title: SCHRIFTLICHE ANFRAGE Nr. 2255/98 von Miguel ARIAS CAÑETE an die Kommission. Abteilung Garantie des EAGFL in Portugal von 1986-1995

eurovoc_concepts:
EAGGF Guarantee Section
Portugal
agricultural guidance
agricultural production
area of holding
export refund
farm price support
food aid
reform of the CAP
storage premium

formats: html pdf print

text: 22. 2. 1999 DE Amtsblatt der Europ(cid:228)ischen Gemeinschaften C 50/137 Ma(cid:223)nahmen im Bereich l(cid:228)ndlicher Entwicklung im Zusammenhang mit funktionsf(cid:228)higen M(cid:228)rkten, sonstige Ma(cid:223)nahmen, Einkommensbeihilfen und Europ(cid:228)ischer Fischerei-Garantiefonds) › und nach Art der Beihilfen (Ausfuhrerstattungen, preisausgleichende Beihilfen, Fl(cid:228)chenbeihilfen, Beihilfen pro Tier, Ausrichtungspr(cid:228)mien, Beihilfen f(cid:252)r die private Lagerhaltung, R(cid:252)cknahmen und (cid:228)hnliche Ma(cid:223)- nahmen, Ausgleichsbetr(cid:228)ge, flankierende Ma(cid:223)nahmen der GAP-Reform und Kosten der (cid:246)ffentlichen Lagerhaltung) aufschl(cid:252)sseln? (1999/C 50/201) SCHRIFTLICHE ANFRAGE E-2255/98 von Miguel Arias Caæete (PPE) an die Kommission Betrifft: Abteilung Garantie des EAGFL in Portugal von 1986-1995 (22. Juli 1998) Kann die Kommission angeben, welchen Gesamtbetrag Portugal in den Jahren 1986 bis 1995 aus der Abteilung Garantie des EAGFL erhalten hat, und dabei die Verteilung der Ausgaben nach: › Kapiteln (Ackerkulturen, Zucker, Textilpflanzen und Seidenraupen, sonstige Sektoren oder pflanzliche Erzeugnisse, Weinbauerzeugnisse, Tabak, Milch und Milcherzeugnisse, Rindfleisch, Schaf- und Ziegen- fleisch, Schweinefleisch, Eier und Gefl(cid:252)gel, sonstige Ma(cid:223)nahmen zugunsten tierischer Erzeugnisse, Erstattungen bei der Verarbeitung landwirtschaftlicher Erzeugnisse, Erstattungen bei der EU-Nahrungs- mittelhilfe, Verteilung von landwirtschaftlichen Erzeugnissen an Bed(cid:252)rftige, flankierende Ma(cid:223)nahmen, Ma(cid:223)nahmen im Bereich l(cid:228)ndlicher Entwicklung im Zusammenhang mit funktionsf(cid:228)higen M(cid:228)rkten, sonstige Ma(cid:223)nahmen, Einkommensbeihilfen und Europ(cid:228)ischer Fischerei-Garantiefonds) › und nach Art der Beihilfen (Ausfuhrerstattungen, preisausgleichende Beihilfen, Fl(cid:228)chenbeihilfen, Beihilfen pro Tier, Ausrichtungspr(cid:228)mien, Beihilfen f(cid:252)r die private Lagerhaltung, R(cid:252)cknahmen und (cid:228)hnliche Ma(cid:223)- nahmen, Ausgleichsbetr(cid:228)ge, flankierende Ma(cid:223)nahmen der GAP-Reform und Kosten der (cid:246)ffentlichen Lagerhaltung) aufschl(cid:252)sseln? (1999/C 50/202) SCHRIFTLICHE ANFRAGE E-2256/98 von Miguel Arias Caæete (PPE) an die Kommission Betrifft: Abteilung Garantie des EAGFL in Frankreich von 1986-1995 (22. Juli 1998) Kann die Kommission angeben, welchen Gesamtbetrag Frankreich in den Jahren 1986 bis 1995 aus der Abteilung Garantie des EAGFL erhalten hat, und dabei die Verteilung der Ausgaben nach: › Kapiteln (Ackerkulturen, Zucker, Textilpflanzen und Seidenraupen, sonstige Sektoren oder pflanzliche Erzeugnisse, Weinbauerzeugnisse, Tabak, Milch und Milcherzeugnisse, Rindfleisch, Schaf- und Ziegen- fleisch, Schweinefleisch, Eier und Gefl(cid:252)gel, sonstige Ma(cid:223)nahmen zugunsten tierischer Erzeugnisse, Erstattungen bei der Verarbeitung landwirtschaftlicher Erzeugnisse, Erstattungen bei der EU-Nahrungs- mittelhilfe, Verteilung von landwirtschaftlichen Erzeugnissen an Bed(cid:252)rftige, flankierende Ma(cid:223)nahmen, Ma(cid:223)nahmen im Bereich l(cid:228)ndlicher Entwicklung im Zusammenhang mit funktionsf(cid:228)higen M(cid:228)rkten, sonstige Ma(cid:223)nahmen, Einkommensbeihilfen und Europ(cid:228)ischer Fischerei-Garantiefonds) › und nach Art der Beihilfen (Ausfuhrerstattungen, preisausgleichende Beihilfen, Fl(cid:228)chenbeihilfen, Beihilfen pro Tier, Ausrichtungspr(cid:228)mien, Beihilfen f(cid:252)r die private Lagerhaltung, R(cid:252)cknahmen und (cid:228)hnliche Ma(cid:223)- nahmen, Ausgleichsbetr(cid:228)ge, flankierende Ma(cid:223)nahmen der GAP-Reform und Kosten der (cid:246)ffentlichen Lagerhaltung) aufschl(cid:252)sseln? (1999/C 50/203) SCHRIFTLICHE ANFRAGE E-2257/98 von Miguel Arias Caæete (PPE) an die Kommission Betrifft: Abteilung Garantie des EAGFL in Belgien von 1986-1995 (22. Juli 1998) Kann die Kommission angeben, welchen Gesamtbetrag Belgien in den Jahren 1986 bis 1995 aus der Abteilung Garantie des EAGFL erhalten hat, und dabei die Verteilung der Ausgaben nach: › Kapiteln (Ackerkulturen, Zucker, Textilpflanzen und Seidenraupen, sonstige Sektoren oder pflanzliche Erzeugnisse, Weinbauerzeugnisse, Tabak, Milch und Milcherzeugnisse, Rindfleisch, Schaf- und Ziegen-


title: PREGUNTA ESCRITA n. 2250/98 del María SORNOSA MARTÍNEZ a la Comisión. Atracciones para el ocio que atentan contra los derechos humanos y la dignidad de la persona

eurovoc_concepts:
Catalonia
application of EU law
child protection
competence of the Member States
human rights
leisure park
protection of animals

text: 8. 4. 1999 ES Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas C 96/65 › sin exigir que les comuniquen los documentos comerciales del veh(cid:237)culo (factura de compra, pago de determinados impuestos, etc. ), salvo si Østos son imprescindibles para determinar el tipo exacto del veh(cid:237)culo (cuando los documentos expedidos en el Estado miembro de origen no lo permitan); › a un coste y en unos plazos razonables (con carÆcter indicativo, se considerar(cid:237)a razonable un coste alrededor de los 100 ecus y un plazo que no supere las tres semanas). Si la Comisi(cid:243)n recibe una denuncia detallada de algœn ciudadano o agente econ(cid:243)mico relativa a un caso de inobservancia del Derecho comunitario por parte de otro agente econ(cid:243)mico, procederÆ al examen de la denuncia y darÆ una respuesta adecuada. (1) DO L 225 de 10. 8. 1992. (2) Recopilaci(cid:243)n 1975, pp. 1. 367-1. 381. (3) DO C 143 de 15. 5. 1996. (1999/C 96/092) PREGUNTA ESCRITA E-2249/98 de Jesœs Cabez(cid:243)n Alonso (PSE) y Juan Colino Salamanca (PSE) al Consejo Asunto: Cabezas de vacuno con derecho a prima para Espaæa (28 de julio de 1998) A la vista de la no ratificaci(cid:243)n por el Consejo de Ministros de Agricultura celebrado en Luxemburgo los d(cid:237)as 22 a 25 de junio de 1998 del aumento previsto para Espaæa del nœmero de cabezas de vacuno con derecho a prima, aumento que ya se hab(cid:237)a alcanzado como compromiso en una reuni(cid:243)n anterior del Consejo de Ministros de Agricultura, ¿significa esa falta de ratificaci(cid:243)n que el Consejo de Agricultura no aumentarÆ el nœmero de cabezas de animales de vacuno con derecho a prima para Espaæa? ¿Quiere significar esa falta de ratificaci(cid:243)n que el Consejo de Agricultura no aceptarÆ la propuesta que la Comisi(cid:243)n hace en su propuesta de Reglamento para la reforma del sector del ganado vacuno? Respuesta (22 de octubre de 1998) El Consejo, al efectuar una transacci(cid:243)n global en su sesi(cid:243)n de los d(cid:237)as 22 al 25 de junio de 1998, que abarca tanto el paquete de precios para 1998/1999 como las revisiones de los reg(cid:237)menes relativos al tabaco, el aceite de oliva y el plÆtano, comprob(cid:243) que por el momento no exist(cid:237)a acuerdo para aplicar la propuesta de la Comisi(cid:243)n tendente a incrementar el l(cid:237)mite mÆximo regional fijado para Espaæa en lo que se refiere al nœmero de bovinos machos por los que se tiene derecho a prima especial. Naturalmente, esta cuesti(cid:243)n se abordarÆ en los debates que se llevarÆn a cabo al estudiar la propuesta de la Comisi(cid:243)n relativa al sector de la carne de vacuno. (1999/C 96/093) PREGUNTA ESCRITA E-2250/98 de Mar(cid:237)a Sornosa Mart(cid:237)nez (GUE/NGL) a la Comisi(cid:243)n (22 de julio de 1998) Asunto: Atracciones para el ocio que atentan contra los derechos humanos y la dignidad de la persona La reciente puesta en funcionamiento en un parque de atracciones de Lloret de Mar, de la atracci(cid:243)n llamada «Original Shocker», una rØplica de la silla elØctrica, y su posterior prohibici(cid:243)n por parte de las autoridades catalanas, ha abierto la polØmica y la gran preocupaci(cid:243)n por el sistema de regulaci(cid:243)n y criterios de implantaci(cid:243)n de atracciones en este tipo de parques. Aunque existe la Direcci(cid:243)n General de Juegos y EspectÆculos encargada de homologar las atracciones que se exponen, la realidad confirma que muchas de ellas se establecen sin pasar por ese requisito


title: INTERROGAZIONE SCRITTA n. 2256/98 dell'on. Miguel ARIAS CAÑETE alla Commissione. Interventi a titolo del FEAOG in Francia nel periodo 1986- 1995

eurovoc_concepts:
EAGGF Guarantee Section
France
agricultural guidance
agricultural production
area of holding
export refund
farm price support
food aid
reform of the CAP
storage premium

text: 22. 2. 1999 IT Gazzetta ufficiale delle Comunit(cid:224) europee C 50/137 indigenti, misure di accompagnamento, misure finalizzate allo sviluppo rurale connesse al funzionamento dei mercati, altre misure, aiuti al reddito e Fondo europeo di garanzia per la pesca) › per tipologia (restituzioni all(cid:146)esportazione, aiuti compensativi per i prezzi, aiuti per superficie, aiuti per capo di bestiame, premi di orientamento, aiuti per l(cid:146)ammasso privato, ritiri e operazioni analoghe, importi compensativi, misure di accompagnamento della riforma della PAC e spese di ammasso pubblico)? (1999/C 50/201) INTERROGAZIONE SCRITTA E-2255/98 di Miguel Arias Caæete (PPE) alla Commissione (22 luglio 1998) Oggetto: Interventi a titolo del FEAOG in Portogallo nel periodo 1986-1995 Pu(cid:242) la Commissione far sapere qual Ł l(cid:146)importo totale erogato al Portogallo a titolo del FEAOG, sezione Garanzia nel periodo dal 1986 al 1995, fornendo la ripartizione: › per capitoli (seminativi, zucchero, piante tessili e bachi da seta, altri settori o prodotti vegetali, settore vitivinicolo, tabacco, latte e prodotti lattiero-caseari, carni bovine, carni ovine e caprine, carni suine, uova e pollame, altre azioni a favore dei prodotti animali, restituzioni per merci derivanti dalla trasformazione di prodotti agricoli, restituzioni per azioni comunitarie di aiuto alimentare, distribuzione di prodotti agricoli agli indigenti, misure di accompagnamento, misure finalizzate allo sviluppo rurale connesse al funzionamento dei mercati, altre misure, aiuti al reddito e Fondo europeo di garanzia per la pesca) › per tipologia (restituzioni all(cid:146)esportazione, aiuti compensativi per i prezzi, aiuti per superficie, aiuti per capo di bestiame, premi di orientamento, aiuti per l(cid:146)ammasso privato, ritiri e operazioni analoghe, importi compensativi, misure di accompagnamento della riforma della PAC e spese di ammasso pubblico)? (1999/C 50/202) INTERROGAZIONE SCRITTA E-2256/98 di Miguel Arias Caæete (PPE) alla Commissione (22 luglio 1998) Oggetto: Interventi a titolo del FEAOG in Francia nel periodo 1986-1995 Pu(cid:242) la Commissione far sapere qual Ł l(cid:146)importo totale erogato alla Francia a titolo del FEAOG, sezione Garanzia nel periodo dal 1986 al 1995, fornendo la ripartizione: › per capitoli (seminativi, zucchero, piante tessili e bachi da seta, altri settori o prodotti vegetali, settore vitivinicolo, tabacco, latte e prodotti lattiero-caseari, carni bovine, carni ovine e caprine, carni suine, uova e pollame, altre azioni a favore dei prodotti animali, restituzioni per merci derivanti dalla trasformazione di prodotti agricoli, restituzioni per azioni comunitarie di aiuto alimentare, distribuzione di prodotti agricoli agli indigenti, misure di accompagnamento, misure finalizzate allo sviluppo rurale connesse al funzionamento dei mercati, altre misure, aiuti al reddito e Fondo europeo di garanzia per la pesca) › per tipologia (restituzioni all(cid:146)esportazione, aiuti compensativi per i prezzi, aiuti per superficie, aiuti per capo di bestiame, premi di orientamento, aiuti per l(cid:146)ammasso privato, ritiri e operazioni analoghe, importi compensativi, misure di accompagnamento della riforma della PAC e spese di ammasso pubblico)? (1999/C 50/203) INTERROGAZIONE SCRITTA E-2257/98 di Miguel Arias Caæete (PPE) alla Commissione (22 luglio 1998) Oggetto: Interventi a titolo del FEAOG in Belgio nel periodo 1986-1995 Pu(cid:242) la Commissione far sapere qual Ł l(cid:146)importo totale erogato al Belgio a titolo del FEAOG, sezione Garanzia nel periodo dal 1986 al 1995, fornendo la ripartizione: › per capitoli (seminativi, zucchero, piante tessili e bachi da seta, altri settori o prodotti vegetali, settore vitivinicolo, tabacco, latte e prodotti lattiero-caseari, carni bovine, carni ovine e caprine, carni suine, uova e


title: ΓΡΑΠΤΗ ΕΡΩΤΗΣΗ αρ θ. 2306/98 tων βουλετών Helwin PETER , Hiltrud BREYER , Doris PACK προς την Επ τροπή. Νομοθετικές διατάξεις των κρατών μελών της ΕΕ που διέπουν θέματα γάμου, οικογενειακού δικαίου, σχέσεων γονέων και τέκνων και διαζυγίου

eurovoc_concepts:
EU national
approximation of laws
civil law
civil status
descendant
divorce
family law
legal status
matrimonial law
mutual recognition principle

text: C 135/40 Επι´σηµη Εφηµερι´δα των Ευρωπαι¨κω´ ν Κοινοτη´των EL 14. 5. 1999 (1999/C 135/045) ΓΡΑΠΤΗ ΕΡΩΤΗΣΗ E-2304/98 υποβολη´ : Frédéric Striby (I-EDN) προς την Επιτροπη´ (22 Ιουλι´ου 1998) Θε´µα: Η αναγνω´ ριση των διπλωµα´των οδη´γησης µεταξυ´ των κρατω´ ν µελω´ ν Σε παραµεθο´ρια περιοχη´ της Γαλλι´ας, στα συ´νορα µε τη Γερµανι´α, ο´που πολλοι´ Γερµανοι´ πολι´τες ε´χουν επιλε´ξει να εγκατασταθου´ν, απαιτου´νται πολυα´ριθµες διοικητικε´ς διατυπω´ σεις. Μεταξυ´ α´λλων, η µετα- τροπη´ του γερµανικου´ διπλω´ µατος οδη´γησης σε γαλλικο´. Συνε´βη προ´σφατα σε γερµανο´ υπη´κοοο που διαµε´νει στη Γαλλι´α να παρουσια´σει στις γαλλικε´ς αρχε´ς το γερµανικο´ δι´πλωµα οδη´γησης, κατα´ τη δια´ρκεια ελε´γχου, το 1997, και να καταδικασθει´ στην καταβολη´ προστι´µου. Υπα´ρχει ευρωπαι¨κη´ οδηγι´α σχετικα´ µε την αµοιβαι´α αναγνω´ ριση των διπλωµα´των οδη´γησης. Μπορει´ να ανακοινω´ σει η Επιτροπη´ σε ποιο στα´διο βρι´σκεται η µετατροπη´ της στα εθνικα´ δι´καια, ειδικο´τερα στη Γαλλι´α και τη Γερµανι´α; Απα´ ντηση του κ. Kinnock εξ ονο´µατος της Επιτροπη´ ς (22 Σεπτεµβρι´ου 1998) Η οδηγι´α του Συµβουλι´ου 91/439/ΕΚ της 29ης Ιουλι´ου 1991 περι´ των αδειω´ ν οδηγη´σεως (1) α´ρχισε να ισχυ´ει την 1 Ιουλι´ου 1996. Το α´ρθρο 1 παρα´γραφος 2 θεσπι´ζει την αρχη´ της αµοιβαι´ας αναγνω´ ρισης των αδειω´ ν οδηγη´σεως που εκδι´δουν τα κρα´τη µε´λη. ∆εδοµε´νου ο´τι περισσο´τερα κρα´τη µε´λη δεν ενσωµα´τωσαν ε´γκαιρα την οδηγι´α 91/439/ΕΟΚ στην εθνικη´ ε´ννοµη τα´ξη τους, η Επιτροπη´ κι´νησε διαδικασι´ες επι´ παραβα´σει κατ’ αυτω´ ν, συµπεριλαµβανοµε´νης της Γερµανι´ας και της Γαλλι´ας. Οι γερµανικε´ς αρχε´ς κοινοποι´ησαν στη Επιτροπη´, στις 2 Ιουνι´ου 1998, την ενσωµα´τωση της οδηγι´ας 91/431/ΕΟΚ στην οικει´α εθνικη´ ε´ννοµη τα´ξη· αυτη´ θα αρχι´σει να ισχυ´ει την 1η Ιανουαρι´ου 1999. Οι γαλλικε´ς αρχε´ς κοινοποι´ησαν στην Επιτροπη´, στις 18 Μαρτι´ου 1998, σχε´διο διατα´γµατος για την αντι´στοιχη ενσωµα´τωση της οδηγι´ας 91/439/ΕΟΚ. Το εν λο´γω σχε´διο διατα´γµατος αναµε´νεται να τεθει´ σε ισχυ´ την 1η Ιανουαρι´ου 1999. Ωστο´σο, ο´λα τα κρα´τη µε´λη τη´ρησαν την αρχη´ της αµοιβαι´ας αναγνω´ ρισης απο´ 1ης Ιουλι´ου 1996, ακο´µη και ελλει´ψει επι´σηµης ενσωµα´τωσης. Στις περιπτω´ σεις που προε´κυψαν µε´χρι ση´µερα, οι κεντρικε´ς γαλλικε´ς και γερµανικε´ς αρχε´ς ε´λαβαν µε´τρα για την εξασφα´λιση της εφαρµογη´ς της εν λο´γω αρχη´ς, ακο´µη και αναδροµικα´, ο´ταν οι τοπικε´ς αρχε´ς, που δεν τελου´σαν σε γνω´ ση της κοινοτικη´ς νοµοθεσι´ας, παραβι´αζαν την περι´ η´ς ο λο´γος αρχη´. Η Επιτροπη´ θα παρακολουθη´σει ο´λες τις καταγγελι´ες πολιτω´ ν της 9νωσης και θα λα´βει τα αναγκαι´α µε´τρα για να εξασφαλι´σει την εµπρα´γµατη εφαρµογη´ της αρχη´ς της αµοιβαι´ας αναγνω´ ρισης. (1) ΕΕ L 237 της 24. 8. 1991. (1999/C 135/046) ΓΡΑΠΤΗ ΕΡΩΤΗΣΗ E-2306/98 υποβολη´ : Helwin Peter (PSE), Hiltrud Breyer (V) και Doris Pack (PPE) προς την Επιτροπη´ (22 Ιουλι´ου 1998) Θε´µα: Νοµοθετικε´ς διατα´ξεις των κρατω´ ν µελω´ ν της ΕΕ που διε´πουν θε´µατα γα´µου, οικογενειακου´ δικαι´ου, σχε´σεων γονε´ων και τε´κνων και διαζυγι´ου Ο αριθµο´ς των γα´µων που τελου´νται µεταξυ´ υπηκο´ων διαφο´ρων κρατω´ ν µελω´ ν της ΕΕ αυξα´νεται. Σε 1. ο´λα τα κρα´τη µε´λη ισχυ´ουν διαφορετικε´ς νοµοθετικε´ς διατα´ξεις για την συ´ναψη γα´µου και το οικογενειακο´ δι´καιο οι οποι´ες δεν ε´χουν ε´ως τω´ ρα αναγνωριστει´ αµοιβαι´ως και περιορι´ζουν αισθητα´ την ελευ´θερη κυκλοφορι´α των πολιτω´ ν της ΕΕ. Για παρα´δειγµα, στη Γερµανι´α δεν ει´ναι δυνατο´ν να τελεστει´ γα´µος αν δεν προσκοµιστει´ πιστοποιητικο´ καταγωγη´ς. Ωστο´σο, µια Γαλλι´δα που προ´κειται να παντρευτει´ µπορει´ να ζητη´σει µο´νον την ε´κδοση πιστοποιητικου´ προε´λευσης στη χω´ ρα της. ∆εν υπα´ρχει σε επι´πεδο ΕΕ ρυ´θµιση


title: QUESTION ECRITE no 2306/98 des députes Helwin PETER , Hiltrud BREYER , Doris PACK à la Commission. Droit du mariage, de la famille, de la filiation et du divorce dans les États membres de l'UE

text: C 135/40 Journal officiel des Communautés européennes FR 14. 5. 1999 (1999/C 135/045) QUESTION ÉCRITE E-2304/98 posée par Frédéric Striby (I-EDN) à la Commission Objet: Reconnaissance des permis de conduire entre États membres (22 juillet 1998) Les formalités administratives sont nombreuses dans une région frontalière avec l’Allemagne où de nombreux citoyens allemands ont choisi de s’installer, s’agissant notamment de la conversion du permis de conduire allemand en permis de conduire français. Un ressortissant allemand résidant en France qui avait présenté son permis de conduire national lors d’un contrôle sur le territoire français, en 1997, a été condamné à une amende. La Commission peut-elle fournir des informations sur l’état d’avancement de la transposition dans les droits nationaux (en particulier en France et en Allemagne) de la directive européenne sur la recon- naissance mutuelle des permis de conduire? Réponse donnée par M. Kinnock au nom de la Commission (22 septembre 1998) La directive 91/439/CEE du Conseil, du 29 juillet 1991, relative au permis de conduire (1) est entrée en vigueur le 1er juillet 1996. L’article 1er, paragraphe 2, de cette directive introduit le principe de reconnaissance mutuelle des permis de conduire délivrés par les États membres. Compte tenu du fait que plusieurs États membres n’ont pas transposé la directive 91/439/CEE en temps utile, la Commission a ouvert des procédures d’infraction à leur encontre, notamment à l’encontre de l’Allemagne et de la France. Les autorités allemandes ont communiqué à la Commission, le 2 juin 1998, le texte transposant la directive 91/439/CEE dans le droit interne allemand, qui entrera en vigueur le 1er janvier 1999. Le 18 mars 1998, les autorités françaises ont transmis à la Commission un projet de décret visant à transposer la directive 91/439/CEE. Ce décret devrait entrer en vigueur le 1er janvier 1999. Néanmoins, tous les États membres ont respecté le principe de la reconnaissance mutuelle depuis le 1er juillet 1996, même lorsque la transposition juridique n’avait pas encore été effectuée. Dans les cas qui se sont produits jusqu’à présent, les autorités centrales françaises et allemandes ont pris des mesures afin de veiller à ce que le principe de reconnaissance mutuelle soit appliqué, y compris de manière rétroactive, dans les cas où les autorités locales qui ignoraient le droit communautaire avaient violé ce principe. La Commission examinera tous les cas portés à son attention par les citoyens de l’Union européenne et elle prendra les mesures nécessaires pour assurer la mise en œuvre effective du principe de reconnaissance mutuelle. (1) JO L 237 du 24. 8. 1991. (1999/C 135/046) QUESTION ÉCRITE E-2306/98 posée par Helwin Peter (PSE), Hiltrud Breyer (V) et Doris Pack (PPE) à la Commission (22 juillet 1998) Objet: Droit du mariage, de la famille, de la filiation et du divorce dans les États membres de l’UE Le nombre de mariages entre partenaires de différents États membres de l’UE est en augmentation. 1. Les États membres appliquent tous, dans les domaines du mariage et de la famille, des dispositions juridiques différentes qui ne font pas encore l’objet d’une reconnaissance mutuelle et restreignent considérablement la libre circulation des citoyens de l’UE. En Allemagne, par exemple, un mariage n’est possible que sur présentation d’un certificat de filiation. Dans son propre pays, une Française ne peut cependant obtenir qu’un certificat d’origine. Il n’existe, au niveau de l’UE, aucune disposition permettant


title: Kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 1576/98 av den 22 juli 1998 om komplettering av bilagan till kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 2400/96 om upptagandet av vissa namn i "Register över skyddade ursprungsbeteckningar och skyddade geografiska beteckningar" som föreskrivs i rådets förordning (EG) nr 2081/92 om skydd för geografiska beteckningar och ursprungsbeteckningar för jordbruksprodukter och livsmedel

eurovoc_concepts:
Centre-Val de Loire
France
designation of origin
leguminous vegetable
location of production

text: 23. 7. 98 SV Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning L 206/15 KOMMISSIONENS F(cid:153)RORDNING (EG) nr 1576/98 av den 22 juli 1998 om komplettering av bilagan till kommissionens f(cid:148)rordning (EG) nr 2400/96 om upptagandet av vissa namn i ”Register (cid:148)ver skyddade ursprungsbeteckningar och skyddade geografiska beteckningar” som f(cid:148)reskrivs i r(cid:134)dets f(cid:148)rordning (EG) nr 2081/92 om skydd f(cid:148)r geografiska beteckningar och ursprungsbeteckningar f(cid:148)r jordbruksprodukter och livsmedel EUROPEISKA GEMENSKAPERNAS KOMMISSION HAR ANTAGIT DENNA F(cid:153)RORDNING med beaktande av F(cid:148)rdraget om uppr(cid:132)ttandet av Euro- peiska gemenskapen, med beaktande av r(cid:134)dets f(cid:148)rordning (EEG) nr 2081/92 av den 14 juli 1992 om skydd f(cid:148)r geografiska och ur- jordbruksprodukter och livs- sprungsbeteckningar medel (1), senast (cid:132)ndrad genom f(cid:148)rordning (EG) nr 1068/ 97 (2), s(cid:132)rskilt artikel 6. 3 och 6. 4 i denna, och f(cid:148)r av f(cid:148)ljande sk(cid:132)l: Enligt artikel 5 i f(cid:148)rordning (EEG) nr 2081/92 har Fran- krike tillst(cid:132)llt kommissionen (cid:148)nskem(cid:134)l om att en viss ben(cid:132)mning skall inregistreras som geografisk beteckning. I enlighet med artikel 6. 1 i den f(cid:148)rordningen har detta befunnits vara i (cid:148)verensst(cid:132)mmelse med f(cid:148)rordningen och i synnerhet motsvara alla egenskaper som f(cid:148)reskrivs i artikel 4. Ingen inv(cid:132)ndning har framst(cid:132)llts till kommissionen i enlighet med artikel 7 i den f(cid:148)rordningen, sedan den ben(cid:132)mnning som f(cid:148)rekommer i den h(cid:132)r f(cid:148)rordningens bilaga offentliggjorts i Europeiska gemenskapernas offici- ella tidning (3). F(cid:148)ljaktligen har denna ben(cid:132)mning r(cid:132)tt att upptas i ”Register (cid:148)ver skyddade ursprungsbeteckningar och skyd- dade geografiska beteckningar” och att p(cid:134) gemenskaps- niv(cid:134) d(cid:132)rmed vara skyddad som geografisk beteckning. Bilagan till den h(cid:132)r f(cid:148)rordningen kompletterar f(cid:148)rordning (EG) nr 2400/96 (4), senast (cid:132)ndrad genom f(cid:148)rordning (EG) nr 1265/98 (5). H(cid:142)RIGENOM F(cid:153)RESKRIVS F(cid:153)LJANDE. Artikel 1 Bilagan till f(cid:148)rordning (EG) nr 2400/96 skall kompletteras med den ben(cid:132)mning som f(cid:148)rekommer i bilagan till den h(cid:132)r f(cid:148)rordningen och som inf(cid:148)rs i ”Register (cid:148)ver skyd- dade ursprungsbeteckningar och skyddade geografiska beteckningar” som en geografiskt skyddad beteckning (SGB), i enlighet med artikel 6. 3 i f(cid:148)rordning (EEG) nr 2081/92. Artikel 2 Denna f(cid:148)rordning tr(cid:132)der i kraft samma dag som den offentligg(cid:148)rs i Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning. Denna f(cid:148)rordning (cid:132)r till alla delar bindande och direkt till(cid:132)mplig i alla medlemsstater. Utf(cid:132)rdad i Bryssel den 22 juli 1998. P(cid:134) kommissionens v(cid:132)gnar Franz FISCHLER Ledamot av kommissionen (1) EGT L 208, 24. 7. 1992, s. 1. (2) EGT L 156, 13. 6. 1997, s. 10. (3) EGT C 336, 7. 11. 1997, s. 4. (4) EGT L 327, 18. 12. 1996, s. 11. (5) EGT L 175, 19. 6. 1998, s. 7. L 206/16 SV Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning 23. 7. 98 PRODUKTER UR BILAGA II TILL F(cid:153)RDRAGET AVSEDDA SOM LIVSMEDEL BILAGA Frukt och gr(cid:148)nsaker: FRANKRIKE (cid:190) Lentilles vertes du Berry (SGB)


title: 98/548/EG: Entscheidung der Kommission vom 22. Juli 1998 zur dritten Änderung der Entscheidung 93/42/EWG über zusätzliche Garantien hinsichtlich der infektiösen Rhinotracheitis bei Rindern, die für seuchenfreie Mitgliedstaaten oder Regionen der Mitgliedstaaten bestimmt sind, in bezug auf Österreich, sowie zur zweiten Änderung der Entscheidung 95/109/EG (Bekanntgegeben unter Aktenzeichen K(1998) 2184) (Text von Bedeutung für den EWR)

eurovoc_concepts:
Austria
animal disease
cattle
health certificate
veterinary inspection

text: 26. 9. 98 DE Amtsblatt der Europ(cid:132)ischen Gemeinschaften L 263/35 II (Nicht ver(cid:148)ffentlichungsbed(cid:129)rftige Rechtsakte) KOMMISSION ENTSCHEIDUNG DER KOMMISSION vom 22. Juli 1998 zur dritten (cid:142)nderung der Entscheidung 93/42/EWG (cid:129)ber zus(cid:132)tzliche Garantien hinsichtlich der infekti(cid:148)sen Rhinotracheitis bei Rindern, die f(cid:129)r seuchenfreie Mitgliedstaaten oder Regionen der Mitgliedstaaten bestimmt sind, in bezug auf (cid:153)sterreich, sowie zur zweiten (cid:142)nderung der Entscheidung 95/109/EG (Bekanntgegeben unter Aktenzeichen K(1998) 2184) (Text von Bedeutung f(cid:129)r den EWR) (98/548/EG) DIE KOMMISSION DER EUROP(cid:142)ISCHEN GEMEINSCHAFTEN (cid:190) und einen erfolgreichen Abschluß der IBR-Programme zu gew(cid:132)hrleisten. gest(cid:129)tzt auf den Vertrag zur Gr(cid:129)ndung der Europ(cid:132)ischen Gemeinschaft, gest(cid:129)tzt auf die Richtlinie 64/432/EWG des Rates vom 26. Juni 1964 zur Regelung viehseuchenrechtlicher Fragen beim innergemeinschaftlichen Handelsverkehr mit Rindern und Schweinen (1), zuletzt ge(cid:132)ndert und aktualisiert durch die Richtlinie 97/12/EG des Rates (2), insbesondere auf Artikel 9 Absatz 2 und Artikel 10 Absatz 2, in Erw(cid:132)gung nachstehender Gr(cid:129)nde: Mit der Entscheidung 97/250/EG der Kommission (3) wurde ein Programm zur Tilgung der infekti(cid:148)sen Rhino- tracheitis bei Rindern in (cid:153)sterreich genehmigt. Das Programm wird als erfolgreich bei der Tilgung dieser Krankheit in bestimmten Gebieten (cid:153)sterreichs ange- sehen. Mit der Entscheidung 95/109/EG der Kommission (4) wurden (cid:153)sterreich bestimmte erg(cid:132)nzende Garantien gew(cid:132)hrt, um die bereits erzielten Fortschritte abzusichern (1) ABl. 121 vom 29. 7. 1964, S. 1977/64. (2) ABl. L 109 vom 25. 4. 1997, S. 1. (3) ABl. L 98 vom 15. 4. 1997, S. 19. (4) ABl. L 79 vom 7. 4. 1995, S. 32. (cid:153)sterreich ist daher der Auffassung, daß sein Hoheitsge- biet frei ist von infekti(cid:148)ser Rhinotracheitis bei Rindern, und hat der Kommission entsprechende Belege vorgelegt. Die (cid:148)sterreichischen Beh(cid:148)rden wenden bei der inner- staatlichen Verbringung von Rindern Vorschriften an, die den in der vorliegenden Entscheidung vorgesehenen Vorschriften mindestens gleichwertig sind. Mit der Entscheidung 93/42/EWG der Kommission (5), ge(cid:132)ndert durch die Entscheidung 98/362/EG (6), wurden f(cid:129)r Rinder, die f(cid:129)r D(cid:132)nemark, Finnland und Schweden bestimmt sind, zus(cid:132)tzliche Garantien hinsichtlich der infekti(cid:148)sen Rhinotracheitis festgelegt. Es ist angebracht, bestimmte zus(cid:132)tzliche Garantien vorzu- schlagen, um die in (cid:153)sterreich erzielten Fortschritte zu sch(cid:129)tzen. Die genannte Entscheidung ist daher zu (cid:132)ndern, um bestimmten Gebieten (cid:153)sterreichs die glei- chen Garantien zu gew(cid:132)hren. Die in dieser Entscheidung vorgesehenen Maßnahmen entsprechen der Stellungnahme des St(cid:132)ndigen Veterin(cid:132)r- ausschusses — (5) ABl. L 16 vom 25. 1. 1993, S. 50. (6) ABl. L 163 vom 6. 6. 1998, S. 48. L 263/36 DE Amtsblatt der Europ(cid:132)ischen Gemeinschaften 26. 9. 98 HAT FOLGENDE ENTSCHEIDUNG ERLASSEN: Artikel 1 An den Anhang der Entscheidung 93/42/EWG der Kommission wird folgende Zeile angef(cid:129)gt: Steiermark, Nieder(cid:148)sterreichs (mit Ausnahme der Bezirke Amstetten und Waidhofen an der Ybbs-[Stadt]), Salzburgs (mit Ausnahme der Bezirke Salzburg-Stadt und Salzburg- Umgebung), Ober(cid:148)sterreichs (nur die Bezirke Freistadt, Linz-Stadt, Perg, Rohrbach und Urfahr-Umgebung), Tirols, Vorarlbergs und Wiens. “ „(cid:153)sterreich Die Regionen Burgenland, K(cid:132)rnten, Steiermark, Nieder(cid:148)sterreich (mit Ausnahme der Bezirke Amstetten und Waidhofen an der Ybbs-[Stadt]), Salzburg (mit Ausnahme der Bezirke Salzburg-Stadt und Salzburg-Umgebung), Ober(cid:148)sterreich (nur die Bezirke Freistadt, Linz-Stadt, Perg, Rohrbach und Urfahr-Umgebung), Tirol, Vorarlberg und Wien. “ Artikel 3 Diese Entscheidung ist an alle Mitgliedstaaten gerichtet. Br(cid:129)ssel, den 22. Juli 1998 Artikel 2 Im Anhang der Entscheidung 95/109/EG wird „(cid:153)ster- reich: Alle Regionen“ ersetzt durch: „(cid:153)sterreich: Alle Regionen mit Ausnahme des Burgenlands, K(cid:132)rntens, der F(cid:129)r die Kommission Franz FISCHLER Mitglied der Kommission


title: SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL nr. 2251/98 af Miguel ARIAS CAÑETE til Kommissionen. EUGFL - Garantisektionen i Spanien 1986- 1995

eurovoc_concepts:
EAGGF Guarantee Section
Spain
agricultural guidance
agricultural production
area of holding
export refund
farm price support
food aid
reform of the CAP
storage premium

text: 22. 2. 1999 DA De Europ(cid:230)iske F(cid:230)llesskabers Tidende C 50/135 3. Landbrugsfonden EUGFL? 4. F(cid:230)llesskabets forskningsprogrammer? 5. F(cid:230)llesskabets programmer inden for energisektoren? 6. F(cid:230)llesskabets programmer inden for miljłsektoren? 7. F(cid:230)llesskabsinitiativer? 8. Andre f(cid:230)llesskabsprogrammer? Svar afgivet p(cid:229) Kommissionens vegne af Jacques Santer (11. september 1998) Kommssionen er i f(cid:230)rd med at indhente de oplysninger, der er nłdvendige for at besvare spłrgsm(cid:229)let, og skal meddele resultatet af sine efterforskninger, s(cid:229) snart det foreligger. (1999/C 50/196) SKRIFTLIG FORESP(cid:216)RGSEL E-2242/98 af Allan Macartney (ARE) til Kommissionen (16. juli 1998) Om: Menneskerettigheder i Guatemala I april 1998 blev Monsignore Juan Gerardi, guatemalansk hj(cid:230)lpebiskop og koordinator for (cid:230)rkebiskoppens menneskerettighedskontor, myrdet to dage efter offentliggłrelsen af Nunca Jamas, en rapport, som gav milit(cid:230)ret skylden for 80 % af de grusomheder, der blev beg(cid:229)et under den guatemalanske borgerkrig. Har Kommissionen gjort en indsats for at fłlge med i efterforskningsarbejdet vedrłrende Monsignore Gerardis dłd p(cid:229) baggrund af de ovenst(cid:229)ende oplysninger og Den Europ(cid:230)iske Unions generelle forpligtelse til at beskytte menneskerettighederne? Hvorledes głr Kommissionen sin indflydelse g(cid:230)ldende for at sikre, at de indg(cid:229)ede fredsaftaler efterleves i Guatemala? Svar afgivet p(cid:229) Kommissionens vegne af Manuel Mar(cid:237)n (8. september 1998) Det (cid:230)rede medlem henvises til Kommissionens svar p(cid:229) skriftlig forespłrgsel E-2191/98 fra Glyn Ford (1). (1) EFT C 13 af 19. 1. 1999. (1999/C 50/197) SKRIFTLIG FORESP(cid:216)RGSEL E-2251/98 af Miguel Arias Caæete (PPE) til Kommissionen (22. juli 1998) Om: EUGFL › Garantisektionen i Spanien 1986-1995 Kommissionen bedes oplyse, hvilket totalbelłb Spanien har modtaget fra EUGFL › Garantisektionen i (cid:229)rene 1986-1995, med angivelse af fordelingen: › pr. kapitel (markafgrłder, sukker, tekstil og silkeorme, andre sektorer eller vegetabilske produkter, vinsektoren, tobak, m(cid:230)lk og mejeriprodukter, oksekłd, f(cid:229)re- og gedekłd, svinekłd, (cid:230)g og fjerkr(cid:230), andre foranstaltninger vedrłrende animalske produkter, restitutioner for forarbejdede landbrugsprodukter, restitu- tioner for EU(cid:146)s fłdevarebistand, distribution af landbrugsprodukter til ugunstigt stillede, ledsageforanstalt- ninger, markedsrelaterede foranstaltninger til udvikling af landdistrikter, andre foranstaltninger, ind- komststłtte og Den Europ(cid:230)iske Garantifond for Fiskeri), og


title: Vorschlag für eine Richtlinie des Rates über die Zuweisung von Fahrwegkapazitäten, die Erhebung von Wegeentgelten im Eisenbahnverkehr und die Sicherheitsbescheinigung

eurovoc_concepts:
common transport policy
freedom to provide services
rail transport
trade licence
transport company

text: KOMMISSION DER EUROPÄISCHEN GEMEINSCHAFTEN CORRIGENDUM La cote interinstitutionnelle 98/0265(COD) du document COM(1998)480 final du 22. 07. 1998 doit se lire 98/0265 (SYN). Concerne toutes les versions linguistiques. Brüssel, den 07. 10. 1998 KOM( 1998) 480 endg. /2 98/0265 (SYN) 98/0266 (SYN) 9 g / 0 2 67 ^y^i Vorschlag für eine RICHTLINIE DES RATES zur Änderung der Richtlinie 91/440/EWG zur Entwicklung der Eisenbahnunternehmen der Gemeinschaft Vorschlag für eine RICHTLINIE DES RATES zur Änderung der Richtlinie 95/18/EG über die Erteilung von Genehmigungen an Eisenbahnunternehmen Vorschlag für eine RICHTLINIE DES RATES über die Zuweisung von Fahrwegkapazitäten, die Erhebung von Wegeentgelten im Eisenbahnverkehr und die Sicherheitsbescheinigung ARBEITSUNTERLAGE DER KOMMISSION Erläuterungen zu den einzelnen Artikeln des Vorschlags für eine Richtlinie über die Zuweisung von Fahrwegkapazität, die Erhebung von Wegeentgelten im Eisenbahnverkehr und die Sicherheitsbescheinigung (von der Kommission vorgelegt) Vorschlag für eine RICHTLINIE DES PATES zur Änderung der Richtlinie 91/440/EWG zur Entwicklung der Eisenbahnunternehmen der Gemeinschaft 98/0265 (SYN) DER RAT DER EUROPÄISCHEN UNION - gestützt auf den Vertrag zur Gründung der Europäischen Gemeinschaft, insbesondere auf Artikel 75, auf Vorschlag der Kommission4, nach Stellungnahme des Wirtschafts- und Sozialausschusses5, in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Europäischen Parlament, gemäß dem Verfahren des Artikels 189 c EG-Vertrag6, in Erwägung nachstehender Gründe: 1. Die Richtlinie 91/440/EWG des Rates7 sollte geändert werden, um den bei der Anwen dung gewonnenen Erfahrungen und seit ihrer Annahme verzeichneten Entwicklungen im Eisenbahnverkehr Rechnung zu tragen, damit die gesetzten Ziele erreicht werden. 2. Zur Förderung eines leistungsfähigen Betriebs und der Entwicklung der beiden getrennten Geschäftsbereiche "Erbringung von Verkehrsleistungen" und "Betrieb der Infrastruktur", zur Offenlegung der Verwendung öffentlicher Gelder für den Schienenverkehr und zur Schaffung einer soliden Grundlage fur die Erhebung von Wegeentgelten müssen die Gewinn- und Verlustrechnungen sowie die Bilanzen für beide Geschäftsbereiche getrennt erstellt werden. 3. Wenn Eisenbahnunternehmen und die internationalen Gruppierungen, denen sie angehören, Verkehrsleistungen gemäß Artikel 10 der Richtlinie 91/440/EWG erbringen, erhalten sie die in diesem Artikel vorgesehenen uneingeschränkten Zugangsrechte. 4. Zu diesem Zweck müssen alle Eisenbahnunternehmen und internationalen Gruppierungen hinsichtlich der Tätigkeiten, die den Zugang zur Infrastruktur bedingen, gerecht und in nichtdiskriminierender Weise behandelt werden; folglich müssen die Sicherheitsbe stimmungen von unabhängigen Stellen oder Unternehmen festgelegt und angewandt werden, die selber keine Verkehrsleistungen erbringen. 5. Zur Förderung eines leistungsfähigen Infrastrukturbetriebs im öffentlichen Interesse müssen die Fahrwegbetreiber so gestellt sein, daß ihre Unabhängigkeit vom Staat gewährleistet ist und sie die Möglichkeit haben, ihre Geschäfte selbständig zu fuhren. Die ABl. L 237 vom 24. 8. 1991, S. 25. 12 ISSN 0254-1467 KOM(98) 480/2 endg. \ /Kl ESi DE 07 ©6 10 Katalognummer : CB-CO-98-570-DE-C ISBN 92-78-39671-0 Amt für amtliche Veröffentlichungen der Europäischen Gemeinschaften L-2985 Luxemburg


title: PREGUNTA ESCRITA n. 2263/98 del Miguel ARIAS CAÑETE a la Comisión. FEOGA-Garantía en Suecia, 1995

eurovoc_concepts:
EAGGF Guarantee Section
Sweden
agricultural guidance
agricultural production
area of holding
export refund
farm price support
food aid
reform of the CAP
storage premium

text: C 50/140 Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas ES 22. 2. 1999 (1999/C 50/209) PREGUNTA ESCRITA E-2263/98 de Miguel Arias Caæete (PPE) a la Comisi(cid:243)n (22 de julio de 1998) Asunto: FEOGA-Garant(cid:237)a en Suecia, 1995 ¿Puede especificar la Comisi(cid:243)n cuÆl es el importe total recibido en 1995 por Suecia con cargo al FEOGA- Garant(cid:237)a, especificando › la distribuci(cid:243)n por cap(cid:237)tulos (cultivos herbÆceos, azœcar, textiles y gusanos de seda, otros sectores o productos vegetales, sector vitivin(cid:237)cola, tabaco, leche y productos lÆcteos, carne de vacuno, carne de ovino y caprino, carne de porcino, huevos y aves de corral, otras medidas de producci(cid:243)n animal, restituciones de productos agr(cid:237)colas transformados, restituciones de ayuda alimentaria de la UE, distribuci(cid:243)n de productos agrarios a los desfavorecidos, medidas de acompaæamiento, medidas de desarrollo rural relacionadas con el funcionamiento de los mercados, otras medidas, ayudas a la renta y Fondo Europeo de Garant(cid:237)a Pesquera); › y por modalidades (restituciones a la exportaci(cid:243)n, ayudas compensatorias de precios, ayudas por superficies, ayudas por cabeza de ganado, primas orientativas, ayudas al almacenamiento privado, retirada y operaciones similares, montantes compensatorios, medidas de acompaæamiento de la reforma de la PAC, y gastos de almacenamiento pœblico)? (1999/C 50/210) PREGUNTA ESCRITA E-2264/98 de Miguel Arias Caæete (PPE) a la Comisi(cid:243)n (22 de julio de 1998) Asunto: FEOGA-Garant(cid:237)a en Austria, 1995 ¿Puede especificar la Comisi(cid:243)n cuÆl es el importe total recibido en 1995 por Austria con cargo al FEOGA- Garant(cid:237)a, especificando › la distribuci(cid:243)n por cap(cid:237)tulos (cultivos herbÆceos, azœcar, textiles y gusanos de seda, otros sectores o productos vegetales, sector vitivin(cid:237)cola, tabaco, leche y productos lÆcteos, carne de vacuno, carne de ovino y caprino, carne de porcino, huevos y aves de corral, otras medidas de producci(cid:243)n animal, restituciones de productos agr(cid:237)colas transformados, restituciones de ayuda alimentaria de la UE, distribuci(cid:243)n de productos agrarios a los desfavorecidos, medidas de acompaæamiento, medidas de desarrollo rural relacionadas con el funcionamiento de los mercados, otras medidas, ayudas a la renta y Fondo Europeo de Garant(cid:237)a Pesquera); › y por modalidades (restituciones a la exportaci(cid:243)n, ayudas compensatorias de precios, ayudas por superficies, ayudas por cabeza de ganado, primas orientativas, ayudas al almacenamiento privado, retirada y operaciones similares, montantes compensatorios, medidas de acompaæamiento de la reforma de la PAC, y gastos de almacenamiento pœblico)? (1999/C 50/211) PREGUNTA ESCRITA E-2265/98 de Miguel Arias Caæete (PPE) a la Comisi(cid:243)n (22 de julio de 1998) Asunto: FEOGA-Garant(cid:237)a en Finlandia, 1995 ¿Puede especificar la Comisi(cid:243)n cuÆl es el importe total recibido en 1995 por Finlandia con cargo al FEOGA- Garant(cid:237)a, especificando › la distribuci(cid:243)n por cap(cid:237)tulos (cultivos herbÆceos, azœcar, textiles y gusanos de seda, otros sectores o productos vegetales, sector vitivin(cid:237)cola, tabaco, leche y productos lÆcteos, carne de vacuno, carne de ovino y caprino, carne de porcino, huevos y aves de corral, otras medidas de producci(cid:243)n animal, restituciones de productos agr(cid:237)colas transformados, restituciones de ayuda alimentaria de la UE, distribuci(cid:243)n de productos agrarios a los desfavorecidos, medidas de acompaæamiento, medidas de desarrollo rural relacionadas con el funcionamiento de los mercados, otras medidas, ayudas a la renta y Fondo Europeo de Garant(cid:237)a Pesquera); › y por modalidades (restituciones a la exportaci(cid:243)n, ayudas compensatorias de precios, ayudas por superficies, ayudas por cabeza de ganado, primas orientativas, ayudas al almacenamiento privado, retirada y operaciones similares, montantes compensatorios, medidas de acompaæamiento de la reforma de la PAC, y gastos de almacenamiento pœblico)?


title: Proposal for a Council Directive relating to the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification

text: COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES CORRIGENDUM. —-r-. z La cote interinstitutionnelle 98/0265(COD) du document COM(1998)480 final du 22. 07. 1998 doit se lire 98/0265 (SYN). Concerne toutes les versions linguistiques. n n 7 i n i Q Qo Brussels, 07. lU. iyy» r m ^ i n n o u o nf n i COM(1998) 480 final 12 Oo/no« /-CVM\ f'™* f™> e vxn Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE amending Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community's railways Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE amending Directive 95/187EC on the licensing of railway undertakings Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE relating to the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification COMMISSION WORKING PAPER explanation of the individual articles in the proposal for a Directive relating to the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (presented by the Commission) 98/0265 (SYN) Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE amending Directive 91/440/EEC on the. development of the Community's railways THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 75 'thereof, Having regard to the proposal of the Commission4, Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee5, Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 189c of the Treaty in cooperation with the European Parliament6, 1. Whereas Council Directive 91/440/EEC7 should be amended to take account of experience with its implementation and of developments in the railway sector since its adoption, in order to ensure that its objectives are achieved; 2. Whereas, in order to promote the efficient operation and development of the two distinct activities of provision of transport services and of infrastructure management, to make transparent the use to which public funds for the railway sector are put, and to create a solid basis for infrastructure charges, it is necessary to separate both the profit and loss accounts and the balance sheets of the two activities; 3. Whereas it is necessary the international groupings which they constitute provide the services referred to in Article 10 of Directive 91/440/EEC, they benefit fully from the access rights laid down in that Article; railway undertakings and that, where 4. Whereas, to this end, all railway undertakings and international groupings must be treated on a fair and non-discriminatory basis as concerns activities that condition access to infrastructure, and, consequently, the laying-down and enforcement of safety rules should be carried out by independent bodies or undertakings that. themselves do not provide rail transport services; 5. Whereas, to promote efficient management of infrastructure in the public interest, infrastructure managers should be given a status independent of the State, and 4 OJC 5 OJC 6 OJ c 7 OJL 237, 24. 8. 1991, p. 25. 12 ISSN 0254-1475 COM(98) 480/2 final EN 0,7 66 Î©- Catalogue number : CB-CO-98-570-EN-C ISBN 92-78-39673-7 Office for Official Publications of the European Communities L-2985 Luxembourg


title: SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL nr. 2280/98 af Anita POLLACK til Kommissionen. Thalassaemia

eurovoc_concepts:
EU Member State
blood disease
exchange of information

text: 18. 1. 1999 DA De Europ(cid:230)iske F(cid:230)llesskabers Tidende C 13/155 Det har l(cid:230)nge v(cid:230)ret EU(cid:146)s faste politik at opfordre de kinesiske myndigheder til at overholde det tibetanske folks grundl(cid:230)ggende rettigheder og bidrage til at bevare deres s(cid:230)rlige kultur og levevis. Et af EU(cid:146)s vigtigste m(cid:229)l har v(cid:230)ret at fremme dialogen mellem Kinas regering og Dalai Lama med det form(cid:229)l at opn(cid:229) en varig lłsning p(cid:229) den sp(cid:230)ndte situation mellem de to parter. Udtalelserne fra EU-trojkaens ledere har dannet grundlag for yderligere overvejelser med henblik p(cid:229) at finde frem til den bedst mulige m(cid:229)de at ajourfłre denne politik p(cid:229), s(cid:229)ledes at der s(cid:229) effektivt som muligt skabes de rette betingelser for dialog og forsoning, og at den tibetanske befolknings interesser fremmes. (1999/C 13/221) SKRIFTLIG FORESP(cid:216)RGSEL E-2280/98 af Anita Pollack (PSE) til Kommissionen (22. juli 1998) Om: Thalassaemia Har Kommissionen oplysninger om udbredelsen af thalassaemia i hver enkelt medlemsstat? Svar afgivet p(cid:229) Kommissionens vegne af PÆdraig Flynn (5. august 1998) Kommissionen er ikke i besiddelse af de łnskede oplysninger. (1999/C 13/222) SKRIFTLIG FORESP(cid:216)RGSEL E-2314/98 af Riccardo Nencini (PSE) til Kommissionen (22. juli 1998) Om: Lukning af byretten i Borgo S. Lorenzo Der er for nylig truffet afgłrelse om at lukke byretten i Borgo S. Lorenzo (Firenze). Denne afgłrelse er uberettiget › dels p(cid:229) baggrund af den italienske regerings nye beslutning: det drejer sig om et stort omr(cid:229)de (over 1. 127 km2), der bor 56. 000 indbyggere (loven indeholder bestemmelse om mindst 50. 000), antallet af retssager retf(cid:230)rdiggłr ikke lukningen af denne domstol. Afskaffelsen af denne instans har medfłrt betydelige ulemper for befolkningen. Kan Kommissionen p(cid:229) baggrund af de nye f(cid:230)llesskabsretningslinjer vedrłrende en retsreform oplyse, om den er enig i, at denne afgłrelse skal tages op til fornyet overvejelse? Svar afgivet p(cid:229) Kommissionens vegne af Anita Gradin (7. september 1998) Kommissionen skal meddele det (cid:230)rede medlem, at samarbejdet inden for borgerlig ret og strafferet er blevet et spłrgsm(cid:229)l af f(cid:230)lles interesse for medlemsstaterne, efter at traktaten om Den Europ(cid:230)iske Union er tr(cid:229)dt i kraft. Dette samarbejde giver imidlertid ikke EU nogen som helst mulighed for at intervenere p(cid:229) omr(cid:229)det retspleje. Det er derfor op til hver enkelt medlemsstat ene og alene at tr(cid:230)ffe afgłrelse om antallet og placeringen af retsinstanserne p(cid:229) dens omr(cid:229)de ud fra de hensyn, den finder mest hensigtsm(cid:230)ssige


title: 1999/274/EC: Commission Decision of 22 July 1998 on the misuse of restructuring aid for MTW-Schiffswerft and Volkswerft Stralsund, two companies formerly belonging to Bremer Vulkan Verbund, and the unauthorised provision of an investment loan of DEM 112,4 million to MTW- Schiffswerft (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(1998) 2405)

eurovoc_concepts:
Germany
aid for restructuring
industrial restructuring
investment aid
investment loan
shipbuilding

text: L 108/34 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 27. 4. 1999 II (Acts whose publication is not obligatory) COMMISSION COMMISSION DECISION of 22 July 1998 on the misuse of restructuring aid for MTW-Schiffswerft and Volkswerft Stral- sund, two companies formerly belonging to Bremer Vulkan Verbund, and the unauthorised provision of an investment loan of DEM 112,4 million to MTW- Schiffswerft (notified under document number C(1998) 2405) (Only the German text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) (1999/274/EC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Communities (1); the other Member States and interested parties were asked to submit their comments. Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 93(2), first subpara- graph, thereof, Having given notice in accordance with the above Article 93 to the parties to submit their comments, Whereas: I. PROCEDURE By letter dated 20 March 1996 the Commission informed Germany of its decision to initiate proceedings under Article 93(2) of the Treaty. The reasons given for the decision were the suspected spillover of authorised restructuring aid for MTW-Schiffswerft GmbH, Wismar (MTW), Volkswerft GmbH, Stralsund (Volkswerft) and other companies belonging to Bremer Vulkan Verbund AG (BVV), and the unauthorised provision of an invest- ment loan to MTW. Germany commented on the Commission’s decision by letter dated 3 September 1996. It made available to the Commission a report by the Bundesanstalt f(cid:129)r vereini- gungsbedingte Sonderaufgaben (BvS) on the loss of DEM 854 million in the context of the insolvency of BVV, and sent under cover of a letter dated 22 July 1996 an audi- tor’s report by the firm of accountants Susat & Partner (Susat) on the contributions made by the ‘eastern yards' (i. e. MTW and Volkswerft) to BVV’s central cash concen- tration system. A revised final auditor’s report was drawn up on 5 September 1996. The comments submitted by two Member States in response to the initiation of proceedings by the Commis- sion were forwarded to Germany by letter dated 19 July 1996. Germany commented thereon in its abovemen- tioned letter of 3 September 1996. The comments and reports which the Commission received after the main investigation proceedings were initiated afforded a much better insight into the extent of the misuse of funds and the operation of the cash concen- tration system. But little was still known in particular The Commission’s decision to initiate proceedings was the European published in the Official Journal of (1) OJ C 150, 24. 5. 1996, p. 2. 27. 4. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 108/35 interested third parties and above all about the uses to which the funds had been put in the various BVV companies. In order that it might take an informed decision on the recovery of the aid after first giving all the companies concerned an opportunity to state their views, the Commission decided to extend the scope of the Article 93(2) proceedings. In its decision to this effect the Commission set forth the facts as they were apparent from the documents then available and made a prelim- inary assessment of the findings of its investigation. By letter dated 22 November 1996 the Commission informed Germany of its decision to extend the proceed- ings. The decision was published in the Official Journal (2). Two Member States, two industry associations and seven companies, in which BVV either had or still has an interest, submitted comments on the decision to extend the proceedings. The Commission forwarded the comments to Germany by letter dated 17 April 1997. Germany replied by letter dated 17 July 1997, stating that it was unable to adopt a position on the comments owing to the ongoing nature of the inquiry by the investigating authorities and the proceedings pending before the courts. The letter contains among other things a descrip- tion of how the cash concentration system had developed during the four months prior to the initiation of the BVV insolvency proceedings. II. FACTS The facts as set out in the abovementioned letters and in the Commission decisions of 20 December 1992 (3), 21 December 1993 (4), 11 May 1994 (5), 21 June (6), 20 September (7) and 14 November 1995 (8) are as follows. 1. The exceptional arrangements for shipyards in the former German Democratic Republic On 20 July 1992 the Council adopted Directive 92/ 68/EEC (9) amending Directive 90/684/EEC (10) (Seventh Directive on aid to shipbuilding) to enable yards in the new German L(cid:132)nder to carry out the comprehensive restructuring that was urgently needed if they were to become competitive. When the exceptional arrangements were adopted the Commission gave an undertaking that it would make use of its monitoring and investigatory powers in order to ensure that the yards in the new L(cid:132)nder received only (2) OJ C 65, 1. 3. 1997, p. 17. (3) Case N 692/B/91 (MTW). (4) Case N 692/F/91 (VWS). (5) Case N 692/I/91 (MTW). (6) Case N 84/95 (VWS). (7) Case N 572/95 (MTW). (8) Case N 801/95 (VWS). (9) OJ L 219, 4. 8. 1992, p. 54. (10) OJ L 380, 31. 12. 1990, p. 27. such aid as was needed to enable them to restructure. To that end, the aid was to be released in instalments. According to Directive 92/68/EEC, however, the oper- ating aid had to be paid by 31 December 1993, that is to say before most of the operating losses had had an effect on liquidity. 2. Disbursement of the aid MTW was privatised in 1992 and sold on 11 August of that year to the BVV-owned company Hanse-Holding. On 2 October 1992 Germany notified the aid that was to accompany the privatisation. Since it was clear to the German authorities (from the discussions held in the spring of 1992 in connection with Directive 92/68/EEC) that the Commission would authorise the release of the planned aid in instalments only, the Treuhandanstalt concluded a collateral agreement on l October 1992. This had the effect of circumventing the clause in the privat- isation agreement whereby the Commission reserved the right to withhold its approval, in particular as regards the disbursement of the aid. A lump-sum cash subsidy of approximately DEM 686,5 million was accordingly paid to MTW on 6 October 1992 (343,8 million), 6 January 1993 (275,1 million) and l December 1993 (67,6 million). The payment took the form of a loan, on which interest was not to be payable until after the aid proceedings were If and when the Commission gave its terminated. consent, the obligation to pay interest was to cease to apply retroactively as of the day on which the principal was paid. This collateral agreement was not notified to the Commission, and was made available by Germany only on 18 November 1996 in response to repeated queries about the Susat report. The Commission authorised the release of a first instal- ment of DEM 223,3 million of restructuring aid by letter dated 6 January 1993. With an eye to the deadline for the disbursement of operating aid laid down in Directive 92/68/EEC, at the Commission’s request the DEM 463,2 million which had not yet been released was placed at the end of 1993 in a blocked account (held, not by the Treuhandanstalt as expected, but by the company). Payments from this blocked account were then made only following authorisation for release from the Commission on 18 May 1994 (DEM 220,8 million), 5 October 1995 (DEM 194,0 million) and 3 April 1996 (DEM 48,4 million) (11). In the privatisation agreement, provision was made not only for payment of the lump-sum cash subsidy, but also for the granting to MTW of a loan of DEM 112,4 (11) Case N 207/96. This payment of the balance took place at the end of the reflection period following the hiving-off of MTW from BVV. L 108/36 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 27. 4. 1999 million to finance investments. The loan was to be free of interest for four years, after which it was to bear interest at a rate 1,5 % above the discount rate. It was notified as part of the overall aid package on 2 October 1992. It was common ground between the Commission and Germany that, because of the favourable rate at which it was granted, the loan constituted State aid, the grant equiva- lent of which was put at DEM 45 million. The Commis- sion never authorised the release of the loan as up until the end of the reflection period it was not needed to finance any investment. By letter dated 15 March 1996, Germany announced that the loan had been granted on 22 March 1993. The funds were never used to finance investment at MTW. Volkswerft was sold on 18 February 1993 to a consortium led by BVV. Germany transmitted the privatisation agree- ment on 17 March 1993, and the actual notification of the aid dates from 7 May 1993. A collateral agreement similar to the one in the MTW case was concluded on 9 March 1993. A lump-sum cash subsidy of DEM 585 million was paid in three instalments on 25 March 1993, 2 August 1993 and 6 January 1994. Contrary to the Commission’s expectations no blocked account was created in the Volkswerft case. The Commission was sent a copy of the payment agreement on 18 November 1996. The reason given by Germany for the premature disburse- ment of the funds was that the buyers would not other- wise have been prepared to take over the urgently needed day-to-day running of the company. The funds bore a normal commercial interest rate and had therefore been granted in accordance with the rules applicable to State aid. A blocked account had not been created for the Volkswerft the Treuhandanstalt did not consider it necessary, essentially since the Commission had authorised the release of all operating aid in December 1993. funds because, according to Germany, investment aid and closure aid was authorised on the basis of amounts actually or soon to be paid out. But because the Commission had no knowledge of the disbursements made without its authorisation, the actual flow of funds differed markedly from the money outflow that should have resulted from the Commission’s deci- sions on the release of aid. In fact, only the MTW funds placed, as indicated above, in a blocked account at the end of 1993 were disbursed in accordance with the rele- vant Commission decisions. The funds not yet needed for restructuring were placed by the two yards at the disposal of BVV AG under separate arrangements in the form of interest-bearing loans. Since October 1993 BVV had operated a cash concentration system (12). MTW and Volkswerft joined the system at the end of 1994 on instructions from the group’s top manage- ment. Initial demands by the BvS that the two eastern yards’ contributions be covered by bank guarantees were dropped in view of BVV’s persistent refusal. Under Directive 92/68/EEC, Germany had to provide evidence in the form of annual reports by an independent accountant that the aid was benefiting only yards in the former GDR. Further to this measure, the Commission and Germany agreed that quarterly reports (so-called should be provided. These reports, spillover which were mostly very late in forthcoming, were produced by the same firm of accountants as audited BVV’s annual accounts. reports) investments in BVV, The reports confirm that the funds whose release was authorised by the Commission benefited only MTW and Volkswerft, that (in 1994) MTW and Volkswerft were run as separate profit centres, and that no spillover effects had occurred in transactions between MTW and Volkswerft and other BVV-owned companies. With regard to the yards’ is confirmed that, as required by the Commission, these had been undertaken on normal market terms. The Susat report draws the conclusion that the authors of the spillover reports did not perform their mandate properly. Being aware of the expectations of the BvS and the Commission, they should at least have appended to their confirmatory certificates a reservation to the effect that they had not examined the funds in BVV, especially in the cash placement of concentration system. it 3. Monitoring of the uses to which the aid was put The aid to MTW and Volkswerft consisted of operating aid, investment aid and closure aid to finance the redun- dancies accompanying the restructuring. Whereas the the operating aid was authorised by the release of Commission under Directive 92/68/EEC in a lump sum to cover the expected operating losses and strengthen the equity capital base, the release of the instalments of the For 1994 BVV reported a profit of DEM 56,5 million and in the spring of 1995 contemplated paying a dividend once more. Susat concludes that ‘the management (of BVV) portrayed the group’s profitability in 1994 and at the beginning of the 1995 financial year in too favourable a light. Although the group’s annual accounts as at 31 December 1994 (. ) comply with the statutory balance sheet and valuation requirements as currently worded and with one interpretation of the principles of proper accounting, the margin for manoeuvre (. ) was exploited to the utmost. ' (12) See Section II(5) for an explanation of how the system worked. 27. 4. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 108/37 On the whole, therefore, the reports submitted by BVV and the then auditors described the financial transactions in an incomplete manner and painted too positive a picture of BVV’s financial position. 4. Investigations into the extent to which funds were misused Several reminders and high-level The first signs of liquidity problems began to emerge at BVV in September 1995, but the company gave the impression that the difficulties had been overcome within a few days. However, the crisis erupted again in late October/early November 1995. The Commission accord- ingly sent an initial letter on 10 November 1995 asking whether the terms and conditions of the funds transferred by MTW to BVV were still in line with the spillover ban. Further questions concerning Volkswerft followed on 27 talks November. followed in December and January. It is clear from the reports submitted by Germany that by late October 1995 the German authorities were aware of extremely high losses at BVV and that they knew, at the latest after talks between BVV and the BvS and various authorities on 29 November 1995, that a massive misuse of funds had taken place and that the resources of the eastern yards were ‘no longer sufficient to meet their needs'. Nevertheless, the Commission received an initial report only on 2 February 1996, followed on 23 February 1996 by a further interim report by the firm of accountants KPMG, which had in the meantime been newly appointed as auditors by the BvS. The Commission’s decision to initiate formal invest- igation proceedings under Article 93(2) was necessarily based on these two interim and incomplete reports. investigations into the use made of the aid by BVV and confirms that a total of DEM 854,0 million had been placed by MTW and Volkswerft in BVV’s cash concentra- tion system by 31 December 1995 (13). Susat is of the opinion that it is impossible to determine unequivocally how much of this amount is accounted for by State aid. It is equally impossible to identify specific payments made under the cash concentration system as deriving from the aid or from the funds received from MTW and Volks- werft, since other subsidiaries of the BVV group such as Flender Werft and STN Atlas Elektronik were also net contributors to the system. Total deposits in the cash concentration system by the end of 1995 amounted to DEM 972,1 million, including the abovementioned amount of DEM 854,0 million originating from MTW and Volkswerft. (14) Over time the aid became so inextricably mixed up with the yards’ other funds, such as advance payments received or own liquidity, that it is no longer possible to say what is aid and what is not. However, on the assumption that all aid which had not yet been used by 31 December 1995 was placed in the cash concentration system, the following amounts may be identified as aid: (million DEM) MTW Volkswerft 268,1 55,3 1,5 60,7 107,2 0,0 324,9 167,9 112,4 85,0 0,0 54,4 28,1 Operating aid Investment aid Closure aid Subtotal (Lump-sum cash subsidy) + investment loan + accrued interest on aid (estimate) (1) + transferable interim payments of 16,0 regional aid The KPMG interim report contains an initial itemisation of the main uses and recipients of the funds taken from the cash concentration system. The basis for this itemisa- tion was a letter dated 31 January 1996 from a senior employee of BVV to the BvS. The origin of the funds in the cash concentration system had at that time hardly been explored, as a result of which only a spread of potentially misused funds could be mentioned in the decision initiating proceedings. It was then that Germany commissioned Susat to clarify matters further. In the first part of its comments of 3 September 1996, Germany reports on the findings of the Grand total 538,3 250,4 Grand total both yards 788,7 (1) Source: Susat report of 5 September 1996, Annex 2a; by contrast to Germany’s comments of 3 September 1996, this interest calcula- tion is based on the actual dates on which the funds were disbursed. The figures do not include any interest on the invest- ment loan as this was provided interest-free until March 1997. (13) According to the auditor’s report, some further transactions took place up until 21 February 1996, so the balance in favour of the eastern yards on that date was DEM 846,1 million. (14) As a result of a series of transactions and interest accrued before BVV became insolvent, the total amount of claims by the two yards on BVV increased to DEM 868,9 million (including DEM 596,9 million for MTW and DEM 272,0 million for Volkswerft). L 108/38 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 27. 4. 1999 The interim payments of regional aid originate from aid received under the joint Federal Government/L(cid:132)nder programme for improving regional economic structures. Under the privatisation agreement, they were to be paid back by the yards to the BvS. 5. Investigations into the uses to which the misused funds were put Finding answers to the question as to what the misused funds had actually been spent on proved to be extremely difficult. Although BVV had announced the opening of debt composition proceedings on 21 February 1996, the new chairman of the managing board was prepared only days before the liquidation began on l May 1996 to place documents at the disposal of Susat’s employees and release the previous auditors from their obligation of secrecy. The requested documents were not made avail- able until later, and then only partially. The BVV board members responsible for financial and auditing matters said they were not prepared to talk. It was therefore not possible to verify the BVV data set out in the letter of 31 January 1996 (see above). As indicated in the Commission decision extending the proceedings, Susat saw no reason to question the veracity of BVV’s statements. Nevertheless the figures did not, it realised, reflect every movement of funds between 1993 and 1995, individual transactions having been singled out. Nor, it said, could any direct connection between the in-payments made by MTW and Volkswerft and specific uses be deduced from the data. Lawyers acting on behalf of DSR-Senator Lines GmbH have proved, however, with the help of a letter sent by Germany on 19 December 1996, that BVV’s data are to some extent manifestly wrong, something which was also conceded by Susat in a letter dated 5 February 1997 (15). BVV’s statements of 31 January 1996 therefore appear on the whole to be unusable as proof of the uses to which the funds were put. The Commission asked Germany on a number of occasions to take further steps to clarify the uses to which the aid had been put in BVV’s various areas of activity between 1993 and 1995. Germany finally replied in a letter dated 17 July 1997 that: ‘The Federal Government does not know for certain what use was made of the funds taken from the yards through the cash concentration system. Despite extensive inquiries in connection with the enforcement of the BvS’s claims, (15) Letter from Germany to the Commission dated 6 February 1997. which are being asserted also against members of BVV’s managing board (16), a precise correlation with specific financial transactions within BVV cannot at present be established. ' According to the information currently avail- able, direct proof of the use of the aid intended for the eastern yards to cover specific expenditure by named companies elsewhere in the BVV group is therefore not on hand. Since for the reasons given above it is not possible to obtain any direct evidence of the uses to which the misused funds were put, Susat concentrated its efforts on deducing the use made of the funds from the account balances of the group member companies in the cash concentration system. This proved possible, however, to only a limited extent. (cid:190) The cash concentration system was introduced in 1993/94 to cover the liquidity requirements of the various group activities and companies as far as possible from internal sources and thus to limit recourse to the more costly alternative of credit lines from banks. The various group member companies joined the system by concluding an agreement with BVV. In some cases, especially in that of MTW, enor- mous pressure was brought to bear by the group’s top management. From the beginning of 1995 onwards, virtually every payment transaction involving the group member companies was carried out through the cash concentration system. The number of accounting operations is therefore extremely high and it is techni- cally impossible to determine the proportion of aid in a given payment. The funds were reshuffled almost daily and the aid was mixed up inseparably with funds from other sources. subsidiary and its (cid:190) The cash concentration system had a pyramid-like structure. Credit relationships were always established immediate parent between a company. As a rule this was an intermediate holding company subordinate to the BVV holding company itself. The balances held by the intermediate holding companies were equalised using the target account of the BVV holding company, which decided on the granting of credit lines to the various group member companies. The intermediate holding company for MTW and Volkswerft was Vulkan Schiffbau Verbund GmbH (VSV), in which all the shipbuilding and ship- ping activities of the group were clustered (17). As a result of this pyramid-like structure, at no time was there any direct credit relationship between MTW/ Volkswerft and the other operational units of BVV, such relationships existing solely vis-a-vis VSV. By virtue, however, of the applicable provisions of German law on liability in a de facto group, the claims of these shipyards are also enforceable against the umbrella holding company BVV. (16) The judicial inquiries did not reveal anything new in this respect. It must be assumed at present that, within the group also, the eastern yards’ funds were not kept separate; see judg- ment of the Bremen Regional Court of 8 October 1997, Case No 4-O-1073/96. (17) The shipping company DSR-Senator Lines did not belong to VSV and did not participate in the cash concentration system, being an ‘associated company' within the ship- building division. 27. 4. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 108/39 equalised, but (cid:190) The cash concentration system was brought to an end between December 1995 and February 1996. By then BVV’s difficulties had reached the stage where busi- ness was being conducted normally in only a few areas of activity. When the system was closed down, the accounts were not instead each company was either in the black or in the red. It cannot be concluded directly, however, from the fact that a group member company was in the black that that company had profited from the misuse of aid. Although most companies were either permanently in the black or permanently in the red (18), in a number of cases the position changed towards the end more or less by chance owing to in-payments which were in no way connected with State aid. Bremer Vulkan Werft GmbH had been in loss for many years and was accordingly a long-standing debtor towards the cash concentration system. However, since towards the end of 1995 the yard received a series of interim payments for ships under construction, it finished in the black. By contrast, Geeste Metallbau GmbH, a supplier to the yard, had for years been in profit. Only when Bremer Vulkan Werft wrung price concessions out of it with retroactive effect and refused to pay bills did it fall into the red. The transfer prices for internal group services were not actual market prices. Especially when one analyses the deliveries of ships by group member yards to shipping companies linked to the group, the services provided turn out to be overvalued. Lastly, account must be taken of the fact that in a number of cases the fact of being in the black was influenced by a remission of debt by the holding companies. it can therefore be said that To conclude, the final accounting positions in the cash concentration system represent no more than a snapshot of the financial posi- tions of the group member companies within the group. Owing to the system’s pyramid-like structure, MTW and Volkswerft could not assert any claims against other oper- it is ative companies belonging to the group. Overall quite clear that the substantial sums of money that were employed by BVV under the cash concentration system largely originated as aid for MTW and Volkswerft. There is also a strong likelihood that those companies that were persistently in the red benefited from the misuse of aid. But because of the constant mixing with other funds and for the other reasons given above, the proportion of the (18) The former category included, for example, STN Atlas Elek- tronik GmbH, Flender Werft AG and MTW-Schiffswerft GmbH, while the latter category included D(cid:148)rries Scharmann AG, Dieselmotorenwerk Vulkan GmbH and Schichau- Seebeckwerft AG. final liabilities of each subsidiary accounted for by aid can be determined only with the help of various assumptions. A clear causal link proving beyond a shadow of doubt that certain amounts held by a subsidiary started out as aid cannot as a rule be established. Germany accordingly endorses Susat’s view that a direct connection between the amounts paid out of the cash concentration system and the amounts paid in by MTW and Volkswerft cannot be proved (19). In the case of D(cid:148)rries Scharmann AG, which according to Germany’s letter of 3 September 1996 with- drew DEM 304,5 million from the cash concentration system, the company was the recipient of misused aid. The overall net payments from other sources would not otherwise have sufficed to cover the company’s liquidity requirements. it can, however, be said for certain that 6. Steps taken by the German authorities to recover the misused funds The misused aid forms part of the funds that accrued to BVV from MTW and Volkswerft through VSV in the form of loans under the cash concentration system. Both BVV and VSV have been insolvent since 1 May 1996. The repayment claims of MTW and Volkswerft were added to the schedule of debts in both sets of insolvency proceed- ings and confirmed down to the smallest amounts (of no relevance from an aid point of view) by the liquidator. The aid and the other funds in the cash concentration system can thus be retraced in so far as BVV and VSV still have any resources or saleable assets. The sale of assets as part of the liquidation also includes any shares in subsi- diaries and any claims by BVV and VSV against subsidia- ries. The repayment claims of MTW and Volkswerft will be met once the liquidation proceedings are terminated up to the amount of the dividend for non-preferential cred- itors. BVV’s liquidator stated back in 1996 that it will probably not be possible to pay any dividend for non- preferential claims. When MTW and Volkswerft were taken over, all their repayment claims against BVV and VSV were assigned to the BvS, which is now following them up. At the same time, the BvS renounced all claims for recovery against the two yards. As stated in the Commission’s proposal for a regulation on aid to certain shipyards under restruc- turing (20), this was necessary to allow the restructuring to go ahead. (19) Letter from Germany dated 17 July 1997. (20) OJ C 153, 22. 5. 1997, p. 3. L 108/40 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 27. 4. 1999 following up the claims in the liquidation Besides proceedings, the BvS has brought actions for damages against five BVV management board members before the Bremen Regional Court. On 8 October 1997 the court dismissed four of these actions, finding that the board members were not personally liable. The BvS has appealed against these decisions. The trial court has yet to deliver judgment in the fifth case. ance with the decisions of the Council and the Commis- sion, to have made sure that it did exert sufficient influ- ence and thus be in a position to ascertain that the aid was being used properly. The association called lastly for improved, uniform monitoring of the use of aid by the Commission. Until this was assured, no further aid deci- sions should be taken. III. COMMENTS FROM THIRD PARTIES ON THE EXTENSION OF THE PROCEEDINGS Following the initiation of proceedings the governments of two Member States sent comments to the Commission. the notice These were summarised in Part concerning the extension of the proceedings (21). III of The governments of two Member States, two national shipbuilding associations and seven companies stated their positions on the extension of the proceedings. first, the aid One Member State took the view that, amounts that had not been authorised by the Council or the Commission should be recovered from the companies (i. e. MTW and Volkswerft) in accordance with normal practice. Second, any aid unlawfully received by other companies belonging to the BVV group should be recov- ered. The other Member State doubted whether MTW and Volkswerft needed any fresh restructuring aid. The sale of BVV’s assets should have sufficed to cover both yards’ new liquidity requirements. It is not the purpose of these proceedings to assess any new restructuring aid for MTW and Volkswerft. The matter was discussed in the Council in connection with Council Regulation (EC) No 1013/97 of 2 June 1997 on restructuring (22). The aid to certain shipyards under Commission would point out, however, that the proceeds from the sale of BVV’s assets benefited only preferential creditors. It was not possible to finance the further restructuring of MTW and Volkswerft out of these resources. One shipbuilding association likewise objected strongly in its comments to the granting of any fresh aid to MTW and Volkswerft. In its view the yards were themselves responsible for transferring the funds to their parent company and they themselves ought therefore to see to their recovery. All aid should, it stated, be paid back to the State if it could not be proved that it had been used for the purpose for which it was intended. The argument to the effect that Germany had no influence over the misuse was not satisfactory. Germany ought, in accord- (21) See footnote 2. (22) OJ L 148, 6. 6. 1997, p. 1. The other shipbuilding association took the view that MTW and Volkswerft had profited from the cash concen- tration system through their links with BVV. At all events BVV had, it claimed, gained a competitive advantage over the yards belonging to the association, and the conduct in question was partly responsible for the collapse in prices in the shipbuilding market. In 1996 four out of five east German yards had exceeded their capacity limits. All these points should, it argued, be taken into consideration in the decision on fresh aid to MTW and Volkswerft. As indicated above, these proceedings are not concerned with the question of new aid. As regards any exceeding of capacity limits, as far as the Commission is aware this occurred only in the case of MTW. The Commission punished this infringement by reducing the aid in its decision of 30 July 1997 (23). seven companies, which were The all previously connected with BVV either as subsidiaries or as associated companies, all state in their comments that they had no knowledge of the refinancing of the cash concentration system or of the misuse of the aid. They had assumed from statements by the group’s top management that the banks had granted generous lines of credit and that there was a large amount of freely disposable liquid assets. Individual companies belonging to the group also refer to their limited independence when taking strategic deci- sions in the financial sphere, when acquiring new subsi- diaries and when performing large contracts within the group. They were therefore not commercially responsible for the losses they had had to cover through obligations under the cash concentration system. According to Lloyd Werft Bremerhaven, Schichau Seebeckwerft AG and Volkswerft, this applied especially to the second half of 1995 when those companies had been compelled to contract loans on behalf of the group and had had to provide part of their assets as guarantees. DSR-Senator Lines pointed out, lastly, that in its case misuse of aid through the cash concentration system was impossible. The relevant liquidity inflows had occurred at a time when the two yards did not yet have the resources, and DSR-Senator Lines had never been included in the cash concentration system. (23) Case C 60/96, see OJ C 344, 14. 11. 1997, p. 2. 27. 4. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 108/41 The German Government stressed in its reply that, despite extensive inquiries, it could draw no definite conclusions as to the uses to which the aid had been put. Owing to the large number of in-payments and out- payments by the companies participating in the cash concentration system, there was no concrete evidence on the allocation of specific aid resources. In the absence of proof to the contrary, it had to be assumed that the companies which benefited from the cash concentration system were not, and could not have been, aware of the outflow of aid from the yards. Especially when BVV was under a contractual obligation to finance companies (24), those companies’ managers were entitled to rely on being able to receive funds under the cash concentration system for that purpose. Germany reserved the right, however, to take further steps if new evidence came to light and was therefore not in a position to comment on the observa- tions made by individual companies. IV. ASSESSMENT The notifications of the restructuring programmes for MTW and Volkswerft were from the outset incomplete and, in part, factually incorrect inasmuch as Germany did not inform the Commission of the agreements it had reached with BVV on the payment of the lump-sum cash subsidy. The reasons given, namely that if other payment conditions had been imposed there was a risk that BVV might have refused to take over the yards, and that Germany assumed that authorisation would be forth- coming for payment of the entire aid amount in one instalment, cannot justify this behaviour. If only because of the agreement to the effect that the interest on the as yet unauthorised amounts would be waived with retroac- tive effect once the aid was authorised by the Commis- the advance payments sion, Germany’s argument took the form of loans at normal commercial rates is incorrect. Member States are required pursuant to Article 11(2) of Directive 90/684/EEC to notify to the Commis- sion in advance any new aid scheme covered by the Directive and they may not put it into effect without the Commission’s authorisation. Germany has disregarded this provision. The infringement took place throughout the period from October 1992 until the time of BVV’s collapse, as even when it applied for the release of further instalments Germany omitted to inform the Commission of the earlier payments. that It follows both from the provisions of Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 90/684/EEC and above all from the exception provided for by Article l0a as inserted by Directive 92/ 68/EEC that all restructuring aid payments had to be (24) Such obligations existed above all in respect of businesses in the new L(cid:132)nder which had been taken over by the Treu- handanstalt. strictly limited to the activities of yards situated in the new L(cid:132)nder. When Directive 92/68/EEC was adopted, the Commission undertook to ensure that the yards in the new L(cid:132)nder received only such aid as was needed for restructuring. The Commission referred to these provi- sions in each of its decisions releasing instalments of the aid. The decisions also contained a statement of the reasons for the size of the relevant aid instalment. In assessing the scale of operating aid the Commission took into account both the need for the aid and the deadline referred to in Article l0a(2)(a). In assessing the instalments of investment and closure aid to be authorised pursuant to Articles 6 and 7, it was guided in conformity with those provisions by the need for funds in the light of the investment and redundancy plans submitted by Germany. In the course of the proceedings Germany did not furnish any information which might have objectively justified the advance payment of aid the release of which had not the deadline yet been authorised. On the contrary, referred to in Article 10a led in the case of operating aid to payments being authorised well before the need for funds actually arose. As a result of repeated delays in the implementation of the amount of investment aid authorised for release almost always exceeded the need for funds at that particular moment. The payment of aid without the Commission’s prior authorisation and in excess of the amounts author- ised was therefore not only expressly unlawful, but it was objectively unjustified and incompatible with the provi- sions of Articles 6 and 10a of Directive 90/684/EEC (as amended). the investment programme, loan' This holds true especially for the DEM 112,4 million ‘investment to MTW-Schiffswerft, which was granted on 22 March 1993 but never used for investment purposes, and for the DEM 70,5 million of investment aid for Volkswerft, which was paid in January 1994 despite the fact that up until the time of BVV’s collapse there was no need for it. The regional aid totalling DEM 44,1 million (DEM 16,0 million for MTW and DEM 28,1 million for Volkswerft) which found its way into the cash concentration system is likewise to be considered incompatible. These amounts can be traced back to the joint financing of the restruc- turing drive, being funds from the Treuhandanstalt and the joint Federal/L(cid:132)nder development programme. It was never intended by the providers of the aid that it should be retained by the recipient companies, being instead repayable under the privatisation agreements to the Treu- handanstalt/BvS. Ultimately, however, additional aid was channelled through the chosen handling mechanism to the companies and the needs-based amount authorised in each case by the Commission was exceeded. L 108/42 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 27. 4. 1999 the advance payments produced considerable Lastly, benefits in terms of interest earned. According to the Susat report’s calculations, this may be put at some DEM 100 million for the period between 1992 and the begin- ning of 1996. On the basis of the assumptions made in that report, which though simplistic are basically plau- sible, during that period a total of DEM 139,7 million accrued as interest, including approximately DEM 39 million attributable to authorised aid from the time of its authorisation. Of the DEM 788,7 million of aid which according to the analyses submitted by Germany was to be found on 31 December 1995 in the cash concentration system, approximately DEM 327 million consisted of amounts whose disbursement had not been authorised by the Commission and which must be considered incompatible with the Treaty. Commission that the BvS has taken the steps required by German law to recover the aid as part of the BVV and VSV insolvency proceedings, HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: Article 1 for The aid which was granted to MTW-Schiffswerft GmbH, Wismar, and Volkswerft GmbH, Stralsund, their restructuring was disbursed without being notified fully to the Commission in advance. It was therefore granted unlawfully in infringement of Article 11 of Directive 90/ 684/EEC and Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty. Including interest accruing up until the two companies received approximately DEM 327 million more in the way of aid than had been authorised by the Commission. The granting of this additional amount of DEM 327 million infringes Articles 6 and 10a of Directive 90/684/EEC. This aid amount is accordingly incompatible with the common market. the end of 1995, It has not been clearly ascertained so far, however, for what purposes the aid which, though disbursed, has not been used, was applied in each case. There are basically two reasons for this. Contrary to normal commercial prac- tice, the Treuhandanstalt did not ensure that provision was made in the privatisation agreements for any earmarking of the lump-sum cash subsidy or for any suitable monitoring procedures. With the exception of the sums placed in a blocked account at the end of 1993, the aid became mixed up with the group’s other funds. From 1995 at the latest this state of affairs became irrever- sible owing to the multitude of transactions in the cash concentration system. According to the available docu- ments, in particular the expert’s report of the auditors Susat, it is however very likely that at least the main debtors under the cash concentration systems received parts of the misused aid. In the case of D(cid:148)rries Schar- mann AG (which went into bankruptcy in the meantime) this is to be regarded as certain, even if the exact amount cannot be established until now. When the system was wound up, all the claims of MTW and Volkswerft were offset by liabilities of other parts of the BVV group. These claims, included aid amounting to DEM 788,7 million. It is certain, therefore, that this aid has not, as required by Article l0a(2)(d) of Directive 92/68/EEC, benefited only yards in the former German Democratic Republic, and that the aid for MTW and Volkswerft has been misused within the meaning of Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty. According to that provi- sion, misused aid must be abolished or altered. Alteration of the aid in the sense of restitution of the misused amounts to MTW and Volkswerft is out of the question as when they were hived off from BVV both yards assigned their claims to the BvS. All the misused aid, totalling DEM 788,7 million, must therefore be abolished and recovered. The German Government has informed the totalling DEM 854 million, Article 2 The aid referred to in Article l and part of the aid which was authorised by the Commission for the restructuring of the two yards was misused elsewhere in the Bremer Vulkan Verbund AG group. On the basis of the analyses submitted by Germany, the-total amount of funds thus misused may be put at DEM 788,7 million. This misuse constitutes a misuse of aid within the meaning of Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty. Article 3 Germany shall recover the misused aid from Bremer Vulkan Verbund AG as part of the insolvency proceed- ings concerning that company and shall take all steps required by German law to recover any partial amounts from companies previously belonging to the Bremer Vulkan group should suitable opportunities arise in the course of subsequent inquiries. In the recovery of the aid according to the procedures and rules under German law, accrued interest is to be taken into account. Article 4 The German Government shall inform the Commission within one month from the date of notification of this Decision of the measures taken to comply therewith and of their outcome. 27. 4. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 108/43 This Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany. Article 5 Done at Brussels, 22 July 1998. For the Commission Franz FISCHLER Member of the Commission