title: 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)

eurovoc_concepts:
carriage of goods
common transport policy
ferryboat
freedom to provide services
maritime cabotage
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: PERGUNTA ESCRITA n. 1240/98 dos Deputados Amedeo AMADEO , Salvatore TATARELLA à Comissão. Crimes contra menores

eurovoc_concepts:
EU programme
child protection
children's rights
educational institution
prostitution
right to justice
trafficking in human beings
violence

formats: html pdf print

text: 22. 2. 1999 PT Jornal Oficial das Comunidades Europeias C 50/19 Os procedimentos de acompanhamento e controlo sªo aplicÆveis a esta ONG bem como a todos os parceiros que participam nas ac(cid:231)ıes de coopera(cid:231)ªo. Os pagamentos dependem da aprova(cid:231)ªo dos relat(cid:243)rios de actividades e financeiros. Em caso de dœvida, a Comissªo efectuarÆ controlos financeiros mais minuciosos. (1999/C 50/026) PERGUNTA ESCRITA E-1240/98 apresentada por Amedeo Amadeo (NI) e Salvatore Tatarella (NI) (cid:224) Comissªo Objecto: Crimes contra menores (29 de Abril de 1998) Considerando a particular vulnerabilidade da crian(cid:231)a, bem como a sua capacidade limitada para resistir a qualquer tipo de violŒncia, considerando que um dano causado (cid:224) vida Ø simult(cid:226)neamente um dano causado intencionalmente (cid:224) digniddade humana, considerando que metade da popula(cid:231)ªo mundial Ø constitu(cid:237)da por crian(cid:231)as. Pergunta-se (cid:224) Comissªo que medidas julga oportuno tomar a fim de garantir: 1. 2. que as crian(cid:231)as deixem de ser consideradas como uma minoria social e que passem a benificiar de uma protec(cid:231)ªo penal eficaz, muito embora a inf(cid:226)ncia apenas constitua um estado transit(cid:243)rio; que essa protec(cid:231)ªo penal universal possa ser aplicada a qualquer crian(cid:231)a, independentemente da sua nacionalidade? Resposta dada por Anita Gradin em nome da Comissªo (19 de Junho de 1998) A Comissªo partilha a opiniªo dos Senhores Deputados segundo a qual os direitos das crian(cid:231)as, tal como consignados na Conven(cid:231)ªo sobre os Direitos da Crian(cid:231)a de 1989, devem ser respeitados e salvaguardados sempre e em qualquer lugar. Independentemente da sua nacionalidade, as crian(cid:231)as deverªo beneficiar de uma protec(cid:231)ªo efectiva ao abrigo do direito penal de todos os pa(cid:237)ses. A Comissªo chama a aten(cid:231)ªo dos Senhores Deputados para a ac(cid:231)ªo conjunta adoptada pelo Conselho «Justi(cid:231)a e Assuntos Internos» em 24 de Fevereiro de 1997 para combater o trÆfico de seres humanos e a explora(cid:231)ªo sexual dos menores. Tal implica que os Estados-membros deverªo classificar todas as formas de explora(cid:231)ªo sexual de menores como crimes e aplicar-lhes as san(cid:231)ıes adequadas. AlØm disso, a Comissªo apresentou recentemente uma comunica(cid:231)ªo sobre o combate (cid:224) violŒncia contra as mulheres e as crian(cid:231)as. Esta comunica(cid:231)ªo inclui uma proposta para um programa de ac(cid:231)ªo plurianual de apoio aos projectos de organiza(cid:231)ıes nªo governamentais neste dom(cid:237)nio. No que diz respeito aos aspectos relacionados com a educa(cid:231)ªo, foi lan(cid:231)ada em 1997 uma iniciativa intitulada «ViolŒncia na escola». AtravØs desta iniciativa, a Comissªo refor(cid:231)a a coopera(cid:231)ªo no que diz respeito (cid:224)s medidas de combate aos comportamentos violentos no meio escolar, atravØs de programas de preven(cid:231)ªo ou de interven(cid:231)ªo nas escolas. (cid:201) dedicada especial aten(cid:231)ªo (cid:224)s necessidades das crian(cid:231)as atingidas por estes fen(cid:243)menos, inclusivamente (cid:224)s necessidades das v(cid:237)timas. A iniciativa centra-se igualmente, sempre que poss(cid:237)vel, em abordagens que envolvam toda a escola, promovendo a ac(cid:231)ªo de todos quantos participam na educa(cid:231)ªo dentro e fora da escola. Para mais informa(cid:231)ıes sobre esta questªo, deverÆ consultar-se o seguinte endere(cid:231)o na Internet: http://europa. eu/int/en/comm/dg22/violence/. (1999/C 50/027) PERGUNTA ESCRITA P-1242/98 apresentada por Rainer Wieland (PPE) (cid:224) Comissªo (9 de Abril de 1998) Objecto: Estabelecimento de mØdicos alemªes e mØdicos da UE que se querem estabelecer na Alemanha Na Alemanha, a autoriza(cid:231)ªo para o estazbelecimento de mØdicos depende da rela(cid:231)ªo entre o nœmero de habitantes de um distrito (Landkreis) e o nœmero de mØdicos especialistas a(cid:237) existentes. Porventura se aplicam aos mØdicos que sªo cidadªos da Uniªo as mesmas condi(cid:231)ıes para o estabelecimento na Alemanha que as aplicÆveis para os mØdicos alemªes?


title: WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1272/98 by Freddy BLAK to the Commission. Job tests

eurovoc_concepts:
European undertaking
confidentiality
data protection
labour law
protection of privacy
recruitment
testing

formats: html print


title: QUESTION ECRITE no 1337/98 de Glyn FORD à la Commission. Financement d'une installation d'essai de combustible MOX

eurovoc_concepts:
EU financing
International Atomic Energy Agency
Joint Research Centre
nuclear fuel
nuclear safety
plutonium
safety standard
testing
uranium

text: 22. 12. 98 FR Journal officiel des CommunautØs europØennes C 402/113 (98/C 402/146) QUESTION (cid:201)CRITE E-1335/98 posØe par Glyn Ford (PSE) (cid:224) la Commission (29 avril 1998) Objet: Mise au point d(cid:146)un rØacteur fonctionnant au combustible MOX (plutonium et uranium) Eu Øgard aux dispositions concernant l(cid:146)Øvacuation des dØchets radioactifs et (cid:224) la variante relative au traitement du plutonium, (cid:224) savoir la filiŁre d(cid:146)immobilisation du plutonium sØparØ, quels sont les crØdits disponibles pour cette derniŁre mØthode? RØponse donnØe par M. Papoutsis au nom de la Commission (29 juin 1998) Parmi les activitØs de recherche sur des approches innovatrices dans le cadre du programme sur la sßretØ de la fission nuclØaire, des Øtudes thØoriques ont ØtØ entreprises sur l(cid:146)emploi de combustibles «avancØs» (cid:224) oxydes mixtes (MOX) pour la transmutation du plutonium. De plus, la Commission Øtudie depuis plusieurs annØes la caractØrisation du combustible MOX et son comportement. Des subventions ont Øgalement ØtØ accordØes pour des activitØs de recherche et de dØveloppement technologique concernant l(cid:146)immobilisation du combustible ØpuisØ dans des dØp(cid:244)ts gØologiques (cid:224) grande profondeur. Cependant, les investissements pour l(cid:146)immobilisation de combustible ØpuisØ ou la fabrication de MOX ne bØnØficient d(cid:146)aucune aide communautaire. (98/C 402/147) QUESTION (cid:201)CRITE E-1337/98 posØe par Glyn Ford (PSE) (cid:224) la Commission (29 avril 1998) Objet: Financement d(cid:146)une installation d(cid:146)essai de combustible MOX Suite (cid:224) la rØponse apportØe (cid:224) la question Øcrite E-2891/97 (1), la Commission peut-elle indiquer quel est l(cid:146)organe chargØ d(cid:146)Øtablir les normes des expØrimentations conduites (cid:224) l(cid:146)installation d(cid:146)essai relative aux matiŁres (cid:224) faible dispersion? (1) JO C 158 du 25. 5. 1998, p. 17. RØponse donnØe par M. Papoutsis au nom de la Commission (23 juin 1998) La conception d(cid:146)un matØriel comme le LDM («low dispersible material») devra recevoir un agrØment dØlivrØ par les autoritØs compØtentes concernØes. Il appartiendra (cid:224) ces autoritØs de sßretØ de fixer la mØthodologie de qualification de LDM suivant les critŁres recommandØs par l(cid:146)Agence internationale de l(cid:146)Ønergie atomique (AIEA), le cas ØchØant, dans des installations expØrimentales. Le Centre commun de recherche (CCR) pourrait Œtre une de celles-ci. (98/C 402/148) QUESTION (cid:201)CRITE E-1338/98 posØe par Anita Pollack (PSE) (cid:224) la Commission (29 avril 1998) Objet: Directive sur les habitats et Convention de Berne Quelles mesures la Commission engage-t-elle pour s(cid:146)assurer de parvenir (cid:224) un accord sur l(cid:146)inclusion dans les annexes de la Convention de Berne et dans le rØseau (cid:201)meraude des espŁces-clØs qui n(cid:146)ont pas ØtØ inscrites dans les annexes (cid:224) la directive sur la conservation des habitats naturels?


title: SCHRIFTLICHE ANFRAGE Nr. 1300/98 von Franco MALERBA an die Kommission. Gesundheitsschädliche Stoffe (Asbest) in den Räumen der Europaschule Brüssel I - Uccle

eurovoc_concepts:
Brussels region
European school
asbestos
building materials
building safety
health risk
public health
safety standard


title: PREGUNTA ESCRITA n. 1164/98 de los diputados Amedeo AMADEO , Salvatore TATARELLA a la Comisión. Financiación de proyectos para la protección de los bosques

eurovoc_concepts:
Italy
air quality
financial aid
fire protection
forest conservation
project evaluation

text: C 354/74 ES Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas 19. 11. 98 2. ¿No estima oportuno la Comisio·n intervenir ante las autoridades estadounidenses para recabar detalles sobre la situacio·n jur(cid:14)·dica actual de los pilotos? 3. ¿No estima oportuno la Comisio·n intervenir ante las autoridades estadounidenses para solicitar que el juicio se resuelva a la mayor brevedad posible, a fin de garantizar a los familiares de las v(cid:14)·ctimas que se hara· justicia? Respuesta del Sr. Santer en nombre de la Comisio·n (12 de junio de 1998) Tal y como la Comisio·n expuso en su respuesta a la anterior pregunta E-545/98 (1) de Su Sen(cid:152)or(cid:14)·a, los procedimientos judiciales sobre el accidente pertenecen al a·mbito de las autoridades militares nacionales, por lo que la Comunidad y, en consecuencia, la Comisio·n no tiene competencia en el asunto. Por tanto, la Comisio·n estima improcedente manifestar opinio·n alguna al respecto. (1) DO C 310 de 9. 10. 1998, p. 83. (98/C 354/121) PREGUNTA ESCRITA E-1164/98 de Amedeo Amadeo (NI) y Salvatore Tatarella (NI) a la Comisio·n Asunto: Financiacio·n de proyectos para la proteccio·n de los bosques (29 de abril de 1998) La Comisio·n destina un importe de 13,4 millones de ecus a proyectos para la proteccio·n de los bosques contra la contaminacio·n y los incendios. ¿Puede indicar la Comisio·n cua·les son los proyectos reservados a Italia y el importe previsto para cada uno de ellos? Respuesta del Sr. Fischler en nombre de la Comisio·n (14 de mayo de 1998) En 1997, la Comisio·n aprobo· proyectos de proteccio·n de los bosques contra la contaminacio·n atmosfe·rica y contra los incendios por sendos importes de 7,1 millones de ecus (1 millo·n para Italia) y 12,5 millones de ecus (2,3 para Italia), respectivamente. En total, la ayuda concedida para 1997 asciende a 19,6 millones de ecus para las dos medidas de proteccio·n de los bosques (3,3 millones para Italia), es decir, una cantidad superior a la mencionada por Su Sen(cid:152)or(cid:14)·a. La Comisio·n enviara· directamente a Su Sen(cid:152)or(cid:14)·a y a la Secretar(cid:14)·a General del Parlamento la informacio·n solicitada sobre los proyectos italianos aprobados en 1997. (98/C 354/122) PREGUNTA ESCRITA P-1172/98 de Gerhard Hager (NI) a la Comisio·n (2 de abril de 1998) Asunto: Ampliacio·n › Justicia e Interior Segu·n las conversaciones informales de Birmingham, para la ampliacio·n de la Unio·n habra· de tomarse en consideracio·n sobre todo la forma en que se esta· teniendo en cuenta, en el marco de los acuerdos de cooperacio·n, el acervo de la Unio·n en los a·mbitos de la justicia y de los asuntos de interior, as(cid:14)· como la forma y el modo de su transposicio·n a la legislacio·n nacional de los pa(cid:14)·ses candidatos. En este sentido quisiera hacer las siguientes preguntas: 1. ¿Cuenta la Comisio·n con datos estad(cid:14)·sticos sobre los siguientes a·mbitos de la delincuencia organizada: robo de automo·viles, trata de seres humanos, tra·fico de drogas, blanqueo de dinero, proteccio·n de marcas, corrupcio·n, y, en caso afirmativo, podr(cid:14)·a facilitar estos datos?


title: ΓΡΑΠΤΗ ΕΡΩΤΗΣΗ αρ θ. 1337/98 του Glyn FORD προς την Επ τροπή. Χρηματοδότηση των εγκαταστάσεων δοκιμών μικτού οξειδίου (πλουτωνίου και ουρανίου) ΜΟΧ

text: 22. 12. 98 EL Epishmh Efthmer·ida tvn Eyrvpa¤ik·vn Koinot·htvn C 402/113 (98/C 402/146) GRAPTH ERVTHSH E-1335/98 ypobolh· : Glyn Ford (PSE) prow thn Epitroph· (29 Aprili·oy 1998) Ue·ma: Dhmioyrgi·a antidrasth·ra poy ua xrhsimopoiei· mikto· ojei·dio (ploytvni·oy kai oyrani·oy) MOX Sxetika· me tiw symfvni·ew gia thn enapo·uesh radienergv· n apoblh·tvn kai anaforika· me thn enallaktikh· ly·sh antimetv· pishw toy ploytvni·oy poy ei·nai h dio·deysh adranopoi·hshw toy ploytvni·oy, poia· ei·nai h xrhmatodo·thsh poy diati·uetai gi(cid:146) ayto· to sygkekrime·no skopo·; Apa· nthsh toy k. Papoytsh· ej ono·matow thw Epitroph· w (29 Ioyni·oy 1998) Sto plai·sio toy ereynhtikoy· tome·a gia thn ajiopoi·hsh kainoto·mvn proseggi·sevn poy enta·ssetai sto pro·gramma gia thn asfa·leia thw pyrhnikh·w sxa·shw e·xoyn analhfuei· orisme·new uevrhtike·w mele·tew sxetika· me thn xrh·sh «prohgme·nvn» kaysi·mvn miktv· n ojeidi·vn ( MOX) gia thn metastoixei·vsh toy ploytvni·oy. Epiple·on, h Epitroph· e·xei epi· seira· etv· n meleth·sei tiw idio·thtew tvn kaysi·mvn MOX kai thn symperifora· toyw. (cid:201)xei epi·shw xrhmatodothuei· h e·reyna kai texnologikh· ana·ptyjh epi· toy ue·matow thw adranopoi·hshw xrhsimopoi- hme·nvn kaysi·mvn, sygkekrime·na gia thn enapo·uesh· toyw se mega·lo gevlogiko· ba·uow. Vsto·so, den pare·xetai kami·a eni·sxysh apo· thn Koino·thta gia ependy·seiw sthn adranopoi·hsh xrhsimopoihme·nvn kaysi·mvn h· thn paraskeyh· MOX. (98/C 402/147) GRAPTH ERVTHSH E-1337/98 ypobolh· : Glyn Ford (PSE) prow thn Epitroph· (29 Aprili·oy 1998) Ue·ma: Xrhmatodo·thsh tvn egkatasta·sevn dokimv· n miktoy· ojeidi·oy (ploytvni·oy kai oyrani·oy) MOX Se syne·xeia thw apa·nthshw sth Grapth· Erv· thsh E-2891/97 (1), ua mporoy·se h Epitroph· na anafe·rei poio· o·rgano ei·nai ypey·uyno gia ton kauorismo· tvn prodiagrafv· n poy aforoy·n tiw dokime·w stiw egkatasta·seiw dokimv· n gia thn ajiolo·ghsh tvn ylikv· n xamhlh·w diaspora·w (YXD); (1) EE C 158, 25. 5. 1998, 17. Apa· nthsh toy k. Papoytsh· ej ono·matow thw Epitroph· w (23 Ioyni·oy 1998) O sxediasmo·w ylikv· n o·pvw ta YXD («ylika· xamhlh·w diaspora·w») pre·pei na la·bei e·gkrish, poy xorhgei·tai apo· tiw sxetike·w armo·diew arxe·w. Enapo·keitai stiw en lo·gv arxe·w asfalei·aw na kauori·soyn th meuodologi·a prodiagrafv· n tvn YXD, akoloyuv· ntaw ta krith·ria ta opoi·a synista· o Dieunh·w Organismo·w Atomikh·w Ene·rgeiaw (DOAE), endexome·nvw, se peiramatike·w egkatasta·seiw. Mi·a apo· ayte·w ua mporoy·se na ei·nai to Koino· Ke·ntro (cid:201)reynv· n (KKEr). (98/C 402/148) GRAPTH ERVTHSH E-1338/98 ypobolh· : Anita Pollack (PSE) prow thn Epitroph· (29 Aprili·oy 1998) Ue·ma: Odhgi·a gia thn prostasi·a tvn fysikv· n oikoto·pvn kai Sy·mbash thw Be·rnhw Poia me·tra skopey·ei na la·bei h Epitroph· gia na ejasfali·sei thn epi·teyjh symfvni·aw o·son afora· thn ypagvgh· sta pararth·mata thw Sy·mbashw thw Be·rnhw kai sto di·ktyo «Emerald» tvn eidv· n poy den e·xoyn eggrafei· sta pararth·mata thw odhgi·aw gia thn prostasi·a tvn fysikv· n oikoto·pvn;


title: ΓΡΑΠΤΗ ΕΡΩΤΗΣΗ αρ θ. 1338/98 του Anita POLLACK προς την Επ τροπή. Οδηγία για την προστασία των φυσικών οικοτόπων και Σύμβαση της Βέρνης

eurovoc_concepts:
EC Directive
environmental protection
protected species
protection of animal life
protection of plant life
scientific research


title: WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1168/98 by Graham WATSON to the Commission. General aviation

eurovoc_concepts:
air quality
air transport
airport
civil aviation
noise
transport infrastructure

text: 22. 12. 98 FI Euroopan yhteis(cid:246)jen virallinen lehti C 402/85 (98/C 402/106) KIRJALLINEN KYSYMYS E-1167/98 esitt(cid:228)j(cid:228)(t): Graham Watson (ELDR) komissiolle (29. huhtikuuta 1998) Aihe: Yleisilmailulentokoneet Yleisilmailu on eurooppalaisen ilmailun selv(cid:228)sti suurin ala, koska sill(cid:228) on enemm(cid:228)n lentokoneita, lent(cid:228)ji(cid:228) ja toimipaikkoja kuin mill(cid:228)(cid:228)n muulla alalla. Miten yleisilmailu on sovitettu komission lentoliikennestrategiaan ja mihin toimiin komissio on ryhtynyt varmistaakseen sille tasapuoliset kilpailuedellytykset kaupallisen lentoliikenteen kanssa? (98/C 402/107) KIRJALLINEN KYSYMYS E-1353/98 esitt(cid:228)j(cid:228)(t): Graham Watson (ELDR) komissiolle (7. toukokuuta 1998) Aihe: Liikelentokoneet ja yhteinen likkennepolitiikka Tunnustaako komissio liikelennot EU:n liikennepolitiikan olennaiseksi osaksi? Komission j(cid:228)senen Neil Kinnockin komission puolesta antama yhteinen vastaus kirjallisiin kysymyksiin E-1167/98 ja E-1353/98 (10. kes(cid:228)kuuta 1998) Koska yleisilmailu on luonteeltaan kaupallista, lentoliikenteen vapauttamista koskeva kolmas toimenpidekoko- naisuus kattaa sen kokonaan. T(cid:228)m(cid:228)n vuoksi yleisilmailulla on vapaa p(cid:228)(cid:228)sy yhteis(cid:246)n sis(cid:228)markkinoille samoin perustein kuin muulla kaupallisella lentoliikenteell(cid:228). Koska yleisilmailu on m(cid:228)(cid:228)r(cid:228)llisesti merkitt(cid:228)v(cid:228)(cid:228), komissio yritt(cid:228)(cid:228) taata liikenn(cid:246)ijille mahdollisimman vapaan p(cid:228)(cid:228)syn ruuhkautuneille lentokentille. T(cid:228)ll(cid:228) alalla voidaan soveltaa l(cid:228)ht(cid:246)- ja saapumisaikojen jakamista yhteis(cid:246)n lentoasemilla koskevista yhteisist(cid:228) s(cid:228)(cid:228)nn(cid:246)ist(cid:228) 18 p(cid:228)iv(cid:228)n(cid:228) tammikuuta 1993 annettua neuvoston asetusta (ETY) 95/93 (1). (1) EYVL L 14, 22. 1. 1993. (98/C 402/108) KIRJALLINEN KYSYMYS E-1168/98 esitt(cid:228)j(cid:228)(t): Graham Watson (ELDR) komissiolle (29. huhtikuuta 1998) Aihe: Yleisilmailulentokoneet Lentoasemien myyminen muuhun teolliseen k(cid:228)ytt(cid:246)(cid:246)n tai niiden sulkeminen on lis(cid:228)(cid:228)ntynyt viime vuosina kaikkialla EU:ssa. T(cid:228)m(cid:228)n vuoksi yleisilmailu on tullut yh(cid:228) riippuvaisemmaksi v(cid:228)henev(cid:228)st(cid:228) lentokenttien m(cid:228)(cid:228)r(cid:228)st(cid:228). Onko komissio tietoinen, ett(cid:228) sen pyrkiess(cid:228) varmistamaan kohtuulliset ymp(cid:228)rist(cid:246)- ja melustandardit, yleisilmai- luun ja siihen jatkuvasti v(cid:228)henev(cid:228)(cid:228)n lentokenttien m(cid:228)(cid:228)r(cid:228)(cid:228)n, joilla on riitt(cid:228)v(cid:228)t edellytykset palvella sit(cid:228), kohdistuu huomattavia paineita?


title: Dictamen del Comité Económico y Social sobre la «Propuesta de Decisión del Consejo por la que se adopta un plan plurianual de acción comunitaria para fomentar la seguridad en la utilización de Internet»

eurovoc_concepts:
action programme
computer network
consumer protection
data protection
information network

text: 10. 7. 98 ES Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas C 214/29 4. 1. 8. propone el establecimiento de un marco euro- peo (o incluso internacional) de co´digos de conducta, directrices y medidas ba´sicas como «lı´neas calientes» e inspectores de proteccio´ n de la juventud; propone que todas las medidas, polı´ticas e 4. 1. 9. iniciativas introducidas en relacio´n con los nuevos servicios aseguren el fomento de la utilizacio´n de éstos para que aumente el nu´mero de usuarios. Bruselas, el 29 de abril de 1998. El Presidente del Comité Econo´mico y Social Tom JENKINS Dictamen del Comité Econo´ mico y Social sobre la «Propuesta de Decisio´n del Consejo por la que se adopta un plan plurianual de accio´n comunitaria para fomentar la seguridad en la utilizacio´n de Internet» (1) (98/C 214/08) El 26 de enero de 1998, de conformidad con el apartado 3 del artı´culo 130 del Tratado constitutivo de la Comunidad Europea, el Consejo decidio´ consultar al Comité Econo´ mico y Social sobre la propuesta mencionada. La Seccio´n de Industria, Comercio, Artesanı´a y Servicios, encargada de preparar los trabajos en este asunto, aprobo´ su dictamen el 1 de abril de 1998 (ponente: Sra. Drijfhout-Zweijtzer). En su 354o Pleno de los dı´as 29 y 30 de abril de 1998 (sesio´n del 29 de abril), el Comité Econo´ mico y Social ha aprobado por 116 votos a favor, 1 voto en contra y 3 abstenciones el presente Dictamen. 1. Introduccio´n La Comisio´ n reconoce el gran dinamismo de 1. 1. Internet en los a´mbitos econo´ mico, social, educativo y cultural, pero subraya que las organizaciones delictivas también pueden sacar provecho de la red, e igualmente que en ésta se pueden encontrar (aunque de manera limitada) contenidos ilı´citos y nocivos. Cuando se habla de contenidos ilı´citos, se 1. 1. 1. piensa inmediatamente en pornografı´a infantil. No obstante, abarcan un conjunto mucho ma´s amplio de cuestiones: — seguridad nacional (instrucciones para la fabricacio´n de bombas, produccio´n de estupefacientes, activida- des terroristas); — proteccio´ n de menores (modalidades de comerciali- zacio´n abusivas, violencia, pornografı´a); — proteccio´ n de la dignidad humana (incitacio´n al odio y a la discriminacio´n racial); (1) DO C 48 de 13. 2. 1998, p. 8. — seguridad econo´ mica (fraude, piratear tarjetas de crédito); instrucciones para — seguridad de la informacio´n (piraterı´a informa´tica); — proteccio´ n de la intimidad (comunicacio´n de datos personales sin permiso, acoso electro´ nico); — proteccio´ n del honor (difamacio´n, publicidad com- parativa ilegal); — propiedad intelectual (difusio´ n sin permiso de obras registradas; por ejemplo, en el campo de la mu´sica y los programas informa´ticos). La expresio´n «contenidos nocivos» se refiere 1. 1. 2. tanto a los contenidos autorizados cuya difusio´ n esta´ restringida (por ejemplo, a los adultos exclusivamente), como a aquellos que pueden agraviar a determinados usuarios. 1. 2. La Comisio´n considera —con buen criterio— que, adema´s de una polı´tica activa que fomente la utilizacio´n positiva de Internet, también son necesarias medidas concretas para contrarrestar los excesos nega- tivos. C 214/30 ES Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas 10. 7. 98 1. 3. El plan de accio´n objeto de examen tiene por objetivo restringir la cantidad de informacio´ n nociva e ilı´cita existente en Internet. Dado que es difı´cil bloquear Internet con barreras y fronteras virtuales y que los Estados miembros tienen diversas interpretaciones sobre qué es informacio´ n nociva o ilı´cita, la naturaleza de este asunto es por excelencia de ı´ndole europea. El plan de accio´n, por consiguiente, debe considerarse como complemento y, en su caso, refuerzo de las actuales medidas e iniciativas de los Estados miembros. 2. Sı´ntesis de la propuesta de la Comisio´ n El plan de accio´n se basa en tres campos de 2. 1. actuacio´n: — fomento de la autorregulacio´n (en particular, para luchar contra la informacio´ n ilı´cita); — promocio´ n de sistemas de calificacio´n y codificacio´n (para filtrar la informacio´ n nociva); e — informacio´ n y sensibilizacio´n (dirigidas a los padres, educadores y menores). En diversas reuniones y encuentros, el Consejo, el Parlamento y los gobiernos europeos han expresado su apoyo a estos campos de actuacio´ n. Para aplicar el plan de accio´n es necesario recurrir 2. 2. a la ayuda financiera de la Comunidad (en total, 30 millones de ecus por un perı´odo de cuatro an˜ os). 2. 2. 1. La lı´nea de actuacio´n 1 tiene por objeto la creacio´n de un entorno seguro, apoyando financiera- mente la creacio´n de una red europea de centros (denominados lı´neas directas), sentando directrices y estimulando la creacio´ n de co´ digos de conducta en organismos de autorregulacio´n (en total, 5,6 millones de ecus). La lı´nea de actuacio´n 2 tiene por finalidad la 2. 2. 2. creacio´n de mecanismos de filtracio´n y calificacio´n, convocando propuestas para la validacio´n de dichos mecanismos y la demostracio´ n de las ventajas de su uso (en total, 12,7 millones de ecus). La lı´nea de actuacio´n 3 esta´ destinada a 2. 2. 3. fomentar actividades de sensibilizacio´n entre el pu´blico y los profesores en dos fases: preparacio´n (especı´fica en cada Estado miembro) del material ba´sico y difusio´ n de informacio´n a través de talleres, presentaciones y medios de comunicacio´ n existentes (con inclusio´n de Internet). Se calcula que el coste total de esta operacio´n se elevara´ a 9,4 millones de ecus. 3. Observaciones del Comité El Comité expresa, hablando en términos genera- 3. 1. les, su gran satisfaccio´n por el plan de accio´n elaborado por la Comisio´ n. El Comité, adema´s, observa que con las acciones previstas se intenta en efecto combatir los aspectos negativos. De hecho, es au´ n mas importante intentar lograr un cambio de mentalidad, con lo que se limitara´ la aparicio´n de excesos. No obstante, el Comité reconoce que esta idea no es realista. El Comité suscribe muy en particular la distin- 3. 1. 1. cio´n que hace la Comisio´ n entre contenidos ilı´citos y nocivos. En la realizacio´n concreta de las medidas, no 3. 1. 1. 1. obstante, el Comité observa que se presta muy poca atencio´ n a los contenidos ilı´citos que afectan a la proteccio´n, como por ejemplo proteccio´n de la propiedad intelectual, de la dignidad humana y de la intimidad, y a delitos relativos a la seguridad nacional y econo´ mica. Aunque el plan de accio´n presenta explı´citamente todos estos aspectos bajo el denominador comu´n de contenidos ilı´citos, los recursos financieros se reservan en su mayor parte —20,1 millones de ecus— para las lı´neas de actuacio´n destinadas a la proteccio´n de los menores (actividades de sensibilizacio´ n y creacio´n de mecanismos de asistencia a los usuarios). Esto constituye, a juicio del Comité, una importante carencia, a la que se aludira´ nuevamente en las Conclusiones. 3. 1. 1. 2. El Comité, por otra parte, suscribe plena- mente la conclusio´n de que la lucha contra los contenidos ilı´citos requiere autorregulacio´n y aplicacio´ n de la ley. 3. 2. El Comité, no obstante, considera oportuno preguntar si tener a su disposicio´ n, y conocer, instrumen- tos que permitan prevenir el acceso a los contenidos ilı´citos no constituye un recurso demasiado limitado para contrarrestarlos. El Comité no esta´ de antemano convencido de que la solucio´n tecnolo´ gica a la que insta la Comisio´n para resolver un problema social sea suficientemente eficaz. El peligro de un enfoque basado en la tecnologı´a 3. 2. 1. es que, tras la instalacio´n de un mecanismo de filtracio´n, los padres y educadores piensen —mientras no sean conscientes de que existen insuficiencias de todo tipo, que son precisamente las que los nin˜ os van a descubrir ra´pidamente— que los menores van a estar en un entorno seguro y podra´n seguir a su antojo sin necesidad de vigilancia. La experiencia ensen˜a habitualmente, en efecto, que los menores aventajan a padres y educadores en destreza informa´tica. El Comité, por tanto, se pregunta si se ha previsto una participacio´ n realmente suficiente de este grupo especı´fico (padres y educadores) en el disen˜o de los mecanismos. La lı´nea de actuacio´n 4 se destina a medidas de 2. 2. 4. apoyo (problemas jurı´dicos, reuniones y evaluacio´n). Se requiere una suma de 2 millones de ecus. Aunque la codificacio´ n en sus lı´neas generales 3. 3. ofrece grandes ventajas para clasificar e indizar la informacio´n, pudiéndose ası´ mejorar la visibilidad y el acceso de Internet, esto vale tanto para la informacio´n 10. 7. 98 ES Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas C 214/31 que se desea como para la que no se desea. En este sentido, el Comité sen˜ ala a la Comisio´n que, debido a ello, la codificacio´ n puede tener en la pra´ctica un efecto contrario. En efecto, no solo se califica la informacio´ n inocua, sino también la potencialmente nociva, como la pornografı´a. Para las personas interesadas precisamente en estos contenidos nocivos, su bu´squeda en Internet resulta ası´ facilitada. El Comité sen˜ala en este contexto que —contra- 3. 3. 1. riamente a lo que se habı´a prometido— so´lo sigue existiendo por el momento un suministrador importante de programas (Microsoft Explorer) que apoya la denomi- nada norma PICS (Platform for Internet Content Selec- tion), en la que se basan los mecanismos previstos de codificacio´n y calificacio´ n. Otros suministradores, como Netscape y Opera (europeo), no apoyan la norma PICS. Sin obligacio´n legal, siempre habra´ programas —aun suponiendo que Netscape y Opera procedan a la filtracio´n— que no apoyen la utilizacio´n de PICS, por lo que un nin˜o podra´ sortear las restricciones con relativa facilidad. Aunque el Comité no tiene en lı´neas generales una posicio´n negativa frente al desarrollo de esta norma como tal, manifiesta sus reservas en cuanto a la pretensio´n de PICS de crear en Internet un entorno inaccesible a los contenidos nocivos. El Comité coincide con la Comisio´n en su 3. 4. afirmacio´n de que la diversidad cultural y social resul- tante de la libertad de expresio´ n es un bien inapreciable que no ha de sufrir menoscabo por el objetivo de garantizar una utilizacio´n segura de Internet, y que la capacidad para determinar los contenidos potencial- mente nocivos reside en primer lugar en la persona misma, independientemente de su funcio´ n educativa. En ese sentido, el Comité sen˜ala a la Comisio´n que (desde el punto de vista técnico) no so´lo los educadores, sino también los suministradores de servicios de acceso a Internet pueden utilizar mecanismos de filtracio´n para la proteccio´ n de los menores contra la informacio´ n nociva. Lo cual significarı´a que un sistema que se presenta como «user empowering» (la responsabilidad reside en el usuario) puede convertirse en un instrumento de control que evita de antemano precisamente que el ciudadano pueda elegir. El Comité sen˜ ala igualmente a la Comisio´n que 3. 5. Internet no es so´lo la «world wide web». El protocolo PICS —en el que se basan los previstos mecanismos de calificacio´n— no tiene efecto alguno en el uso de los denominados «chats» (conversaciones interactivas por vı´a electro´nica), ni tampoco en el correo electro´nico ni en los «newsgroups» (foros de debate). El Comité, por tanto, considera que la calificacio´ n basada en mecanismos de filtrado no constituye una opcio´n realista para garantizar la seguridad de la comunicacio´n. El enfoque previsto no ofrece solucio´ n alguna para aplica- ciones importantes de Internet, como los «chats» y el correo electro´nico, que los menores también pueden utilizar. El Comité sen˜ala explı´citamente a la Comisio´ n 3. 6. que la posibilidad de bloquear los contenidos constituye una alternativa a la calificacio´ n. El bloqueo es indudable- mente un medio mucho mas radical, pero no por ello menos eficaz. Los programas de bloqueo no requieren la calificacio´n de la informacio´ n por parte de su propietario o del suministrador, sino confianza en terceros, los cuales pueden suministrar listas con expre- siones inoportunas destinadas a grupos especı´ficos. En los EE. UU existen ya decenas de programas (como Cybernanny, Surfpatrol, etc. ) que al ser instalados en los ordenadores sobre la base de estas listas sustituyen todas las palabras e ima´genes inoportunas por sen˜ ales sonoras y recuadros. La diferencia entre calificacio´n y bloqueo es 3. 6. 1. importante, porque la primera requiere un enfoque que afecta a toda la industria (todos los suministradores de contenidos tienen que participar), mientras que en el caso de los programas de bloqueo puede ser suficiente estimular el interés por una determinada innovacio´ n. Lo importante en este caso, en efecto, es estimular la demanda (padres, educadores y cuerpo de ensen˜antes), mientras que el éxito de la calificacio´ n so´lo puede conseguirse con un amplio enfoque especı´ficamente dirigido a la oferta que englobe a toda la industria. En consideracio´n a lo expuesto en puntos anteriores (3. 3. a 3. 5. ), el Comité considera que las soluciones encamina- das a desarrollar la demanda de programas utilizables de bloqueo brindan las mejores perspectivas. El Comité considera que el argumento de las 3. 6. 2. organizaciones de defensa de los derechos humanos de que el bloqueo coarta la libertad de expresio´ n no es realista, porque en el caso de tales programas quien asume la responsabilidad de una aplicacio´ n correcta de los mecanismos de filtracio´n no es el distribuidor, sino el receptor de la informacio´ n. La experiencia (en los EE. UU) ensen˜a que los educadores, que necesitan un entorno seguro para los menores, pueden valerse por sı´ mismos de modo razonable en el uso de estos programas de bloqueo. El Comité presume que la ignorancia de que ésta es una direccio´n para resolver el problema y el desconocimiento del medio profesional son razones importantes que explican el escaso interés que existe de momento en Europa por estos programas de bloqueo. El Comité lamenta que en el plan de accio´n de la 3. 7. Comisio´n no se establezca la diferencia entre redes cerradas y abiertas. Las necesidades de los ciudadanos en materia de informacio´ n fa´cilmente accesible y de alta calidad van originando un mercado para las redes basadas en la tecnologı´a de Internet, las cuales indudable- mente forman parte de Internet, pero so´lo dan acceso a una porcio´n muy limitada de la informacio´n existente en Internet. Estas «miniinternets» no pueden compararse, pues, con la Internet de escala mundial en cuanto a diversidad y cantidad de contenidos. Los suministradores de tales miniinternets o 3. 7. 1. «intranets» (instaladas a gran escala) ejercen por sı´ mismos el control de todo y, por tanto, esta´n en condiciones de ofrecer a sus clientes una prestacio´n de servicios de calidad garantizada. No so´lo en cuanto a capacidad y seguridad, sino también en lo que se refiere a claridad y fiabilidad de la informacio´ n. C 214/32 ES Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas 10. 7. 98 3. 7. 2. En estas redes cerradas existe también una clara diferencia entre suministradores (empresas) y usuarios (clientes) de la informacio´n. Por esta razo´n, las pa´ginas personales de los usuarios (home pages) no aparecen en estas configuraciones. Naturalmente, con estas intranets la proteccio´ n frente a contenidos ilı´citos y nocivos resulta ası´ mucho mas fa´cil que con la red de Internet, abierta a la informacio´ n mundial. El Comité, por tanto, prevé que estas redes cerradas van a satisfacer cada vez ma´s las necesidades del ciudadano en cuanto a una utilizacio´n segura de Internet. Teniendo en cuenta, adema´s, la vigencia del plan de accio´n, el Comité se pregunta en qué medida las lı´neas de actuacio´n previstas se anticipan a esta evolucio´ n. 4. Conclusiones Considerando las lı´neas de actuacio´n previstas, 4. 1. el Comité manifiesta sus reservas en cuanto al nivel de ambicio´n del plan de accio´n. Considera sumamente improbable que las acciones previstas conduzcan en u´ltima instancia a una utilizacio´n «segura» de Internet. Para un entorno auténticamente seguro es, sera´ —y seguira´ siendo— indispensable que en el nivel de entrada de la informacio´n se efectu´e una seleccio´n muy rigurosa. El Comité, no obstante, considera que para la Internet mundial éste no es un punto de partida realista. 4. 1. 1. El Comité considera también pra´cticamente inviable la posibilidad de codificar y, sobre esta base, calificar toda la informacio´ n disponible vı´a Internet. Si a esto se an˜ade que la comunicacio´ n («chats», correo electro´nico, foros de debate) es simplemente imposible de calificar, el Comité considera de poca ayuda el fomento activo de mecanismos de filtracio´n basados en la calificacio´n (lı´nea de actuacio´ n 2). 4. 2. El Comité, por consiguiente, propone limitar el a´mbito del plan de accio´n a la lucha contra los contenidos ilı´citos (lı´nea de actuacio´ n 1), mediante autorregulacio´n y aplicacio´n de la ley, y dar menor prioridad a la creacio´n de mecanismos de lucha contra los contenidos nocivos (lı´nea de actuacio´n 2). En este ultimo a´mbito (creacio´n de mecanismos 4. 2. 1. de filtracio´n y calificacio´n), el Comité prevé el funciona- miento sano de un mercado todavı´a en ciernes y el desarrollo y comercializacio´n de programas de bloqueo. Parece, en efecto, que al nivel de los padres y del personal docente existe una demanda creciente de mecanismos de filtracio´n de material considerado inapropiado para Bruselas, el 29 de abril de 1998. los menores de edad. Esto, naturalmente, si ellos mismos pueden instalarlos con facilidad. El Comité insta a la Comisio´n a que, dentro de la lı´nea de actuacio´n 2, estimule la investigacio´n y el desarrollo en este sector especifico, en el que pueden participar los actuales sistemas. El Comité, en cambio, considera sumamente 4. 2. 1. 1. importante la lı´nea de actuacio´n 3 (preparacio´ n —especı´- fica en cada Estado miembro— del material ba´sico y difusio´ n de la informacio´n). Todos los esfuerzos que se hagan sera´n pocos para que los padres y educadores tomen conciencia de que también en el a´mbito de Internet tienen una tarea que asumir, de control y —sobre todo— educativa. La importancia de esta lı´nea de actuacio´n no 4. 2. 1. 2. se limita, por otra parte, a la proteccio´ n de los menores. Todos los (futuros) usuarios podra´n beneficiarse de ella. 4. 2. 1. 3. El Comité concede gran importancia al inter- cambio de (buenas) experiencias —por ejemplo, entre organismos educativos, organizaciones de consumido- res, etc. — incluido en esta lı´nea de actuacio´n. 4. 2. 2. Teniendo en cuenta que el Comité suscribe plenamente la creacio´n de una red europea de centros (lı´neas directas), es probable que el establecimiento de dicha red en el marco del plan de accio´n exija una inversio´n algo superior a la suma de 5,6 millones de ecus destinada actualmente a esta lı´nea de actuacio´ n. La creacio´n de una red europea de lı´neas directas requerira´ importantes esfuerzos de muchas partes y, adema´s, una estrecha concertacio´ n con los poderes pu´blicos, que son también —a juicio del Comité— los primeros responsables en lo que se refiere a la proteccio´n del ciudadano y a la aplicacio´n de la ley. 4. 2. 2. 1. El Comité, por consiguiente, propone que una parte importante de los fondos previstos para esta lı´nea de actuacio´n se destine a la creacio´ n y mantenimiento de tales lı´neas directas y que se lleve a cabo un adecuado seguimiento de la colaboracio´ n con los organismos pu´blicos afectados. 4. 3. El Comité, por u´ltimo, considera que, teniendo en cuenta la previsible diversidad de servicios, suminis- tradores de servicios y operadores de red, es necesario crear centros de defensa de los intereses del consumidor con vistas a establecer organismos de representacio´ n uniformes y eficaces. Es indispensable reforzar la protec- cio´n de los consumidores creando la figura del «defensor del consumidor» en el seno de las autoridades responsa- bles de reglamentar el sector de las telecomunicaciones. El Presidente del Comité Econo´mico y Social Tom JENKINS


title: ΓΡΑΠΤΗ ΕΡΩΤΗΣΗ αρ θ. 1293/98 του Edward McMILLAN-SCOTT προς την Επ τροπή. Απουσία αμοιβαίας αναγνώρισης, μεταξύ των κρατών μελών, των ελέγχων του Υπουργείου Μεταφορών για τα οχήματα

eurovoc_concepts:
approximation of laws
free movement of persons
motor vehicle
mutual recognition principle
roadworthiness tests
vehicle registration

text: C 402/108 Epishmh Efthmer·ida tvn Eyrvpa¤ik·vn Koinot·htvn EL 22. 12. 98 Ayte·w oi prospa·ueiew stauero·thtaw ua pre·pei na pragmatopoihuoy·n me koinvnika· isorrophme·no tro·po xvri·w na ephrea·zetai h poio·thta tvn kratikv· n yphresiv· n, alla· me·sv thw ay·jhshw thw apotelesmatiko·thtaw kai thw apodotiko·thtaw tvn dhmosi·vn ejo·dvn kai thw prov· uhshw paragvgikv· n drasthrioth·tvn o·pvw h epe·ndysh se ypodome·w, h belti·vsh toy anurv· pinoy kefalai·oy kai oi politike·w o·son afora· thn agora· ergasi·aw. Paro·la ayta·, sto plai·sio aytv· n tvn genikv· n arxv· n kai apaith·sevn syntonismoy· tvn politikv· n, o·pvw ayte·w ekfra·zontai sth synuh·kh toy `msterntam, h eyuy·nh gia th lh·ch sygkekrime·nvn dhmosionomikv· n me·trvn poy na antistoixoy·n stiw politike·w ayte·w anh·kei apokleistika· sta kra·th me·lh sy·mfvna me tiw dhmosionomike·w diadikasi·ew toyw kai sy·mfvna me thn arxh· thw epikoyriko·thtaw. (98/C 402/139) GRAPTH ERVTHSH E-1293/98 ypobolh· : Edward McMillan-Scott (PPE) prow thn Epitroph· (29 Aprili·oy 1998) Ue·ma: Apoysi·a amoibai·aw anagnv· rishw, metajy· tvn kratv· n melv· n, tvn ele·gxvn toy Ypoyrgei·oy Metaforv· n gia ta oxh·mata Epi· toy paro·ntow, e·na o·xhma mporei· mo·no na ypostei· ton e·legxo toy Ypoyrgei·oy Metaforv· n toy kra·toyw sto opoi·o e·xei la·bei a·deia kyklofori·aw. (cid:201)xontaw ypo·ch to empo·dio poy ayto· apotelei· gia thn eley·uerh diaki·nhsh prosv· pvn, proti·uetai h Epitroph· na protei·nei thn typopoi·hsh kai amoibai·a anagnv· rish tvn ele·gxvn toy Ypoyrgei·oy 1. Metaforv· n; 2. poioi ei·nai oi para·gontew poy kauori·zoyn th ue·sh thw Epitroph·w gia to ue·ma ayto·; Apa· nthsh toy k. Kinnock ej ono·matow thw Epitroph· w (25 Maioy 1998) H odhgi·a toy Symboyli·oy 96/96/EOK (1) gia thn prose·ggish tvn nomouesiv· n tvn kratv· n melv· n sxetika· me ton kanoniko· e·legxo tvn mhxanoki·nhtvn oxhma·tvn kai tvn rymoylkoyme·nvn toyw ori·zei ela·xistew apaith·seiw gia ton en lo·gv texniko· e·legxo. Ta kra·th me·lh ei·nai eley·uera na perila·boyn pro·sueta stoixei·a kai na epiba·loyn aysthro·teroyw ele·gxoyw sto plai·sio toy eunikoy· systh·matow ele·gxoy gia ta oxh·mata poy ei·nai tajinomhme·na sto e·dafo·w toyw. Kata· syne·peia, ekei·na ta kra·th me·lh poy diaue·toyn ta pio aysthra· kauestv· ta ele·gxoy ei·nai apro·uyma na apodexuoy·n to endexo·meno oi poli·tew toyw na mporoy·n na apolay·oyn pistopoihtikoy· texnikoy· ele·gxoy ek me·royw geitonikoy· kra·toyw me·loyw sto opoi·o epikratei· epieike·stero sy·sthma ele·gxoy. Sto·xow thw Epitroph·w, epi· toy paro·ntow, ei·nai na entei·nei tiw apaith·seiw toy texnikoy· ele·gxoy o·poy ayto· dikaiologei·tai epi· th ba·sei thw sxe·shw ko·stoyw/apodotiko·thtaw. H diadikasi·a ayth· ua odhgh·sei, syn tv xro·nv, se sy·gklish tvn eunikv· n proty·pvn. Pa·ntvw, e·vw o·toy ayto· epiteyxuei· plh·rvw, den aname·netai o·ti h amoibai·a anagnv· rish ua eynohuei· apo· thn pleiono·thta tvn kratv· n melv· n. Ypa·rxoyn dimerei·w symfvni·ew metajy· kratv· n melv· n, oi opoi·ew epitre·poyn, se orisme·new eidike·w periptv· seiw, thn amoibai·a anagnv· rish. H praktikh· ayth· den ei·nai asynh·uhw ston kla·do tvn metaforv· n bare·vn forti·vn. Opvsdh·pote, o·mvw ayto· den synista· koinh· praktikh· se o·,ti afora· ta epibatika· oxh·mata. (1) EE L 46, 17. 2. 1997. (98/C 402/140) GRAPTH ERVTHSH E-1305/98 ypobolh· : Cristiana Muscardini (NI) prow thn Epitroph· (29 Aprili·oy 1998) Ue·ma: Dysmenei·w diakri·seiw se ba·row tvn biolo·gvn Gia na e·xoyn pro·sbash stiw italike·w sxole·w eidi·keyshw oi ptyxioy·xoi thw iatrikh·w kai tvn parai¤atrikv· n sxolv· n (biolo·goi, xhmikoi·, farmakopoioi·, odonti·atroi. ) symmete·xoyn se dhmo·sio diagvnismo· ba·sei ti·tlvn spoydv· n kai ejeta·sevn. Env· oi iatroi· poy epitygxa·noyn sthn eisagvgikh· eje·tash lamba·noyn eth·sia ypotrofi·a gia o·lh th dia·rkeia thw eidi·keysh·w toyw, oi biolo·goi apoklei·ontai apo· thn ypotrofi·a ayth·


title: PERGUNTA ESCRITA n. 1251/98 do Deputado Odile LEPERRE- VERRIER à Comissão. Ajuda alimentar na União Europeia (RESPOSTA COMPLEMENTAR)

eurovoc_concepts:
EU aid
European Social Fund
agricultural surplus
food aid
intervention stock
marginalisation
non-governmental organisation
poverty
social integration

text: 5. 2. 1999 PT Jornal Oficial das Comunidades Europeias C 31/27 A Comissªo partilha da opiniªo do Senhor Deputado na condena(cid:231)ªo da chamada «No Holds Barred», jÆ que esta actividade nªo pertence (cid:224)s tradi(cid:231)ıes culturais e desportivas europeias e pode mesmo considerar-se como uma evidente manifesta(cid:231)ªo dos riscos que amea(cid:231)am o desporto e a televisªo quando estes tŒm como œnicos objectivos os lucros econ(cid:243)micos. (1) JO L 186 de 29. 6. 1989. (2) JO L 216 de 20. 8. 1994. (1999/C 31/033) PERGUNTA ESCRITA E-1251/98 apresentada por Odile Leperre-Verrier (ARE) (cid:224) Comissªo (29 de Abril de 1998) Objecto: Ajuda alimentar na Uniªo Europeia No momento em que o Inverno estÆ a terminar, pode a Comissªo apresentar um balan(cid:231)o relativo aos montantes destinados (cid:224) ajuda alimentar que pagou ou atribuiu para pagamento (cid:224)s organiza(cid:231)ıes nªo governamentais reconhecidas? AlØm disso, pode a Comissªo indicar quais as medidas que tenciona tomar a fim de fazer regredir a pobreza e a subnutri(cid:231)ªo na Uniªo Europeia, em aumento permanente nos Estados-membros? Resposta complementar dada pelo ComissÆrio Fischler em nome da Comissªo (3 de Julho de 1998) Efectivamente, durante o Inverno passado, a Comissªo prosseguiu a execu(cid:231)ªo do seu programa de ajuda (cid:224)s pessoas mais necessitadas da Comunidade, ac(cid:231)ªo que aliÆs desenvolve ao longo de todo o ano. A ac(cid:231)ªo em questªo foi decidida em 1987, no decurso de um Inverno particularmente rude (1). Com base na experiŒncia adquirida e nas reac(cid:231)ıes dos Estados-membros e das organiza(cid:231)ıes humanitÆrias, foi decidido, no ano seguinte, transformÆ-la num programa permanente. Este consiste em colocar gratuitamente (cid:224) disposi(cid:231)ªo das organiza(cid:231)ıes presentes no terreno junto das pessoas necessitadas produtos alimentares provenientes das existŒncias de interven(cid:231)ªo da Comunidade, se for caso disso ap(cid:243)s transforma(cid:231)ªo ou troca, dentro de uma mesma categoria de produtos. A ac(cid:231)ªo em apre(cid:231)o estÆ organizada em planos anuais. A sua coordena(cid:231)ªo estÆ a cargo da Comissªo (2) e a execu(cid:231)ªo da mesma Ø da responsabilidade dos Estados-membros que manifestem interesse em participar. Estes designam igualmente as organiza(cid:231)ıes beneficiÆrias. O plano anual aplicÆvel no decurso do Inverno passado foi adoptado pela Comissªo em 2 de Outubro de 1997, tendo sido adaptado jÆ durante o exerc(cid:237)cio com base na evolu(cid:231)ªo das existŒncias e das dota(cid:231)ıes dispon(cid:237)veis (3). A aplica(cid:231)ªo do plano prosseguirÆ atØ 30 de Setembro de 1998 e beneficia de dota(cid:231)ıes correspondentes a 196 Mecus. Por outro lado, alØm desta ac(cid:231)ªo no dom(cid:237)nio alimentar, no (cid:226)mbito da qual a Comissªo utiliza a produ(cid:231)ªo dos agricultores e criadores europeus, designadamente os seus excedentes, em benef(cid:237)cio das pessoas necessitadas da Comunidade, a luta contra a exclusªo social e a pobreza Ø tida em conta numa sØrie de programas ou medidas europeus, especialmente no quadro do Fundo Social Europeu e iniciativas comunitÆrias conexas. No (cid:226)mbito da reforma do Fundo Social Europeu, uma das Æreas de ac(cid:231)ªo definida como prioritÆria Ø precisamente a promo(cid:231)ªo da integra(cid:231)ªo social e da igualdade de oportunidades para todos no acesso ao mercado de trabalho. (1) Regulamento (CEE) 3730/87 do Conselho, de 10 de Dezembro de 1987, que estabelece as regras gerais para o fornecimento a determinadas organiza(cid:231)ıes de gØneros aliment(cid:237)cios provenientes das existŒncias de interven(cid:231)ªo para distribui(cid:231)ªo (cid:224)s pessoas mais necessitadas na Comunidade, JO L 352 de 15. 12. 1987. (2) Regulamento (CEE) 3149/92 da Comissªo, de 29 de Outubro de 1992, que estabelece as normas de execu(cid:231)ªo para o fornecimento de gØneros aliment(cid:237)cios provenientes das existŒncias de interven(cid:231)ªo a favor das pessoas mais necessitadas da Comunidade, JO L 313 de 30. 10. 1992. (3) Decisªo 98/203/CE da Comissªo, de 3 de Mar(cid:231)o de 1998, que altera a Decisªo 97/660/CE que adopta o plano que atribui aos Estados- -membros recursos a imputar ao exerc(cid:237)cio de 1998 para o fornecimento de gØneros aliment(cid:237)cios provenientes das existŒncias de interven(cid:231)ªo a favor das pessoas mais necessitadas na Comunidade, JO L 77 de 14. 3. 1998


title: QUESTION ECRITE no 1291/98 de Undine-Uta BLOCH von BLOTTNITZ à la Commission. Aide financière de l'UE à la construction d'une route traversant la future réserve naturelle du Monte Epomeo (Ischia)

eurovoc_concepts:
EU aid
European Regional Development Fund
Italy
bird
hunting
nature reserve
protected area
road building
tourism

text: 5. 2. 1999 FR Journal officiel des CommunautØs europØennes C 31/31 (1999/C 31/037) QUESTION (cid:201)CRITE E-1291/98 posØe par Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) (cid:224) la Commission (29 avril 1998) Objet: Aide financiŁre de l(cid:146)UE (cid:224) la construction d(cid:146)une route traversant la future rØserve naturelle du Monte Epomeo (Ischia) La commune de Serrara Fontana, sur l(cid:146)(cid:238)le d(cid:146)Ischia (Naples › Italie) a entrepris voici quelques jours la construction d(cid:146)une large route d(cid:146)accŁs traversant la principale Øminence de l(cid:146)(cid:238)le (le Monte Epomeo). Un projet de dØcret du ministre de l(cid:146)Environnement Ronchi prØvoit d(cid:146)accorder sous peu au Monte Epomeo le statut de Riserva Naturale dello Stato compte tenu de sa grande importance comme lieu de repos pour les oiseaux migrateurs europØens. La procØdure progresse avec lenteur depuis des mois notamment parce que les chasseurs locaux craignent pour le maintien de la chasse aux oiseaux migrateurs sur l(cid:146)(cid:238)le. La construction de la route bØnØficie d(cid:146)une aide d(cid:146)un milliard de lires de l(cid:146)UE. Cette aide aurait en fait ØtØ accordØe pour crØer et entretenir des sentiers de randonnØe pour les touristes. Est-il exact que la commune de Serrara doit bØnØficier d(cid:146)une aide de l(cid:146)UE pour la construction de sentiers de 1. randonnØes? Dans l(cid:146)affirmative, quel est le montant prØcis de cette aide? La Commission estime-t-elle que l(cid:146)aide en question peut Øgalement servir (cid:224) la construction d(cid:146)une large voie 2. d(cid:146)accŁs traversant une zone appelØe (cid:224) devenir rØserve naturelle? Quelles possibilitØs la Commission entrevoit-elle de demander, le cas ØchØant, le remboursement de 3. ressources mal utilisØes? RØponse donnØe par Mme Wulf-Mathies au nom de la Commission (25 juin 1998) Selon les informations en possession de la Commission, qui doivent encore Œtre confirmØes, les autoritØs italiennes ont accordØ un concours public de 1 175 000 000 Lires (environ 600 000 Øcus), dont 50 % de concours du Fonds europØen de dØveloppement rØgional, (cid:224) un projet relatif (cid:224) l(cid:146)amØnagement de sentiers de randonnØes dans le Monte Epomeo, commune de Serrara Fontana, dans le cadre du programme opØrationnel «Tourisme» pour les rØgions italiennes de l(cid:146)objectif 1. Bien entendu, ce projet doit Œtre en conformitØ avec la lØgislation communautaire concernant notamment l(cid:146)environnement, ainsi qu(cid:146)avec les mesures du programme en question. L(cid:146)aide en question ne peut pas Œtre utilisØe (cid:224) d(cid:146)autres fins telle que la construction d(cid:146)une large voie d(cid:146)accŁs (cid:224) la zone concernØe. Il est utile de rappeler (cid:224) ce sujet que le Monte Epomeo se trouve (cid:224) l(cid:146)intØrieur du site ITA 370300005 «Corpo centrale dell(cid:146)Isola di Ischia» que l(cid:146)Italie a proposØ comme site d(cid:146)importance communautaire, susceptible d(cid:146)Œtre dØsignØ comme zone spØciale de conservation, aux termes de la directive 92/43/CEE du Conseil, du 21 mai 1992, concernant la conservation des habitats naturels ainsi que de la faune et de la flore sauvages (1). Suivant l(cid:146)article 6(3) de ladite directive, «tout plan ou projet non directement liØ ou nØcessaire (cid:224) la gestion du site mais susceptible d(cid:146)affecter ce site de maniŁre significative. fait l(cid:146)objet d(cid:146)une Øvaluation appropriØe de ses incidences sur le site eu Øgard aux objectifs de conservation de ce site. Compte tenu des conclusions de l(cid:146)Øvaluation des incidences sur le site. les autoritØs nationales ne marquent leur accord sur ce plan ou projet qu(cid:146)aprŁs s(cid:146)Œtre assurØes qu(cid:146)il ne portera pas atteinte (cid:224) l(cid:146)intØgritØ du site concernØ et aprŁs avoir pris, le cas ØchØant, l(cid:146)avis du public». Le cofinancement du projet par les fonds structurels est donc admis (cid:224) condition que la directive 92/43/CEE (transposØe dans la lØgislation italienne par le dØcret du PrØsident de la RØpublique no 357 du 8 septembre 1997) soit respectØe. La Commission souligne par ailleurs que l(cid:146)article 24 du rŁglement de coordination des fonds structurels (2) prØvoit la rØduction, la suspension ou la suppression du concours desdits fonds en prØsence d(cid:146)une irrØgularitØ ou d(cid:146)une modification importante qui affecte la nature ou les conditions de mise en (cid:156)uvre d(cid:146)une action ou mesure et pour laquelle l(cid:146)approbation de la Commission n(cid:146)a pas ØtØ demandØe. La Commission prendra contact avec les autoritØs italiennes concernØes afin d(cid:146)obtenir des Øclaircissements au sujet de ce projet. (1) JO L 206 du 22. 7. 1992. (2) RŁglement (CEE) 4253/88 › JO L 193 du 31. 7. 1993