title: Communication on a common policy on manning of regular passenger and ferry services operating in and between Member States

eurovoc_concepts:
carriage of passengers
common transport policy
ferryboat
freedom to provide services
intra-EU transport
maritime transport

text: COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES -ft '" # -Cr it •Ù rV "W' Brussels, 29. 04. 1998 COM(1998) 251 final 98/0158 (SYN) 98/0159 (SYN) COMMUNICATION on a common policy on manning of regular passenger and ferry services operating in and between Member States Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE on manning conditions for regular passenger and ferry services operating between Member States (presented by the Commission) COMMUNICATION on a common policy on manning of regular passenger and ferry services operating in and between Member States 1. 1. INTRODUCTION 1. The objectives of the common maritime policy cover a variety of issues which are interrelated. These are: to ensure the consumers of shipping services a wide choice of competitive services, to enhance the quality and safety of shipping, to foster the economic development of Community shipping and of the related cluster of maritime industries, to promote the employment of well-trained Community seafarers and, more generally, to foster the further development of maritime know-how in the Community. Reference should also be made to Article 2 of the Treaty, which explicitly mentions the promotion of a high level of employment and of social protection as being a task of the Community. On several of these points good progress has been made. For example, the continuous striving for freedom of access to shipping markets across the world and ongoing efforts to raise quality standards in the appropriate international fora, has ensured the availability of a wide range of highly competitive shipping services. However, the situation is less satisfactory as regards the employment of Community seafarers. Over the last decades the employment trend has gone down continuously, as a result of flagging out, replacement of Community crew by cheaper labour-saving rationalization measures. third countries, and technical labour from 2. In December 1996 under the auspices of the Commission an international conference was organized in Dublin to discuss the theme: "The European seafarer, an endangered species?". As the conference showed, there is indeed reason for serious concern. Not only has the number of Community seafarers sharply decreased, but the average age of Community seafarers is now well over 40 and the inflow of young cadets is not sufficient to replace those leaving the trade. To illustrate the point: between 1985 and 1995 the number of Community nationals employed on Community flagged vessels went down from 206 000 to 129 000 (-37%), while the number of non-Community nationals went up from 29 000 to 33 000 (+14%)1. It was further found that 51% of the employment loss was caused by flagging out. Until now the cargo-ships sector has been the sector mainly affected by the abovementioned trend. However, the trend could spread to the passenger-ferry sector if no countermeasures were taken (see further points 4, 16, 17 and 18). Source: TECNECON, August 1996, "Study on maritime professions in the European Union". 2 3. The Commission's Maritime Strategy Paper of 19962 identified the need to put greater emphasis on the promotion of the employment of Community seafarers in connection with the improvement of the competitiveness of Community flags. The comments received on the paper were generally positive and subsequently the Commission undertook to revise the State aid guidelines for maritime shipping3 as a first concrete measure underpinning this policy. The creation of a level playing field was seen as the best way to stop flagging out. This means that Member States should be allowed to offer shipowners under their flag fiscal and labour conditions which are (as far as possible) comparable to those that can be obtained elsewhere. Now, nine months after the publication of the revised guidelines, a process of convergence in •Member States ' policies can be observed. Most Member States have introduced or proposed measures going in this direction and the first positive effects on the competitive position of Community registers and Community seafarers have been reported, in particular as regards ocean-going shipping. 4. As a mxi step il\Q "home market" of the Community seafarers and more in the market of regular passenger sen/ices within and between particular Member States, requires special attention. The abovementioned study on maritime professions in the Community, of August 1996. indicated that almost 50% of all Member States' seafaring personnel (cabin crew and catering staff included) is employed on such passenger vessels. Regular passenger services are an important source of employment both in Southen: and Northern Europe. In both cases the market is served by operators established in the Community. However, there are differences in market structure. In Southern Europe, the centre of gravity lies within island passenger cabotage services (cabotage means carriage of passengers or goods by sea between two porte situated within one and the same Member State). Regular passenger services between Member States are restricted to a few lines of which Greece-Italy and Corsica-Italy are the most important. In Northern Europe, domestic passenger services are important in Denmark and the UK in particular, but the bulk of regular passenger transport is in traffic between Member States. 5. The market for regular passenger services within and between Member States is in a number of respects different from other sectors cf the maritime transport market (see points 9, 10 and 20 hereinafter). This market is served by operators established flags and in Member States using mainly ships under Member States' predominantly crewed by Member States1 nationals. However, there are some developments which cause concern amongst seafarers as regards their future liberalization of island cabotage by employment situation. The forthcoming 1 January 1999 is perceived as a threat by many seafarers in Southern Europe. In other market segments, ferry operators observe or anticipate a reduction in their revenues due to certain external developments putting increased pressure on them to reduce operating costs. Partial replacement of the existing work force by cheaper labour from third countries is an option in this context. 2 COM(96) 81 final "Towards a new maritime strategy", 13. 3. 1996. 3 OJC205, 5. 7. 1997, p. 5. The main purpose of this communication is to examine the labour situation in the entire market for regular passenger services between Member States' ports and to propose a way forward by means of the two legislative proposals attached hereto bearing in mind that these proposals should be in line with the international obligations of the Community. 2. 6. CABOTAGE Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 19924 provides that the principle of freedom to provide services in maritime cabotage shall apply to Community shipowners (as defined in Article 2(2) thereof) who have their ships registered in, and flying the flag of a Member State, provided that these ships comply with all conditions for carrying out cabotage in that Member State. The Regulation provides for a step-by-step liberalization of different segments of the cabotage market. Island cabotage in Southern Europe - as defined in Article 6(2) - shall be liberalized as from 1 January 1999. On manning of vessels carrying out island cabotage, the Regulation in essence provides for the following: Article 3(2): all matters relating to manning shall be the responsibility of the host State; Article 3(3): however, for cargo vessels over 650 gt carrying out island cabotage consecutive to an international journey, all matters relating to manning shall be the responsibility of the flag State (as from 1 January 1999); Article 3(4): the Commission shall submit a report to the Council on the economic and social impact of the liberalization of island cabotage (by 1 January 1997) and shall submit a proposal to the Council which may include adjustments to the manning nationality provisions laid down in paragraphs 2 and 3 so that the definitive system shall be approved by the Council in due time and before 1 January 1999. The aforementioned report was submitted to the Council5 on 17 June 1997. The proposal referred to in Article 3(4) is attached to this Communication. 7. Following the presentation of the aforementioned report, certain Member States have suggested that the provisions of Article 3(2) and (3) as mentioned above, should remain unchanged for an indefinite period. The Commission cannot share this view for the reasons set out below. In analysing the situation a distinction is made between island-cargo trades (see point 8) and island-passenger services (points 9 to 11). 4 OJL 364, 12. 12. 1992, p. 7. 5 COM(97) 296. Report implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime cabotage (1995-1996) and on the economic and social impact of the liberalization of island cabotage. the Council on the Commission from the to 4 As regards cargo cabotage a certain simplification of the present rules is called for. It should be recalled that Article 3(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 provides that all matters relating to manning for vessels carrying out mainland cabotage shall be the responsibility of the State in which the vessel is registered (flag State), except for ships smaller than 650 gt6 where host State conditions may be applied. According to Article 3(3), flag-State conditions also apply to cargo vessels in consecutive7 island-cargo cabotage as from over 650 gt when engaged 1 January 1999. Hence, the only remaining question is: should island-cargo cabotage voyages with vessels over 650 gt, which do not follow or precede an international journey (and which are presently subject to host-State conditions), continue to be exempted from the normal flag-State rule? The Commission believes that there is no economic justification for a lasting exemption from the flag-State rules, for the reasons set out in its report of 17 June 1997 referred to above. Cargo cabotage sendees are often earned out by vessels which participate for alternating periods in international and domestic trades. The manning conditions for this type of cabotage should therefore not deviate from the accepted practice in international trades, which is that the flag State issues the safe manning certificate (in accordance with the provisions international conventions) and determines all other matters of the relevant relating to manning. Any other approach would have for effect the composition and/or the labour conditions of the crew of a vessel operating under a Member States flag would have to be changed in order to obtain access to island-cargo cabotage. This is considered an unacceptable and unnecessary hindrance to the implementation of the principle of freedom to provide services. It is therefore proposed to remove this obstacle by applying the flag-State rule as already agreed for consecutive island-cargo and mainland cabotage, to all cargo cabotage (with vessels over 650 gt). that The market for regular passenger services in island cabotage is in a number of respects very different from the cargo-cabotage market. First of ail, there is no economic relationship with the international market in a way that is comparable to the cargo market. It is common that passenger ferries designed to serve a particular island route remain on the same route for many years at a time and not uncommonly for their entire service lifetime. The crews serving on these ships locally effectively recruited. in the area concerned and are often reside accordance with All Member States Community law) that 100% of the crew on such services must consist of Community nationals. In addition, Member States may require, in accordance with Council Directive 94/58/EC8 that a certain percentage of the crew members and in particular those nominated on muster lists to assist passengers in emergency situations, must have communication skills that are sufficient for that purpose and which may consist, inter alia, in speaking the language or languages appropriate to the principal nationalities of passengers carried on a particular route. The fact that a in Southern Europe require (in Operations with vessels below 650 gt are considered to be of local importance only and may therefore continue to be subject to host State manning rules as provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 That means, when the voyage concerned follows or precedes a voyage to or from another State. OJL319, 12. 12. 1994, p. 28. 5 substantial pari of the crew must be able to speak the local language(s) adds to the argument that regular passenger services differ from cargo shipping. 10. Secondly, regular passenger services are in general far more labour intensive than cargo services. Therefore, passenger services are an important source of employment for local seafarers. In the Commission's report COM(97) 296 of 17 June 1997, it was stated that 70% of all employment in island cabotage is related to passenger services. The labour intensive character of the trade also implies that competition conditions between operators using vessels under flags of different Member States would be more strongly influenced by differences in manning rules. In particular, it would be perceived as unfair if local passenger ferry operators that 100% of the crew must consist of being subject Community nationals, would have to compete with operators from other Member States making use of cheap third-country labour as allowed by the manning rules of their flag State. to the requirement 11. In view of the particular characteristics of the market for regular passenger services in island cabotage, the Commission is of the opinion that certain measures are needed to ensure a level playing field for operators from different Member States using vessels under different flags. In particular, it is proposed to allow host Member States to require that all personnel employed on the aforementioned passenger vessels operating within their territory shall consist of Community nationals, provided (of course) that this rule equally applies to vessels operating under their own national flag. The proposed approach is based on the principle that third-country seafarers employed in regular passenger services should receive equal treatment with Community residents. The application of this principle should also have a positive effect on maritime safety, considering the paramount importance of the human element in safety matters. Particular considerations Council Regulation on cabotage in respect of the attached proposal for a 12. The application of a 100% Community nationality requirement (see Article 1(2)), as is common practice in all Southern Member States, will offer conditions under which the principle of freedom to provide services can be fully implemented in the relevant market. In addition, it is recalled that the provisions of Directive 94/58/EC allow host Member States to require that a sufficient number of the crew shall be able to speak the local language(s). Any further divergence from the usual flag-State manning principle would constitute an undue hindrance to the implementation of the principle of freedom to provide services. Therefore, other matters relating to manning such as the responsibility for issuing the safe manning certificate on the required crew composition in function of the technical characteristics of the ship and in accordance with the relevant international conventions, shall remain the competence of the flag State. 13. The terms and conditions of employment (e. g. rates of pay, overtime rates, working time, annual holidays, etc. ) of Community seafarers working on board ships under Member States flags are normally laid down by collective bargaining agreements and/or legal provisions of the flag State. It could be construed to be contrary to the 6 principle of freedom to provide services to require that the terms and conditions of employment of the crew would have to be changed and brought in line with the corresponding provisions applying in the host State if a vessel under a Member States' flag were used for a certain period for the provision of regular passenger-cabotage services in another Member State (host State). However, in order to avoid any risk of social dumping the proposed revised text of Article 3(3) (see attached proposal for a Council Regulation) of Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 provides that, where host States allow third-country nationals to be employed on vessels providing regular passenger sendees, the host State shall require that such seafarers shall be treated for the purpose of terms and conditions of employment as residents of the Member State in which the vessel is registered. In this context, it is recalled that Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 guarantees freedom to provide services to Community shipowners who have their ships registered in, and fly the flag of a Member State. 14. The main differences between cargo and passenger services, which justify a special treatment for the latter are, as set out before, (a) the fact that there is hardly any relationship with the international market in domestic regular passenger services and (b) that passenger services are more labour intensive and therefore the competition conditions are more strongly influenced by differences in labour conditions. To a very large extent these characteristics also apply to the so-called scheduled cabotage cruise services (i. e. cruise vessels which operate for the whole season according to a fixed pattern between ports of one and the same Member State). The attached cabotage proposal therefore includes these services in the same category as regular passenger and ferry services. 3. REGULAR MEMBER STATES PASSENGER AND FERRY SERVICES BETWEEN 15. Unlike cabotage, there is no flag requirement for the provision of maritime transport services between Member States. Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/869 of 22 December 1986 provides that all Community established carriers10 may provide such services irrespective of whether they operate under Community or third-country flags. As regards the particular market for regular passenger services between Member States, the situation is, however, that these services are mainly carried out by ships under Member States' flags and are predominantly crewed by residents of those States. As stated before, these services are a major source of employment for Community seafarers. 16. Over recent years, a few cases have occurred where operators began regular passenger-ferry services using third-country labour in direct competition with Community-crewed ferries. These attempts resulted in strong trade union action. Similar situations could, however, arise again in the future. 9 OJ L 368, 31. 12. 1986, p. 1. 10 Including nationals/shipping companies established outside the Community controlled by nationals of a Member State, if their vessels are registered in that Member State in accordance with its legislation, 7 17. Other cases have been reported of Community carriers who have partly replaced Community crew by third-country nationals over the last years. According to the information at the disposal of the Commission, some 600 to 700 third-country nationals (± 3% of the relevant work force) are presently employed as crew members on regular passenger ferry services operating between Member States. The vessels concerned are operating under flags of four different Member States. The terms and conditions of employment of these crew members are diverse. For example, it appears that one of these four Member States requires that third-country nationals employed on its intra-Community ferries shall be offered the same labour conditions as its own nationals. For the other three Member States, it has been confirmed that third-country crew are employed on conditions less favourable than those applicable to their own nationals. There is currently no Community rule in force which could bring about a certain degree of harmonization in cases such as those described above. 18. As stated before, the competition conditions in the labour-intensive market for regular maritime-passenger services is strongly influenced by the crews' labour conditions. There are external factors (e. g. abolition of duty free, completion of certain fixed links) which give reason to believe that the pressure on operators in this market to reduce costs may increase in the years to come. If certain operators can reduce their costs by replacing Community crew by third-country crew employed at less favourable conditions, their competitors will probably have to follow. There is a danger of a negative spiral of erosion of working conditions for all crew, resulting in considerable loss of employment for Community seafarers. Such an evolution would be contrary to the objectives of the common maritime policy. In this light, the Commission considers that certain rules should be introduced to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market and to avoid disruption through social dumping. 19. The proposal for a Council Directive attached to this Communication addresses the labour conditions of third-country nationals employed on ships used for the provision of regular passenger and ferry services between Member States and establishes the principle that such workers should benefit from terms and conditions of employment which are comparable to those applicable to Community citizens working in that trade by defining a certain minimum level. An important consideration is that seafaring personnel employed on board ships providing regular passenger services between two ports in the Community are effectively residing in the Community, since they stay within the boundaries of the single market for their entire contract period. In most cases seafaring personnel on such passenger ferries sleep on board during the weeks that they are on duty only; during off-duty periods they reside on shore in one of the host Member States. It is therefore not surprising that at present at least one of the Member States applies the rule than non-Community nationals shall be treated as a resident of the State when being employed on its intra-Community ferries. It is common practice that Member States' rules on liability to income tax, social contributions, minimum rates of pay, minimum paid holidays, etc. are applicable to all residents of the State. The rule proposed in Article 2 of the attached proposal for a Council Directive is closely aligned to this principle. is also made this context, reference to Directive 96/71/EC11 of the In European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services. The checking of the compatibility of the proposal with the international obligations of the Community or its Member States and in particular with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, with OECD and WTO, has been carried out with special attention. The establishment of a level of labour conditions based on European standards for all crew members should also have a positive effect on maritime safety as mentioned in point 11. 20. The question can be asked whether the proposal the scope of for a Council Directive should be extended to also cover other maritime services, such as regular cargo services between Community ports and cruises. The answer to this question must be negative since the situation is not comparable. Cargo services are not particularly labour intensive and cargo services between Community ports (e. g. container feeder services) are much more interlinked with the global maritime services network than regular passenger-ferry services. The latter point is also applicable to international cruises. Vessels used for international cruise sendees normally move with seasons to different parts of the world. Crews of such vessels cannot be considered as effectively residing in the Community. 21. Particular considerations in respect of the attached proposal for a Council Directive Explanatory comments by Article: Article 1 the shipowners Paragraph 2 covers established outside the State who nevertheless have their vessels registered in the State and fly its flag. The proposed wording is similar to the one used in Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 (see Article 1(2) thereof). so-called Greek particularity, i. e. Paragraph 3 specifies that the labour conditions of Member States' seafarers shall not be affected. Article 2 Third-country nationals employed on board ships under Member States' flags shall be treated in a similar way as residents of Member States employed on board these ships (flag-State conditions). In the case of ferries under third-country flags, the labour conditions of such crew members shall be in line with those applicable to residents of Member States in the Member State with which the service is most closely connected (host State)12. The way the operator of a regular passenger service between two Member States has set up his business shall normally settle the question of to which of these host States his business is most closely linked. H OJL 18, 21. 1. 1997, p. 1. 12 See Rome Convention of 1980, OJ C 27, 26. 1. 1998. Important factors to be taken into account are: the place from which the operation is effectively managed and the place where non-Community crew members stay during off-duty periods. Article 3 Paragraph 1 allows for a derogation from the principle established in Article 2 for third-country workers who stay for an insignificant short period in the Community. Paragraph 2 allows for flexibility in case for example of a ferry with crew that has to be chartered in to compensate for an acute shortage of capacity due to unforeseen circumstances. Such a situation may for instance occur where a ferry has been involved in a serious accident. The Member States concerned shall ensure a normalization of the situation within a reasonable period. Article 4 Active cooperation between the competent authorities of the Member States and with the Commission will be required to ensure a proper application of the provisions of this Directive. 22. Justification for a Council Directive 14(a) What are the objectives of the envisaged action proposal in relation to the obligations of the Community and what is the Community dimension of the problem (for instance how many Member States are involved and which is the solution so far)? The objectives of the Community are to ensure fair competition conditions/level playing field for all providers of regular passenger-ferry services between Member States and to protect the employment of Community seafarers by guaranteeing that the terms and conditions of employment of all seafaring personnel in this trade will be in line with the level of the standards generally applicable in the Community. The proposal is based on Article 84(2) of the Treaty. The great majority of Member States (13 out of 15) have maritime ports and are connected with other Member States by means of regular passenger-ferry services. Member States' rules on the working conditions of third-country nationals employed on ferries operating between Member States are diverse. A common solution applicable to all operators on the relevant market can only be brought about by Community action. 15(b) Is the envisaged action solely the responsibility of the Community or a responsibility shared with the Member States? The envisaged action does not the Community. relate to an exclusive competence of 10 16(c) What is the most efficient solution taking into account the resources of the Community and of the Member States ? In view of the internal market dimension of maritime passenger transport, the most efficient solution is to enact common requirements at Community level for the treatment of third-country crews on board vessels carrying oat regular passenger and ferry services between Member States. 17(d) What is the concrete added value of the action envisaged by the Commission and what would be the cost of inaction? Inaction would allow ferry operators providing regular passenger services between Member States to replace Community seafarers by cheap third-country labour. This would result in a distortion of competition conditions between operators in the relevant market. It would also lead to a constant erosion of labour conditions of the seafarers in general and considerable loss of employment for Community seafarers in the long run. To counteract and prevent this negative evolution is the added value of the proposed common action. 18(e) What forms of action are available to the Community? (recommendation, financial assistance, regulation, mutual recognition) Legislative action is the only form of action available to the Community which can bring about the envisaged effect. 19(f) Is uniform legislation necessary or does a Directive setting the general objectives and leaving the execution to the Member States suffice? In accordance with the proportionality principle, a Directive will be sufficient as it will establish common requirements for all operators on the relevant market while leaving the choice of practical and technical procedures for their implementation to each Member State. 11 98/0158 (SYN) Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community and in particular Article 84(2) thereof, Having regard to the proposal from the Commission13, Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee14, Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 189c of the Treaty in cooperation with the European Parliament15, Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 3 577/9216 lays down the principle that the implementation of the freedom to provide services is not necessarily to be applied in a uniform way for all services concerned, regard being had to the nature of certain specific services; Whereas Article 3 of that Regulation, therefore, establishes different manning rules for mainland and island cabotage and imposes the obligation on the Commission to submit a proposal to the Council, on the basis of a report on the economic and social impact of the liberalization of island cabotage, which may include adjustments to the manning nationality provisions laid down in that Article, so that the definitive system may be approved by the Council before 1 January 1999; Whereas the abovementioned report was submitted by the Commission to the Council on 17 June 1997; whereas it follows from the research carried out that the present rule which provides, in respect of island cabotage, that ail matters related to manning are to be the responsibility of the host State, constitutes an unnecessary hindrance to the proper functioning of the single market; Whereas the cargo-cabotage sector is closely interlinked with the international market for maritime shipping; whereas no compelling economic arguments have been found to justify a permanent departure from the usual flag-State conditions, except in the case of services of merely local importance; 13 14 15 16 OJL 364, 12. 12. 1992, p. 7. 12 Whereas the promotion of employment within the Community is one of the objectives of the Treaty; Whereas the particular characteristics of the sector for regular passenger and ferry sendees would justify certain special provisions to counteract any possible disruption of competitive conditions through the use of third-country crews paid at the wage-level of their country of origin; whereas the same arguments are applicable to the sector of scheduled cabotage-cruise services; Whereas it is appropriate to require that third-country nationals employed within the abovementioned sectors shall riot be treated less favourably than Community residents; Whereas Regulation (EC) No 3577/92 should therefore be amended accordingly, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 is hereby replaced by the following: "Article 3 1. 2. For vessels carrying out cabotage services other than those referred to in paragraph 2, all matters relating to manning shall be the responsibility of the State in which the vessel is registered (flag State), except for ships smaller than 650 gt, where the conditions in force in the State in which the vessel is performing its services (host State) may be applied. For vessels carrying out regular passenger and ferry services, including mixed passenger/cargo services and scheduled cruise services, the rules concerning the required proportion of Community nationals in the crew (namely all staff employed on board) as in force in the host State shall apply. All other matters relating to manning shall be the responsibility of the flag State. 3. Where host States allow third-country nationals to be employed on board ships carrying out cabotage services as referred to in paragraph 2, they shall require that those crew members shall be treated in the terms and conditions of their employment as residents of the Member State being the flag State. The host State shall apply its own terms and conditions of employment to third-country seafarers on board its national vessels carrying out such services. 4. Member States' measures implementing the provisions of this Article shall be notified to the Commission in accordance with Article 9. " 13 Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, For the Council The President 14 98/0159 (SYN) Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE on manning conditions for regular passenger and ferry services operating between Member States THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 84(2) thereof, Having regard to the proposal from the Commission17, Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee18, Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 189c of the Treaty, in cooperation with the European Parliament19, Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport between Member States and between Member States and third countries20, as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3573/9021, has rendered all the Treaty rules governing the freedom to provide services applicable to the sphere of maritime transport between Member States; Whereas manning conditions for the provision of services in regular passenger and ferry sendees betv/een Member States are normally the responsibility of the State of registration of the vessel (the "flag State"); whereas the Rome Convention on the law for other arrangements; whereas applicable Community interests and the interests of Member States betv/een whose territories such sendees are provided also have to be taken into account; to contractual obligations22 allows Whereas the principle that shipping companies established outside the Community should not receive more favourable treatment than shipping companies established in the territory of a Member State should be upheld; Whereas the special characteristics of the market for regular passenger and ferry services between Member States call for measures to ensure the proper functioning of the single market by guaranteeing that the terms and conditions of employment of seafaring OJL 378, 31. 12. 1986, p. 1. 21 OJL 353, 17. 12. 1990,p. 16. 22 OJ L 266, 9. 10. 1980, p. 1; consolidated version: OJ C 27, 26. 1. 1998, p. 34. 15 personnel will be in line with the level of social standards generally applicable in the Community; Whereas, in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality as set out in Article 3b of the Treaty, the objectives of the proposed measures, namely to lay down rules on the working conditions of third-country nationals employed on ferries operating between Member States, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of scale and effects of the provisions required, be better achieved by the Commiriity; whereas this Directive confines itself to the minimum required in order to achieve those objectives and does not go beyond what is necessary for that purpose; Whereas it is appropriate to require that third-country nationals employed within the abovementioned sectors shall not be treated less favourably than Community residents; Whereas it is appropriate that Member States may provide for a derogation from the obligation to treat third-country seafarers as Community residents on regular passenger and ferry services between Member States for labour contracts of an extremely short duration or in the event of an acute shortage of ferry capacity due to unforeseen circumstances; Whereas competent bodies in different Member States should cooperate with each other in the application of this Directive; Whereas each Member State should determine the penalties to be impposed in the event of a breach of the provisions adopted for the implementation of this Directive, HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE: Article 1 1. 2. 3. 4. This Directive shall apply to nationals of Member States and to shipping companies established in a Member State which provide regular passenger and ferry services, including mixed passenger/cargo services, between ports situated in different Member States. The provisions of this Directive shall also apply to nationals of a Member State established outside the Community and to shipping companies established outside the Community and controlled by nationals of a Member State, providing the services referred to in paragraph 1, if their vessels are registered, and fly its flag, in that Member State in accordance with its legislation; This Directive shall apply to the extent that the nationals and shipping companies referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 employ third-country nationals on board the vessels used for the services referred to under paragraph 1. Shipping companies established outside the Community, other than those referred to in paragraph 2, shall not be given more favourable treatment than the nationals and shipping companies referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2. 16 Article 2 1. Member States shall ensure that, whatever the law applicable to the employment relationship, the nationals and shipping companies referred to in Article 1(1) and (2), operating regular passenger and ferry services between Member States shall guarantee third-country nationals employed on board ships used for such services, the terms and conditions of employment as laid down (a) by law, regulation or administrative provision, and/or (b) by collective agreements or arbitration awards which have been declared universally applicable in so far as they apply to the activities referred to in Article 1(1), which are applicable to the residents of the Member State of registration of the vessel. 2. If the vessel used is not registered in a Member State, the terms and conditions of employment referred to in paragraph 1 shall be those applicable to the residents of one of the Member States between whose ports the senice is provided and with which the service has the closest connection. The closest connection shall be determined on the basis of the place from which the service is effectively managed and of the place of residence of the seafarers concerned. 3. The terms and conditions of employment referred to in paragraph 1 shall cover the following matters: (a) maximum work periods and minimum rest periods; (b) minimum annual paid holiday; (c) the minimum rates of pay, including overtime rates; (d) health, safety and hygiene at work; (e) protective measures with regard to the terms and conditions of employment of pregnant women or women who have recently given birth, of children and of young people; (f) equality of treatment for men and women and other provisions on non-di scrimination; (g) measures for the repatriation of seafarers and the payment of outstanding insolvency of the event of the in salary and social contributions their employer. 4. 5. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not prevent the application of terms and conditions of employment which are more favourable to workers. Collective agreements or arbitration awards which have been declared universally applicable means those which are to be observed by all shipping companies concerned at national level. 17 In the absence of a system for declaring collective agreements or arbitration awards to be universally applicable, Member States shall base themselves on: (a) (b) collective agreements or arbitration awards which are generally applicable to all shipping companies as referred to in Article 1(1) and (2), and/or collective agreements which have been concluded by the most representative employers' and labour organizations in the relevant market at national level. The second subparagraph shall be subject to the condition that the application of those agreements or awards to the shipping companies referred to in Article 1(1) and (2) ensures equality of treatment on matters listed in paragraph 3 of this Article between all shipping companies concerned. Article 3 1. Member States may, after consulting employers and labour, and in accordance with the traditions and practices of each Member State, decide not to apply the provisions of points (b) and (c) of Article 2(3), when the length of the employment period of the third-country nationals concerned does not exceed one month within any 12-month period. 2. Member States may grant for a period of two months a derogation from points (b) and (c) of Article 2(3), to a provider of services as referred to under Article 1(1) for vessels chartered-in to compensate for an acute shortage of capacity on a ferry route which has arisen owing to unforeseen circumstances. For derogations exceeding two months, prior authorization by the Commission shall be required. 3. Member States shall inform the Commission without delay of derogations pursuant to paragraph 2 and of the circumstances on which they are based. Article 4 1. For the purpose of implementing this Directive, Member States shall, in accordance with national legislation and/or practice, designate one or more liaison offices or one or more competent national bodies. 2. Member States shall make provisions for cooperation between the public authorities which, under national legislation, are responsible for monitoring the terms and conditions of employment referred to in Article 2. Mutual administrative assistance shall be provided free of charge. 3. Each Member State shall notify the other Member States and the Commission of the liaison offices and/or competent bodies referred to in paragraph 1. 18 Article 5 Member States shall determine the penalties applicable to infringements of the national provisions implementing this Directive and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that those provisions are enforced. The penalties thus laid down shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Member States shall notify the provisions to the Commission by the date mentioned in Article 6 and shall notify it of any subsequent amendments to them without delay. Article 6 Member States shall adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 30 June 1999 at the latest. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof. They shall apply those provisions with effect from [1 January 2000]. When Member States adopt these provisions, these shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference at the time of their official publication. The procedure for such reference shall be adopted by Member States. Article 7 This Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This Directive is addressed to the Member States. Article 8 Done at Brussels, For the Council The President 19 ISSN 0254-1475 COM(98) 251 final DOCUMENTS EN 07 06 01 10 Catalogue number : CB-GO-98-287-EN-C ISBN 92-78-35506-2 Office for Official Publications of the European Communities L-2985 Luxembourg 20


title: SCHRIFTELIJKE VRAAG nr. 1301/98 van Corrado AUGIAS aan de Commissie. Toepassing van artikel 93 van het Verdrag

eurovoc_concepts:
State aid
administrative transparency
aid to undertakings
application of EU law
control of State aid
redemption
restriction on competition
single market
terms for aid
use of aid

formats: html print


title: PREGUNTA ESCRITA n. 1340/98 del José GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL a la Comisión. EURO 1999

eurovoc_concepts:
European Monetary System
economic convergence
member country
national budget
public administration
public debt
public finance
third stage of EMU


title: PERGUNTA ESCRITA n. 1219/98 do Deputado José GARCÍA- MARGALLO Y MARFIL à Comissão. BCE

eurovoc_concepts:
Economic and Monetary Union
European Central Bank
European System of Central Banks
decision-making body (EU)
institutional structure
president of an institution
vice-president of an institution

formats: html pdf print

text: C 386/96 Jornal Oficial das Comunidades Europeias PT 11. 12. 98 Importa ainda referir que o Conselho de Governadores do BCE, o (cid:243)rgªo supremo em termos de poder de decisªo, Ø composto pelos Governadores dos bancos centrais nacionais de todos os Estados-membros participantes e pelos membros da Comissªo Executiva do BCE. O Conselho Geral Ø tambØm um (cid:243)rgªo de decisªo do BCE. As competŒncias deste conselho estªo estipuladas no artigo 47o do Estatuto do Sistema Europeu de Bancos Centrais (SEBC) e nele estªo representados os governadores dos bancos centrais nacionais de todos os Estados-membros. (98/C 386/133) PERGUNTA ESCRITA E-1218/98 apresentada por JosØ Garc(cid:237)a-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) (cid:224) Comissªo (29 de Abril de 1998) Objecto: BCE Nos termos da al(cid:237)nea a) do no 2 do artigo 109o-A do TUE, a Comissªo Executiva do BCE Ø composta pelo Presidente, pelo Vice-Presidente e por quatro vogais. A al(cid:237)nea b) estipula que todos eles serªo nomeados, de comum acordo, pelos Governos dos Estados-membros a n(cid:237)vel de chefes de Estado ou de Governo, sob recomenda(cid:231)ªo do Conselho e ap(cid:243)s este ter consultado o Parlamento Europeu e o Conselho do BCE. Pondera a Comissªo a possibilidade de participa(cid:231)ªo na Comissªo Executiva do BCE de representantes de pa(cid:237)ses nªo pertencentes (cid:224) UEM? Resposta dada por Yves-Thibault de Silguy em nome da Comissªo (11 de Junho de 1998) A Comissªo Executiva do Banco Central Europeu (BCE) Ø constitu(cid:237)da pelo Presidente, pelo Vice-Presidente do BCE e quatro vogais. S(cid:243) nacionais dos Estados-membros participantes podem ser membros da Comissªo Executiva. O Conselho de Governadores do BCE Ø composto pelos membros da Comissªo Executiva e pelos Governadores dos bancos centrais nacionais dos Estados-membros participantes. O Conselho de Governadores e a Comissªo Executiva sªo (cid:243)rgªos de decisªo do Banco Central Europeu, que administram o Sistema Europeu de Bancos Centrais (SEBC). O Conselho Geral Ø o terceiro (cid:243)rgªo de decisªo do BCE. (cid:201) composto pelo Presidente, pelo Vice-Presidente do BCE e pelos Governadores dos bancos centrais nacionais de todos os Estados-membros. As responsabilidades do Conselho Geral sªo essencialmente de (cid:237)ndole consultiva. Este (cid:243)rgªo Ø responsÆvel pela liga(cid:231)ªo entre os bancos centrais dos Estados-membros participantes e nªo participantes. O Tratado CE e o Estatuto do SEBC nªo excluem a possibilidade do BCE empregar funcionÆrios de Estados-membros ainda nªo participantes. (98/C 386/134) PERGUNTA ESCRITA E-1219/98 apresentada por JosØ Garc(cid:237)a-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) (cid:224) Comissªo (29 de Abril de 1998) Objecto: BCE Nos termos da al(cid:237)nea a) do no 2 do artigo 109o-A do TUE, a Comissªo Executiva do BCE Ø composta pelo Presidente, pelo Vice-Presidente e por quatro vogais. A al(cid:237)nea b) estipula que todos eles serªo nomeados, de comum acordo, pelos Governos dos Estados-membros a n(cid:237)vel de chefes de Estado ou de Governo, sob recomenda(cid:231)ªo do Conselho e ap(cid:243)s este ter consultado o Parlamento Europeu e o Conselho do BCE


title: Parere del Comitato economico e sociale in merito alla «Proposta di decisione del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio che modifica la Decisione n. 1692/96/CE relativamente ai porti marittimi, ai porti di navigazione interna e ai terminali intermodali, nonché al progetto n. 8 dell'Allegato III»

eurovoc_concepts:
common transport policy
harbour installation
maritime transport
trans-European network
transport network

text: C 214/40 IT Gazzetta ufficiale delle Comunità europee 10. 7. 98 3. 11. La creazione e l’accettazione di un mercato interno uniforme presuppongono la partecipazione degli organi democraticamente eletti. Per tale motivo, con riferimento a quanto esposto nel punto 3. 1, la proposta di direttiva è da preferire alla procedura JAA. La Commissione ha dato ascolto a questa esigenza. Bruxelles, 29 aprile 1998. Il Presidente del Comitato economico e sociale Tom JENKINS Parere del Comitato economico e sociale in merito alla «Proposta di decisione del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio che modifica la Decisione n. 1692/96/CE relativamente ai porti marittimi, ai porti di navigazione interna e ai terminali intermodali, nonché al progetto n. 8 dell’Allegato III» (98/C 214/11) Il Consiglio, in data 24 marzo 1998, ha deciso, conformemente al disposto dell’articolo 129 D del Trattato che istituisce la Comunità europea, di consultare il Comitato economico e sociale in merito alla proposta di cui sopra. La Sezione «Trasporti e comunicazioni», incaricata di preparare i lavori del Comitato in materia, ha formulato il parere sulla base del rapporto introduttivo del relatore Whitworth, in data 8 aprile 1998. Il Comitato economico e sociale ha adottato all’unanimità il 29 aprile 1998, nel corso della 354a sessione plenaria, con 117 voti favorevoli e 8 astensioni, il seguente parere. 1. Introduzione e contesto Le reti transeuropee (RTE) sono state introdotte 1. 1. dall’articolo 129 B del Trattato. L’articolo 129 C prevede la formulazione di una 1. 2. serie di orientamenti che contemplino gli obiettivi, le priorità e le linee generali delle azioni previste nel settore delle reti transeuropee, nonché l’individuazione di pro- getti di interesse comune. La Decisione n. 1692/96/CE (1) stabilisce gli 1. 3. orientamenti per lo sviluppo della rete transeuropea dei trasporti. Le caratteristiche delle reti per i diversi modi di trasporto sono specificate negli articoli da 9 a 17. I diversi schemi proposti per la rete stradale, quella ferroviaria, le vie navigabili, gli aeroporti e il trasporto combinato sono illustrati da una serie di carte raccolte nell’Allegato I. All’Allegato II figurano i criteri e le interesse comune, mentre specifiche dei progetti di l’Allegato III elenca i quattordici progetti adottati dal Consiglio europeo di Essen nel dicembre 1994. (1) GU L 228 del 9. 9. 1996, pag. 1. 1. 4. La decisione tratta solo brevemente i criteri di sviluppo dei porti marittimi al cui riguardo l’Allegato I non prevede alcuno schema specifico. In una dichiarazio- ne allegata alla decisione, la Commissione annunciava la propria intenzione di presentare nel 1997, previa consultazione delle parti interessate e degli Stati membri, una proposta relativa a progetti portuali sulla base di un approccio analogo a quello adottato per gli aeroporti. 1. 5. Da allora è stata condotta una consultazione approfondita e la Commissione ha raccolto una notevole quantità di dati provenienti dalle quattro regioni maritti- me principali. Con la proposta attuale, la Commissione intende modificare la decisione del 1996 in modo da inserire criteri e specifiche per i progetti di porti marittimi e, al tempo stesso, modificare quanto proposto dalla decisione per i porti interni e i terminali intermodali. 2. Le proposte della Commissione 2. 1. Osservazioni di carattere generale 2. 1. 1. La Commissione è giunta alla conclusione che la posizione dei porti marittimi, dei porti di navigazione interna e dei terminali intermodali, va definita con 10. 7. 98 IT Gazzetta ufficiale delle Comunità europee C 214/41 maggior chiarezza negli orientamenti al fine di agevolare il conseguimento degli obiettivi multimodali della rete transeuropea dei trasporti. Questa si configura a suo avviso come una rete di infrastrutture multimodale che dovrebbe progressivamente combinare ed integrare assieme i diversi modi di trasporto e le singole reti nazionali. La Commissione afferma inoltre che i porti marittimi, i porti interni e le strutture di trasbordo costituiscono un requisito essenziale per il buon funzio- namento del trasporto intermodale all’interno della rete. Essa rileva inoltre che la Decisione n. 1692/96 non contiene criteri specifici per lo sviluppo e l’ubicazione dei principali modi di trasporto o dei punti di intercon- nessione nella rete transeuropea. 2. 1. 2. Con la proposta in esame la Commissione intende dunque colmare tali lacune, pur limitandosi in questa fase ad inserire i porti marittimi, i porti interni e i punti di interconnessione interni nel trasporto intermodale di merci. Il documento della Commissione elenca le 2. 1. 3. modifiche specifiche alla Decisione n. 1692/96; risulta tuttavia impossibile valutare la portata di tali proposte senza far riferimento al testo originale. I paragrafi che seguono sono dunque un tentativo di sintetizzare le proposte procedendo in ordine logico di settore in settore. 2. 2. Porti marittimi 2. 2. 1. Il nuovo testo proposto in sostituzione dell’arti- colo 12 della Decisione n. 1692/96 (cfr. articolo 1, paragrafo 3, della proposta) prevede che la rete transeu- ropea di trasporto comprenda circa 300 porti marittimi aperti a tutto il traffico commerciale, e li indica nelle nuove carte schematiche di cui all’Allegato I. Tali porti marittimi dovranno soddisfare i seguenti requisiti: — un volume totale di traffico annuale non inferiore a 1 milione di tonnellate di merci; oppure — un volume totale di traffico annuale non inferiore a 200 000 passeggeri trasportati su tratte internazionali (è prevista una deroga per le isole del mar Egeo e del mar Ionio); oppure — fornire connessioni tra collegamenti terrestri della rete transeuropea. I progetti portuali ed i progetti connessi di interesse comune dovranno inoltre essere conformi ai criteri e alle specifiche di cui all’Allegato II. 2. 2. 2. La modifica di maggior rilievo per i criteri e le specifiche dei progetti d’interesse comune (cfr. Se- zione 5 — Porti marittimi — dell’Allegato II) consiste nell’inserimento di una frase che stabilisce la necessità di riservare particolare attenzione ai progetti concernenti: — lo sviluppo della navigazione a corto raggio e della navigazione marittima-fluviale; — la ristrutturazione delle infrastrutture portuali, in particolare nei porti situati nelle isole e nelle regioni periferiche; — il miglioramento dell’accesso all’hinterland, in parti- colare mediante collegamenti ferroviari e vie naviga- bili; — lo sviluppo di sistemi di gestione e informativi. 2. 2. 3. Il testo precisa espressamente che gli investi- menti in infrastrutture portuali non sono ammissibili al contributo comunitario destinato alle reti transeuropee, se non quando soddisfano i criteri stabiliti per lo sviluppo del trasporto combinato. Secondo la Commissione tale disposizione è motivata dall’accesa concorrenza tra i diversi porti. 2. 3. Porti interni 2. 3. 1. Secondo la modifica proposta dell’articolo 11 della Decisione n. 1296/96 (cfr. articolo 1, paragrafo 2, lettera b, della proposta) i porti di navigazione interna compresi nella rete devono soddisfare i seguenti requisiti: — essere aperti a tutto il traffico commerciale; — figurare nello schema di cui all’Allegato I; — disporre di un’interconnessione con altre linee trans- europee di trasporto come da Allegato I; — essere equipaggiati di impianti di trasbordo per il trasporto intermodale. 2. 3. 2. Lo schema modificato 7. 2 (Vie navigabili e porti interni), di cui all’Allegato I, individua 35 porti interni. 2. 3. 3. Vengono di conseguenza soppressi i criteri per i porti di navigazione interna contenuti nel paragrafo A della Sezione 4 dell’Allegato II della Decisione n. 1692/ 96, mentre restano valide le categorie dei progetti di infrastrutture. 2. 4. Trasporto combinato 2. 4. 1. Le modifiche proposte per l’articolo 14 della Decisione n. 1692/96 (cfr. articolo 1, paragrafo 4, della proposta) ridefiniscono i terminali per le strutture di trasbordo intermodale (eliminando il riferimento alle attività di trasbordo in collegamento con le vie maritti- me) e specificano che tali terminali devono: — essere aperti a tutto il traffico commerciale; — essere situati su uno dei corridoi ferroviari di cui all’Allegato I o ad essi collegati; — essere equipaggiati con strutture di trasbordo per il trasporto intermodale. I terminali devono inoltre soddisfare i criteri e le specifiche di cui alla Sezione 7 dell’Allegato II, il cui terzo trattino (ristrutturazione delle zone portuali, per permettere di sviluppare o migliorare il trasferimento dei container nel trasporto combinato) è stato modificato con la soppressione del riferimento al trasporto stradale. C 214/42 IT Gazzetta ufficiale delle Comunità europee 10. 7. 98 2. 4. 2. I due schemi 7. 1. A e 7. 1. B dell’Allegato I che individuano i corridoi ferroviari per il trasporto combinato sono sostituiti da quattro nuovi schemi (da 7. 1. 0 a 7. 1. 4) in cui sono indicati 210 terminali intermodali. La Commissione precisa che, nel rispetto del principio della sussidiarietà, gli schemi non indicano l’ubicazione esatta dei terminali, ma le zone terminali di trasbordo. 2. 5. Reti ferroviarie L’articolo 10, paragrafo 4, che elenca le caratte- 2. 5. 1. ristiche della rete ferroviaria, e la Sezione 3 dell’Alle- gato II vengono entrambi modificati in modo da inserire alcuni riferimenti allo sviluppo di nuovi servizi ferroviari, basati in particolare sulle superstrade ferroviarie transeu- ropee per il trasporto merci. 2. 6. Progetti adottati dal Consiglio europeo 2. 6. 1. Nell’elenco di cui all’Allegato III, la denomina- zione «Autostrada Lisbona-Valladolid» è sostituita da «collegamento multimodale Portogallo/Spagna con il resto dell’Europa» in linea con la decisione adottata dal Consiglio europeo di Dublino nel dicembre 1996. 3. Precedenti pareri del Comitato 3. 1. Nel novembre 1994 il Comitato ha adottato un parere in merito alla proposta di decisione sulla rete transeuropea dei trasporti (1) che è poi divenuta la Decisione n. 1692/96. Pur trattandosi, ovviamente, di un parere di ampio respiro, la parte dedicata ai porti formulava le seguenti considerazioni specifiche: — i porti e i trasporti marittimi sono considerati un elemento chiave per lo sviluppo della rete transeuro- pea di trasporto; — i progetti per il potenziamento dei porti vanno inquadrati nelle prospettive dei collegamenti previsti per gli altri modi di trasporto in vista della creazione di una rete transeuropea; — le future proposte di sviluppo della navigazione a corto raggio sono attese con impazienza; — i progetti proposti non devono provocare distorsioni di concorrenza tra i singoli porti; — i porti interni sono destinati a svolgere un ruolo importante in un disegno organico volto ad accentua- transeuropea di re trasporto. l’intermodalità della rete 3. 2. Nel parere in merito a «Lo sviluppo del trasporto marittimo a corto raggio in Europa» (2) adottato nel gen- naio 1996, il Comitato sollecitava l’integrazione comple- ta del trasporto marittimo a corto raggio nelle reti transeuropee, delle quali doveva diventare parte inte- grante su un piano di parità rispetto agli altri modi di trasporto. Accoglieva inoltre con favore la proposta della Commissione di potenziare le infrastrutture portuali e la loro efficienza, auspicando in particolare un potenzia- mento del ruolo dei porti di piccole e medie dimensioni. In una serie di pareri [ultimo dei quali, adottato 3. 3. nell’ottobre 1997, riguardava la comunicazione della Commissione dal titolo «Intermodalità e trasporto merci intermodale nell’Unione europea» (3)] il Comitato dichiarava di attribuire grande importanza al migliora- mento ed all’estensione del trasporto intermodale e riconosceva l’importanza dei porti in una rete intermo- dale. 3. 4. Nel parere in merito alle superstrade ferroviarie transeuropee per il trasporto merci adottato nel gennaio 1998 il Comitato accoglieva con favore le proposte della Commissione; a suo avviso la creazione di tali superstrade costituiva un importante passo avanti verso la ripresa delle ferrovie europee. 4. Osservazioni di carattere generale 4. 1. Come già segnalato, è particolarmente difficile valutare l’effetto complessivo delle proposte della Com- missione nella loro forma attuale. Il Comitato ritiene che il documento dovrebbe riprodurre il testo integrale della decisione modificata utilizzando caratteri di stampa diversi o la sottolineatura per evidenziare le modifiche. 4. 2. Il Comitato si compiace del fatto che la Commis- sione riconosca l’importante ruolo dei porti all’interno della rete europea di trasporto e l’assoluta necessità per tali porti di disporre di collegamenti efficienti con altri modi di trasporto. Fedele a quanto affermato in precedenti pareri, il Comitato rileva inoltre con soddisfazione che la Commissione attribuisce grande rilievo allo sviluppo delle strutture intermodali e si preoccupa di individuare i corridoi e i punti di intercon- nessione critici. 4. 3. L’approccio adottato dalla Commissione risulta sostanzialmente frammentato in quanto affronta ciascun modo di trasporto separatamente ed in termini specifici. Il Comitato avverte la necessità di mettere a punto una strategia globale che crei un nesso tra le proposte concernenti i singoli modi di trasporto da un lato e l’oggetto e gli obiettivi della rete transeuropea dall’altro, secondo la definizione fornitane rispettivamente agli articoli 1 e 2 della Decisione n. 1692/96. In mancanza di tale strategia, è impossibile formulare una valutazione conclusiva della rete transeuropea. 4. 4. Nonostante i riferimenti alla navigazione costiera e a corto raggio, sia nell’articolo 12 che nella versione modificata della Sezione 5 dell’Allegato II, viene scarsa- mente riconosciuto il contributo che lo sviluppo di tali modi puo` fornire al concetto di mobilità sostenibile. Il (1) GU C 397 del 31. 12. 1994, pag. 23. (2) GU C 97 dell’1. 4. 1996, pag. 15. (3) GU C 19 del 31. 1. 1998, pag. 25. 10. 7. 98 IT Gazzetta ufficiale delle Comunità europee C 214/43 Comitato ritiene che le proposte costituiscano una risposta inadeguata alla rilevanza data nel suo parere allo sviluppo del trasporto marittimo a corto raggio in Europa. statale) competono tra loro per aggiudicarsi il traffico in direzione di o in provenienza da un hinterland comune, il settore del trasporto portuale è particolarmen- te sensibile all’aspetto della concorrenza tra porti. 4. 5. Il Comitato deplora la pressoché totale elimina- zione — a quanto sembra — del trasporto stradale dallo sviluppo dei porti marittimi e del trasporto combinato nel contesto della rete transeuropea. Se da un lato appoggia incondizionatamente il potenziamento del trasporto intermodale in quanto fattore essenziale per garantire una mobilità sostenibile, dall’altro ritiene che la Commissione non possa ignorare il fatto che una percentuale assai elevata delle merci che passano dai porti comunitari è trasportata attualmente su strada e che i progetti di trasporto stradale devono partecipare in qualche forma all’integrazione dei porti e dei terminali nella rete transeuropea. 5. 1. 5. Alcuni gruppi d’interesse del settore ritengono che, alla luce di quanto sopra, sarebbe più equo destinare i finanziamenti comunitari a studi di fattibilità per lo sviluppo di porti. D’altro canto, è nell’interesse generale degli obiettivi della rete transeuropea far sı` che il finanziamento dei progetti portuali più significativi non sia limitato da rigide procedure amministrative. Secondo il Comitato la Commissione dovrebbe esaminare più attentamente questo difficile aspetto e gli effetti pratici derivanti, in particolari circostanze, dall’adozione della presente proposta. 5. Osservazioni di carattere particolare 5. 2. Trasporto combinato 5. 1. Porti marittimi 5. 1. 1. Il Comitato ritiene che i massimali espressi sotto forma di tonnellate di merci trasportate o di traffico internazionale di passeggeri di cui al nuovo articolo 12, paragrafo 2, vadano applicati con una certa flessibilità alla luce anche degli altri criteri da rispettare. Qualora questi siano applicati con eccessiva rigidità, vi è il rischio che i porti più piccoli, pur essendo in grado di offrire un contributo reale allo sviluppo della navigazione costiera e a corto raggio, non soddisfino le condizioni per poter partecipare a tale sviluppo. Inoltre, per quanto riguarda la lettera b), vi sono altre aree in cui il traffico nazionale tra le isole o con la terraferma raggiunge proporzioni significative. La disposizione introdotta nel nuovo para- 5. 1. 2. grafo 4 della Sezione 5 dell’Allegato II, la quale prevede che gli investimenti in infrastrutture nelle zone portuali non possono beneficiare del contributo finanziario della Comunità nel settore delle reti transeuropee «ad eccezione dei progetti di interesse comune che riguardano il trasporto combinato nelle zone portuali indicati nella Sezione 7 dell’Allegato II», suscita alcune preoccupa- zioni. Da tale disposizione sembrerebbe, infatti, che 5. 1. 3. lo sviluppo di infrastrutture non correlate al trasporto combinato puo` beneficiare dei finanziamenti se le infrastrutture in questione sono ubicate appena al di fuori della zona portuale, ma non al suo interno. Tale lettura puo` produrre delle situazioni anomale e far sı` che per i progetti infrastrutturali sia scelta una ubicazione artificiosa in modo da incrementare al massimo la loro possibilità di beneficiare di finanziamenti comunitari. Inoltre, la mancata definizione del concetto di infrastrut- tura puo` suscitare delle ambiguità. 5. 1. 4. Vi è ampio margine per un’applicazione di volta in volta diversa e incoerente dei criteri relativi ai progetti portuali e ad altri progetti connessi di interesse comune secondo la definizione fornita nella Sezione 5 dell’Allegato II. Cio` potrebbe tradursi in un notevole vantaggio competitivo dei porti selezionati per tali progetti rispetto a quelli esclusi. Come riconosce la stessa Commissione, dal momento che sono molti i casi in cui i porti (finanziati singolarmente e non a livello La modifica proposta del secondo trattino del 5. 2. 1. paragrafo 1 dell’articolo 14 elimina l’attuale riferimento alle vie marittime nel contesto dei terminali che fornisco- no strutture di trasbordo tra i diversi modi. Il Comitato si interroga sull’opportunità di tale omissione e, fedele a quanto già osservato in generale al punto 4. 4, ritiene che la navigazione costiera e a corto raggio meriterebbe di figurare espressamente tra le caratteristiche della rete transeuropea di trasporto combinato. 5. 2. 2. La Sezione 7 dell’Allegato II suggerisce che i criteri relativi ai progetti di interesse comune dovrebbero servire a determinare l’elenco di progetti di cui all’Allega- to I, invece di costituirne un’integrazione. 5. 2. 3. Tra tali criteri, il secondo trattino fa esplicito riferimento alla creazione di strutture di trasbordo fisse o mobili. Un analogo riferimento dovrebbe allora figurare nella Sezione 5. 3 dell’Allegato II perché il trasporto marittimo non si trovi in questo senso svantag- giato. 5. 2. 4. Nel terzo trattino — ristrutturazione delle zone portuali, per permettere di sviluppare o migliorare il trasferimento dei container tra i mezzi di trasporto marittimo ed altri modi nell’ambito del trasporto combi- nato — è stato eliminato il riferimento al trasporto stradale. Il Comitato afferma che è impossibile sviluppa- re il concetto di intermodalità senza una partecipazione bilanciata del trasporto stradale. Sono molti, infatti, i casi in cui potrebbe rivelarsi appropriata la realizzazione di un progetto atto a migliorare i trasferimenti dal trasporto marittimo a quello stradale in una zona portuale — si pensi ad esempio alla creazione di un accesso stradale ad un impianto portuale che eviti il centro città. Il Comitato si interroga sull’opportunità di tale omissione. 5. 3. Reti ferroviarie Il Comitato approva la modifica dell’arti- 5. 3. 1. colo 10, paragrafo 4, e della Sezione 3 dell’Allegato II in C 214/44 IT Gazzetta ufficiale delle Comunità europee 10. 7. 98 modo da inserire un riferimento allo sviluppo di nuovi servizi ferroviari, basati in particolare sulle superstrade ferroviarie transeuropee per il trasporto merci. 5. 4. Progetti adottati dal Consiglio europeo Il Comitato prende atto della sostituzione, 5. 4. 1. nell’elenco di cui all’Allegato III, della denominazione «Autostrada Lisbona-Valladolid» con «collegamento multimodale Portogallo/Spagna con il resto dell’Euro- pa» in linea con la decisione adottata dal Consiglio europeo di Dublino nel dicembre 1996 e si dichiara favorevole allo sviluppo di un collegamento multimo- dale. 6. Conclusioni Il Comitato auspica la presentazione, nel prossi- 6. 1. mo futuro, di un documento che passi in rassegna l’intera rete transeuropea dei trasporti. 6. 2. Questa andrebbe poi seguita da una valutazione basata sulla definizione di obiettivi concernenti segnata- mente la realizzazione della rete intermodale, al cui riguardo il Comitato desidererebbe essere consultato come pure in merito alle relazioni della Commissione sull’applicazione e la revisione degli orientamenti, di cui agli articoli 18 e 21. Bruxelles, 29 aprile 1998. Il Presidente del Comitato economico e sociale Tom JENKINS Parere del Comitato economico e sociale in merito alla «Proposta di decisione del Consiglio che adotta un Programma quadro pluriennale di azioni nel settore dell’energia (1998-2002) e misure connesse» (98/C 214/12) Il Consiglio, in data 4 febbraio 1998 ha deciso, conformemente al disposto dell’articolo 198 del Trattato che istituisce la Comunità europea, di consultare il Comitato economico e sociale in merito alla proposta di cui sopra. La Sezione «Energia, questioni nucleari e ricerca», del incaricata di preparare i lavori del Comitato in materia, ha formulato il parere sulla base del rapporto introduttivo del relatore Von der Decken, in data 7 aprile 1998. Il Comitato economico e sociale ha adottato all’unanimità il 29 aprile 1998, nel corso della 354a sessione plenaria, con 115 voti favorevoli e 3 astensioni, il seguente parere. 1. Introduzione La proposta di decisione del Consiglio in esame 1. 1. si compone di una relazione e di sette allegati: — L’allegato I è la proposta di decisione; — L’allegato II descrive gli aspetti finanziari del primo ambito che comprende l’azione orizzontale «Analisi prospettiche e controllo dei mercati»; — L’allegato III affronta gli aspetti finanziari del secondo ambito che include l’azione orizzontale «Cooperazione energetica internazionale», attual- mente realizzata nel quadro del programma Synergy; — L’allegato IV illustra il programma tematico «Fonti energetiche rinnovabili» e i relativi aspetti finanziari. Finora esso rientra nell’ambito di Altener II; — L’allegato V riguarda l’ambito «Efficienza energetica e riduzione delle emissioni di CO2» e i relativi aspetti finanziari. Finora tale programma tematico rientra nell’ambito di SAVE II; — L’allegato VI presenta il programma Carnot; — L’allegato VII descrive gli aspetti finanziari della indipendenti», «Cooperazione con i nuovi Stati anche nell’ambito del trasporto di materie radioattive e della lotta al traffico illecito di tali materie. L’obiettivo del programma quadro «Energia» è 1. 2. garantire la coerenza e l’efficacia delle azioni intraprese


title: WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1299/98 by Esko SEPPÄNEN to the Commission. Chernobyl 4 Reactor Shelter Fund

eurovoc_concepts:
EBRD
Ukraine
environmental protection
nuclear accident
nuclear power station
nuclear safety
radioactive pollution

text: C 354/88 SV Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning 19. 11. 98 Gruppen fattade ett antal beslut som syftar till att fo¤rba¤ttra insamling och utbyte av information om problemet med olaglig handel. Den enades om att kommissionen bo¤r inleda en underso¤kning om tillg(cid:229)ng p(cid:229) och leveranska¤llor fo¤r klorfluorkarboner och haloner i gemenskapen. Den beslo¤t a¤ven att utarbeta riktlinjer fo¤r tulltja¤nstema¤n fo¤r att o¤ka deras medvetenhet och kunskap om handel med ozonnedbrytande a¤mnen och ga¤llande kontrollbesta¤mmelser. Gruppen bad kommissionen att underso¤ka mo¤jligheten att h(cid:229)lla ett europeiskt seminarium fo¤r utbildning av tulltja¤nstema¤n. Gruppen kom o¤verens om att uppra¤tta en fo¤rteckning o¤ver kontaktpunkter i varje medlemsstat fo¤r att underla¤tta informationsutbytet, inklusive utbytet av konfidentiell information, och medlemmar i gruppen (cid:229)tog sig att h(cid:229)lla kommissionen underra¤ttad om vilka verksta¤llighets(cid:229)tga¤rder som varje medlemsstat vidtar. Gruppen beslo¤t att mo¤tas igen under andra halv(cid:229)ret 1998. (98/C 354/141) SKRIFTLIG FR¯GA E-1295/98 fr(cid:229)n James Nicholson (I-EDN) till kommissionen (29 april 1998) A¤mne: Publikation › Vad a¤r egentligen Europa A¤ r kommissionen ansvarig fo¤r publikationen Vad a¤r egentligen Europa? som skall anva¤ndas i skolor fo¤r barn i (cid:229)ldern 11 till 14 (cid:229)r, och om s(cid:229) a¤r fallet, efter vilka kriterier faststa¤lldes den religio¤sa uppdelningen i EU:s medlemsstater? Svar fr(cid:229)n Marcelino Oreja p(cid:229) kommissionens va¤gnar (15 juni 1998) Publikationen (cid:148)Vad a¤r egentligen Europa?(cid:148) framsta¤lldes av Europeiska kommissionens representation i Fo¤renade kungariket. Den a¤r avsedd att anva¤ndas i klassrummen som en handledning till Europeiska unionen. Den har visat sig vara en mycket popula¤r publikation och a¤r efterfr(cid:229)gad av la¤rare. En ny upplaga har redan tryckts och ytterligare en planeras. Materialet vad ga¤ller medlemsstaternas religio¤sa tillho¤righet har ha¤mtats fr(cid:229)n referensverket (cid:148)The Guiness European data book(cid:148). Den var en av de m(cid:229)nga illustrationer som valdes ut fo¤r att ing(cid:229) i kommissionens publikation. Fo¤r att undvika missfo¤rst(cid:229)nd skall emellertid hela tabeller fr(cid:229)n referensverket fo¤ras in i na¤sta upplaga. (98/C 354/142) SKRIFTLIG FR¯GA E-1299/98 fr(cid:229)n Esko Seppa¤nen (GUE/NGL) till kommissionen (29 april 1998) A¤mne: Fond fo¤r byggande av ett skyddsho¤lje o¤ver Tjernobyls fja¤rde reaktor G7-la¤ndernas och EU:s finansiella sto¤d till byggandet av ett skyddsho¤lje o¤ver Tjernobyls fja¤rde reaktor ra¤cker inte till fo¤r att projektet skall kunna genomfo¤ras. Ha¤lften av de 750 miljoner dollar som beho¤vs finns nu att tillg(cid:229). Hur bedo¤mer kommissionen att resten av finansieringen skall ordnas och hur a¤mnar kommissionen verksta¤lla den i samband med behandlingen av beta¤nkandet av Adam antagna st(cid:229)ndpunkten enligt vilken finansieringen av projektet m(cid:229)ste vara i sin ordning och de o¤vriga skall betala sina andelar innan EU-medel sta¤lls till fo¤rfogande fo¤r projektet?


title: Règlement (CE) n° 909/98 de la Commission du 29 avril 1998 fixant les restitutions à l'exportation du sucre blanc et du sucre brut en l'état

eurovoc_concepts:
export refund
raw sugar
white sugar

formats: pdf print

text: 30. 4. 98 FR Journal officiel des Communautés européennes L 128/25 RÈGLEMENT (CE) No 909/98 DE LA COMMISSION du 29 avril 1998 fixant les restitutions à l’exportation du sucre blanc et du sucre brut en l’état LA COMMISSION DES COMMUNAUTÉS EUROPÉENNES, vu le traité instituant la Communauté européenne, vu le règlement (CEE) no 1785/81 du Conseil, du 1er juin 1981, portant organisation commune des marchés dans le secteur du sucre (1), modifié en dernier lieu par le règle- ment (CE) no 1599/96 (2), et notamment son article 19 paragraphe 4 premier alinéa point a), considérant que, en vertu de l’article 19 du règlement (CEE) no 1785/81, la différence entre les cours ou les prix sur le marché mondial des produits visés à l’article 1er paragraphe 1 point a) dudit règlement et les prix de ces produits dans la Communauté peut être couverte par une restitution à l’exportation; considérant que, aux termes du règlement (CEE) no 1785/ 81, les restitutions pour les sucres blanc et brut non dénaturés et exportés en l’état doivent être fixées compte tenu de la situation sur le marché communautaire et sur le marché mondial du sucre, et notamment des éléments de prix et de coûts visés à l’article 17bis dudit règlement; que, conformément au même article, il y a lieu de tenir compte également de l’aspect économique des exporta- tions envisagées; considérant que, pour le sucre brut, la restitution doit être fixée pour la qualité type; que celle-ci est définie à l’ar- ticle 1er du règlement (CEE) no 431/68 du Conseil, du 9 avril 1968, déterminant la qualité type pour le sucre brut et le lieu de passage en frontière de la Communauté pour le calcul des prix caf dans le secteur du sucre (3), modifié par le règlement (CE) no 3290/94 (4); que cette restitution est, en outre, fixée conformément à l’article 17bis para- graphe 4 du règlement (CEE) no 1785/81; que le sucre candi a été défini au règlement (CE) no 2135/95 de la Commission, du 7 septembre 1995, concernant les moda- lités d’application de l’octroi des restitutions à l’exporta- tion dans le secteur du sucre (5); que le montant de la restitution ainsi calculé en ce qui concerne les sucres aromatisés ou additionnés de colorants doit s’appliquer à leur teneur en saccharose et être dès lors fixé par 1 % de cette teneur; considérant que la situation du marché mondial ou les exigences spécifiques de certains marchés peuvent rendre nécessaire la différenciation de la restitution pour le sucre suivant sa destination; considérant que, dans des cas particuliers, le montant de la restitution peut être fixé par des actes de nature diffé- rente; l’article 1er du règlement considérant que les taux représentatifs de marché définis à (CEE) no 3813/92 du Conseil (6), modifié en dernier lieu par le règlement (CE) no 150/95 (7), sont utilisés pour convertir le montant exprimé en monnaies des pays tiers et sont à la base de la détermination des taux de conversion agricole des monnaies des États membres; que les modalités d’applica- tion et de détermination de ces conversions ont été (CEE) no 1068/93 de la établies dans Commission (8), modifié en dernier lieu par le règlement (CE) no 1482/96 (9); le règlement considérant que la restitution doit être fixée toutes les deux semaines; qu’elle peut être modifiée dans l’intervalle; considérant que l’application de ces modalités à la situa- tion actuelle des marchés dans le secteur du sucre, et notamment aux cours ou prix du sucre dans la Commu- nauté et sur le marché mondial, conduit à fixer la restitu- tion aux montants indiqués à l’annexe du présent règle- ment; considérant que les mesures prévues au présent règlement sont conformes à l’avis du comité de gestion du sucre, A ARRÊTÉ LE PRÉSENT RÈGLEMENT: Article premier Les restitutions à l’exportation des produits visés à l’ar- ticle 1er paragraphe 1 point a) du règlement (CEE) no 1785/81, en l’état et non dénaturés, sont fixées aux montants repris en annexe. Article 2 Le présent règlement entre en vigueur le 30 avril 1998. (1) JO L 177 du 1. 7. 1981, p. 4. (2) JO L 206 du 16. 8. 1996, p. 43. (3) JO L 89 du 10. 4. 1968, p. 3. (4) JO L 349 du 31. 12. 1994, p. 105. (5) JO L 214 du 8. 9. 1995, p. 16. (6) JO L 387 du 31. 12. 1992, p. 1. (7) JO L 22 du 31. 1. 1995, p. 1. (8) JO L 108 du 1. 5. 1993, p. 106. (9) JO L 188 du 27. 7. 1996, p. 22. L 128/26 FR Journal officiel des Communautés européennes 30. 4. 98 Le présent règlement est obligatoire dans tous ses éléments et directement applicable dans tout État membre. Fait à Bruxelles, le 29 avril 1998. Par la Commission Franz FISCHLER Membre de la Commission du règlement de la Commission, du 29 avril 1998, fixant les restitutions à l’exportation du sucre blanc et du sucre brut en l’état ANNEXE Code produit Montant de la restitution 1701 11 90 9100 1701 11 90 9910 1701 11 90 9950 1701 12 90 9100 1701 12 90 9910 1701 12 90 9950 1701 91 00 9000 1701 99 10 9100 1701 99 10 9910 1701 99 10 9950 (cid:190) écus/100 kg (cid:190) 38,91 38,96 38,91 38,96 (1) (1) (2) (1) (1) (2) (cid:190) écus/1 % de saccharose × 100 kg (cid:190) 0,4230 (cid:190) écus/100 kg (cid:190) 42,30 44,63 44,63 (cid:190) écus/1 % de saccharose × 100 kg (cid:190) 1701 99 90 9100 0,4230 (1) Le présent montant est applicable au sucre brut d’un rendement de 92 %. Si le rendement du sucre brut exporté s’écarte de 92 %, le montant de la restitution applicable est calculé conformément aux dispositions de l’article 17 bis paragraphe 4 du règlement (CEE) no 1785/81. (2) Fixation suspendue par le règlement (CEE) no 2689/85 de la Commission (JO L 255 du 26. 9. 1985, p. 12), modifié par le règlement (CEE) no 3251/85 (JO L 309 du 21. 11. 1985, p. 14)


title: PERGUNTA ESCRITA n. 1309/98 dos Deputados Laura GONZÁLEZ ÁLVAREZ , Pedro MARSET CAMPOS à Comissão. Apresentação de candidaturas de engenheiros técnicos espanhóis

eurovoc_concepts:
Spain
competition (EU)
engineer
higher education
recognition of diplomas
technical profession

text: C 31/32 Jornal Oficial das Comunidades Europeias PT 5. 2. 1999 (1999/C 31/038) PERGUNTA ESCRITA E-1298/98 apresentada por Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) (cid:224) Comissªo Objecto: Acordo de pesca da UE com a Repœblica da `frica do Sul (29 de Abril de 1998) Face ao pr(cid:243)ximo e aguardado in(cid:237)cio das negocia(cid:231)ıes da Comissªo Europeia com as autoridades da `frica do Sul para a assinaturaa de um Acordo de pesca; tendo em conta que o referido acordo serÆ realizado no quadro dum convØnio global de coopera(cid:231)ªo, pelo qual a `frica do Sul obterÆ significativas vantagens pautais para a exporta(cid:231)ªo dos seus produtos para a UE, e tendo tambØm em conta a necessidade de zonas de pesca alternativas para a frota congeladora comunitÆria, nomeadamente no que diz respeito (cid:224) pescada. PoderÆ a Comissªo indicar que orienta(cid:231)ıes e pedidos serªo apresentados nas negocia(cid:231)ıes, de forma a permitir o acesso dos navios comunitÆrios congeladores da pesca de pescada e a que o acesso dos referidos navios a essa actividade de pesca, seja feito, prioritariamente, atravØs da manuten(cid:231)ªo do pavilhªo comunitÆrio? Resposta dada por Emma Bonino em nome da Comissªo (8 de Junho de 1998) O Conselho atribuiu (cid:224) Comissªo, em Setembro de 1995, um mandato de negocia(cid:231)ªo que lhe confere uma margem de manobra bastante ampla quanto ao tipo de acordo de pesca a estabelecer com a `frica do Sul. Aquando de uma reuniªo realizada em 8 de Abril de 1998, a Comissªo exprimiu (cid:224) `frica do Sul a sua vontade de chegar a um acordo de pesca que combine vÆrios elementos, tais como licen(cid:231)as clÆssicas, cria(cid:231)ªo de associa(cid:231)ıes temporÆrias e financiamento de sociedades mistas. Dado que o processo de negocia(cid:231)ªo do acordo estÆ ainda na sua fase inicial, Ø ainda prematuro pronunciar-se acerca do conteœdo final do futuro acordo de pesca. (1999/C 31/039) PERGUNTA ESCRITA E-1309/98 apresentada por Laura GonzÆlez `lvarez (GUE/NGL) e Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) (cid:224) Comissªo Objecto: Apresenta(cid:231)ªo de candidaturas de engenheiros tØcnicos espanh(cid:243)is (29 de Abril de 1998) No que diz respeito (cid:224) apresenta(cid:231)ªo de candidaturas (cid:224)s convocat(cid:243)rias para concursos gerais da categoria A/LA, 1. Por que razªo exige a Comissªo a posse de um t(cid:237)tulo «universitÆrio» na versªo espanhola do anœncio de convocat(cid:243)ria para o concurso geral COM/A/1047 (JO C 145 A de 13. 5. 1997), e nªo o faz nas restantes versıes lingu(cid:237)sticas do referido anœncio de convocat(cid:243)ria? 2. Por que razªo exige a Comissªo a posse de um t(cid:237)tulo «superior» na versªo espanhola do anœncio de convocat(cid:243)ria para concursos gerais COM/A/720 e COM/A/721 (JO C 52 A de 28. 2. 1991), e nªo o faz nas restantes versıes lingu(cid:237)sticas do referido anœncio de convocat(cid:243)ria? 3. Se Ø verdade que o t(cid:237)tulo de engenheiro tØcnico permite o acesso a cursos de doutoramento em alguns dos Estados-membros, porque afirma a Comissªo que os engenheiros tØcnicos nªo podem aceder aos cursos de doutoramento? 4. (cid:201) verdade que a Comissªo manifestou (cid:224)s autoridades espanholas o seu receio face a possibilidade de que o acesso dos engenheiros tØcnicos espanh(cid:243)is (cid:224) categoria A/LA provocasse o acesso de pessoas de outros Estados- -membros com um t(cid:237)tulo de trŒs anos? (cid:201) este um motivo relevante para rejeitar as candidaturas dos engenheiros tØcnicos espanh(cid:243)is? 5. Por que razªo sªo admitidas as candidaturas dos possuidores dos t(cid:237)tulos brit(cid:226)nicos Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Science e Bachelor of Engineering, sendo todos eles t(cid:237)tulos de trŒs anos, e nªo se admitem as candidaturas dos possuidores do t(cid:237)tulo espanhol de engenheiro tØcnico?


title: QUESTION ECRITE no 1297/98 de Iñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO à la Commission. Droits de douane

eurovoc_concepts:
Morocco
customs
customs duties
customs formalities
export (EU)
work schedule

text: 11. 12. 98 FR Journal officiel des CommunautØs europØennes C 386/109 (98/C 386/148) QUESTION (cid:201)CRITE E-1296/98 posØe par Caroline Jackson (PPE) (cid:224) la Commission (29 avril 1998) Objet: Tranche infØrieure de la TVA pour les rØparations apportØes aux Øglises et aux b(cid:226)timents religieux La Commission voudrait-elle confirmer que le gouvernement du Royaume-Uni pourrait, s(cid:146)il le dØsirait, permettre que les rØparations apportØes aux Øglises et aux b(cid:226)timents religieux relŁvent de la tranche infØrieure de la TVA? RØponse donnØe par M. Monti au nom de la Commission (3 juin 1998) Dans l(cid:146)Øtat actuel de la lØgislation communautaire en matiŁre de TVA, les (cid:201)tats membres ne peuvent autoriser l(cid:146)application d(cid:146)un taux rØduit de TVA aux travaux de rØparation, de rØnovation et d(cid:146)entretien des Øglises et b(cid:226)timents religieux. (98/C 386/149) QUESTION (cid:201)CRITE E-1297/98 posØe par Iæigo MØndez de Vigo (PPE) (cid:224) la Commission (29 avril 1998) Objet: Droits de douane Il sort de la douane d(cid:146)Algeciras environ 35 000 camions par an transportant des marchandises d(cid:146)origine communautaire (cid:224) destination du Maroc. Jusqu(cid:146)(cid:224) prØsent, l(cid:146)expØdition des exportations contenues dans une bonne partie des camions s(cid:146)effectuait au bureau de douane mentionnØ le lundi matin, les bureaux de douane du pays d(cid:146)origine Øtant fermØs le vendredi aprŁs-midi, jour de chargement des camions. La Commission estime-t-elle cette pratique conforme au code des douanes communautaire? La situation que nous venons de dØcrire est-elle en accord avec les dispositions de l(cid:146)article 790 du rŁglement d(cid:146)application? RØponse donnØe par M. Monti au nom de la Commission (2 juin 1998) L(cid:146)article 161 paragraphe 5 du rŁglement (CEE) 2913/92, Øtablissant le code des douanes communautaire (1) dØtermine les rŁgles de base pour ce qui concerne le lieu oø les formalitØs d(cid:146)exportation peuvent Œtre accomplies. En principe, ce lieu doit Œtre celui oø est Øtabli l(cid:146)exportateur ou bien celui oø les marchandises sont emballØes ou chargØes pour l(cid:146)exportation. Dans le rŁglement d(cid:146)application rŁglement (CEE) 2454/93 de la Commission, du 2 juillet 1993, fixant certaines dispositions d(cid:146)application du rŁglement (CEE) 2913/92 du Conseil Øtablissant le code des douanes communau- taires (2), deux exceptions sont admises (cid:224) cette rŁgle gØnØrale. L(cid:146)article 790 permet une dØrogation pour les cas oø des raisons d(cid:146)organisation administrative empŒchent l(cid:146)application de la rŁgle gØnØrale. Ce cas doit Œtre limitØ aux situations d(cid:146)implantation limitØe des bureaux de douanes compØtents pour l(cid:146)accomplissement des formalitØs en question. DeuxiŁmement, l(cid:146)article 791 permet des dØrogations pour des raisons dßment justifiØes. Dans le souci d(cid:146)une application uniforme de la rØglementation douaniŁre, le comitØ du code des douanes a examinØ (cid:224) maintes reprises les situations donnant lieu (cid:224) l(cid:146)application de cette disposition. Il a ØtØ convenu, entre autres, que le fait que les heures d(cid:146)ouverture du bureau de douane, qui serait compØtent en application de l(cid:146)article 161 paragraphe 5 du code des douanes, ne correspondent pas aux heures d(cid:146)activitØs de l(cid:146)entreprise exportatrice, ne peut pas constituer une raison dßment justifiØe permettant de dØroger (cid:224) la rŁgle gØnØrale. En effet, dans des circonstances normales, il appartient (cid:224) l(cid:146)exportateur de tenir compte de ces heures d(cid:146)ouverture dans son organisation logistique


title: WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1213/98 by José GARCÍA-MARGALLO Y MARFIL to the Commission. Competitiveness

eurovoc_concepts:
European industrial area
Japan
United States
competitiveness
economic analysis
market access
productivity
single market

text: C 386/94 Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning SV 11. 12. 98 (98/C 386/127) SKRIFTLIG FR¯GA E-1212/98 fr(cid:229)n JosØ Garc(cid:237)a-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) till kommissionen (29 april 1998) ˜mne: Konkurrenskraft I parlamentets bet(cid:228)nkande A-0113/97 om kommissionens meddelande till r(cid:229)det om genomf(cid:246)rande av bench- marking av den europeiska industrins konkurrenskraft (KOM(96) 0463-C-622/96) och om arbetsdokumentet om kommissionens tj(cid:228)nster om en europeisk kvalitetsfr(cid:228)mjande politik f(cid:246)r att st(cid:228)rka den europeiska konkurrens- kraften (SEK(96)2000) ombeds kommissionen l(cid:228)gga fram slutsatser om varf(cid:246)r vissa best(cid:228)mda europeiska sektorer som till exempel livsmedels-, dryckes-, tobaks- och m(cid:246)belindustrin fungerar b(cid:228)ttre (cid:228)n sina motsvarig- heter i USA och Japan vad g(cid:228)ller industriellt merv(cid:228)rde. Hur fungerar dessa sektorer i f(cid:246)rh(cid:229)llande till motsvarande sektorer i USA? (98/C 386/128) SKRIFTLIG FR¯GA E-1213/98 fr(cid:229)n JosØ Garc(cid:237)a-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) till kommissionen (29 april 1998) ˜mne: Konkurrenskraft I parlamentets bet(cid:228)nkande A-0113/97 om kommissionens meddelande till r(cid:229)det om genomf(cid:246)rande av bench- marking av den europeiska industrins konkurrenskraft (KOM(96) 0463-C-622/96) och om arbetsdokumentet om kommissionens tj(cid:228)nster om en europeisk kvalitetsfr(cid:228)mjande politik f(cid:246)r att st(cid:228)rka den europeiska konkurrens- kraften (SEK(96)2000) ombeds kommissionen l(cid:228)gga fram slutsatser om varf(cid:246)r vissa best(cid:228)mda europeiska sektorer som till exempel livsmedelssektorn fungerar b(cid:228)ttre (cid:228)n sina motsvarigheter i USA och Japan vad g(cid:228)ller industriellt merv(cid:228)rde. N(cid:228)r t(cid:228)nker kommissionen presentera sina slutsatser? (98/C 386/129) SKRIFTLIG FR¯GA E-1214/98 fr(cid:229)n JosØ Garc(cid:237)a-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) till kommissionen (29 april 1998) ˜mne: Konkurrenskraft I parlamentets bet(cid:228)nkande A-0113/97 om kommissionens meddelande till r(cid:229)det om genomf(cid:246)rande av bench- marking av den europeiska industrins konkurrenskraft (KOM(96) 0463-C-622/96) och om arbetsdokumentet om kommissionens tj(cid:228)nster om en europeisk kvalitetsfr(cid:228)mjande politik f(cid:246)r att st(cid:228)rka den europeiska konkurrens- kraften (SEK(96)2000) ombeds kommissionen l(cid:228)gga fram slutsatser om varf(cid:246)r vissa best(cid:228)mda europeiska sektorer som till exempel industrin f(cid:246)r dryckesframst(cid:228)llning fungerar b(cid:228)ttre (cid:228)n sina motsvarigheter i USA och Japan vad g(cid:228)ller industriellt merv(cid:228)rde. N(cid:228)r t(cid:228)nker kommissionen presentera sina slutsatser? (98/C 386/130) SKRIFTLIG FR¯GA E-1215/98 fr(cid:229)n JosØ Garc(cid:237)a-Margallo y Marfil (PPE) till kommissionen (29 april 1998) ˜mne: Konkurrenskraft I parlamentets bet(cid:228)nkande A-0113/97 om kommissionens meddelande till r(cid:229)det om genomf(cid:246)rande av bench- marking av den europeiska industrins konkurrenskraft (KOM(96) 0463-C-622/96) och om arbetsdokumentet om st(cid:228)rka den europeiska kommissionens tj(cid:228)nster om en europeisk kvalitetsfr(cid:228)mjande politik f(cid:246)r att


title: WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1169/98 by Graham WATSON to the Commission. General aviation

eurovoc_concepts:
United Kingdom
airport
civil aviation
single market
transport infrastructure

text: C 402/86 Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning SV 22. 12. 98 (98/C 402/109) SKRIFTLIG FR¯GA E-1170/98 fr(cid:229)n Graham Watson (ELDR) till kommissionen (29 april 1998) ˜mne: Allm(cid:228)nflyg Antalet flygplatser som (cid:228)r tillg(cid:228)ngliga f(cid:246)r allm(cid:228)nflyg minskar. Kommer kommissionen att g(cid:246)ra genomf(cid:246)rbar- hetsstudier betr(cid:228)ffande byggande av hj(cid:228)lpflygf(cid:228)lt i hela EU i syfte att klara av efterfr(cid:229)gan p(cid:229) allm(cid:228)nflyg och tillv(cid:228)xten inom denna sektor? Gemensamt svar p(cid:229) de skriftliga fr(cid:229)gorna E-1168/98 och E-1170/98 ingivna av Neil Kinnock f(cid:246)r kommissionen (10 juni 1998) Det finns ingen gemenskapslagstiftning som ber(cid:246)r anl(cid:228)ggningar f(cid:246)r allm(cid:228)nflyg vid flygplatser. D(cid:228)rf(cid:246)r (cid:228)r det de nationella eller lokala myndigheternas sak att vidta de (cid:229)tg(cid:228)rder de anser vara n(cid:246)dv(cid:228)ndiga i detta sammanhang. Kommissionen delar fr(cid:229)gest(cid:228)llarens engagemang i fr(cid:229)ga om den press som allm(cid:228)nflyget och dess flygplatser uts(cid:228)tts f(cid:246)r, men anser att det med tanke p(cid:229) subsidiaritetsprincipen inte vore l(cid:228)mpligt att ingripa i detta skede. Kommissionen har inga planer p(cid:229) att utf(cid:246)ra genomf(cid:246)rbarhetsstudier betr(cid:228)ffande tillhandah(cid:229)llande av separata flygplatser f(cid:246)r allm(cid:228)nflyg, men st(cid:229)r i regelbunden kontakt med aff(cid:228)rsflygindustrin i syfte att se till att denna sektors intressen beaktas. (98/C 402/110) SKRIFTLIG FR¯GA E-1169/98 fr(cid:229)n Graham Watson (ELDR) till kommissionen (29 april 1998) ˜mne: Allm(cid:228)nflyg P(cid:229) den inre marknaden medf(cid:246)r en egen flygplats som s(cid:246)rjer f(cid:246)r businessflyg betydande ekonomiska f(cid:246)rdelar f(cid:246)r ett befolkningscentrum. Vilka (cid:229)tg(cid:228)rder (cid:228)mnar kommissionen vidta f(cid:246)r att uppmuntra och underl(cid:228)tta uppkomsten av nya hj(cid:228)lpflygplatser, framf(cid:246)r allt i F(cid:246)renade kungariket, d(cid:228)r det finns 143 officiella flygplatser, j(cid:228)mf(cid:246)rt med Frankrike, som har fyra g(cid:229)nger s(cid:229) m(cid:229)nga flygplatser. Svar fr(cid:229)n Neil Kinnock p(cid:229) kommissionens v(cid:228)gnar (18 juni 1998) Kommissionen inser vilken ekonomisk potential som skapas genom flygplatser f(cid:246)r allm(cid:228)nflyg, t. ex. tillg(cid:228)ng- lighet, syssels(cid:228)ttning och grundutbildning f(cid:246)r framtida piloter. ¯tg(cid:228)rder f(cid:246)r att fr(cid:228)mja utvecklingen av s(cid:229)dana flygplatser (cid:228)r dock en fr(cid:229)ga f(cid:246)r nationella och lokala myndigheter som har st(cid:246)rst m(cid:246)jlighet att bed(cid:246)ma behovet och f(cid:246)ljdverkningarna av s(cid:229)dana (cid:229)tg(cid:228)rder