title: Communication from the Commission to the Council concerning the establishment of a Community position for the discussions and negotiations on aviation environmental issues to be addressed by the 32nd session of the General Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), Montreal, from 22 September to 2 October 1998

text: COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 06. 05. 1998 COM(1998) 265 final COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL concerning the establishment of a Community position for the discussions and negotiations on aviation environmental issues to be addressed by the 32nd session of the General Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), Montreal, from 22 September to 2 October 1998 SUMMARY The Secretary General of ICAO has invited the Commission to attend as observer on behalf of the European Community the 32nd session of the ICAO General Assembly, which will take place in Montreal from 22 September to 2 October 1998. The General Assembly will, amongst others, address aviation environmental protection on the basis of reports made by the ICAO Council. Topics covered by this agenda item include: • aircraft noise; • aircraft engine emissions; • environmental taxes and charges; • the relationship between ICAO and other United Nations organisations in charge of defining environmental guidelines. Since 1991 the Commission has participated with observer status in the Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP). This committee is responsible for making recommendations to the ICAO-Counci! on issues such as aircraft noise and aircraft engine emissions. Given the slow progress on these issues within ICAO during recent years, the Commission is concerned that decisions taken within ICAO might fail to give due consideration to the specific needs for environmental protection and preconditions foi- future development of aviation infrastructures in the Community. Against this background and in the light of existing Community competence in the areas of aircraft noise and taxation of mineral oils as well as the Community interest in the area of aircraft engine emissions and of Member States' competencies in certain areas to be considered at the 32nd session as well, the Commission proposes that the Council approves the attached conclusions concerning the position to be taken by the Community and by the Member States at the 32nd session. COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL concerning the establishment of a Community position for the discussions and negotiations on aviation environmental issues to be addressed by the 32nd session of the General Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), Montreal, from 22 September to 2 October 1998. Introduction 1. Recommendations to the ICAO-Council on Aviation environmental issues are the responsibility of the Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAHP), in which the Commission has had observer status since 1991. 2. According to the provisional agenda of the 32nd session of the ICAO General Assembly, the ICAO Council will present a progress report on the activities in the areas of aircraft noise and the impact of emissions from aircraft engines. As urged by the 31st ICAO General Assembly, the Council will also report on environmental taxes and charges as well as on the relations between ICAO and other United Nations organisations, which are in charge of defining environmental guidelines. 3. Given that the matters, which are to be discussed and negotiated at the General Assembly and which may result in decisions being taken, are either within Community competence (aircraft noise and taxation of mineral oils) or are of Community interest (aircraft engine emissions), it is essential to establish in advance the position to be taken by the Community. Community competence and/or interest 4. For aircraft noise and gaseous emissions from aircraft there is a Community competence or at least a particular interest for the Community. In the area of international standards on aircraft noise the competence is exclusive since the Community has already introduced several Directives on this specific issue. The most recent one is'Directive 92/14/EEC of 2 March 1992 on the limitation of the operations of Chapter 2 aircraft, which is currently under revision. In addition, on 9 March 1998 the Commission adopted a Proposal for a Council Directive on the use and registration within the Community of Chapter 2 aircraft fitted with hushkits (COM(1998)98 final). 5. The issue of emissions from aircraft engines represents a particular interest for the Community industrial competitiveness. In addition, on 3 December 1997 the Commission adopted a Proposal for a Council Directive on the limitation of nitrogen oxides emissions from aircraft engines. terms of environmental protection as well as in 6. Environmental taxes, and in particular taxation of kerosene, are within Community competence since Directives 92/81/EEC and 92/82/EEC establish a binding Community system for respectively the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils and the approximation of the rates of excise duties on mineral oils. These harmonisation Directives oblige Member States to exempt from excise duties commercial aviation fuel, thus, bringing about totally harmonised rules which Member States may not affect. The Commission has also adopted a proposal for a Council Directive restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products (COM(97) 30 final) which includes optional provision for the taxation of commercial aviation fuel on certain flights 7. In addition, Article 2 Paragraph 2 of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change states that "the parties included in Annex I shall pursue limitation on reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases not. through the Internationa! controlled by the Montreal Protocol from aviation Civil Aviation Organisation". The forthcoming ratification by the Community and its Member States of the Kyoto Protocol implies that, the Community and the Member States shall act together to negotiate such a reduction with ICAO. 8. The aforementioned Council Directives and proposals for Council Directives reflect the general competence of the Community for matters related to the proper functioning of the internal market, the common transport and environment policy This implies not only that the Member States whether acting individually or collectively, may not enter into obligations with non member countries which affect such common rules but also, especially in the light of Member States' duties to facilitate the achievement of the Community's tasks, that decisions taken or guidelines adopted in these areas cannot be so taken or adopted by individual Member States as this would pre-empt the legislative process at Community level. Therefore, it is essential firstly that decisions to be taken or guidelines to be adopted at the ICAO General Assembly commit the Community process through an agreed Community position. This is, in particular, the case for NOx emissions from aircraft engines. Decisions taken on this issue by the 32nd session will be fed into the ICAO decision making process and may well result in amendments to the standards laid down in Annex 16 (Environmental protection) to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. 9. However, the Community is not a signatory to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention). Although ICAO decided in 1988 to give the Community observer status, this status does not include the right to take initiatives in the ICAO institutions, such as the Council or the General Assembly. It will, foresee that, where it is not possible for the Commission therefore, be essential to to present entirely the Community position, the Presidency of the Council shall present the same on behalf of the Community. 0. Since the matters to be discussed fall mainly within Community competence but also partly within the competence of Member States, it is essential secondly to define the substance of the position to be taken by the Member States as well as procedures for an appropriate coordination between that position and that of the Community. Council Conclusions concerning the position to be taken by the Community and by the Member States at the 32nd session of the ICAO General Assembly In the light of the above, the Commission proposes that the Council concludes as follows : The Community position for the discussions and negotiations at the 32lul session of the ICAO General Assembly as well as at the Committee meetings preceding the General Assembly (namely the legal, economic and administrative committee) shall be as follows : - to ensure consistency between the Resolutions taken by the ICAO-General Assembly and the relevant existing and evolving Community legislation. - to carry out the negotiations with a view to : • obtaining a commitment of the ICAO-Assembly to launch a work programme to investigate the technical and economic feasibility of establishing more stringent aircraft noise standards, taking into account ongoing research activities, as well as capacity and operating constraints at airports imposed on environmental protection grounds ; • taking a decision of the ICAO assembly on technical standards on the limitation into account of nitrogen oxides emissions from aircraft engines technological knowledge and cost-effectiveness criteria as well as the Commission's proposal of 3 December 1997 on this matter ; taking • obtaining a commitment of the ICAO-Assembly to continue the preparatory work on the progressive introduction of economic measures aimed at improving the environmental impact of aviation taking into account their cost-effectiveness; • obtaining a commitment of the ICAO-Assembly to launch a work programme aimed at ensuring that air transport contributes to the achievement of internationally agreed reduction targets for the emission of greenhouse gases. The Community position shall be put forward by the Commission and, where this is necessary, by the presidency speaking on behalf of the Community. Since the matters to be discussed fall also in part within the competence of the Member States, the position to be put forward by them shall correspond with that set out hereabove. Furthermore, coordination will take place (either on the sport or where appropriate within the Council bodies in Brussels) in order to ensure close cooperation between the Community and its Member States and thus unity in the international representation of the Community. If the results of the negotiations and discussions in the 32ml ICAO General Assembly conform essentially to the position set out above, such results shall be endorsed by the Community and its Member States. ISSN 0254-1475 COM(98) 265 final DOCUMENTS EN 06 14 15 Catalogue number : CB-CO-98-281-EN-C ISBN 92-78-35440-6 Office for Official Publications of the European Communities L-2985 Luxembourg F


title: Vorschlag für eine Verordnung (EG) des Rates zur Änderung der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 619/71 zur Festlegung der Grundregeln für die Gewährung einer Beihilfe für Flachs und Hanf

eurovoc_concepts:
agro-industry
economic support
flax
hemp
support policy

text: KOMMISSION DER EUROPÄISCHEN GEMEINSCHAFTEN Brüssel, den 06. 05. 1998 KOM( 1998) 280 endg. Vorschlag für eine VERORDNUNG (EG) DES RATES !iir Änderung der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 619/71 zur Festlegung der Grun. i:-ein tli; Gewährung einer B eihilfe für Flachs und Hanf eie (von der Kommission vorgelegt) WC/4 VI/2561/98E (PHOPT\DE\0052. doc) Pegrfindung Einleitung 1. Bei Annahme des Preispakets 1997/98 im Juni 1997 hat der Rat die Kommission aufgefordert, die Möglichkeit zu prüfen, im Sektor Hanf eine vertragliche Regelung zwischen den Erzeugern und der Verarbeitungsindustrie vorzuschreiben. 2. Die Kommission hat im Rahmen des Preispakets 1998/99 vorgeschlagen, die Hektarbeihilfe angesichts der beträchtlichen und anhaltenden Ausweitung der Hanfflächen um 25% zu kürzen. 3. Damit diese nicht unerhebliche Ausweitung der Hanfflächen verlangsamt wird und die Verläßlichkeit der Kontrollen erhöht werden kann, müssen zusätzliche Maßnahmen getroffen werden. Zu diesem Zweck ist die Verordnung zur Eestlegung der Grundregeln für die Gewährung der Hanfbeihilfe zu ändern. Maßnahmenvorschläge 4. Die Beihilfe darf nur für tatsächlich genutzte Flächen gewährt werden. Die Einhaltung dieser Bedingung kann gewährleistet werden durch Einfuhrung einer Regelung, die den Abschluß von Verträgen zwischen den Erzeugern und zugelassenen Verarbeitern und eine Verarbeitungsverpflichtung vorschreibt. Die bisher vorgesehenen Verträge sind nicht zwingend vorgeschrieben. Ferner soll die Zulassung der ersten Verarbeiter in Anwendung des Subsidiaritätsprinzips nicht mehr durch die Kommission, sondern durch die zuständigen Behörden der Mitgliedstaaten erteilt werden. 5. Um das Risiko einer unrechtmäßigen Vorteilnahme noch stärker abzubauen, wird neben der Einführung der bezeichneten Maßnahme eine Herabsetzung des zulässigen THC-Gehalts vorgeschlagen, eine Verstärkung der Vorschrift, eine Ernte erst nach der Kornbildung zu berücksichtigen und die Einführung zusätzlicher Rahmenvorschriften für die Ernte. 6. Da voraussichtlich ein Teil der Erzeuger Verträge bereits vor Annahme dieses Vorschlags abschließen wird, sollte vorgesehen werden, daß die Kommission für das erste Anwendungsjahr Übergangsmaßnahmen treffen kann. Z VI/C/4 VI/2561/98T (PHOPT\DE\0050. doc) Vorschlag Verordnung (EG) Nr /98 des Rates vom zur Änderung der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 619/71 zur Festlegung der Grundregeln für die Gewährung einer Beihilfe für Flachs und Hanf DER RAT DER EUROPÄISCHEN UNION - gestützt auf den Vertrag zur Gründung der Europäischen Gemeinschaft, gestützt auf die Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 1308/70 des Rates vom 29. Juni 1970 über die gemeinsame Marktorganisation für Flachs und Hanf1, zuletzt geändert durch die Verordnung (EG) Nr. 3290/942, insbesondere auf Artikel 4 Absatz 4, auf Vorschlag der Kommission, in Erwägung nachstehender Gründe: Nach Artikel 4 Absatz 1 zweiter Unterabsatz der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 1308/70 wird die Beihilfe nur für Hanf gewährt, der aus Saatgut von Sorten stammt, die hinsichtlich des Gehalts des geernteten Erzeugnisses an rauscherzeugenden Stoffen bestimmte Garantien bieten. Artikel 3 Absatz 1 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 619/71 des Rates vom 22. März 19713, zuletzt geändert durch die Verordnung (EG) Nr. 154/974, bestimmt den Durchschnittsgehalt an Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), der bei dem Saatgut dieser Sorten nicht überschritten werden darf. Zur Verstärkung der Maßnahmen, die sicherstellen sollen, daß Flächen, für die die Beihilfe beantragt wird, nicht unrechtmäßig genutzt werden, sollten der vorgesehene Höchstgehalt weiter gesenkt und die Beihilfe nur für die nach der Kornbildung geerntete Erzeugung gewährt werden. 1 ABl. L 146 vom 4. 7. 1970, S. 1 2 ABl. L 349 vom 31. 12. 1994, S. 105 3 ABl. L 72 vom 26. 3. 1971, S. 2 4 ABl. L 27 vom 30. 1. 1997, S. 1 3 VI/2561/98T (PHOPT\DE\0050. doc) Nach Artikel 3 Absatz 2 der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 619/71 wird die Faserflachsbeihilfe nur gewährt, wenn sich der erste Verarbeiter gegenüber dem Erzeuger vertraglich zur Verarbeitung verpflichtet. Wie sich gezeigt hat, sollte im Hanfsektor, damit sich die Einhaltung der Bestimmung der Ernte und ihrer tatsächlichen Verarbeitung besser kontrollieren läßt, eine vergleichbare Kontrollregelung eingeführt werden. Gemäß Artikel 4 der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 619/71 sind Verwaltungskontrollen einzuführen, die sicherstellen, daß die beantragte Beihilfe nur für Erzeugnisse gewährt wird, welche den gesetzten Bedingungen genügen. Die Anwendung der diesbezüglichen Kontrollregelung sollte im Hanfsektor verschärft werden, insbesondere durch eine Vorschrift, welche die Aussaat genehmigungspflichtig macht. Da die Maßnahmen dieser Verordnung unter bestmöglichen Bedingungen durchgeführt werden müssen, kann es sich als notwendig erweisen, daß zur Erleichterung der Umstellung auf die Neuregelung Übergangsmaßnahmen erlassen werden - HAT FOLGENDE VERORDNUNG ERLASSEN: Artikel 1 Die Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 619/71 wird wie folgt geändert: 1. In Artikel 3 erhält Absatz 1 folgende Fassung: "1. Für Hanfstroh wird die Beihilfe nur dem Erzeuger gewährt, der vor einem zu bestimmenden Zeitpunkt mit einem ersten Verarbeiter, der von der zuständigen Behörde des Mitgliedstaates zugelassen ist, in dem sich sein Betrieb befindet, einen Vertrag schließt, dem zufolge er das Eigentum an das Hanfstroh erhält und er sich verpflichtet, dieses zu verarbeiten. Die Beihilfe wird nur für Hanfstroh gewährt, das nach der Kornbildung geerntet wird und aus zertifiziertem Saatgut von Sorten stammt, die in einer nach dem Verfahren des Artikels 12 der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 1308/70 aufzustellenden Liste eingetragen sind. In diese Liste werden nur Sorten aufgenommen, bei denen ein Mitgliedstaat durch Analyse festgestellt hat, daß das Gewicht von THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol) im Vergleich zum Gewicht einer Probe mit konstantem Gewicht 0,15% nicht übersteigt. H VI/2561/98T (PHOPT\DE\0050. doc) Diese Probe setzt sich aus dem oberen Drittel von Pflanzen zusammen, die am Ende der Blüte einer repräsentativen Zahl von Pflanzen willkürlich zu entnehmen und deren Stengel und Saaten zu entfernen sind. " 2. In Artikel 4 Absatz 1 wird der nachstehende zweite Unterabsatz angefügt: "Die Mitgliedstaaten erlassen zur Regulierung des Anbaus von Hanf besondere Vorschriften, die insbesondere eine vorherige Aussaatgenehmigung für Flächen einschließen, für welche die Hanfbeihilfe beantragt wird. Die Kriterien und Durchführungsbestimmungen dieser Regelung werden nach dem Verfahren des Artikels 12 der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 1308/70 erlassen. " 3. Artikel 6a erhält folgende Fassung: "Artikel 6a Sind Übergangsmaßnahmen erforderlich, um die Umstellung auf die durch die Verordnung (EG) Nr /98 eingeführte Regelung ab dem Wirtschaftsjahr 1998/99 zu erleichtern, sind diese Maßnahmen nach dem Verfahren des Artikels 12 der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 1308/70 zu erlassen. Die Gültigkeitsdauer dieser Maßnahmen endet spätestens zum Ende des Wirtschaftsjahres 1999/2000. " Artikel 2 Diese Verordnung tritt am siebten Tag nach ihrer Veröffentlichung im Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften in Kraft. Sie gilt ab dem Wirtschaftsjahr 1998/99. Artikel 1 Absatz 3 gilt jedoch ab dem Inkrafttreten dieser Verordnung. Diese Verordnung ist in allen ihren Teilen verbindlich und gilt unmittelbar in jedem Mitgliedstaat. Brüssel, den Im Namen des Rates FINANZBOGEN HAUSHALTSPOSTEN: B1-1402 VI/ 2561/98F (PHOPT\DE\0053. doc) Datum:< MITTELANSATZ: 16 Mio. ECU BEZEICHNUNG DES VORHABENS: Vorschlag für eine Verordnung des Rates zur Änderung der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 619/71 mit den Grundregeln für die Gewährung der Beihilfe für Flachs und Hanf. RECHTSGRUNDLAGE: Art. 4 Abs. 4 der VO (EWG) Nr. 1308/70. 4. ZIELE DES VORHABENS: Einführung neuer Bestimmungen, um besser gewährleisten zu können, daß Hanf, für den die Beihilfe beantragt wird, tatsächlich für rechtmäßige Verwendungszwecke angebaut wird. FINANZIELLE AUSWIRKUNGEN 5. 0 AUSGABEN ZU LASTEN - DES EG-HAUSHALTS (ERSTATTUNGEN/INTERVENTIONEN) 5. 1. - NATIONALER HAUSHALTE - ANDERER SEKTOREN EINNAHMEN - EIGENE MITTEL DER EG (ABSCHÖPFUNG/ZÖLLE) IM NATIONALEN BEREICH - 5. 0. 1 VORAUSSCHAU AUSGABEN 5. 1. 1 VORAUSSCHAU EINNAHMEN BERECHNUNGSWEISE: 5. 2 12-MONATS- PERIODE (Mio ECU) (1) LAUFENDES HAUSHALTS JAHR m (98) (Mio ECU) KOMMENDES HAUSHALTS JAHR (99) (Mio ECU) (1) 2000 Mio ECU (1) 2001 Mio ECU (1) 2002 Mio ECU (1) 2003 Mio ECU (1) 6. 0 6~L FINANZIERUNG IM LAUFENDEN HAUSHALT IST MÖGLICH DURCH IM BETREFFENDEN KAPITEL VORHANDENE MITTEL F I N A N Z I E R U NG I ST M Ö G L I CH D U R CH Ü B E R T R A G U NG V ON K A P I T EL ZU K A P I T EL IM L A U F E N D EN H A U S H A L T S J A HR NOTWENDIGKEIT EINES NACHTRAGSHAUSHALTS ERFORDERLICHE MITTEL SIND IN DIE ZUKUNFTIGEN HAUSHALTE EINZUSETZEN 6. 2 6. 3 ANMERKUNGEN: Die vorgeschlagene Maßnahme hat keine unmittelbaren finanziellen Auswirkungen. Die Verpflichtung zum Abschluß von Verträgen und zur Verarbeitung des Hanfstrohs durch zugelassene Verarbeiter, die neuen Bestimmungen über die Ernte der Saaten sowie die Einführung einer Verwaltungskontrollregelung könnten eine Verkleinerung der beihilfefähigcn Anbaufläche zur Folge haben. Die sich daraus ergebenden Einsparungen lassen sich jedoch nicht ohne Vorbehalte beziffern. JA/NEW JA/NEIN JA/NEIN JA/NEÏN é ISSN 0254-1467 KOM(98) 280 endg. DOKUMENTE DE 03 15 10 01 Katalognummer : CB-CO-98-29Ü-DE-C ISBN 92-78-35537-2 Amt für amtliche Veröffentlichungen der Europäischen Gemeinschaften L-2985 Luxemburg


title: SCHRIFTELIJKE VRAAG nr. 1396/98 van Leonie van BLADEL aan dee Raad. Vragen over verdrag voor terugzending EU- gedetineerden in Marokko

eurovoc_concepts:
EU national
Morocco
Netherlands
legal aid
prisoner
return migration

formats: html pdf print

text: 21. 10. 98 NL Publicatieblad van de Europese Gemeenschappen C 323/131 De Raad was zich hiervan bewust toen hij dit besluit aannam en is overeengekomen dat Duitsland visa mag afgeven aan leden van de Nigeriaanse ploeg. Duitsland heeft dan ook gemeenschappelijk standpunt 95/544/GBVB niet met voeten getreden toen het die visa afgaf. De Raad is ervan overtuigd dat de lidstaten in elk opzicht voldoen aan gemeenschappelijk standpunt 95/544/GBVB en Besluit 97/820/GBVB van de Raad inzake de uitvoering daarvan. Dit besluit impliceert geen verandering in het beleid van de EU tegenover Nigeria en geen versoepeling van de maatregelen van de EU tegen dit land. Meer nog, de conclusies van de Raad van 28 november 1997, waarvan het besluit tot verlenging van gemeenschappelijk standpunt 95/544/GBVB vergezeld gaat, laten duidelijk zien dat, indien de verkiezingen in Nigeria geen terugkeer naar de democratie en de rechtsstaat vo·o·r 1 oktober van dit jaar mogelijk zouden maken, de EU maatregelen zal nemen in aanvulling op die van gemeenschappelijk standpunt 95/544/GBVB. (98/C 323/202) SCHRIFTELIJKE VRAAG E-1396/98 van Leonie van Bladel (UPE) aan de Raad (6 mei 1998) Betreft: Vragen over verdrag voor terugzending EU-gedetineerden in Marokko 1. Kan de Raad verklaren waarom voor de bijstand van bijna 100 Nederlandse gevangenen in Marokko, verspreid over zeven gevangenissen door het gehele land, slechts e·e·n persoon voor een week per maand is aangesteld? 2. Is e·e·n persoon op 100 gevangenen, verdeeld over zeven gevangenissen in verschillende delen van Marokko, niet veel te weinig, mede gelet op het feit dat de regering van het Verenigd Koninkrijk voor 35 gevangenen zes mensen permanent voor deze werkzaamheden heeft aangesteld? 3. Is de Raad bereid om aan de EU-lidstaten het advies te geven om onverwijld met de Marokkaanse regering in onderhandeling te treden teneinde op zo kort mogelijke termijn een overeenkomst te sluiten waardoor het mogelijk wordt dat gevangenen uit de EU-lidstaten in eigen land de aan hen opgelegde straffen kunnen uitzitten? (98/C 323/203) SCHRIFTELIJKE VRAAG E-1397/98 van Leonie van Bladel (UPE) aan de Raad (6 mei 1998) Betreft: Vragen over rechtshulp EU-gedetineerden in Marokko Is de Raad zich bewust van de hulpeloze toestand waarin verdachten uit landen van de Europese Unie 1. komen te verkeren wanneer zij in Marokko, een land waarvan zij de taal geheel niet beheersen, verstoken blijven van adequate rechtsbijstand, alsmede hulp aan professionele tolken en adequate humanitaire bijstand? Realiseert de Raad zich welke ernstige gevolgen een dergelijk gebrek aan professionele ondersteuning voor 2. EU-onderdanen in een procedure kan hebben? 3. Is het de Raad bekend dat zich onder de gevangenen in Marokko die afkomstig zijn uit EU-lidstaten ook een aantal mensen bevinden die ouder zijn dan 70 jaar, die in een cultureel isolement verkeren, en daar onevenredig zwaar onder lijden? 4. Is de Raad op de hoogte van het feit dat het Nederlandse Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken na het bezoek van de Nederlandse ambtelijke delegatie onder leiding van de chef Afrika van het Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken, Damoiseaux, in oktober 1997, nooit meer contact heeft opgenomen met de Marokkaanse overheid teneinde te onderhandelen over een verdrag voor overbrenging van veroordeelden naar Nederland voor het uitzitten van de hun opgelegde straffen in Nederlandse gevangenissen? 5. Kan de Raad aangeven waarom er geen gevolg is gegeven aan het aanbod, in oktober 1997, van de Marokkaanse regering, om met de Nederlandse regering te onderhandelen over een verdrag teneinde de Nederlandse onderdanen in hun eigen culturele omgeving, in Nederland dus, hun straffen te laten ondergaan? Temeer daar de Marokkaanse regering met ondermeer Frankrijk, het Verenigd Koninkrijk, Spanje, Portugal, Malta en Belgie¤ een dergelijk verdrag reeds heeft getekend. In 1997, binnen een half jaar, heeft de Marokkaanse regering zowel haar verdrag met de Belgische regering onderhandeld, alswel de definitieve overeenkomst met de Belgische regering getekend. Op welke gronden moet het maken van een dergelijke overeenkomst tussen Nederland en Marokko langer duren?


title: 98/667/EC: Commission Decision of 6 May 1998 concerning the extension of eligibility for regional aid for the acquisition costs of intangible property for large firms provided for in the 25th outline plan for the joint Federal Government/Länder programme for improving regional economic structures [notified under document number C(1998) 1942] (Only the German text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance)

eurovoc_concepts:
Germany
action programme
aid to undertakings
common market
large business
regional aid

text: L 316/48 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 25. 11. 98 COMMISSION DECISION of 6 May 1998 concerning the extension of eligibility for regional aid for the acquisition costs of intangible property for large firms provided for in the 25th outline plan for the joint Federal Government/Länder programme for improving regional economic structures (notified under document number C(1998) 1942) (Only the German text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) (98/667/EC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, the terms for aid made, on the basis of annually-adopted outline plans. Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular the first paragraph of Article 93(2) thereof, Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof, Having given notice to the other Member States and the parties concerned in submit accordance with Article 93(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, their comments, to The preceding plan, the 24th outline plan, authorised by the Commission (N 531/95) (1) specifies that, in addition to acquisition costs, manufacturing costs and leasing costs of tangible property, the acquisition costs of in an intangible property which can be enterprise’s assets licences, investment or application planning) are eligible for aid provided that the intangible property: (for example, patents, included — is acquired from a third party or from an enterprise which has no business, legal or personal links with the aid recipient, Whereas: and I By letter dated 25 March 1996, Germany, acting pursuant to Article 92(3) of the EC Treaty notified the Commission of the 25th outline plan for the joint Federal Government/Länder programme for improving regional economic structures (‘the 25th outline plan’). By letter the Commission notified dated 12 August 1996, Germany of initiate the procedure pursuant to Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty concerning the 25th outline plan which, inter alia, extended eligibility for regional aid for the acquisition costs of intangible property for large firms. its decision to The present procedure concerns the provisions detailed below. The joint programme for improving regional economic structures, which is jointly financed and administered by the Federal Government and the Länder, forms the main regional aid scheme in Germany. It provides for assistance and guarantees investment and infrastructure projects for economic activities in assisted areas that are eligible for regional aid pursuant to Article 92(3)(a) and (c) of the EC Treaty. The budgetary funds for each aid period are fixed, and any alterations in for in the investment project — has remained for at least three years after the termination of the ownership of the aid recipient, unless it is replaced by assets of equal or higher value; moreover, during that period the assisted property may not be leased or granted as security other than in the context of corporate restructuring recognised for tax purposes or the creation of a partnership under paragraph 15 of the Income Tax Law while remaining within the business of the aid recipient and/or a related enterprise, and — does not account for more than 25 % of the total investment project. Under the 25th outline plan, Germany intends to remove the third of those conditions, that is the limit on eligibility for aid for it accounts for more than 25 % of the cost of the overall investment project. intangible property where In its decision to initiate the procedure, the Commission expressed doubts whether the projected aid for large firms was compatible with the common market on the following grounds: (1) OJ C 291, 4. 10. 1996, p. 4. 25. 11. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 316/49 — the amendment envisaged has the effect of broadening the basis of the scheme and, applying the same aid intensity, would have the effect of increasing the permissible volume of aid above that permitted on the uniform basis of assessment laid down in the common first method of assessing aid adopted by resolution of 20 October 1971 of the representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on general systems of regional aid (2), the — under the rules applicable when the decision to initiate the procedure was adopted, the acquisition costs of intangible property other than research and development projects were eligible for aid only in the case of small and medium-sized enterprises pursuant to the Community guidelines for State aid for small and medium-sized enterprises (3), — in view of the mobility of intangible investments within the common market and in particular within firms belonging to the same enterprise, effective control of misuse of such aid can scarcely be conceived in so far as, even if aid were granted solely in areas eligible for regional aid, it might in reality benefit firms outside those areas. In addition, the Commission made the following points: — in the course of the procedure for drawing up the guidelines on national regional aid (4) and at the multilateral meetings on several delegations emphasised that the expenditure on intangible property by large firms should also be eligible for aid, this matter, — the Green Paper on innovation (5) stresses the need to stimulate innovation, — in the framework for State aid for research and development (6), the Commission confirmed the need to stimulate intangible property, notably in assisted areas. investment in Regarding the eligibility of expenditure on intangible property by large firms in the new Länder (areas specified in Article 92(3)(a) of the EC Treaty), the Commission made the following points: — in the areas specified in Article 92(3)(a) of the EC Treaty, under the Commission communication of the application of 1988 on the method for (2) OJ C 111, 4. 11. 1971, p. 1. (3) OJ C 213, 23. 7. 1996, p. 4. (4) OJ C 74, 10. 3. 1998, p. 9. (5) COM(95) 688 final. (6) OJ C 45, 17. 2. 1996, p. 5. Article 92(3)(a) and (c) to regional aid (7), large firms may be granted, in addition to aid for investment in plant and machinery, operating aid, whose distorting effects undoubtedly exceed those of aid for intangible property up to the ceiling for regional aid, — in the areas specified in Article 92(3)(a) of the EC Treaty there is often no appropriate local R&D activity, as is in fact the case in the new Länder. It is crucial to the success of the development strategy for the new Länder that firms there should develop competitive products and processes. In view of their liquidity difficulties, therefore, it may be fully justified to take into account their expenditure on the acquisition of intangible property. The decision to initiate the procedure was notified to Germany and at the same time it was asked for its comments on that decision. Following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Communities (8), other Member States and interested parties were submit observations. the opportunity given to II By letter of 20 September 1996, Germany gave its comments on the decision, which are summarised below. Germany points out that the Green Paper on innovation stresses the need to assist innovation and intangible the abovementioned Community investments and framework for State aid for research and development also emphasises the need to provide aid for intangible investments. intangible Regarding the Commission’s expressed concern over the risk of misuse of aid because of the mobility of intangible property, Germany’s view is that the basic conditions for the grant of aid for investment can be considered an effective means of preventing misuse. It points out that the acquisition costs of intangible property only qualify for assistance if the investor has not acquired it from an associated enterprise, or one having business, legal or personal links to the investor. It considers that those exclusionary conditions ensure that, for example, a parent company set up outside the assisted area cannot benefit from the assistance for the acquisition costs of it remitted intangible property by having indirectly to it. Germany therefore concludes that the programme precludes remitting the aid under an agreement to that effect or an agreement conferring control of the aided company on another company. Moreover, the conditions excluding aid also exclude (7) OJ C 212, 12. 8. 1988, p. 2. (8) OJ C 35, 4. 2. 1997, p. 6. L 316/50 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 25. 11. 98 assistance in cases where the links between the businesses are purely personal. Germany therefore concludes that assistance for the acquisition of intangible property by large firms will only be granted if there are no links, formal or otherwise, between the applicant enterprise set up in the assisted area and other enterprises from which the applicant enterprise acquires the property, whether the latter are set up inside or outside that area. Regarding the Council resolution of 20 October 1971 (9) specifying the common method of assessing aid, Germany’s position is that the standard base should reflect the pattern of investments which are typical of the Member State in question. The programme has been in operation for over 25 years and, in the view of the German authorities, it is necessary to adapt it to take account of the intangible property since it should be fully included in that base, and in the case of large firms too. increasing significance of Lastly, Germany employs current data to bring out the increasing significance of intangible property in investment aid. The data indicate that investment projects for intangible property are more effective in creating jobs than ‘classic’ investments. In addition, if large firms were no longer excluded, it would be possible to assist investment projects with a particularly high level of innovation. and the resultant risk of misuse; another delegation considered that a limit on eligibility for aid of 25 % of the total investment concerned in the standard base was over-restrictive. Lastly, Germany, in its written observations of 16 June 1997 on the draft guidelines on national regional aid, made no substantive observations on the eligibility of intangible property for aid, but only referred to the procedure involved. It should be noted that the guidelines were adopted with regard to national regional aid on 16 December 1997 (10). They lay down that eligible expenditure may include certain categories of intangible investment (transfer of technology through the acquisition of patents, operating or patented know-how licences and unpatented know- how) provided that the limit of 25 % of the standard base is not exceeded in the case of large firms. Further, the intangible property must be used exclusively in the establishment receiving that aid, regarded as amortisable assets, purchased from third parties under market conditions, included in the assets of the firm and remain in the establishment receiving the regional aid for at least five years. Pursuant to point 6. 1 of the guidelines, the Commission has proposed to all Member States as appropriate measures under Article 93(1) of the EC Treaty that all regional aid schemes in operation on 1 January 2000 be altered to ensure that they are compatible with the guidelines on that date. III IV The other Member States and other interested parties have not presented any comments in this procedure. However, in the process of drafting the new guidelines on national regional aid a number of Member States expressed their views on the eligibility for aid of the acquisition costs of intangible property for large firms. In the course of the multilateral meetings held on 15 May 1996 and 23 May 1997 to discuss the draft guidelines, a number of other delegations gave their opinion, in the German delegation’s presence, on the eligibility of intangible property for aid. In fact a majority of the Member States’ delegations advocated that intangible assets should be eligible for aid, to some extent at least. On the other hand, at the multilateral meeting of 23 May 1997 one delegation raised the issue of the mobility of immaterial property The investment aid and guarantees including those for intangible property granted under the joint Federal Government/Länder programme for improving regional economic structures constitute aid for the purposes of Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty. They are made available through State means to specific enterprises or industries and are liable to affect trade between Member States and thereby to distort competition. In accordance with the common method of assessing aid indicated in the resolution of 20 October 1971, the in dealing with regional aid, adopts Commission, a standard basis for aid consisting of investment expenditure on land, buildings and plant weighted for each Member State. Under point 5(d) of the Annex to that resolution, in Germany’s case this amounts to 65 % for plant and machinery, 30 % for buildings and 5 % for land. If aid is granted for additional expenditure, in this (9) See footnote 2. (10) See footnote 4. 25. 11. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 316/51 intangible property, under the 1971 common case method a fresh calculation must be made of the base in the scheme in relation to the standard base. There is also no reason to apply the derogations in Article 92(3)(b) and (d) because the aid is not to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest or to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State, nor is it aid to promote culture and heritage conservation. The base for the costs eligible for aid specified in the 24th outline plan previously authorised by the Commission, already include, together with plant and buildings (but excluding land) the acquisition costs of intangible property provided that they do not account for more than 25 % of the total investment. The aid granted under the 24th outline plan is thus founded on a base other than the standard base. No provision is made for a fresh calculation of the base for expenses eligible for aid under joint Federal Government/Länder programme. It follows that the volume of aid permissible under the 24th outline plan can exceed that permitted through the application of the standard base since the basis of calculation can be extended beyond 25 %, which is only partially compensated by the exclusion of land from the base for the programme. the outline plan the for regional aid and This decision is not concerned with the compatibility with the common market of the 24th outline plan. Since the Commission has adopted the new guidelines on national the appropriate measures for their implementation and since, under the guidelines, the acquisition costs of certain intangible property qualify for aid provided that they do not exceed 25 % of the standard base in the case of large firms, appropriate measures pursuant to Article 93(1) to adapt the 24th outline plan for the future to the rules on State aid should not be proposed at the present stage. the proposal for The present aid project under the 25th outline plan abolishes the exclusionary threshold for aid for the acquisition costs of intangible property for large firms. The question consequently arises whether allowing without restriction, subject to certain conditions, the acquisition costs of intangible property included in the assets of the firm to be included in the base for regional aid in the case of large firms in national development areas under Article 92(3)(a) and (c) of the EC Treaty can be considered to be compatible with the common market. The derogation in Article 92(2) of the EC Treaty is not applicable since the aid in question is not aid having a social character (under indent (a)), aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences (under indent (b)), or aid granted in order to compensate for the economic disadvantages caused by the division of Germany (under indent (c)). Lastly, the derogation in Article 92(3)(c), which concerns aid for the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, is not applicable. As has been pointed out, the present procedure concerns only the eligibility of aid for the acquisition costs of intangible property for large firms since the Community guidelines on State aid for small and medium-sized enterprises make provision, on certain conditions, for the unrestricted inclusion of the acquisition costs of intangible property in the base for aid for SMEs. Moreover, the present aid project makes no provision for aid for the acquisition of intangible property in connection with the implementation of a research and development project. For this reason the provisions on the eligibility of intangible property for aid contained in the Community framework for State aid for research and development do not apply to the present case. However, it is necessary to verify whether the aid project can be considered to be compatible with the common market under the derogations concerning particular areas envisaged in Article 92(3)(a) and (c). Since the 25th outline plan was notified before the entry into force of the new 1997 guidelines on national regional aid, the compatibility of the project must be assessed, pursuant to point 6. 1 of those guidelines, on the basis of the rules applicable at the time of notification. the 1994 Commission White Paper, As Germany pointed out in its comments, the significance of innovation for ensuring that European enterprises can stand up to globalised competition is emphasised in ‘Growth, Competitiveness, Employment’ (11) and in the 1995 Green Paper on innovation. To strengthen the innovatory capacities of European businesses, particular importance is attached, in addition to the completion of the internal market, economic and monetary union and an operational competition policy, to research, further training and dissemination of research. It is observed in that connection, inter alia, that there is less investment in research and technological development in the Member States of the Union than in other industrialised States such as the United States of America or Japan. It is also indicated that the cost of registering a patent in the Community is six times what it is in the United States of America. Germany expressly pointed out the particular (11) COM(93) 700 final. L 316/52 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 25. 11. 98 investment the significance of economically less developed areas of the Community, where SMEs in obtaining financing for innovatory measures. in particular encounter difficulties innovation in in have greater eligibility for aid up to the limits fixed in the WTO rules on aid and includes among eligible R&D costs technical knowledge and patents, etc. bought from outside sources’, ‘research, Regarding the use of public funds to attain these objectives, it is indicated in the White Paper that ‘investment in training, research, the promotion of innovation and, generally speaking, the non-physical components of value-added must be treated at least as favourably as traditional forms of investment. The aim should be to promote the emergence of new generations of products the technologies available on the world market, and to encourage the dynamic incorporation of innovation into processes, products and organisation. An essential precondition is that there should be an increase in research activities by Community firms and greater selectivity in government assistance’ (12). that make optimum use of all — regarding SMEs, the 1996 Community guidelines on State aid for small and medium-sized enterprises lay down that aid for intangible investment inside and outside national assisted areas and expenditure on consultancy services, training and dissemination of knowledge qualify for aid, — the 1997 guidelines on national regional aid lay down that expenditure on certain categories of intangible assets can be eligible for aid, on certain conditions, provided that it does not exceed 25 % of the standard base in the case of large firms, Regarding the provisions on State aid, the Green Paper on innovation focuses on the revision of the Community framework for State aid for research and development. — in the draft Community guidelines for State aid for training, last considered by the Member States at the multilateral meeting on 10 March 1998, there are greater possibilities for granting aid for training measures, also in the case of large firms. Lastly, a recent publication (13) indicates that expenditure on intangible investments as very broadly defined covers expenditure on research and development, acquisition of technology, public-relations work, training and software and that enterprises’ expenditure on such property has increased at both macroeconomic and microeconomic levels. The foregoing points show that enabling the acquisition costs of intangible property to be included in the assets of a firm forms only one of the proposed measures to promote innovation by enterprises; other measures to include establish an environment favourable to innovation or measures to promote training, research and development and investment in intangible property which cannot be included in the assets of the firm. legislative and administrative measures Regarding State aid, the Commission has already taken the following steps to support businesses’ ability to innovate: — the Community framework for State aid for research and development published in 1996 lays down that research and development projects, in the case of large firms and outside national assisted areas as well, This shows that the Commission has already adopted considerable measures on State aid with a view to attaining innovatory its objective of promoting the capacities of large firms. In particular, as Germany indicated in its comments, the Commission has, by adopting the new guidelines on national regional aid, adjusted the base for costs eligible for regional aid to the increasing significance of intangible investment in enterprises’ investments. Unlimited eligibility for regional aid for the acquisition costs of intangible property, where those costs exceed the levels in the abovementioned rules, cannot be considered to be compatible with the common market on the basis of the derogations for specific areas contained in Article 92(3)(a) and (c) for the reasons set out below. costs of First, unlimited eligibility for regional aid for the acquisition intangible property would considerably extend the standard base for calculating the basis for granting investment aid. This would produce a considerable increase in the permissible volume of aid on the basis of the same aid intensity. The result would be an increased risk of distortion of competition through State aid. (12) Point 2(3)(b). (13) Intangible investments, impact on competition and scale effects’, The Single Market Review, Volume 2 of subseries V, European Commission, 1998. Moreover, this extension of the base would reduce comparability of aid between Member States and thus 25. 11. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 316/53 reduce transparency in this area since the definition of intangible property which qualifying firms could include in their assets would differ in the various Member States and would depend on different accounting rules (14). up an enterprise in an assisted area with the sole aim of acquiring intangible property and subsequently transferring it to other enterprises, including enterprises outside assisted areas. the relative advantage Furthermore, extending the base in the case of large firms conferred under removes Community law through State aid for SMEs under the Community guidelines on State aid for small and medium-sized enterprises. Those guidelines are intended to level out the handicaps limiting SMEs’ access to the financing necessary to acquire new technology. This does not apply in the case of large firms, which are usually better able to carry through research programmes than SMEs and develop their own intangible property. Regarding the risk of misuse of aid because of the mobility of intangible property, the points set out below should be made concerning Germany’s arguments on this issue. The legal condition referred to by Germany that a person investing in intangible property must not acquire it from a related enterprise cannot preclude a situation in where property implementation of an investment project in an assisted area is transferred to another area, for example one which is ineligible for regional aid; the provision referred to by Germany can prevent the transfer of property for which aid has been granted where intangible property is acquired from a related enterprise and the assignment of the related rights to that enterprise. for which aid was received On the contrary, under this provision, where intangible property is acquired from a third party not related to the enterprise in receipt of aid and set up in an assisted area, it is impossible to preclude the transfer of the property for which aid has been granted to an area ineligible for aid and the assignment of the rights in the property at a lower price than would have been the case without State aid to a (related) enterprise in an area ineligible for aid. The fixing of a ceiling for eligibility for aid for intangible property in relation to the total cost of the tangible investments enables the intangible investments to be connected to the tangible investments so that the added value in respect of which aid was granted can be more securely linked to the assisted region. For example, the fixing of that ceiling prevents a business from setting (14) See footnote 13. the for at investment project three years after in The abovementioned condition under the outline plan for the joint Federal Government/Länder programme for granting aid whereby (tangible and intangible) property the must remain least implementation of the ownership of the enterprise in receipt of aid unless it is replaced by property of equivalent or higher value, cannot by itself prevent the risk of misuse. This provision, in so far as compliance can somehow be verified, ensures that the intangible property will be used for this period in the enterprise in receipt of regional aid; on the other hand, it does not prevent the rights linked to the property being used in other enterprises, including those set up outside assisted areas. In order to minimise the risk of misuse of regional aid for large firms while at the same time permitting certain acquisition costs of intangible property to be included in the base for costs eligible for aid, it is essential to link aid for intangible investments to the use of those investments for tangible assets, for example plant and equipment and buildings, if the derogations in Article 92(3)(a) and (c) of the EC Treaty are to be applied. through technology Regarding the existing unrestricted eligibility for aid of these costs in the case of SMEs, it should be borne in mind that SMEs, by reason of their typical handicaps, must buy in intangible property instead of developing new their own research and development more often than is the case with large firms. In adopting the Community guidelines on State aid for small and medium-sized enterprises, the Commission consequently took the view that the advantage of the objective of promoting innovation for SMEs outweighed the disadvantage of the increased risk of misuse. In any event, the risk of distortion of competition through any misuse of aid remains limited in view of the size of SMEs. innovation on the part of businesses Lastly, it is necessary to verify whether, by reason of the lack of in particularly disadvantaged regions like the new German Länder, the unrestricted inclusion of the acquisition costs of intangible property in the base for aid in assisted regions can be considered to be compatible with the common market under Article 92(3)(a). L 316/54 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 25. 11. 98 initial inappropriate It consequently appears Moreover, in such areas the Commission makes provision for preferential aid, permitting increased intensity in the case of aid for investment and, on certain conditions, permitting operating aid to be cumulated with aid for initial investment; in addition, State aid for research and development can be granted with increased intensity. to provide a base for costs eligible for aid other than that for cases of aid outside assisted areas pursuant to Article 92(3)(a). The arguments cited above concerning the extension of the base and the consequent risk of distortion of competition, the lack of comparability between the concepts of the intangible investments which can be included in the balance sheet of the recipient enterprise, compensation for handicaps suffered by SMEs in relation to large firms and the risk of misuse of regional aid investments cannot be disregarded in the case of aid granted in those regions. intangible for these grounds, the Commission considers the On proposal contained in the 25th outline plan for the joint Federal Government/Länder programme for improving regional economic structures to repeal the provisions rendering large firms ineligible for aid for intangible property to be incompatible with the common market, ineligible for aid for programme for improving regional economic structures (‘the 25th outline plan’) of the provisions rendering large firms is incompatible with the common market in so far as it concerns firms that do not meet the definition of small and medium-sized enterprises. intangible property Article 2 Germany is not entitled to apply the 25th outline plan in the form envisaged. Article 3 Germany shall inform the Commission, within two months of being notified of this decision, of the measures taken to comply therewith. Article 4 This Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany. HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: Done at Brussels, 6 May 1998. Article 1 The repeal envisaged by Germany in the 25th outline joint Federal Government/Länder plan the for For the Commission Karel VAN MIERT Member of the Commission