgien) Thu¤ringen, Brandenburg, Ostberlin, Sachsen-Anhalt, Sachsen, Mu¤nster (Deutschland) Galicien, Estremadura, Kastilien-La Mancha, Kastilien und Leo·n, Ceuta und Melilla, Valencia, Asturien, Andalusien, Kanarische Inseln, Murcia (Spanien) Valenciennes, Avesnes, Douai, Korsika, u¤berseeische Departements (Frankreich) Ulster, Connauaught, Leinster (Irland) Molise, Apulien, Sizilien, Basilikata, Sardinien, Kalabrien, Kampanien (Italien) Flevoland (Niederlande) Burgenland (O¤ sterreich) Nordportugal, Alentejo, Algarve, Lissabon, Vale do Tejo, Zentrum (Portugal) Islands Enterprise, Highlands, Merseyside, Nordirland (Vereinigtes Ko¤nigreich) (98/C 323/17) SCHRIFTLICHE ANFRAGE E-4198/97 von Jose· Garc(cid:14)·a-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) an die Kommission (21. Januar 1998) Betrifft: Agenda 2000 und Ziel 1: Erwerbsta¤tige Bevo¤lkerung 1993-1997 Der Generaldirektor fu¤r Regionalpolitik und Koha¤sion, Eneko Landa·buru, zog Ende November vor der Presse in Erwa¤gung, elf europa¤ische Regionen, darunter Valencia (Spanien) aus den Ziel-1-Regionen herauszunehmen, und zwar in U¤ bereinstimmung mit den Vorschla¤gen der Kommission zur Ku¤rzung der Mittel der Strukturfonds im Hinblick auf den Beitritt neuer La¤nder. Diese Scha¤tzung erfolgte auf der Grundlage vorla¤ufiger Daten, u¤ber die die Kommission verfu¤gt. Nichtsdestot- rotz geht aus den offiziellen Statistiken von Eurostat fu¤r den konkreten Fall Valencia hervor, da(cid:223) das Pro-Kopf-BIP dieser autonomen Region 1993 74,9% des Gemeinschaftsdurchschnitts betrug und 1994 noch niedriger war, na¤mlich 73,6%. Der Schwellenwert, um unter das Ziel 1 zu fallen, liegt bei 75%, weshalb nichts darauf hindeutet, da(cid:223) Valencia in unmittelbarer Zukunft die objektiven Bedingungen nicht mehr erfu¤llen wird. Sollte das durchschnittliche Einkommen wa¤hrend des Zeitraums 1993-1997 als Kriterium dienen, um das BIP zu berechnen, ist es wichtig, die makroo¤konomischen Daten dieser Regionen in jedem einzelnen der in Betracht kommenden Jahre zu kennen


title: SCHRIFTLICHE ANFRAGE Nr. 4157/97 von den Abgeordneten Laura GONZÁLEZ ÁLVAREZ , Pedro MARSET CAMPOS an die Kommission. Geplante Anlage eines Golfplatzes im Jagdrevier der Lagunen von Villafáfíla (Castilla und León, Spanien)

eurovoc_concepts:
bird
environmental impact
environmental protection
nature reserve
protected area
protected species
sports facilities


title: PERGUNTA ESCRITA n. 4143/97 do Deputado Francisco SANZ FERNÁNDEZ à Comissão. Programa SOCRATES

eurovoc_concepts:
Community budget
EU programme
Member States' contribution
education policy
educational exchange
higher education
student mobility

text: C 196/86 PT Jornal Oficial das Comunidades Europeias 22. 6. 98 Resposta dada por E. Cresson em nome da Comissa(cid:152)o (5 de Mar(cid:231)o de 1998) Em 1997, o or(cid:231)amento total afectado a Comenius (Ac(cid:231)a(cid:152)o 2 do Cap(cid:14)·tulo II do programa So·crates) elevou-se a 4,8 milho(cid:152)es de ecus. No a(cid:136)mbito de Comenius, a Comissa(cid:152)o financiou va·rios projectos relativos a‘ escolariza(cid:231)a(cid:152)o de crian(cid:231)as ciganas: › em 1997, foram financiados 13 projectos num montante total de 1 036 000 ecus; cerca de 120 parceiros foram associados a esses projectos plurianuais; › em 1996, foram financiados 27 projectos, num montante de 1 119 625 ecus; › em 1995, foram financiados 44 projectos, num montante de 1 173 728 ecus. Os projectos sa(cid:152)o transmitidos a‘ Comissa(cid:152)o pelas age(cid:136)ncias nacionais. Durante a u·ltima reunia(cid:152)o das age(cid:136)ncias nacionais, a Comissa(cid:152)o chamou a aten(cid:231)a(cid:152)o para o nu·mero de projectos apresentados. No a(cid:136)mbito do projecto Juventude para a Europa, a Comissa(cid:152)o financiou 11 projectos envolvendo os jovens ciganos, num montante de 310 000 ecus. (98/C 196/120) PERGUNTA ESCRITA E-4143/97 apresentada por Francisco Sanz Ferna·ndez (PSE) a‘ Comissa(cid:152)o (21 de Janeiro de 1998) Objecto: Programa SOCRATES Pode a Comissa(cid:152)o comunicar qual foi a reparti(cid:231)a(cid:152)o por pa(cid:14)·s das ac(cid:231)o(cid:152)es centralizadas do Programa SOCRATES no ano de 1997? Resposta dada por E. Cresson em nome da Comissa(cid:152)o (25 de Fevereiro de 1998) Queira o Senhor Deputado reportar-se ao estudo sobre as contribui(cid:231)o(cid:152)es para o or(cid:231)amento comunita·rio transmitido ao Parlamento em 14 de Outubro de 1997. (98/C 196/121) PERGUNTA ESCRITA E-4145/97 apresentada por Antoinette Spaak (ELDR) a‘ Comissa(cid:152)o (21 de Janeiro de 1998) Objecto: Transposi(cid:231)a(cid:152)o da Directiva 94/80/CE pelos Estados-membros Podera· a Comissa(cid:152)o fazer um balan(cid:231)o dos Estados-membros que procederam ou na(cid:152)o a‘ transposi(cid:231)a(cid:152)o para o direito interno da Directiva 94/80/CE (1) do Conselho de 19 de Dezembro de 1994 que estabelece as regras de exerc(cid:14)·cio do direito de voto e de elegibilidade nas elei(cid:231)o(cid:152)es auta·rquicas dos cidada(cid:152)os da Unia(cid:152)o residentes num Estado-membro de que na(cid:152)o tenham a nacionalidade? (1) JO L 368 de 31. 12. 1994, p. 38


title: QUESTION ECRITE no 4206/97 de Gerardo FERNÁNDEZ-ALBOR à la Commission. Apposition du logotype du drapeau européen sur les aéronefs des compagnies aériennes des États membres

eurovoc_concepts:
European Movement
European symbol
air transport
aircraft
common transport policy


title: Rättelse till tekniska krav till förordning nr 87 i Förenta nationernas ekonomiska kommission för Europa som avses i artikel 3 och i bilaga II punkt 2.1 i kommissionens direktiv 97/30/EG om anpassning till teknisk utveckling av rådets direktiv 76/758/EEG om breddmarkeringslyktor, främre sidopositionslyktor, bakre sidopositionslyktor, stopplyktor, varsellyktor och sidmarkeringslyktor för motorfordon och släpvagnar till dessa fordon (EGT L 203 av den 30.7.1997)

eurovoc_concepts:
Community certification
commercial vehicle
motor vehicle
signalling device
technical regulations
technological change

text: 21. 1. 98 ‹ SV ‹ Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning L 15/47 Rättelse till tekniska krav till förordning nr 7 i Förenta nationernas ekonomiska kommis- sion för Europa som avses i artikel 3 och i bilaga II punkt 2. 1 i kommissionens direktiv 97/ 30/EG om anpassning till teknisk utveckling av rådets direktiv 76/758/EEG om breddmar- keringslyktor, främre sidopositionslyktor, bakre sidopositionslyktor, stopplyktor, varsellyk- tor och sidmarkeringslyktor för motorfordon och släpvagnar till dessa fordon (Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning L 203 av den 30 juli 1997) På sidan 56, punkt 6. 1. 4. 1 skall det i stället för: vara: ”40 ”60 100 (2) 70 (2) 140 (2)” 185 (2) 130 (2) 260 (2)”. Rättelse till tekniska krav till förordning nr 87 i Förenta nationernas ekonomiska kommis- sion för Europa som avses i artikel 3 och i bilaga II punkt 2. 1 i kommissionens direktiv 97/ 30/EG om anpassning till teknisk utveckling av rådets direktiv 76/758/EEG om breddmar- keringslyktor, främre sidopositionslyktor, bakre sidopositionslyktor, stopplyktor, varsellyk- tor och sidmarkeringslyktor för motorfordon och släpvagnar till dessa fordon (Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning L 203 av den 30 juli 1997) På sidan 65, bilaga 3, punkt 3 skall figuren ersättas med följande figur: ” ”


title: SCHRIFTLICHE ANFRAGE Nr. 4205/97 von Gerardo FERNÁNDEZ- ALBOR an die Kommission. Unterrichtsgegenstand "Europäische Union" in den Lehrplänen

eurovoc_concepts:
EU programme
European cooperation
adjustment to school
educational planning
educational system
multidisciplinary education
organisation of teaching
right to education
teaching curriculum

text: 22. 6. 98 DE Amtsblatt der Europa¤ischen Gemeinschaften C 196/101 Wie hoch war in den Jahren 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 und 1997 der Betrag der im Rahmen des Ziels 1 des EFRE in den unten aufgefu¤hrten Regionen durchgefu¤hrten Investitionen? › A¤ tolien, Mazedonien, Thessalien, Kreta, Peloponnes, Zentralgriechenland, Epirus, Attika, Ionische Inseln, Achaia, griechisches Festland (Griechenland) › Hennegau (Belgien) › Thu¤ringen, Brandenburg, Ostberlin, Sachsen-Anhalt, Sachsen, Mu¤nster (Deutschland) › Galicien, Estremadura, Kastilien-La Mancha, Kastilien und Leo·n, Ceuta und Melilla, Valencia, Asturien, Andalusien, Kanarische Inseln, Murcia (Spanien) › Valenciennes, Avesnes, Douai, Korsika, u¤berseeische Departements (Frankreich) › Ulster, Connauaught, Leinster (Irland) › Molise, Apulien, Sizilien, Basilikata, Sardinien, Kalabrien, Kampanien (Italien) › Flevoland (Niederlande) › Burgenland (O¤ sterreich) › Nordportugal, Alentejo, Algarve, Lissabon, Vale do Tejo, Zentrum (Portugal) › Islands Enterprise, Highlands, Merseyside, Nordirland (Vereinigtes Ko¤nigreich) Gemeinsame Antwort von Frau Wulf-Mathies im Namen der Kommission auf die Schriftlichen Anfragen E-4202/97 und E-4203/97 (26. Februar 1998) Wegen des Umfangs der Antwort, die zahlreiche Tabellen umfa(cid:223)t, wird sie dem Herrn Abgeordneten und dem Generalsekretariat des Parlaments von der Kommission direkt zugeschickt. (98/C 196/141) SCHRIFTLICHE ANFRAGE E-4205/97 von Gerardo Ferna·ndez-Albor (PPE) an die Kommission (21. Januar 1998) Betrifft: Unterrichtsgegenstand (cid:132)Europa¤ische Union(cid:147) in den Lehrpla¤nen Die Europa¤ische Union stellt eine Realita¤t dar, die sich auf alle Bereiche des Lebens der Unionsbu¤rger auswirkt, da diese gemeinsam mit den anderen Bu¤rgern der Mitgliedstaaten in einer tatsa¤chlichen und rechtlichen Gemeinschaft leben. Darum ist es unverzichtbar, da(cid:223) sich die Unionsbu¤rger von der Schulzeit an mit der Europa¤ischen Union identifizieren, die alle ihre perso¤nlichen, beruflichen und politischen Beziehungen mitgestaltet. Kann die Kommission daher mitteilen, inwieweit sie davon Kenntnis hat, ob der Unterrichtsgegenstand (cid:132)Europa¤ische Union(cid:147) in den Lehrpla¤nen in den Mitgliedstaaten ein Pflichtfach ist, und was sie zu unternehmen beabsichtigt, um tatsa¤chlich alle 15 Mitgliedstaaten zu veranlassen, den genannten Unterrichtsgegenstand zu einem Pflichtfach fu¤r die Schu¤ler in der Union zu machen? Antwort von Frau Cresson im Namen der Kommission (24. Februar 1998) Zwar ist sich die Kommission u¤ber den Stellenwert des Unterrichts u¤ber die Europa¤ische Union fu¤r die Herausbildung einer europa¤ischen Staatsbu¤rgerschaft im klaren, doch weist sie den Herrn Abgeordneten auf Artikel 126 des EG-Vertrags hin, wonach (cid:132)die Gemeinschaft zur Entwicklung einer qualitativ hochstehenden Bildung dadurch beitra¤gt, da(cid:223) sie die Zusammenarbeit zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten fo¤rdert und die Ta¤tigkeit der Mitgliedstaaten unter strikter Beachtung der Verantwortung der Mitgliedstaaten fu¤r die Lehrinhalte und die Gestaltung des Bildungssystems sowie der Vielfalt ihrer Kulturen und Sprachen erforderlichenfalls unterstu¤tzt und erga¤nzt(cid:147)


title: SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL nr. 4142/97 af Francisco SANZ FERNÁNDEZ til Kommissionen. Tværkulturel undervisning/ SOCRATES-programmet

eurovoc_concepts:
Community budget
EU financing
EU programme
Roma
education of foreigners
schooling

text: 22. 6. 98 DA De Europ(cid:230)iske F(cid:230)llesskabers Tidende C 196/85 (98/C 196/117) SKRIFTLIG FORESP(cid:216)RGSEL E-4137/97 af David Bowe (PSE) til Kommissionen (21. januar 1998) Om: Import af primater fra Indonesien Hvilke foranstaltninger agter Kommissionen at tr(cid:230)ffe p(cid:229) baggrund af overtr(cid:230)delser af konventionen om international handel med udryddelsestruede vilde dyr og planter (CITES) og alvorlig mishandling af dyr, som beskrevet i den seneste rapport om handel med ikke-menneskelige primater fra Indonesien, som Kommissionen har modtaget? (98/C 196/118) SKRIFTLIG FORESP(cid:216)RGSEL E-4138/97 af David Bowe (PSE) til Kommissionen (21. januar 1998) Om: Import af primater fra Indonesien I den nyligt offentliggjorte rapport om handel med ikke-menneskelige primater fra Indonesien oplyses om specielt de alvorlige overtr(cid:230)delser af bestemmelserne i CITES og de um(cid:229)delige lidelser, dyrene uds(cid:230)ttes for. Agter Kommissionen at foretage sin egen undersłgelse af handelen med primater? Vil Kommissionen i łvrigt overveje at indfłre forbud mod brug af primater fra Indonesien til eksperimenter inden for EU, indtil resultaterne fra en s(cid:229)dan undersłgelse foreligger? Samlet svar afgivet p(cid:229) Kommissionens vegne af Ritt Bjerregaard p(cid:229) skriftlige forespłrgsler E-4137/97 og E-4138/97 (18. februar 1998) Kommissionen kender udm(cid:230)rket til den rapport, der blev offentliggjort i november 1997 af den britiske union til afskaffelse af vivisektion (British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection › BUAV), vedrłrende en r(cid:230)kke sendinger af primater fra Indonesien til USA. Da mindst e·n af disse sendinger kom via F(cid:230)llesskabet i transit, mindede Kommissionen myndighederne i den p(cid:229)g(cid:230)ldende medlemsstat om bestemmelserne i R(cid:229)dets forordning (EF) nr. 338/97 af 9. december 1996 om beskyttelse af vilde dyr og planter ved kontrol med handelen hermed (1), s(cid:230)rlig artikel 9, stk. 5. Kommissionen har envidere anmodet det indonesiske styrelsesr(cid:229)d for konventionen om international handel med udryddelsestruede vilde dyr og planter (CITES) om at tilstille den et svar p(cid:229) de krav, der er fremsat i BUAV-rapporten, og oplyse, hvilken politik den fłrer med hensyn til den praktiske gennemfłrelse af Den Internationale Civile Luftfartsammenslutnings (IATA(cid:146)s) forordninger og med hensyn til opdr(cid:230)t i fangenskab. Kommissionen vil tage stilling til, hvorvidt det er nłdvendigt med forholdsregler i henhold til artikel 4, stk. 6, litra c), i R(cid:229)dets forordning (EF) nr. 338/97 i lyset af resultaterne af de nłdvendige hłringer herom. (1) EFT L 61 af 3. 3. 1997, s. 1. (98/C 196/119) SKRIFTLIG FORESP(cid:216)RGSEL E-4142/97 af Francisco Sanz Ferna·ndez (PSE) til Kommissionen (21. januar 1998) Om: Tv(cid:230)rkulturel undervisning/SOCRATES-programmet Kan Kommissionen oplyse, hvor meget der i lłbet af 1997 har v(cid:230)ret afsat p(cid:229) budgettet til aktion 2 i kapitel II (COMENIUS) under SOCRATES-programmet? Hvor stor en del af dette budget er g(cid:229)et til undervisning af sigłjnere? Hvilke projekter vedrłrende undervisning af sigłjnere har f(cid:229)et stłtte i 1997? Er der givet stłtte til andre slags projekter for sigłjnere i forbindelse med dette program?


title: 98/476/EC: Commission Decision of 21 January 1998 on tax concessions under § 52(8) of the German Income Tax Act [notified under document number C(1998) 231] (Only the German text id authentic) (Text with EEA relevance)

eurovoc_concepts:
Germany
State aid
tax on income
tax relief

text: L 212/50 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 7. 98 II (Acts whose publication is not obligatory) COMMISSION COMMISSION DECISION of 21 January 1998 on tax concessions under § 52(8) of the German Income Tax Act (notified under document number C(1998) 231) (Only the German text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) (98/476/EC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 93(2) thereof, Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof, Having given the other Member States and interested parties notice to submit their comments, in accordance with Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty, Whereas: I By Decision of 26 February 1997 the Commission initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 93(2) in respect of a provision in the German Annual Tax Act 1996 (Jahressteuergesetz 1996) (1) which amended § 52(8) of the to Income Tax Act modify a scheme laid down in § 6b of the latter Act. The (Einkommensteuergesetz) so as Commission informed Germany of its Decision by letter dated 25 March 1997 (2), and published the letter in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 6 June 1997 (3). Germany submitted its comments by letter of 13 May 1997. No observations were received from other Member States or interested parties. The provision at issue introduces a special tax concession for the years 1996, 1997 and 1998 which is intended to strengthen the market in holdings in companies in the new German L(cid:132)nder and West Berlin, and thus to increase their equity capital. The concession can be summarised as follows. Under German tax law, gains accruing from the sale of certain assets to natural persons resident in Germany (§ 1 of in the Income Tax Act) or legal persons resident Germany (§ 1 of the Corporation Tax Act (K(cid:148)rperschafts- steuergesetz)) are subject to income tax; the Corporation Tax Act (§ 8) states that legal persons are to be treated in accordance with the relevant provisions in the Income Tax Act. § 6b of the Income Tax Act allows natural and legal persons who sell certain movable and immovable assets or shares in companies (Kapitalgesellschaften) to offset up to 50 % of the taxable gain on the sale, and in some cases up to 100 %, against the cost of acquiring or producing certain assets in the year of sale or the following four (1) BGBl. 1995 I 1250; entered into force 1 January 1996. (2) SG(97) D/2381. (3) OJ C 172, 6. 6. 1997, p. 2. 30. 7. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 212/51 years (1). A 100 % offset under § 6b of the Income Tax Act was inter alia already possible before the Annual Tax Act 1996, in relation to the cost of purchasing shares in a company acquired by a holding company within the meaning of the Holding Companies Act (Gesetz (cid:129)ber Unternehmensbeteiligungsgesellschaften). This inquiry concerning the aid rules is not concerned with the possibility that an advantage may thereby be conferred on holding companies, and this Decision does not prejudice any position the Commission may in future take with respect to any such advantage. As amended with effect from 1 January 1996, § 52(8) of the Income Tax Act broadens the tax concession in § 6b for the financial years 1996, 1997 and 1998. Up to 100 % of the gain may now be offset against acquisition or production costs, provided that the gain in question is used to acquire shares in companies, that this is done on the occasion of an increase in capital or the setting up of a new company, and that the company: (cid:190) has its registered office and central administration in one of the new L(cid:132)nder or West Berlin (2), and at the time the shares are acquired has no more than 250 employees currently employed, or (cid:190) is a holding company (Beteiligungsgesellschaft) whose sole object under its own statutes is to acquire or to administer and sell temporary holdings in companies, and which at the time the holdings are acquired has its registered office and central administration in one of the new L(cid:132)nder or West Berlin and has no more than 250 employees currently employed. According to Germany’s estimates the measure will lead to a temporary loss in tax revenues of some DEM 150 million (approximately ECU 75 million). Several thou- sand companies in the new German L(cid:132)nder and West Berlin may benefit; and the scheme is not confined to particular industries. There is no rule to prevent combina- tion of this measure with other State aid schemes. II The Commission was informed of the provision at issue by letter of 13 October 1995, belatedly, after the legisla- tion had been enacted, and only at the Commission’s own express request. The Annual Tax Act 1996 entered into force on 1 January 1996, before the Commission’s author- isation had been granted. The Commission accordingly registered the scheme as an unnotified aid measure (NN 9/96). An administrative instruction issued by the Federal Ministry of Finance on 2 January 1996 postponed the application of the scheme pending authorisation by the Commission (3). In the Decision initiating the proceedings the Commis- sion took the view that § 52(8) of the Income Tax Act constituted a State aid measure caught by Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty and Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. The Commission considered that there were two groups which benefited: taxpayers liable under the Income Tax Act, and companies in eastern Germany and Berlin with 250 employees or less. The Commission was first of the opinion that a tax concession given to taxpayers selling certain assets, who could then offset the gain on the sale when they acquired other assets, was a general measure with no aid com- ponent because all taxpayers who invested gains in a certain way, irrespective of their size, business or location, would qualify for the concession. But the Commission took the view in the decision initiating proceedings that the provision requiring that in order to qualify for the tax concession the taxpayer had to take a holding in a company with its registered office and central administration in the new L(cid:132)nder or West Berlin did constitute State aid for the purposes of Article 92(1). The Commission pointed out that according to the consistent case-law of the Court of Justice of the Euro- pean Communities an assessment of whether a measure constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 92(1) had to be based on whether or not it had the effect of conferring benefit. The effect of the measure at issue here was to increase the profitability of holdings in companies with their registered office and central administration in the new L(cid:132)nder and West Berlin, as compared with hold- ings in companies with their registered office and central administration in western Germany or outside Germany altogether. In their letter of 13 October 1995 the German authorities had argued that the economic advantage conferred by this measure would be very small, indeed almost non-existent; but the Commission once again referred to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, according to which the fact that the advantage conferred was small did not as such exclude the possibility that intra-Community trade might be affected. The Commission accordingly doubted whether the measure was compatible with the common market. It was not linked to investment, and had accordingly to be regarded as operating aid; but it was the Commission’s established practice that operating aid was permitted only on certain conditions, and only in areas assisted pursuant to Article 92(3)(a) of the EC Treaty. The scheme also applied in Berlin. Under the Commission Decision on (1) Constitution of reserves under § 6b(3) of the Income Tax Act. (2) § 1(2) of the Assisted Areas Act (F(cid:148)rdergebietsgesetz). (3) Bundessteuerblatt 1996, Teil I, No 1, p. 2. L 212/52 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 7. 98 to Article 92(3)(c), but the designation of assisted areas for the years 1997 to 1999 (aid measure N 613/96), East Berlin could qualify as an assisted area pursuant the Decision allowed it to be treated in the same way as the neighbouring areas assisted pursuant to Article 92(3)(a) for that period; on the other hand West Berlin was an assisted area pursuant to Article 92(3)(c), but it was not given the benefit of any similar transitional arrangement, so that it did not meet the conditions set out above regarding compatibility of operating aid. The fact that the grant of aid was not linked to invest- ment also meant that there was a substantial danger that the aid might have economic effects outside the assisted areas. The Commission further took the view that the scheme infringed the ban on discrimination imposed by the freedom of establishment provision in Article 52 of the EC Treaty, because one of the conditions for the the registered office and central concession was that administration of the company in which shares were purchased had to be located in the new L(cid:132)nder or West Berlin. Lastly, the scheme did not provide for compliance with the specific rules which governed aid to sensitive industries. III In its letter of 13 May 1997 Germany argued that the measure did not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 92(1). The German position on the proceedings initiated can be summarised as follows. Germany drew attention, first of all, to the structural deficiencies of the economy in eastern Germany, which continued to be serious, and especially to the low rates of capitalisation of east German companies, which this scheme was intended to improve. The German authorities considered that it was unlikely that any companies in sensitive industries would be assisted under the scheme, as holding companies provided venture capital primarily to companies whose centre of activities was in promising markets. The tax concession was merely a deferral of taxation; there was no remission of tax, since even if the taxpayer did not sell the holding acquired for a long time, its value would at the very latest appear when the firm was being wound up, and the gains would be taxed at that stage. There was a tax advantage only to the party providing the capital, but not to the party receiving it. The recipient was obtaining additional capital the cost of which was freely negotiable and determined by the market. A direct rela- tionship between a tax concession to the recipient of the capital and the cost of that capital was not discernible, and certainly could not be quantified. The mere fact that a tax concession was being given for the purchase of shares in companies located in a defined area did not justify the conclusion that there was a State aid equivalent present. There would be a State aid equivalent only if capital provided under § 52(8) of the Income Tax Act was made cheaper to east German and Berlin companies than the other share capital available. Germany saw nothing to suggest that this was so; in its Decision the Commission had merely stated that this effect was possible, without setting out any precise evidence in support of that view. On the contrary, it was to be supposed that the advantages of the tax deferral would not be passed on to companies with their registered office and central administration in the new L(cid:132)nder or West Berlin, because those advantages were small, and would have no further attraction if they changed hands. In Germany’s view, therefore, the tax concession was a general measure not only as far as the provider of capital was concerned but also as far as the recipient was concerned; this was so especially as the advantage to the recipient arose only as a result of the tax concession given to the provider, and the tax concession given to the provider was a general measure in the Commission’s opinion too. In conclusion, the Commission had failed both to show who was to benefit under the alleged aid scheme and to quantify the aid. In the alternative, the advantage to companies in the new L(cid:132)nder and West Berlin was extremely limited, if it was measurable at all, so that the de minimis rule ought to be applied (1). IV The broadened tax concession under § 52(8) of the Income Tax Act constitutes State aid, within the meaning of Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty and Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, to companies with no more than 250 employees, and having their registered office and central administration in the new L(cid:132)nder or West Berlin in which a holding be acquired, either directly or through a holding company, on the occasion of an increase in capital or the setting up of a new company, in order to qualify for the tax concession on gains accruing on the sale of certain assets or shares in companies. However, the concession is a general measure, and does not comprise any aid component, in so far as it benefits persons subject to income tax who sell certain assets and can offset the taxable gains so arising when they acquire other assets. The Commission has arrived at this conclusion on the following grounds. (1) OJ C 68, 6. 3. 1996, p. 9. 30. 7. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 212/53 First, the measure is ‘aid granted by a Member State or through State resources' within the meaning of Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty. In order to assess whether a State measure constituted aid, the Court of Justice of the Euro- pean Communities held in SFEI that it had to be estab- lished ‘whether the recipient undertaking receives an advantage which it would not have received under normal market conditions' in the absence of the State measure at issue (1). § 52(8) of the Income Tax Act offers a tax concession to natural or legal persons (‘share purchasers') who realise a gain on the sale of an asset, in that it allows them to offset up to 100 % of the gain on that sale against the cost of acquiring shares in certain companies and on certain conditions, so that there is a tax payment they need not make. An advantage is thereby conferred on these persons as compared with the treatment for which they would qualify under the ordinary tax rules, which provide for a reduction of up to 50 % in taxable profits if they reinvest the gain anywhere in the Federal Republic of Germany. The 100 % tax offset is permissible only if the taxpayer acquires shares in certain companies and the acquisition takes place on the occasion of a capital increase or the setting up of a new company. The scheme thus requires taxpayers to acquire shares in such a way as to increase the capital of a company or to set up a new company; thus the tax measure has the consequence, and indeed the stated aim, of promoting demand for investment capital in certain companies, and consequently increasing or launching the equity capitalisation of these firms. As a result of the increased demand for holdings in companies with their registered office and central admin- istration in the new L(cid:132)nder or West Berlin (‘share sellers') which arises as a result of the State measures, the financial investment behaviour of share purchasers as a whole will be affected, other things being equal, to the extent that they will now acquire holdings on terms more favourable to the share seller than they would have been without the introduction of § 52(8) of the Income Tax Act, holdings which in the absence of the tax concession they would not have acquired at all or would have acquired on terms true, as less advantageous Germany points out, that the share seller receives capital the costs of which are freely negotiable and in line with market conditions, but the measure affects the market, with the consequence that capital provided in the frame- work of § 52(8) becomes more attractive as compared with similar capital otherwise available to companies with their registered office and central administration outside the new L(cid:132)nder and Berlin. to the share seller. It is The change in the financial investment behaviour and an increase in the equity of the companies concerned is in fact the declared intention of the German legislature; but in their comments the German authorities contend that the scheme has no measurable effect on the east German and Berlin companies in which the holdings are to be taken. The tax scheme confers a direct advantage on certain natural and legal persons, who are the direct beneficiaries, to encourage them to acquire certain assets from certain firms, who are the indirect beneficiaries. The economic advantage conferred is the greater demand for shares in the indirect beneficiary companies as compared with the legal situation which existed before § 52(8) entered into force; investors, the direct beneficiaries, will consequently be prepared to acquire holdings in east German and Berlin companies on terms more favourable to those companies than the terms which would have been obtained if the measure had not been introduced. As a result, the volume of holdings in those companies will rise, or the terms of the acquisition of the holding (price as compared with nominal value, duration of holding, return on holding, etc. ) will be shifted in favour of those companies, or both. The measure is accordingly likely to confer an economic advantage on the indirect beneficiaries under § 52(8) of the Income Tax Act, which have their registered office and central administration in the new L(cid:132)nder or West Berlin, an advantage they would not have enjoyed without it; and it does not require anything in return. In its comments Germany contends that the measure is merely a deferral and in no way a remission of tax. It should be pointed out, first of all, that under § 222 of the German Tax Code (Abgabenordnung) there is deferral of tax only where the due date of a tax claim which has already arisen is postponed; here, however, a tax claim under § 6b of the Income Tax Act is extinguished, and a fresh claim may possibly arise on a further disposal. In addition, it is irrelevant whether the tax concession can be deemed to be a tax deferral in economic terms, since there would be an indirect economic advantage to the share seller even in the case of a tax deferral (see Commission Decision 93/349/EEC in the British Aero- space and Rover case (2)). it As Germany has argued in its comments, however, would be difficult here to demonstrate a specific advant- age in each individual case, or to quantify the State aid component. Nevertheless, as has already been explained, it can safely be said that an economic advantage is indeed being conferred in the typical case. When the matter is examined ex ante, the economic advantage conferred cannot be determined with certainty for each holding acquired, because the measure hinges on the business conduct of a private financial investor who takes invest- investment ment decisions on the basis of financial (1) Case C-39/94 SFEI and Others v. La Poste and Others [1996] ECR I-3547, paragaph 60. (2) OJ L 143, 15. 6. 1993, p. 7. L 212/54 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 7. 98 conditions which have been deliberately modified by State intervention. It cannot be abstractly shown that the behaviour of an individual share purchaser has been changed by the State measure. The advantage cannot be quantified with certainty ex ante, and indeed will not always be quantifiable ex post either. constitute State aid, as the advantage conferred on partic- ular companies is attributable to State action even if the measure is not financed directly out of State resources, because the parafiscal charge is levied on a compulsory basis. It should be noted that in assessing whether a measure constitutes State aid the Commission need not refer to each individual case. The Court of Justice of the Euro- pean Communties held in Case 248/84 Germany v. Commission that in the case of an aid programme the Commission could confine itself to examining the char- acteristics of the programme in question in order to deter- mine whether by its nature the scheme was caught by Article 92(1) (1). In order to come to the conclusion that there was no State aid, then, the Commission would have to be able to show that there was no case in which an economic advantage was conferred and hence State aid granted. It must be concluded that by its nature the scheme has the effect of conferring an economic advan- tage on an ascertainable class of companies, namely those with no more than 250 employees and their registered office and central administration in the new L(cid:132)nder or West Berlin. In order to calculate the economic advantage in indi- vidual cases a comparison would have to be made between the terms on which a company in eastern Germany or Berlin with 250 employees or less could secure an investment with or without the tax concession, other things being equal. Under this measure an economic advantage is to be granted through State resources. The scheme does cause a reduction in tax revenue, because the gain on the disposal of the asset is not taxed, and this for an indeterminate period. The tax advantage granted through State resources is passed on in part to the beneficiary of aid under a legal provision which seeks to guide the investment behaviour of private investors. As the Court of Justice has held in similar circumstances, for example in Van der Kooy (2), the State is using a legislative provision to cause the share purchaser to pass on the tax advantage to specific firms. The measure thus has the same effect as the parafiscal charges financed by some industries which are used by a body administering the resources thus assembled to subsidise projects to be carried out by particular firms. The Court of Justice has consistently held, for example in Compagnie commer- ciale de l’Ouest (3), that depending on the use to which the revenue from these parafiscal charges is put, they may [1987] ECR 4013, paragraph 18. (1) (2) Joined Cases 67/85, 68/85 and 70/85 Van der Kooy and Others v. Commission [1988] ECR 219. (3) Joined Cases C-78/90 to C-83/90 Compagnie commerciale de l’Ouest and Others v. Receveur des douanes de La Pallice Port [1992] I-1847, paragraph 35. In the present case the economic advantage is passed on not by an official or private body administering the revenue which was set up to pass on the benefit, but instead by State guidance of the investment behaviour of private share purchasers. Because of the influence brought to bear, the economic effect of this State guidance is comparable. It follows that the passing on of the ad- vantage to particular companies is caused by the State, through the relevant legislative provision. it The measure does favour certain undertakings: is confined to a particular region (cid:190) the company must have its registered office and central administration in the new L(cid:132)nder or West Berlin (cid:190) and to companies of a specified size (cid:190) the company must have no more than 250 employees. It is admittedly not possible to identify these companies individually in advance, but a category of advantaged companies can be determined which is suffi- ciently well-defined to allow it to be said that these are the companies on which the advantage is conferred. The scheme is therefore sufficiently specific to distinguish it from general measures that confer an advantage on all businesses in a Member State, and which consequently fall outside the scope of Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty. Lastly, the scheme threatens to distort competition, since it favours undertakings with their registered office and central administration in the relevant region as compared with those in the rest of Germany and in other Member States. The German authorities’ view that the aid intensity indeed close to zero, changes involved is very small, nothing; as the European Communities held in the Tubemeuse case, an effect on trade between Member States cannot be ruled out on the sole ground that the aid is small (4). Nor have the German authorities undertaken to comply with the de minimis notice. the Court of Justice of On the basis of these considerations, then, the Commis- sion concludes that the broadened tax concession under § 52(8) of the Income Tax Act constitutes State aid, within the meaning of Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty and Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, given to companies having their registered office and central administration in the new L(cid:132)nder or West Berlin, in which a holding is to be acquired, either directly or through a holding company, on the occasion of an increase in capital or the setting up (4) Case C-142/87 Belgium v. Commission [1990] ECR I-959. 30. 7. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 212/55 of a new company, in order to qualify for the tax conces- sion on gains accruing on the disposal of certain assets or shares in companies. of its special geographic position, the fact that it was considered an Article 92(3)(a) area in the period 1994 to 1996, and the history of the city of Berlin; this puts it on the same footing as the five new L(cid:132)nder (State aid measure N 613/96). V The aid scheme at issue has the effect of favouring the acquisition, on the occasion of a capital increase or the setting up of a new company, of holdings in companies with up to 250 employees which have their registered office and central administration in the new L(cid:132)nder and West Berlin at a price that is more advantageous to the share seller or on terms more advantageous to the share seller than would have been obtained if the provision had not been introduced. The scheme consequently favours the strengthening of those firms’ equity base. The aid scheme is not ‘conditional on initial investment' within the meaning of the Commission communication on regional aid systems (1), but instead has an ongoing character, being designed to overcome specific structural disadvantages, as the German authorities have expressly confirmed. In accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communties in Siemens v. Commission (2), therefore, it must be treated as operating aid. It is the Commission’s established practice to allow oper- ating aid only in exceptional cases, on certain conditions, and in areas within the scope of Article 92(3)(a) of the EC Treaty, that is to say in ‘areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemploy- ment' (see point 6 of the Commission’s 1988 communi- cation on the method for the application of Article 92(3)(a) and (c) to regional aid) (3). in respect of The five eastern L(cid:132)nder (Brandenburg, Mecklenburg- Western Pomerania, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt and Thur- ingia) are areas assisted pursuant to Article 92(3)(a); a Commission Decision of 18 December 1996 classed them as such until the end of 1999 (State aid measures N the period up to 1996, and 464/93 (4), N 613/96 (5), in respect of the period 1997 to 1999). Until the end of 1996 the Commission also accepted that East Berlin could be assisted pursuant to Article 92(3)(a) (State aid measure N 464/93), and as a transitional arrangement for the period 1997 to 1999 the Commission has decided that East Berlin can be treated in the same way as an area assisted pursuant to Article 92(3)(a), in view (1) OJ C 31, 3. 2. 1979, p. 9. (2) Case C-278/95 [1997] ECR I-2507, paragraph 55. (3) OJ C 212, 12. 8. 1998, p. 2. (4) OJ C 373, 29. 12. 1994, p. 3. (5) OJ C 288, 23. 9. 1997, p. 5. However, the aid to these areas cannot be considered compatible with the common market pursuant to Article 92(3)(a) of the EC Treaty, for the following reasons: (cid:190) The Commission’s 1988 communication, referred to above, states that operating aid will be allowed in Article 92(3)(a) regions only in exceptional cases, if the aid is ‘designed to promote a durable and balanced development of economic activity'. In addition, it has been the Commission’s constant practice to require that the aid should be granted for a predetermined period only, and should fall over time. The effect of the scheme at issue here is to strengthen the equity base of the recipient firms; the scheme does not ensure that the capital provided to the reci- pient companies will be used for the economic devel- opment of the recipient companies in the Article 92(3)(a) regions, and that it will not in reality benefit companies whose economic activities lie outside an assisted area. On the basis of an examination of the scheme it cannot be ruled out that companies which belong to large companies, or which are independent companies outside the assisted areas, may benefit from the scheme without any real contribution being made to the economic development of companies in the assisted area and thus to the assisted area itself (6). Thus the scheme cannot be classed under the exemp- tion for regional aid provided for in Article 92(3) of the Treaty. Lastly, there is no provision for the scheme to be run down over time. (cid:190) There is nothing to prevent the scheme from being applied to companies in sensitive industries for which specific State aid rules have been laid down (rules of this kind currently exist in the synthetic fibres industry, the motor industry, shipbuilding, transport, agriculture, fisheries, the ECSC sectors and non-ECSC steel). But the Commission’s 1988 communication, referred to above, states that aid is not to ‘give rise to a sectoral overcapacity', something that typically exists in these sensitive industries. (6) See Commission Decision 98/194/EC of 1 October 1997 concerning the extension of the 8 % investment premium, [1986] ECR 273 State aid measure C 28/96 (OJ L 73, 12. 3. 1998, p. 38). L 212/56 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 7. 98 (cid:190) Lastly, there is nothing to prevent the scheme from being applied to firms in difficulty, within the meaning of the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (1), even if the general design of the scheme does make this unlikely. The scheme would not be compatible with the conditions for the grant of aid to firms in difficulty which are laid down in those guidelines. As regards the application of the aid scheme to compan- ies with their registered office and central administration in West Berlin, it should be noted that on the basis of the abovementioned decisions West Berlin was until 1996 only in part, and for the period 1997 to 1999 in its entirety, an assisted area pursuant to Article 92(3)(c). This means that the scheme also applies to companies outside areas assisted pursuant to Article 92(3)(a), that is to say in unassisted areas and areas assisted pursuant to Article 92(3)(c). According to the Commission’s established prac- tice, already referred to, operating aid outside areas assisted pursuant to Article 92(3)(a) cannot be declared irrespective of compatible with the common market, whether it is granted to companies in sensitive industries or to companies in difficulty. The scheme consequently cannot be considered compat- ible with the common market under the exemption clauses in Article 92(3)(a) and (c). Nor is it intended to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest or to remedy a serious dis- turbance in the economy of a Member State, or to promote culture and heritage conservation within the meaning of Article 92(3). Nor is it compatible with the common market pursuant to Article 92(2): in particular, the Commission has no information to suggest that the to compensate for scheme is required in order the economic disadvantages caused by the division of Germany within the meaning of Article 92(3)(c). ‘that of Justice of the European Communities held in Case 270/83 Commission v. France (2). The ban on discrim- ination applies not only to direct discrimination but also to measures having equivalent effect. Article 54(3)(h) of the EC Treaty provides that the Commission is to satisfy itself the conditions of establishment are not distorted by aids granted by Member States'. In applica- tion of this provision, the Council provided in its 1962 General Programme for the abolition of restrictions on freedom of establishment that rules and practices that eliminated or restricted the exercise by foreigners, but not of domestic nationals, of the rights normally associated with a self-employed activity, or made it subject to condi- tions, were to be done away with (3). These rules or prac- tices include direct or indirect State aid measures. By banning restrictions on the right of establishment, Article 52 et seq. seek to ensure that those companies are treated in the same way as companies with their regis- tered offices in the host Member State. But the aid under the scheme at issue is available only to companies that have their registered office and central administration in the new L(cid:132)nder and West Berlin. In order to qualify, companies with their registered offices and central administration outside that region would have to transfer their registered office and central administration there. The scheme thus favours east German and Berlin com- panies as compared with companies with their registered offices outside Germany, and consequently infringes the ban on discrimination in Articles 52 et seq. On the ground that the application of the scheme was postponed by the Ministry of Finance’s administrative instruction of 2 January 1996, Germany objects that it has not yet been applied and that no aid has been paid under the scheme has in fact already been applied, it. If Germany will have to take the necessary steps to recover aid already paid out, The scheme further makes it a condition for the tax concession that the firm in which the holding is taken should have its registered office and central administra- tion in the new L(cid:132)nder or West Berlin. This provision is in contradiction with the ban on discrimination in Article 52 of the EC Treaty on the right of establishment. HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: Article 1 Article 52 et seq. provide for the removal of restrictions on establishment. Articles 52 to 58 also guarantee the freedom to carry on a business through a branch or subsidiary. For the purposes of Article 58, the nationality of a firm is to be determined by reference to the Member State in accordance with whose law it is formed and to its registered office and central administration, as the Court 1. The tax concession provided for in § 52(8) of the Income Tax Act constitutes State aid to companies with no more than 250 employees and having their registered office and central administration in the new L(cid:132)nder or West Berlin and is incompatible with the common market pusuant to Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty and Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. (1) OJ C 368, 23. 12. 1994, p. 12. [1986] ECR 273. (2) (3) OJ 2, 15. 1. 1962, p. 36/62. 30. 7. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 212/57 2. Germany is called on to repeal § 52(8) of the Income Tax Act. Article 2 1. Any aid already paid under the scheme referred to in Article 1(1) is unlawful, having been granted before the Commission Decision. 2. Germany shall ensure that any aid unlawfully granted is repaid. The aid shall be recovered in accordance with the proced- ures and provisions of national law, and in particular the national rules on default interest, with interest running from the date of the grant of the unlawful aid, and the rate applied being the reference interest rate used in Germany at the time the aid was granted for calculating the grant equivalent of regional aid. Article 3 Germany shall inform the Commission within two months of notification of this Decision of the measures it has taken to comply with it. Article 4 This Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany. Done at Brussels, 21 January 1998. For the Commission Karel VAN MIERT Member of the Commission


title: PERGUNTA ESCRITA n. 4178/97 do Deputado Daniel VARELA SUANZES-CARPEGNA à Comissão. A política de coesão e a cultura

eurovoc_concepts:
EU programme
cultural policy
economic and social cohesion
job creation
regional policy
structural policy

text: C 304/14 PT Jornal Oficial das Comunidades Europeias 2. 10. 98 (98/C 304/20) PERGUNTA ESCRITA E-4178/97 apresentada por Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) a‘ Comissa(cid:152)o (21 de Janeiro de 1998) Objecto: A pol(cid:14)·tica de coesa(cid:152)o e a cultura O no 4 do artigo 128o do TCE estipula que a Comunidade tera· em conta os aspectos culturais na sua actua(cid:231)a(cid:152)o em virtude de outras disposi(cid:231)o(cid:152)es do TCE. Podera· a Comissa(cid:152)o informar quais as medidas de acompanhamento e controlo adoptadas a este respeito, em especial no a(cid:136)mbito da pol(cid:14)·tica estrutural comunita·ria? Podera· a Comissa(cid:152)o indicar em que medida vai ser tido em conta esse aspecto na pro·xima reforma dos fundos estruturais? Qual a estrate·gia, objectivos e linhas de orienta(cid:231)a(cid:152)o que guiara(cid:152)o essa reforma no que se refere a‘ incide(cid:136)ncia do dom(cid:14)·nio cultural na pol(cid:14)·tica de coesa(cid:152)o? Resposta da Comissa·ria Monika Wulf-Mathies em nome da Comissa(cid:152)o (2 de Mar(cid:231)o de 1998) A Comissa(cid:152)o tem tomado em conta o factor cultural ao longo das negocia(cid:231)o(cid:152)es e da aprova(cid:231)a(cid:152)o dos documentos de programa(cid:231)a(cid:152)o, tendo, por exemplo, feito uma refere(cid:136)ncia expl(cid:14)·cita a‘ cultura nas suas directrizes para os Estados-membros relativamente aos programas do novo objectivo no 2 (1997-1999). Todavia, a defini(cid:231)a(cid:152)o das prioridades do programa e· uma mate·ria do foro das autoridades regionais e locais abrangidas. Por exemplo, as pro·prias regio(cid:152)es decidem se e sob que forma dara(cid:152)o prioridade a‘ integra(cid:231)a(cid:152)o da cultura no a(cid:136)mbito dos seus programas. A Comissa(cid:152)o na(cid:152)o deve impor qualquer tipo de «quota» no que diz respeito a‘ cultura, uma vez que tal entraria em conflito com o princ(cid:14)·pio da subsidiariedade. A Comissa(cid:152)o considera a cultura como uma importante a·rea de potencial cria(cid:231)a(cid:152)o de postos de trabalho a incluir nos programas futuros. Simultaneamente, na(cid:152)o considera que seja necessa·rio incluir a cultura explicitamente como uma ac(cid:231)a(cid:152)o espec(cid:14)·fica eleg(cid:14)·vel nos novos regulamentos, uma vez que a mesma se encontra ja· abrangida pelos objectivos existentes. A liga(cid:231)a(cid:152)o entre o desenvolvimento regional e a cria(cid:231)a(cid:152)o de postos de trabalho continua a ser uma condi(cid:231)a(cid:152)o necessa·ria para as ajudas destinadas a refor(cid:231)ar a coesa(cid:152)o econo·mica e social. (98/C 304/21) PERGUNTA ESCRITA E-4180/97 apresentada por Riitta Myller (PSE) a‘ Comissa(cid:152)o (21 de Janeiro de 1998) Objecto: Prepara(cid:231)a(cid:152)o na Comissa(cid:152)o de um relato·rio intercalar sobre a dimensa(cid:152)o setentrional da UE O alargamento da UE em 1995 aos pa(cid:14)·ses no·rdicos, Finla(cid:136)ndia e Sue·cia, transferiu o centro de gravidade da Unia(cid:152)o em direc(cid:231)a(cid:152)o ao Norte. A decisa(cid:152)o relativa ao arranque das negocia(cid:231)o(cid:152)es de prepara(cid:231)a(cid:152)o de adesa(cid:152)o e para a adesa(cid:152)o dos novos pa(cid:14)·ses candidatos, bem como a necessidade de se desenvolver a pol(cid:14)·tica da UE sobre a Ru·ssia refor(cid:231)am ainda mais a importa(cid:136)ncia da dimensa(cid:152)o setentrional das pol(cid:14)·ticas da Unia(cid:152)o. Nas concluso(cid:152)es proferidas pelo Presidente no Conselho Europeu do Luxemburgo, afirma-se o seguinte sobre a dimensa(cid:152)o no·rdica: «O Conselho Europeu tomou nota da proposta da Finla(cid:136)ndia quanto a uma dimensa(cid:152)o setentrional das pol(cid:14)·ticas da Unia(cid:152)o Europeia e solicita a‘ Comissa(cid:152)o que, numa das pro·ximas reunio(cid:152)es do Conselho Europeu em 1998, apresente um relato·rio intercalar sobre o assunto». A importa(cid:136)ncia da dimensa(cid:152)o setentrional e· igualmente referida no relato·rio apresentado pela Comissa(cid:152)o (de acordo com instru(cid:231)o(cid:152)es do Luxemburgo) sobre coopera(cid:231)a(cid:152)o regional. Gostaria de perguntar ao Comissa·rio responsa·vel pelo assunto como e· que a Comissa(cid:152)o se tem preparado no sentido de garantir os recursos necessa·rios para a elabora(cid:231)a(cid:152)o do relato·rio intercalar e como tenciona ligar a dimensa(cid:152)o setentrional no futuro trabalho dos Conselhos Europeus