title: 1999/671/EC: Commission Decision of 22 December 1998 concerning aid granted by Germany to Riedel-de Haën AG (notified under document number C(1998) 4566) (Text with EEA relevance) (Only the German text is authentic)

eurovoc_concepts:
Germany
State aid
aid to undertakings
chemical industry
investment aid
redemption

text: 15. 10. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 267/51 II (Acts whose publication is not obligatory) COMMISSION COMMISSION DECISION of 22 December 1998 concerning aid granted by Germany to Riedel-de Haën AG (notified under document number C(1998) 4566) (Only the German text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) (1999/671/EC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Communities, in particular the first paragraph of Article 93(2), Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, in particular Article 62(1)(a), Having given notice in accordance with Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty to interested parties to submit their comments, and having regard to those comments, Whereas: 1. Procedure By letter of 3 April 1996, two private individuals lodged a complaint with the Commission to the effect that Riedel-de Haën AG (hereinafter referred to as ‘Riedel-de Haën’) (1), Seelze, Germany had received State aid amounting to DEM 8 million (ECU 4 million) for investment in a special-waste incinerator. The complainants provided the Commission with further particulars by letters of 28 April 1996, 24 September 1996, 4 February 1997, 2 March 1997 and 2 February 1998. They alleged that the company intended to incinerate its industrial wastes on its premises after the port authorities of Antwerp and other cities had refused permission on environmental grounds for incineration at sea by the incineration ship Vesta. This was confirmed by a press report (2). According to the complainants, the company maintained that the new plant was a bromine-recovery plant. They knew, however, that there had been such a plant on the company's premises for the previous 25 years. By letters of 22 April, 28 June and 25 November 1996, the Commission called on Germany to give its views and to supply further information on the aid to Riedel-de Haën so that it could verify what kind of grants were involved and whether they were compatible with the common market. Germany replied by letters of 4 June and 30 September 1996 and 8 January 1997, confirming that the company had received two grants amounting in all to DEM 8 million (ECU 4 million). After Germany had first stated that the aid was granted for a bromine-recovery plant, it subsequently explained that the aid was in fact incorporating a bromine-recovery plant. for a residue-processing plant By letter of 16 September 1997, the Commission notified Germany of its decision to initiate the procedure under Article 93(2) concerning the grants of aid amounting to DEM 8 million (ECU 4 million). It concluded that one of the grants had not been made under the approved Economy and Environment Scheme (Programme ‘Wirtschaft und Umwelt’), while the second grant was not covered by any approved rules and neither of the grants appeared to be compatible with the Community Guidelines on State aid for environmental protec- tion (3). This was notified to Germany by letter of 2 October (2) ‘Waste disposal problems for Riedel’, Landkreis-Zeitung West, 11 (1) In appropriate contexts, ‘Riedel-de Haën’ should be understood as referring to Riedel-de Haën GmbH. October 1989. (3) OJ C 72, 10. 3. 1994, p. 3. L 267/52 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 15. 10. 1999 1997. By letters of 7 November 1997 and 19 March 1998, Germany gave its views on those questions and reservations but responded to the Commission's requests for information only in very general terms. Development and other costs estimated at DEM 1,9 million (ECU 0,9 million), with trial-operation costs amounting to DEM 2,5 million (ECU 1,2 million). The Commission's Decision was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (1). In that Decision, it gave other parties concerned notice to submit their comments. By the deadline, 19 January 1998, it had received no comments. On 14 April 1998 solicitors acting for AlliedSignal, Riedel-de Haën's parent company, set out the company's position. By letter of 24 June 1998 the Commission asked Germany to provide the information necessary for it to decide whether the grants of aid were compatible with the common market. It was made clear that Germany was being given its last chance to provide this information; if they failed to do so, the decision would be taken on the basis of the information at the Commis- sion's disposal. Following a meeting with Germany and representatives of Riedel-de Haën held in Brussels on 28 July 1998, Germany and Riedel-de Haën responded with a joint letter of 28 August 1998. In that letter they considered the position adopted by Riedel-de Haën in its letter of 14 April 1998. This position was fully taken into consideration by the Commission. The following analysis of Germany's position incorporates the Commission's analysis of Riedel-de Haën's position. 2. Aid Each year Riedel-de Haën generates 1 300 tonnes of liquid waste containing halogenated hydrocarbon compounds. This waste was previously disposed of by specialised businesses in special-waste company began constructing a recycling plant so that it could dispose of the liquid waste on site. The plant is not yet operational. In 1994 the incinerators. Germany initially assessed the cost of the project at DEM 21,4 million (ECU 10,7 million) but adjusted this to DEM 20,6 million (ECU 10,3 million) by letter of 28 August 1998. This figure incorporates investment, development and other costs as well as operating costs. The company's investment costs are estimated at DEM 16,3 million (ECU 8,1 million), of which DEM 14,2 million (ECU 7,1 million) were invested by 24 June 1998. The following table provides a breakdown of the various costs: [. (2) (3)] (*). (1) OJ C 385, 19. 12. 1997, p. 9. (2) * (3) * (*) Parts of this text have been edited to ensure that confidential infor- mation is not disclosed; those parts are enclosed in square brackets and marked with an asterisk. The accuracy of those figures was verified by a firm of account- ants. Riedel-de Haën was granted the following investment aid: 1. a grant of DEM 4 million (ECU 2 million) from the Lower Saxony Economic Assistance Fund (letter of 25 April 1994) as part of the Economy and Environment Scheme, which had been approved; 2. a grant of DEM 4 million (ECU 2 million) from the Federal Foundation for the Environment (letter of 20 May 1994) under a scheme which at the time had not been approved by the Commission. According to Germany, million (ECU 1,4 million) have been paid over. instalments amounting to DEM 2,9 3. Comments of the German authorities By letter of 28 August 1998, Germany submitted the comments set out below. It maintained that the plant was used exclusively for environ- mental protection purposes. Moreover, it was alleged that the Economy and Environment Scheme had already been authorised by the Commission and declared to be compatible with the common market. A copy of it and the the Scheme, the Commission's authorisation of the notice authorising it published in the Official European Communities were appended. Journal of The Federal Foundation for the Environment's aid was in prin- ciple compatible with the Community Guidelines. Moreover, the grants could also be considered aid for research and development within the meaning of the Community framework for aid for research and development (4). In addition, Germany expressed the view that the Commission could not require the aid to be repaid since the company's legitimate expectations must be met. Germany presented an excerpt from the Commercial Register entry for Riedel-de Haën AG and Riedel-de Haën GmbH, the annual report for 1997 and a list of the company's fixed assets, in particular the plant producing halogenated hydrocarbon, together with a plan of the production site in Seelze. (4) OJ C 83, 11. 4. 1986, p. 2. 15. 10. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 267/53 A table of the project costs and a breakdown of those costs viewed from various standpoints were also presented. The accuracy of the data had been verified by a firm of accountants. To this data was appended a comparison of the costs, contrasting the current supply costs with the costs of supplies in the new plant. A firm of accountants had verified part of the costs forming the basis of those calculations. Explanations were also provided by Germany regarding the operations of the incineration and recycling plant and the difference between the old and new bromine-recovery plant. A second environmental impact assessment on Riedel-de Haën from 1995 was also provided, together with the report of an expert on the generation of contaminants by the new plant, as well as supplementary materials. A Riedel-de Haën brochure entitled Recycling plant for bromine residues — verification of envir- onmental compatibility was also lodged. A copy of (BimSchV) (1) and Technical appended to the foregoing documents. the 17th Federal Emission Protection Order ‘Air 86’ was Instructions (TA) In addition, a copy of Riedel-de Haën's application for aid under Council Regulation (EEC) No 1973/92 (2) which estab- lishes the LIFE programme, a copy of the Commission's refusal and a copy of the company's letter and reply were presented. A copy of Riedel-de Haën's applications for aid to the Lower Saxony Economic Assistance Fund and the Federal Foundation for the Environment was also appended. The results of the environmental impact assessment were also notified. 4. Assessment 4. 1. The recipient of the aid Riedel-de Haën is a former subsidiary of Hoechst AG and since 4 November 1996 has belonged to the American group Allied- Signal Inc. , Morristown, New Jersey. In 1997 it had an average of 1 256 employees and generated turnover amounting to DEM 409,2 million (ECU 204,6 million) with total assets of DEM 459,1 million (ECU 229,5 million). When measured according to the Commission Recommendation of 3 April 1996 concerning the definition of small and medium-sized enterprises (3), Riedel-de Haën is a large enterprise. The company is located outside the assisted areas in Lower Saxony. It is a chemical enterprise operating in the following fields: inorganic chemicals, laboratory chemicals, organic chemicals, technical preservation products, electrochemicals, luminescent (1) The 17th Order for the implementation of the Federal Law on emission protection for incinerators for waste and similar com- bustible materials. (2) OJ L 206, 22. 7. 1992, p. 1. (3) OJ L 107, 30. 4. 1996, p. 4. pigments, photographic dyes, pharmaceuticals and medicinal products. 4. 2. Aid The Lower Saxony Economic Assistance Fund and in the Federal Foundation for the Environment are public institutions that finance their grants of aid, including the present grants, from State resources. By letter of 28 August 1998, Germany called in question the status of the Foundation as a State institution. In response to this, the Commission again brought out the points which were relevant to its decision: the Foundation was set up by a federal law (4); its capital, amounting to over DEM 2,5 billion (ECU 102 billion), derived from the privatisation of the former State enterprise Salzgitter AG. Paragraph 2 of the Law states that the Foundation's object is to provide financial support for environmental projects, particularly when they are imple- mented by SMEs. Under Paragraph 5(2) of the Law, the Foun- dation's board members are appointed by the Federal Govern- ment and they decide, inter alia, what assistance will be granted. In granting aid, the Foundation does not have a generally applicable and automatic procedure on the basis of objective criteria and in actual fact it is the German authorities who, with the assistance of the board, take the decision according to their discretion. Lastly, under Paragraph 3 of the Law, the Founda- tion is audited by the Federal Court of Auditors. Having regard to all those circumstances and to the fact that Article 92(1) applies to ‘any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever’, the Commission concludes that the Foundation's assistance constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 92(1). In fact, Germany has in the mean- time notified the Foundation's amended rules under Article 93(3), which have been authorised by the Commission as State aid compatible with the common market. In the various sectors of its activities Riedel-de Haën competes with chemical enterprises in other Member States. Its products feature in intra-Community trade. In 1997 it generated 52 % of its turnover on foreign markets, 67 % of that being in Europe. The aid lowers its investment costs considerably, giving it an advantage over competitors from other Member States who do not receive such investment aid and is liable to prejudice their competitive position. Regarding bromine recovery, Riedel-de Haën may well be in competition with other businesses that operate this kind of plant. In a study presented by Germany (5), it was estimated that at least 10 bromine-recovery plants were needed in western Europe. The grants of aid give Riedel-de Haen an advantage over businesses in other Member States that also have that kind of plant but no aid and are liable to affect their competitive position adversely. (4) Law of 18 July 1990 on the establishment of the Federal Founda- tion for the Environment, BGBI. 1, p. 1448. (5) ‘Study of the transferability of the plant developed by Riedel-de Haën AG. , Seelze for the recovery of residues’, by Professor Hesse, Hanover, 9 September 1993. L 267/54 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 15. 10. 1999 Both grants of aid are thus liable to distort trade between Member States and therefore constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 92(1). 4. 3. Obligation of notification Aid from the Lower Saxony Economic Assistance Fund On 1 December 1993 Riedel-de Haën applied to the Lower Saxony Economic Assistance Fund for financial support. By letter of 25 April 1994 the Fund made a grant under the Economy and Environment Scheme of DEM 4 million (ECU 2 million) towards project costs amounting to DEM 21,4 million (ECU 10,7 million). It was intended that the investment should be completed on 31 December 1996. According to Germany, at this time funding amounting only to DEM 8,2 million (ECU 4,1 million) had been expended on the project, of which DEM 6,5 million (ECU 3,2 million) was accounted for by investment costs. Under the aid contract, Riedel-de Haën there- fore should not have received the full amount of the DEM 4 million (ECU 2 million). In its Decision initiating the procedure under Article 93(2), the Commission has already expressed its finding that the Fund's grant was not made on the terms fixed in the Economy and Environment Scheme that the Commission authorised on 13 September 1991 for the period 1991 to 1994. Under the Scheme, the Fund was entitled to provide aid for investments for environmental projects. The thrust is clearly on develop- ment and demonstration projects which involve ‘ecological added value for the Community’. Under point 2 of the Scheme ‘only expenditure which basically exceeds existing legal require- ments may be regarded as eligible for assistance’. In spite of being requested to do so by the Commission, Germany has not indicated which part of the investment mani- festly exceeds the legal requirements (1). It is thus unclear whether parts of the project were eligible within the meaning of the Scheme and, if so, which parts. It is clear that the Fund has not acted in accordance with point 2 of the Scheme. At the meeting held in Brussels held on 28 July, the German delega- tion furthermore confirmed that no special investment was required in order to exceed existing legal requirements. Regarding the comments sent by Germany by letter of 28 August 1998, the Commission sees no reason to review its examination of the Scheme and refers Germany to the Decision it has already adopted. The fact is that a review of that exam- ination would merely confirm that Decision. (1) In this connexion, see also Part 4. 5 of this Decision The Economy and Environment Scheme for Lower Saxony thus provided no grounds for the Fund to grant Riedel-de Haën the aid in question. The grant must therefore be considered an individual grant of aid and as such should have been notified by Germany under Article 93(3). The aid was therefore granted unlawfully. Aid from the Federal Foundation for the Environment On 10 September 1993 Riedel-de Haën applied to the Founda- tion for financial support. Since the Foundation, in its exam- ination, proceeded on the basis of an application of 10 September 1993 it may be that the company altered its application to a subsequent date. By letter of 20 May 1994 the Foundation granted aid amounting to DEM 4 million (ECU 2 million). The Commission has already found in its Decision initiating the procedure under Article 93(2) that the aid does not come under an authorised scheme. Germany has not disputed this view. It follows that Germany has failed to comply with its duty of notification under Article 93(3) for this aid, too. The aid was therefore granted unlawfully. The Commission further points out that the Foundation made the grant of aid conditional on the company's providing from its own funds DEM 15,7 million (ECU 7,6 million) of the probable costs of the project amounting in all to DEM 19,7 million (ECU 9,8 million). The aid granted by the Fund reduces the burden on the company in so far as the condition has not been fulfilled. 4. 4. Exemptions The aid specified in Article 92(1) is incompatible with the common market. Article 92(2) and (3) sets out the conditions to be met if aid is to be considered compatible with the common market. The Commission has examined whether the grants of aid amounting to DEM 8 million (ECU 4 million) qualify under the latter provisions for exemption from the general prohibi- tion on aid. Article 92(2) does not apply since the assistance does not constitute aid having a social character, granted to individual consumers, aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters, or aid granted to the economy of certain areas of Germany affected by the division of Germany. Article 92(3)(a) and the exemptions for regions in Article 92(3)(c) are not applicable since the company is not located in an assisted area. 15. 10. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 267/55 Moreover, there are no grounds for granting an exemption under Article 92(3)(b) since, in the Commission's opinion, the project does not meet the criteria normally applicable for it to be treated as an important project of common European interest and the aid is not intended to remedy a serious disturb- ance in the economy of a Member State. Likewise, there is no question of exemption under Article 92(3)(d) since the aid is not intended to promote culture or conserve heritage. The only provisions that might be applicable are the first part of Article 92(3)(c), under which aid to facilitate the develop- ment of certain economic activities can be exempted where it does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest. 4. 5. Compatibility with the Community Guidelines Germany maintains that the aid is to be considered investment made for environmental protection. The conditions on which investment can be considered aid for environmental protection such as is compatible with the common market are laid down in Community Guidelines. The current Community Guidelines were published on 10 March 1994. Since both grants of aid were made after that date, namely on 25 April and 20 May 1994, the Commission considered them in the light of the current Community Guide- lines. Germany argues that the plant is not for production purposes but is exclusively intended for environmental protection. More- over, the company is not under an obligation to construct a residue-processing plant. Consequently, they conclude that it was permissible to grant the total project costs — namely investment costs including development and other costs — as aid for environmental protection. The Commission cannot share this standpoint. In its view, the new plant does indeed involve the production process. Riedel-de Haën's production creates hazardous liquid wastes that it is under an obligation to dispose of; disposal can thus be considered part of the production process. The new plant enables the waste to be disposed of on-site and is thus part of the production process. Moreover, the bromine-recovery plant, which forms a significant part of the processing plant, recovers major quantities of bromine that can be directly returned to the production process. opment and other costs or the costs of trial operations. More- over, point 3. 2. 1 states unequivocally that ‘the eligible costs must be strictly confined to the extra investment costs neces- sary to meet environmental objectives. General investment costs not attributable to environmental protection must be excluded’. It was therefore necessary for Germany to establish which part of the investment costs were attributable to envir- onmental protection. Proceeding on those principles, the Commission has concluded that the following aid could be considered aid for environ- mental protection: 1. investment to help firms adapt to new mandatory standards or to promote quicker compliance with those standards; 2. investment to support measures that lower emissions and significantly exceed mandatory standards; 3. investments that, notwithstanding the absence of mandatory standards, are adopted on the basis of agreements whereby companies intensify their efforts to reduce environmental pollution, notwithstanding the absence of a statutory obliga- tion or before such an obligation comes into effect. Investment aid to help firms adapt standards to new mandatory With regard to the first category, the Community Guidelines provide in point 3. 2. 3. A that, ‘in keeping with the “polluter pays” principle, no aid should normally be given towards the cost of complying with mandatory standards in new plant’. The Commission points out that the residue-processing plant forms a new investment, not the replacement of existing plant. Furthermore, Riedel-de Haën was already operating a bromine- recovery plant. According to Germany's information, this plant had been decommissioned as early as 1985 and, from a tech- nical standpoint, was significantly inferior to the new plant integrated into the residue-processing plant. Consequently, the Commission does not consider the new plant as a replacement for the existing plant. the that thus entire follows residue-processing plant It undoubtedly constitutes new plant for the purposes of the Community Guidelines. It is therefore impossible to authorise the aid as investment to adapt to new mandatory standards since this is contrary to the ‘polluter pays’ principle. Investment to mandatory standards aid firms going significantly beyond Under point 3. 2. 1 of the Community Guidelines, aid for invest- ment can be granted for investment in land, buildings, plant and equipment. Under those provisions only the investment costs of DEM 16,3 million (ECU 8,1 million) might possibly be considered aid for environmental protection, but not the devel- Germany maintains that the aid constitutes an incentive to improve on mandatory standards. However, the Commission, in its position of 28 August 1998, concluded that Germany granted the aid only partly for this objective. L 267/56 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 15. 10. 1999 The general emissions standards for projects of this nature are laid down in the 17th Federal Emission Protection Order. The Order requires the Land authorities to adopt decisions laying down the applicable environmental standards, taking into account the characteristics of each individual project. In the present case the Government of the Land of Lower Saxony fixed the mandatory standards in a decision of 15 March 1991 applicable to Riedel-de Haën's site and confirmed them in its decision of 11 August 1996 granting the authorisation. The requirements laid down by the Land Government of Hann- over in its decision go beyond the requirements of the Order. While the decision fixes mean values for emissions in terms of half hourly readings, the emission mean values in the Order are only fixed for daily readings. Germany therefore considers that the company is improving on the requirements laid down in mandatory standards. The Commission does not share this view. Since the decision requires the company to comply with mean values, those values are obviously the mandatory standards. The only part of the investments eligible for aid is that part relating to the in the measures going beyond the mandatory standards decision. The Commission therefore requested Germany to state whether a significant reduction in emissions below the prescribed mean values was linked to increased costs and, if so, how much. However, Germany has failed to indicate which part of the investment served to improve on the standards, either those fixed in the decision or in the Order. In fact, at the meeting in Brussels on 28 July 1998 the German delegation confirmed that no special investments were needed to comply with the values specified in the decision that improved on the values in the Order. Consequently, the Commission cannot authorise the assistance as investment aid to encourage firms to improve on mandatory standards since Germany has failed to establish that there are any investment costs eligible for aid. Aid in the absence of mandatory environmental standards By letter of 28 August 1998, Germany maintained that the aid had been granted for environmental protection in fields in which there were no mandatory standards. They claimed that the company had hitherto disposed of its residues in a special-waste incinerator. Recycling the residues instead of incinerating them would generate significantly lower levels of gaseous and solid wastes. Regarding hazardous wastes, the Order prescribed threshold values for concentrations only but not for the relevant quantities. Consequently, the invest- ment would result in an appreciable improvement in environ- mental performance in a field in which there are no mandatory standards. Under point 3. 2. 3. C of the Community Guidelines, in fields in which there are no mandatory standards or other legal obliga- tions on firms to protect the environment, firms undertaking investment that will significantly improve on their environ- mental performance or match that of firms in other Member States in which mandatory standards apply may be granted aid subject to the same condition of proportionality as for going beyond existing standards, as indicated in point 3. 2. 3. B of the Guidelines. Under point 3. 2. 3. B of the Community Guidelines, the level of aid actually granted for exceeding standards must be in propor- tion to the improvement of the environment that is achieved and to the investment necessary for achieving the improve- ment. It follows that aid cannot be granted if, in comparison to the plant that would in any case have been installed, an improvement in the environment does not occur or the invest- ment is made on commercial grounds and not in order to achieve an improvement in environmental conditions. i. e. are taxes and levies, this part of the the essential purpose of In order words, Community Guidelines is to allow State aid for the purpose of encouraging a firm to carry out supplementary investment to secure an improvement in environmental performance. For this, both positive financial incentives, i. e. aid, and disincen- considered appropriate tives, (Community Guidelines, point 1. 2). The ultimate objective of investment incentives in this sphere is to facilitate a gradual improvement in the quality of the environment (Community Guidelines, point 1. 5. 1). The Community Guidelines are not intended to allow the grant of State aid for a general invest- ment which a company would in any case have made on business grounds. the Community Guidelines that the eligible costs must be strictly confined to the extra investment costs necessary to meet envir- onmental objectives. is laid down in point 3. 2. 1 of It On the basis of the objectives fixed in point 3. 2. 3. C of the Community Guidelines, the Commission concludes that in the case of a new plant a firm's comparable, non-equivalent activi- ties cannot form the basis for assessing aid for environmental protection; nor can a firm's processes that are least harmful to the environment while only just above the statutory minimum. That would be directly contrary to the objective of the Community Guidelines. Instead, the environmental impact of a particular plant must be compared with the impact of a similar and comparable plant which the firm would in all likelihood have contemplated on economic considerations. Applying those principles, the Commission concludes that a comparison between disposal in a residue-processing plant and an incinerator is only justified if the company would have made the investment on environmental grounds, not on economic considerations. It is only on those conditions that the aid forms an incentive for environmental protection, not a general in the Commis- sion's view there is sufficient evidence for an economic objec- tive for this investment. incentive for investment. However, 15. 10. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 267/57 As has been mentioned above, the company is under an obliga- tion to dispose of its noxious liquid waste. According to Germany, the liquid waste must be incinerated since final disposal is impossible. Incineration can be carried out in local special-waste incinerators. Because of their high bromine content, the residues can only be incinerated in small quantities as supplements to other wastes. Proceeding on the basis of the abovementioned considerations, the Commission must thus verify whether Riedel-de Haën intended, on environmental grounds, to make specified invest- ments in the residue-processing plant, which increased the investment costs, while it must be assumed, in view of the plant's environmental impact, that the company would in any event have installed it on purely economic grounds. In future incinerator operators might possibly refuse to dispose of such wastes because waste with a high bromine content leads to significant deterioration in the plant. It can therefore be assumed that the disposal costs of waste with a high bromine content will rise appreciably in the near future. The new plant would mean that the company was not dependent upon the price policy of the operator of the special-waste incinerator and would be able to avoid dependence by having the company dispose of its liquid waste itself. According to the expert report submitted by Germany, gaseous and solid wastes are reduced because, in the incineration process, 11 % by volume of oxygen concentration in dry waste gases occurs while in a residue-processing plant the oxygen concentration is usually 3 % by volume. Riedel-de Haën's plant operates with an oxygen concentration of 3 % by volume. The amount of waste gases generated by this plant is in fact an operational characteristic and thus does not produce any improvement over other plant of this kind. In addition the recovery plant will enable Riedel-de Haën to recycle significant quantities of substances each year including 330 tonnes of bromine, 440 tonnes of potassium chloride and 160 tonnes of potassium fluoride and to use them again directly in the manufacturing process. This could allow the company to reduce its production costs appreciably. The Commission points out that Germany has tried to argue that these are necessary costs for an appreciable improvement in environmental terms in a field where there are no manda- tory standards. It has, however, failed to prove that, by opting to invest in a residue-processing plant, the investment was made exclusively or mainly for the purposes of environmental protection. Lastly, the company will save the costs of transporting its liquid waste from its site to the special-waste incinerator. According to Germany, considerable costs are involved. The Commission is consequently unable to regard this support as investment aid for environmental protection in fields where there are no mandatory standards, since Germany has failed to prove the existence of eligible investment costs. The Commission cannot agree with Germany's view that the advantages for the environment provided by the plant are that disposal of the residues in the special-waste incinerator is cheaper than processing in special plant. Germany has merely provided the Commission with an imprecise calculation to the effect that additional costs of [. ] * per year would be incurred. The conclusive nature of this calculation and its accuracy have not been established, however, nor have they have been confirmed by the firm of accountants in its verification, which merely stated that the accuracy of the costs of disposal of the residues in 1996 and 1997 had been duly established. Moreover, Riedel-de Haën would be the only German company with a bromine-recovery plant. According to a report lodged by Germany, the company would be able to dispose of bromine residues for small and medium-sized enterprises. The view taken in the report was that ‘if the project were carried out, it would be highly interesting to many businesses’. The new plant is designed to process [. ] * tonnes of residues per year. Germany has established that in 1996 and 1997 only liquid wastes could be disposed of. The [. ] * tonnes of company could therefore acquire new business, with additional income and economies of scale. Operating aid Under point 3. 4 of the Community Guidelines, in accordance with long-standing policy, the Commission does not normally approve operating aid which relieves firms of costs resulting the from the pollution or nuisance they cause. However, Commission may make an exception to this principle in certain well-defined circumstances. In the field of waste management, the public financing of the additional costs of selective collec- tion, recovery and treatment of waste for the benefit of busi- nesses as well as consumers may involve State aid. Under point 1. 5. 3 of the Community Guidelines, such plant can be operated by semi-public bodies whose service costs are met by consumers. Taking account of all the circumstances of the case, on the basis of the existing information and in view of the nature of the procedure and on the basis of the preceding analysis, the Commission considers that the aid at issue in this procedure could not have been granted on the basis of point 3. 4 of the Community Guidelines. 4. 6. Other considerations Those considerations establish clearly that Riedel-de Haën, in investing in the recycling plant, was motivated by economic, not environmental, considerations. A comparison of the quant- ities of harmful residues from such plant with those of an incinerator is thus inappropriate. By letter of 19 March 1993, Riedel-de Haën asked the Commis- sion for aid under the LIFE programme. According to Germany, the programme was not in fact financed by the Commission because funding was lacking but the company assumed that the Commission had recognised the project's innovatory characteristics. L 267/58 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 15. 10. 1999 The repayment must be made in accordance with the proced- ures and rules of German law, in particular those concerning interest on the State's outstanding claims, to the effect that interest is payable from the time when the unlawful aid was granted. This measure is necessary in order to restore the financial advantages original situation by making good all received by the assisted enterprise from the point when the aid was unlawfully paid, HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: Article 1 The aid of DEM 4 million from the Lower Saxony Economic Assistance Fund and the aid of DEM 4 million from the Federal Foundation for the Environment have been granted unlawfully to Riedel-de Haën AG, Seelze, and are not compat- ible with the common market. Article 2 Germany shall take the necessary measures to recover the aid paid to Riedel-de Haën AG or its successor. If this proves take the necessary measures to impossible, Germany shall recover the aid specified in Article 1 from Riedel-de Haën GmbH. The aid shall be recovered in accordance with the procedures and rules of German law. Interest shall be payable on the sums recovered from the time when they were granted until actual repayment is made. The rate shall be that used by the Commis- sion during the period in question to calculate the net grant equivalent of regional aid. Article 3 Germany shall inform the Commission, within two months of notification of this Decision, of the measures taken to comply with it. This Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany. Article 4 Done at Brussels, 22 December 1998. For the Commission Karel VAN MIERT Member of the Commission However, the Commission certainly did not recognise this as an innovatory project and accordingly, by letter of 30 July 1996, refused the application while in fact adding that if the plan were amended there would be a prospect of Community assistance in the succeeding year. Germany also took the view that the aid for R&D could be exempted. However, the Commission considers that there is no justification for this aid. It refers to the brochure produced by Riedel-de Haën Recycling plant for bromine residues — verification of environmental compatibility, according to which the technology in question had been developed as early as 1989 by a US engineering firm. Nevertheless, State aid was granted on 25 April and 20 May 1994. Moreover, Germany has failed to demonstrate that there are any costs that could be considered the for eligible Community Guidelines. research and development aid under 5. Conclusions It is clear that both grants of aid are at odds with the applicable Community Guidelines on State aid for environmental protec- tion and therefore, in relation to the environmental-protection criterion, are not compatible with the common market. The project must be considered a general investment project. Riedel-de Haën is a large enterprise located outside an assisted area. However, investment aid for such a firm cannot be exempted under Article 93(3)(c). These grants of aid, which are not covered by exempting provisions, adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest. Moreover, they would give Riedel-de Haën an unjustified advantage over its competitors that do not receive assistance. The aid is not compatible with the common market since it was unlawfully granted for the purposes of Article 93(3) and does not fulfil the conditions for the exempting provisions in Article 92(2) and (3). The grants of aid must therefore be terminated and repaid, in accordance with the terms set out by the European Court of Justice in its judgment in Case C-301/87 (1). Repayments to be effected must make good the distortion of competition resulting from the grant of the aid, notwithstanding any formal restructuring carried out within the group. If for any reason the repayment cannot be made by Riedel-de Haën AG or its successor, the aid must be recovered from the group's subsidia- ries continuing the business and/or exploiting the productive assets acquired by Riedel-de Haën through the aid, namely Riedel-de Haën GmbH. (1) [1990] ECR I-307, paragraph 22


title: Rådets förordning (EG) nr 1002/1999 av den 22 december 1998 om export av vissa EKSG-stålprodukter från Republiken Bulgarien till gemenskapen under perioden 1 januari  31 december 1999 (förlängning av giltighetstiden för dubbelkontrollsystemet)

eurovoc_concepts:
Bulgaria
ECSC
export
export monitoring
iron and steel product

formats: html pdf print

text: L 123/18 SV Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning 13. 5. 1999 I (R(cid:132)ttsakter vilkas publicering (cid:132)r obligatorisk) R(cid:143)DETS F(cid:153)RORDNING (EG) nr 1002/1999 av den 22 december 1998 om export av vissa EKSG-st(cid:134)lprodukter fr(cid:134)n Republiken Bulgarien till gemen- skapen under perioden 1 januari–31 december 1999 (f(cid:148)rl(cid:132)ngning av giltighets- tiden f(cid:148)r dubbelkontrollsystemet) EUROPEISKA UNIONENS R(cid:143)D HAR ANTAGIT DENNA F(cid:153)RORDNING gemenskapen under perioden 1 januari–31 december 1998 (f(cid:148)rnyelse av dubbelkontrollsystemet) (4). med beaktande av F(cid:148)rdraget om uppr(cid:132)ttandet av Euro- peiska gemenskapen, s(cid:132)rskilt artikel 113 i detta, H(cid:142)RIGENOM F(cid:153)RESKRIVS F(cid:153)LJANDE. med beaktande av kommissionens f(cid:148)rslag, och Artikel 1 av f(cid:148)ljande sk(cid:132)l: Ett Europaavtal om uppr(cid:132)ttandet av en associering mellan Europeiska gemenskaperna och deras medlemsstater, (cid:134) ena sidan, och Bulgarien, (cid:134) andra sidan, tr(cid:132)dde i kraft den 1 februari 1995 (1). Genom associeringsr(cid:134)dets beslut nr 3/1999 (2) beslutade parterna att f(cid:148)rl(cid:132)nga giltighetstiden f(cid:148)r det dubbelkon- trollsystem som inf(cid:148)rts genom beslut nr 3/97 (3) till att omfatta perioden 1 januari–31 december 1999. forts(cid:132)tta att F(cid:148)rordning (EG) nr 86/98 skall till(cid:132)mpas under perioden 1 januari–31 december 1999, i enlighet med beslut nr 3/1999 av det associeringsr(cid:134)d som inr(cid:132)ttats genom Europaavtalet mellan Europeiska gemenskaperna och deras medlemsstater, (cid:134) ena sidan, och Bulgarien, (cid:134) andra sidan. I f(cid:148)rordningens titel och ingress samt i dess artikel 1. 1 och 1. 4 skall ”perioden 1 januari–31 december 1998” ers(cid:132)ttas med ”perioden 1 januari–31 december 1999”. Artikel 2 F(cid:148)ljaktligen b(cid:148)r giltighetstiden f(cid:148)rl(cid:132)ngas f(cid:148)r gemen- skapens genomf(cid:148)randelagstiftning, vilken inf(cid:148)rts genom r(cid:134)dets f(cid:148)rordning (EG) nr 86/98 av den 19 december 1997 om export av vissa EKSG-st(cid:134)lprodukter fr(cid:134)n Bulgarien till Denna f(cid:148)rordning tr(cid:132)der i kraft samma dag som den offentligg(cid:148)rs i Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning. Den skall till(cid:132)mpas fr(cid:134)n och med den 1 januari 1999. 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 december 1998. P(cid:134) r(cid:134)dets v(cid:132)gnar C. EINEM Ordf(cid:148)rande (1) EGT L 358, 31. 12. 1994, s. 3. (2) Se sida 56 i denna tidning. (3) EGT L 13, 19. 1. 1998, s. 85. (4) EGT L 13, 19. 1. 1998, s. 29


title: 299/1999/ECSC: Commission Decision of 22 December 1998 on German aid to the coal industry for 1999 [notified under document number C(1998) 4569] (Only the German text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance)

eurovoc_concepts:
Germany
State aid
aid to industry
coal industry
financial aid

text: L 117/44 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 5. 5. 1999 COMMISSION DECISION of 22 December 1998 on German aid to the coal industry for 1999 (notified under document number C(1998) 4569) (Only the German text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) (1999/299/ECSC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, Having regard to Commission Decision No 3632/93/ ECSC of 28 December 1993 establishing Community rules for State aid to the coal industry (1), in particular Article 2(1) and Article 9 thereof, Having regard to Commission Decision of 2 December 1998 on German aid to the coal industry for 1998 (2), Whereas: The financial measures proposed by Germany for the coal industry fall within the scope of Article 1(1) of Decision No 3632/93/ECSC. In accordance with Article 9(4), the Commission is therefore required to give an opinion on these measures. For this purpose, it checks whether they conform to the general objectives and criteria defined in Article 2 and the specific criteria defined in Articles 3 and 4 of the Decision and whether they are compatible with the functioning of the common market. Furthermore, in the Commission has to accordance with Article 9(6), decide whether the notified measures are compatible with the plan for modernisation, rationalisation, restructuring and the reduction of activity approved by the Commis- sion in its Decision of 2 December 1998. I II By letters of 25 September 1998, 2 December 1998 and 14 December 1998, Germany notified the Commission, in accordance with Article 9(1) of Decision No 3632/93/ ECSC, of the aid it intended to grant to the coal industry in 1999. In accordance with the provisions of Decision No 3632/ 93/ECSC, the Commission gives its opinion on the following financial measures for 1999: (a) operating aid within the meaning of Article 3 totalling DEM 5 141 million; (b) aid for the reduction of activity within the meaning of Article 4 totalling DEM 3 220 million; (c) aid within the meaning of Article 3 totalling DEM 73 million to maintain an underground labour force (Bergmannspr(cid:132)mie); (d) aid within the meaning of Article 5 totalling DEM 11,3 million to assist the undertaking RAG Aktienge- sellschaft to cover exceptional costs; (e) aid within the meaning of Article 5 totalling DEM 748 million to assist the undertakings RAG Aktienge- sellschaft and Sophia Jacoba GmbH to cover the costs arising from or having arisen from the restructuring of the coal industry which are not related to current production (inherited liabilities). (1) OJ L 329, 30. 12. 1993, p. 12. (2) OJ L 109, 27. 4. 1999, p. 14. to Article 3, The aid pursuant totalling DEM 5 141 million, is intended for the operation of the mines owned by the undertakings RAG Aktiengesellschaft, Preussag Anthrazit GmbH, Dr Arnold Sch(cid:132)fer GmbH and Merch- weiler GmbH. In the case of RAG Aktiengesellschaft, the aid is intended in particular to assist the mines Friedrich Heinrich/ Rheinland, Niederberg, Walsum, Lohberg/Osterfeld, Prosper/Haniel, Westerholt, Auguste Victoria, Blumen- thal/Haard and Heinrich Robert. The measure is also intended for the mines Ensdorf and Warndt/Luisenthal, which have been owned by RAG Aktiengesellschaft since 1 January 1998. In the case of Preussag Anthrazit GmbH, the measure is intended for the site at Ibbenb(cid:129)ren. This aid is intended to cover the difference between production costs and the sales price freely agreed on the basis of the conditions prevailing on the world market for coal of similar quality from third countries. It will permit the undertakings and production sites to take the meas- ures required to achieve a gradual reduction in production costs. According to the information supplied by Germany, the average production costs in the mines covered by Article 3 should in real terms be 8,2 % lower in 1999 than in 1995 at 1992 prices, namely DEM 246 per tce as compared with DEM 268 per tce. The reduction in production costs is in accordance with the aims of the 5. 5. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 117/45 plan for modernisation, rationalisation, restructuring and the reduction of activity, as approved by the Commission in its Decision of 2 December 1998. measure is also intended for the G(cid:148)ttelborn/Reden mine, which has been owned by RAG Aktiengesellschaft since 1 January 1998. If the conditions in Article 3 cannot be met by an under- taking, the Commission may, in its assessment of the notified measures, require Germany to justify any devia- tions from the 1998–2002 restructuring plan as amended by Germany and approved by the Commission on 2 December 1998 and, if necessary, propose corrective measures such as the inclusion of mines belonging to the undertaking in question in the closure plan in accordance with Article 4 of Decision No 3632/93/ECSC. In its assessment of the operating aid pursuant to Article 3 of Decision No 3632/93/ECSC, the Commission has also taken account of the need to minimise the social and regional impact of the restructuring of coal mining in regions which are already affected by above average struc- tural unemployment. The fact is that unemployment in 1998 in the coalfields of the Ruhr stands at about 15 % (district of Duisburg 15,8 %, Recklinghausen 13,7 %, Gelsenkirchen 16,4 %), which is far above the West German average of 9,7 %. In the Saar too, unemployment is above average in the coal- mining areas (Saarbr(cid:129)cken 13,9 %, Saarlouis 11 %). The coalmining areas are also target areas for Community regional support (Objective 2 regions whose industrial development is lagging behind) and at the same time areas to be developed within the meaning of Article 92(3)(c) of the EC Treaty. On the basis of the information provided by Germany and the undertakings given (see section VI of this Decision), the operating aid proposed for 1999 is compat- ible with Decision No 3632/93/ECSC, in particular Articles 2 and 3 thereof. The abovementioned closures are part of the agreement of 13 March 1997 which will reduce production capacity by 10 million tce in comparison to 1997 (21 % of total production capacity) and lead to the shedding of 30 000 jobs between 1998 and 2002. Pursuant to Article 4 of Decision No 3632/93/ECSC, the production sites G(cid:148)ttelborn/Reden, Ewald/Hugo and Westfalen will be completely closed down before the abovementioned Decision expires on 23 July 2002. The Commission notes that the undertaking RAG Aktienge- sellschaft has decided to bring forward the closure of the Ewald/Hugo mine to 30 April 2000 (instead of July 2002) in the light of the aid ceiling and the fall in the prices of coal on the world market. According to the information supplied by Germany, the production decrease between 1995 and 1999 is expected to be 15,2 %, or 8,6 million tce. The number of employees should fall by 25 680 or 25,5 % between 1995 and 1999. The Commission notes that the planned reduction in production capacity is in line with the aims of the plan for modernisation, rationalisation, restructuring and the reduction of activity which it approved by Decision of 2 December 1998. The aid for the reduction of activity proposed for 1999 is compatible with Decision No 3632/93/ECSC, and in particular Articles 2 and 4 thereof. IV III intended to cover The aid totalling DEM 3 220 million proposed for the reduction of activity pursuant to Article 4 of Decision No 3632/93/ECSC is the difference between production costs and the sales price freely agreed on the basis of the conditions prevailing on the world market for coal of similar quality from third countries. In the context of the undertaking RAG Aktiengesellschaft, it will assist the mines F(cid:129)rst Leopold/Wulfen, Ewald/Hugo, Haus Aden/Monopol and Westfalen in particular. The The aid totalling DEM 73 million to cover extra payments to German miners (Bergmannspr(cid:132)mie), which amount to DEM 10 per underground shift, is intended to provide an incentive for qualified staff to work under- ground and to help rationalise production. According to the German notification, this aid to miners is a pecuniary benefit. Although the extra payments are not part of the production costs of the coalmining undertakings, the aid helps to reduce the undertakings’ wage costs. It is there- fore ‘aid' within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Decision No 3632/93/ECSC, which must be examined on the basis of Article 3 of that Decision. L 117/46 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 5. 5. 1999 The proposed aid helps to maximise productivity and thus facilitates the restructuring and rationalisation of mining. It therefore also helps to achieve the objective referred to in the first indent of Article 2(1) of Decision No 3632/93/ECSC, namely, in the light of coal prices on international markets, to make further progress towards economic viability with the aim of achieving degression of aids. In its assessment of the aid, the Commission has taken account, in accordance with the second indent of Article 2(1) of the abovementioned Decision, of the need to minimise the social and regional impact of restructuring. expenditure, resulting from restructuring, on the supply of water and the removal of waste water. To meet the requirements of Article 5 of the Decision, the special aid may not exceed the expenditure. The Commission has examined the agreements between the public authorities and the undertakings concerned and, as part of an audit, the information given with regard to costs and has ascertained that the aid does not exceed the earmarked resources. The aid helps, in keeping with Article 3 of Decision No 3632/93/ECSC, to improve slightly the deficient competi- tiveness of the undertakings concerned, since the increase in productivity due to the maintenance of a qualified underground labour force reduces production costs. This will make it possible to reduce the pressure on the undertakings concerned, which will reduce their financial imbalance and enable them to continue their activities. The aid therefore complies with the objectives given in Article 2(1) of Decision No 3632/93/ECSC. Germany gives its assurance that the aid, together with any other aid for current production, will not exceed the difference between production costs and expected income in any undertaking or production unit. In the light of the above and on the basis of the informa- tion provided by Germany, the aid to maintain an under- ground labour force (Bergmannspr(cid:132)mie) proposed for 1999 is compatible with the objectives of Decision No 3632/93/ECSC, in particular Articles 2 and 3 thereof. V The aid to assist the undertakings RAG Aktiengesellschaft and Sophia Jacoba GmbH to cover exceptional costs in accordance with Article 5 of Decision No 3632/93/ECSC amounts to DEM 759,3 million. This financial measure includes, firstly, aid amounting to DEM 11,3 million to cover exceptional costs to assist the undertaking RAG Aktiengesellschaft. The aid is intended to cover additional drainage costs in mines closed down as part of restructuring and near to working pits. Since little or no water is pumped out of the closed-down mines, water which has nothing to do with existing production flows into the working pit nearby, thereby giving rise to additional costs. This aid, which is not related to current production and is specifically provided for in section I(i) and section II(b) of the Annex to Decision No 3632/93/ECSC, covers abovementioned The includes, secondly, aid to cover exceptional costs amounting to DEM 748 million to assist the undertakings RAG Aktien- gesellschaft and Sophia Jacoba GmbH. financial measure The aid is intended to cover the costs arising from or having arisen from the restructuring of the coal industry which are not related to current production (inherited liabilities). A portion of this aid, amounting to DEM 609 million, is the result of decisions taken by mining undertakings and electricity producers, the Federal Government, the State Governments of North Rhine-Westphalia and the Saar and the trade union representing the mining industry during the negotiations (‘Kohlerunde') on 11 November 1991. The remaining DEM 139 million is the result of new closures decided on 13 March 1997. It is intended to cover the following costs, except the costs of social benefits which the State has taken on as a special contribution within the meaning of Article 56 of the ECSC Treaty: the costs of paying social-welfare bene- fits resulting from the pensioning-off of workers before they reach statutory retirement age, other exceptional expenditure on workers who lose their jobs as a result of restructuring and rationalisation, the payment of pensions and allowances outside the statutory system to workers who lose their jobs as a result of restructuring and rationa- lisation and to workers entitled to such payments before the restructuring, supply of free coal to workers who lost their jobs as a result of restructuring and rationalisation and to workers entitled to such supply before the restruc- turing. From a technical and financial viewpoint, it is 5. 5. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 117/47 intended to cover additional underground safety work resulting from restructuring and exceptional intrinsic depreciation, provided that it results from the restruc- turing of the industry. This aid to cover the costs expressly referred to in section I(a), (b), (c), (d), (f) and (k) of the Annex to Decision No 3632/93/ECSC may not exceed the said costs if it is to be in conformity with Article 5 of the abovementioned Decision. Germany gives its assurance pursuant to the provisions of Article 86 of the ECSC Treaty that the aid will be limited to what is absolutely essential, taking account of social and regional considerations relating to the decline of it will not coalmining in the Community, and that provide an economic advantage, either directly or indir- ectly, for any activity other than coalmining, such as for industrial activities relating to the mining or processing of coal from the Community. The Commission has information regarding the costs as part of an audit and has ascertained that the aid does not exceed the earmarked resources. examined the This will make it possible to reduce the pressure on the undertakings concerned, which will reduce their financial imbalance and consequently enable them to continue their activities. The aid therefore complies with the objec- tives set out in Article 2(1) of Decision No 3632/93/ ECSC. VI In the light of the aim to minimise the aid and in accordance with its own principle that aid is only to be paid for production which is supplied for electricity generation and to the Community iron and steel industry, Germany undertakes to sell the production intended for use by industry and as domestic coal at prices (net prices without discounts) which cover the production costs. The Commission notes that Germany has included in regulations the measures needed to ensure that the aid granted under this Decision does not exceed the differ- ence between production costs and the selling price for delivery to user undertakings freely agreed between the contracting parties on the basis of the conditions prevailing on the world market. The aid per tonne of current production may not cause prices for Community coal to fall below those of coal of a similar quality from third countries. Germany will also take care to ensure that the aid does not distort competition or produce discrim- ination between coal producers or between coal buyers and coal users in the Community. Furthermore, the Commission would remind Germany that an essential feature of the aid rules is that the aid must be in the Community interest and must not disturb the functioning of the common market. To enable the Commission to examine whether the undertakings which receive operating aid under Article 3 of Decision No 3632/93/ECSC actually generate a trend towards a reduction in production costs at world prices, Germany undertakes to notify the Commission no later than 30 September of each year of the production costs of each production unit during the previous year and to transmit all information pursuant to Article 9 of Decision No 3632/93/ECSC. Should it not be possible to any great extent to meet the conditions laid down in Article 3(2) of Decision No 3632/93/ECSC, Germany will propose the necessary corrective action to the Commission, such as a review of the classification of mines pursuant to Articles 3 and 4 of Decision No 3632/93/ECSC. The Commission is required, in accordance with the second indent of Article 3(1) and Article 9(2) and (3) of Decision No 3632/93/ECSC, to verify whether the aid granted for current production achieves the objectives set out in Articles 3 and 4 of the Decision. Germany must therefore communicate, no later than 30 September 2000, the level of aid actually paid in 1999 and any changes to the sums originally notified. In this annual list, Germany is information required for verifying compliance with the criteria laid down in the abovemen- tioned Articles. to provide all In approving the aid, the Commission has taken account of the need to minimise the social and regional impact of restructuring, L 117/48 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 5. 5. 1999 HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: Article 2 Article 1 Germany is hereby authorised to take the following meas- ures to assist the coal industry: (a) operating aid as defined in Article 3 of Decision No 3632/93/ECSC totalling DEM 5 141 million; (b) aid for the reduction of activity as defined in Article 4 of Decision No 3632/93/ECSC totalling DEM 3 220 million; (c) aid as defined in Article 3 of Decision No 3632/93/ ECSC totalling DEM 73 million to maintain an underground labour force (Bergmannspr(cid:132)mie); (d) aid as defined in Article 5 of Decision No 3632/93/ ECSC totalling DEM 11,3 million to assist the under- taking RAG Aktiengesellschaft to cover exceptional costs; (e) aid as defined in Article 5 of Decision No 3632/93/ ECSC totalling DEM 748 million to assist the under- takings RAG Aktiengesellschaft and Sophia Jacoba GmbH to cover exceptional costs to enable the under- takings to cover the costs arising from or having arisen from the restructuring of industry which are not related to current production. the coal In accordance with Article 86 of the ECSC Treaty, Germany undertakes to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising from this Decision. Germany shall ensure that the aid granted, as referred to in Article 1, is used only for the specified purposes and that any unused, overestimated or misused expenditure in relation to any items referred to in Article 1 is repaid to Germany. Article 3 Germany shall provide information no later than 30 September 2000 about payments actually made during the 1999 financial year and shall forward the information, pursuant to Article 9 of Decision No 3632/93/ECSC. Article 4 This Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany. Done at Brussels, 22 December 1998. For the Commission Christos PAPOUTSIS Member of the Commission


title: PERGUNTA ESCRITA n. 3838/98 do Deputado Antoni GUTIÉRREZ DÍAZ à Comissão. Köp av fotbollsspelare

eurovoc_concepts:
allowances and expenses
competition
free movement of workers
professional association
professional sport
recruitment
vocational training
work contract

text: C 297/106 Jornal Oficial das Comunidades Europeias PT 15. 10. 1999 referida Directiva não impede, de acordo com o estabelecido no artigo 118o-A do Tratado CE, a manutenção e o estabelecimento, por cada Estado-membro, de medidas de protecção reforçada das condições de trabalho compatíveis com o Tratado. Esta posição consubstanciada no Tratado é novamente confirmada de forma expressa no artigo 15o da Directiva 93/104/CE. Dado tratar-se de uma situação de destacamento transnacional de trabalhadores, a Comissão recorda que a Directiva 96/71/CE do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 16 de Dezembro de 1996, relativa ao destacamento de trabalhadores no âmbito de uma prestação de serviços (3), contém um núcleo de normas imperativas de protecção mínima que devem ser cumpridas, no Estado-membro de acolhimento, pelos empregadores que destaquem trabalhadores noutro Estado-membro no âmbito de uma prestação de serviços. Entre estas normas de cumprimento obrigatório figuram também as disposições relativas à duração mínima das férias anuais pagas. Neste contexto, as disposições mínimas em vigor no Estado-membro de acolhimento que deverão ser aplicadas aos trabalhadores destacados, podem prever uma duração das férias anuais superior à prevista pela Directiva 93/104/CE, na medida em que esta duração mínima seja estabelecida tanto através de disposições legislativas como através de convenções colectivas de aplicação geral. Os Estados-membros deverão aplicar as disposições da directiva relativa ao destacamento de trabalhadores até 16 de Dezembro de 1999. (1) (2) (3) JO L 196 de 26. 7. 1990. JO L 307 de 13. 12. 1993. JO L 18 de 21. 1. 1997. (1999/C 297/144) PERGUNTA ESCRITA E-3838/98 apresentada por Antoni Gutiérrez Díaz (GUE/NGL) à Comissão Objecto: Transferências de jogadores de futebol (22 de Dezembro de 1998) As transferências de jogadores profissionais e, particularmente, dos jogadores de futebol, além de atingirem montantes fabulosos, converteram-se num mecanismo de especulação e de limitação da livre circulação dos futebolistas na União Europeia. Que medidas tenciona tomar a Comissão para corrigir esta situação? Resposta dada pelo Comissário Van Miert em nome da Comissão (27 de Janeiro de 1999) Desde o acórdão do Tribunal de Justiça de 15 de Dezembro de 1995, acórdão Bosman (1), que é proibido o pagamento, dentro do Espaço Económico Europeu (EEE), de quaisquer indemnizações que não estejam relacionadas com despesas de formação dos jogadores comunitários profissionais ou que se tenham tornado profissionais, no final do contrato de trabalho. O Tribunal de Justiça não se pronunciou sobre o pagamento de indemnizações noutras situações. Exemplos dessas outras situações são as transferências de jogadores não comunitários, as transferências de jogadores dentro do período de validade do seu contrato e as transferências nacionais. A Comissão está atenta ao cumprimento do acórdão Bosman. Considera, por outro lado, que a manutenção da aplicação do sistema internacional de transferências da Federação Internacional de Futebol (FIFA) e da União das Associações Europeias de Futebol (UEFA) a situações diferentes das abrangidas pelo acórdão em causa é susceptível de violar o artigo 85o do Tratado CE. O mesmo acontece com a obrigação imposta pela FIFA às associações nacionais de implementarem sistemas nacionais de tranferências. Por tal razão e reconhecendo a necessidade de incentivar o recrutamento e a formação de jovens jogadores, desde o acórdão Bosman que a Comissão incita as organizações responsáveis a apresentarem-lhe um sistema alternativo ao sistema internacional de transferências. Na falta de uma proposta aceitável, a Comissão enviou em 15 de Dezembro de 1998 uma comunicação de acusações à FIFA. Através desta acção, a Comissão pretende que sejam definitivamente revogados os sistema de transferências baseados em indemnizações que não estejam relacionadas com os custos reais de formação. Desta forma, a Comissão dá resposta a várias denúncias e espera levar a FIFA a encontrar um sistema compatível com as regras do Tratado CE que assegure a formação dos jogadores jovens. (1) Processo C-415/93, Colectânea 1995, p. I-4921


title: Komission asetus (EY) N:o 2826/98, annettu 22 päivänä joulukuuta 1998, Tanskan lipun alla purjehtivien alusten seitin kalastuksen lopettamisesta

eurovoc_concepts:
Denmark
authorised catch
catch quota
fishery management
fishing regulations
ship's flag

text: L 351/16 FI Euroopan yhteis(cid:148)jen virallinen lehti 29. 12. 98 KOMISSION ASETUS (EY) N:o 2826/98, annettu 22 p(cid:132)iv(cid:132)n(cid:132) joulukuuta 1998, Tanskan lipun alla purjehtivien alusten seitin kalastuksen lopettamisesta EUROOPAN YHTEIS(cid:153)JEN KOMISSIO, joka ottaa huomioon Euroopan yhteis(cid:148)n perustamissopi- muksen, ottaa huomioon yhteiseen kalastuspolitiikkaan sovelletta- vasta valvontaj(cid:132)rjestelm(cid:132)st(cid:132) 12 p(cid:132)iv(cid:132)n(cid:132) lokakuuta 1993 annetun neuvoston asetuksen (ETY) N:o 2847/93 (1), sellaisena kuin se on viimeksi muutettuna asetuksella (EY) N:o 2635/97 (2) ja erityisesti sen 21 artiklan 3 kohdan, sek(cid:132) katsoo, ett(cid:132) tiettyjen kalakantojen ja kalakantaryhmien osalta vuodeksi 1998 vahvistettavista suurimmista sallituista saaliista ja niiden pyynti(cid:132) koskevista edellytyksist(cid:132) 19 p(cid:132)iv(cid:132)n(cid:132) joulukuuta 1997 annetussa neuvoston asetuksessa (EY) N:o 45/98 (3), sellaisena kuin se on viimeksi muutet- tuna asetuksella (EY) N:o 2386/98 (4), s(cid:132)(cid:132)det(cid:132)(cid:132)n seitikiin- ti(cid:148)ist(cid:132) vuodeksi 1998, tietyist(cid:132) kiinti(cid:148)iden alaisten kalakantojen saaliiden m(cid:132)(cid:132)r(cid:132)llisist(cid:132) rajoituksista annettujen s(cid:132)(cid:132)nn(cid:148)sten noudattamisen turvaa- miseksi komission on tarpeen vahvistaa p(cid:132)iv(cid:132)m(cid:132)(cid:132)r(cid:132), johon menness(cid:132) j(cid:132)senvaltion lipun alla purjehtivien alusten katsotaan t(cid:132)ytt(cid:132)neen kiinti(cid:148)ns(cid:132), ja komissiolle toimitettujen tietojen mukaan Tanskan lipun alla purjehtivien tai Tanskassa rekister(cid:148)ityjen alusten seiti- saaliit ICES-alueiden II a (EY-alue), III a; III b, c ja d (EY-alue) sek(cid:132) IV vesill(cid:132) ovat t(cid:132)ytt(cid:132)neet vuodeksi 1998 my(cid:148)nnetyn kiinti(cid:148)n; Tanska on kielt(cid:132)nyt t(cid:132)m(cid:132)n kannan kalastuksen 14 p(cid:132)iv(cid:132)st(cid:132) joulukuuta 1998; t(cid:132)m(cid:132)n vuoksi on tarpeen noudattaa t(cid:132)t(cid:132) p(cid:132)iv(cid:132)m(cid:132)(cid:132)r(cid:132)(cid:132), ON ANTANUT T(cid:142)M(cid:142)N ASETUKSEN: 1 artikla Tanskan lipun alla purjehtivien tai Tanskassa rekister(cid:148)i- tyjen alusten seitisaaliit ICES-alueiden II a (EY-alue), III a; III b, c ja d (EY-alue) sek(cid:132) IV vesill(cid:132) ovat t(cid:132)ytt(cid:132)neet Tanskalle vuodeksi 1998 my(cid:148)nnetyn kiinti(cid:148)n. Kiellet(cid:132)(cid:132)n Tanskan lipun alla purjehtivilta tai Tanskassa rekister(cid:148)idyilt(cid:132) aluksilta seitin kalastus ICES-alueiden II a (EY-alue), III a; III b, c ja d (EY-alue) sek(cid:132) IV vesill(cid:132) sek(cid:132) n(cid:132)iden alusten t(cid:132)m(cid:132)n asetuksen ensimm(cid:132)isen soveltamis- p(cid:132)iv(cid:132)n j(cid:132)lkeen pyyt(cid:132)m(cid:132)n kyseisen kannan hallussa pit(cid:132)- minen aluksessa sek(cid:132) sen uudelleenlastaus ja purku. 2 artikla T(cid:132)m(cid:132) asetus tulee voimaan seuraavana p(cid:132)iv(cid:132)n(cid:132) sen j(cid:132)lkeen, kun se on julkaistu Euroopan yhteis(cid:148)jen viralli- sessa lehdess(cid:132). Sit(cid:132) sovelletaan 14 p(cid:132)iv(cid:132)st(cid:132) joulukuuta 1998. T(cid:132)m(cid:132) asetus on kaikilta osiltaan velvoittava, j(cid:132)senvaltioissa. ja sit(cid:132) sovelletaan sellaisenaan kaikissa Tehty Brysseliss(cid:132) 22 p(cid:132)iv(cid:132)n(cid:132) joulukuuta 1998. Komission puolesta Emma BONINO Komission j(cid:132)sen (1) EYVL L 261, 20. 10. 1993, s. 1 (2) EYVL L 356, 31. 12. 1997, s. 14 (3) EYVL L 12, 19. 1. 1998, s. 1 (4) EYVL L 297, 6. 11. 1998, s. 2


title: 98/742/JAI: Acción común de 22 de diciembre de 1998 adoptada por el Consejo sobre la base del artículo K.3 del Tratado de la Unión Europea, sobre la corrupción en el sector privado

eurovoc_concepts:
corruption
organised crime
penalty
private sector
restriction on competition
single market

text: L 358/2 ES Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas 31. 12. 98 (Actos adoptados en aplicaci(cid:155)n del t(cid:146)tulo VI del Tratado de la Uni(cid:155)n Europea) ACCI(cid:222)N COM(cid:230)N de 22 de diciembre de 1998 adoptada por el Consejo sobre la base del art(cid:146)culo K. 3 del Tratado de la Uni(cid:155)n Europea, sobre la corrupci(cid:155)n en el sector privado (98/742/JAI) EL CONSEJO DE LA UNI(cid:222)N EUROPEA, Visto el Tratado de la Uni(cid:155)n Europea y, en particular, el apartado 7 de su art(cid:146)culo K. 1 y la letra b) del apartado 2 de su art(cid:146)culo K. 3, Visto el Informe del Grupo de alto nivel sobre delin- cuencia organizada, aprobado por el Consejo Europeo de Amsterdam de los d(cid:146)as 16 y 17 de junio de 1997, y, en particular, la recomendaci(cid:155)n no 6 del Plan de acci(cid:155)n de lucha contra la delincuencia organizada de 28 de abril de 1997 (1), que prev(cid:130) la formulaci(cid:155)n de una pol(cid:146)tica global de lucha contra la corrupci(cid:155)n, Considerando que los Estados miembros conceden espe- cial inter(cid:130)s a la lucha contra la corrupci(cid:155)n en el sector privado a escala internacional; Vistas las conclusiones de la Conferencia «Achieving a corruption-free commercial environment — EU’s contri- bution» (Bruselas, abril de 1998); Vista la Resoluci(cid:155)n del Consejo de 21 de diciembre 1998 sobre la prevenci(cid:155)n de la delincuencia organizada con miras a establecer una estrategia global para combatirla (2); Considerando que los Estados miembros destacan el hecho de que la prevenci(cid:155)n resulta igual de importante que la represi(cid:155)n en cualquier estrategia integrada en materia de corrupci(cid:155)n en el sector privado; Vistos el Protocolo del Convenio relativo a la protecci(cid:155)n de los intereses financieros de las Comunidades Euro- peas (3), adoptado por el Consejo el 27 de septiembre de 1996; el segundo Protocolo del Convenio relativo a la protecci(cid:155)n de los intereses financieros de las Comuni- dades Europeas (4), adoptado por el Consejo el 19 de junio de 1997, y el Convenio relativo a la lucha contra los actos de corrupci(cid:155)n en los que est(cid:130)n implicados funcionarios de las Comunidades Europeas o de los Estados miembros de la Uni(cid:155)n Europea, adoptado por el Consejo el 26 de mayo de 1997 (5); (1) DO C 251 de 15. 8. 1997, p. 1. (2) DO C 408 de 29. 12. 1998, p. 1. (3) DO C 313 de 23. 10. 1996, p. 2. (4) DO C 221 de 19. 7. 1997, p. 11. (5) DO C 195 de 25. 6. 1997, p. 2. Considerando que la presente Acci(cid:155)n com(cid:156)n no tiene por objeto la corrupci(cid:155)n a la que se refieren los instrumentos anteriores; Vista la Comunicaci(cid:155)n de la Comisi(cid:155)n al Parlamento Europeo y al Consejo sobre una pol(cid:146)tica de la Uni(cid:155)n en materia de lucha contra la corrupci(cid:155)n, de 21 de mayo de 1997; Considerando que la corrupci(cid:155)n falsea la competencia leal y compromete los principios de apertura y libertad de los mercados, y, en concreto, el correcto funcionamiento del mercado interior, y es contraria a la transparencia y la apertura del comercio internacional; Considerando que, a efectos de la presente Acci(cid:155)n com(cid:156)n, es importante que el Derecho nacional de los Estados miembros abarque ampliamente la noci(cid:155)n de «incumplimiento de las obligaciones»; Habiendo examinado el dictamen del Parlamento Europeo (6) tras la consulta celebrada por la Presidencia con arreglo al art(cid:146)culo K. 6 del Tratado, HA ADOPTADO LA PRESENTE ACCI(cid:222)N COM(cid:230)N: Art(cid:146)culo 1 Definiciones A los efectos de la presente Acci(cid:155)n com(cid:156)n, se entender(cid:145) por: — «persona»: cualquier asalariado o cualquier otra persona cuando desempe(cid:157)e funciones directivas o laborales de cualquier tipo para una persona f(cid:146)sica o jur(cid:146)dica que opere en el sector privado o en su nombre; — «persona jur(cid:146)dica»: cualquier entidad que goce de tal r(cid:130)gimen jur(cid:146)dico con arreglo al Derecho nacional apli- cable, con excepci(cid:155)n de los Estados o de otros orga- nismos p(cid:156)blicos actuando en ejercicio de su potestad internacionales las organizaciones p(cid:156)blica p(cid:156)blicas; y de (6) DO C 371 de 8. 12. 1997, p. 193. 31. 12. 98 ES Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas L 358/3 — «incumplimiento de las obligaciones»: esta expresi(cid:155)n se entender(cid:145) conforme al Derecho nacional. El concepto del «incumplimiento de las obligaciones» en el Derecho nacional deber(cid:145) incluir como m(cid:146)nimo cualquier comportamiento desleal que constituya un incumplimiento de una obligaci(cid:155)n legal o, en su caso, de las normas o reglamentos profesionales que se aplican en el sector mercantil a una «persona» tal que definida en el primer gui(cid:155)n. Art(cid:146)culo 2 Corrupci(cid:155)n pasiva en el sector privado 1. A efectos de la presente Acci(cid:155)n com(cid:156)n, constituir(cid:145) corrupci(cid:155)n pasiva en el sector privado el acto intencio- nado de una persona que, directamente o por medio de terceros, solicite o reciba en el ejercicio de actividades empresariales ventajas indebidas de cualquier naturaleza, para s(cid:146) misma o para un tercero, o acepte la promesa de tales ventajas, a cambio de realizar o abstenerse de realizar un acto incumpliendo sus obligaciones. 2. Con la salvedad contemplada en el apartado 2 del art(cid:146)culo 4, cada Estado miembro adoptar(cid:145) las medidas necesarias para asegurar que la conducta a que se refiere el apartado 1 se tipifique como infracci(cid:155)n penal. Dichas medidas se aplicar(cid:145)n, como m(cid:146)nimo, a la conducta que suponga o pueda suponer una distorsi(cid:155)n de la compe- tencia, al menos en el marco del mercado com(cid:156)n y que cause o pueda causar perjuicios econ(cid:155)micos a terceros debido a la adjudicaci(cid:155)n o la ejecuci(cid:155)n irregular de un contrato. Art(cid:146)culo 3 Corrupci(cid:155)n activa en el sector privado 1. A efectos de la presente Acci(cid:155)n com(cid:156)n, constituir(cid:145) corrupci(cid:155)n activa en el sector privado la acci(cid:155)n intencio- nada de quien prometa, ofrezca o d(cid:130), directamente o por medio de terceros, una ventaja indebida de cualquier naturaleza a una persona, para (cid:130)sta o para un tercero, en el empresariales de dicha ejercicio de persona, para que (cid:130)sta realice o se abstenga de realizar un acto incumpliendo sus obligaciones. actividades las 2. Con la salvedad contemplada en el apartado 2 del art(cid:146)culo 4, cada Estado miembro adoptar(cid:145) las medidas necesarias para asegurar que la conducta a que se refiere el apartado 1 se tipifique como infracci(cid:155)n penal. Dichas medidas se aplicar(cid:145)n, como m(cid:146)nimo, a la conducta que suponga o pueda suponer una distorsi(cid:155)n de la compe- tencia, al menos en el marco del mercado com(cid:156)n, y que cause o pueda causar perjuicios econ(cid:155)micos a terceros debido a la adjudicaci(cid:155)n o la ejecuci(cid:155)n irregular de un contrato. Art(cid:146)culo 4 Sanciones 1. Cada Estado miembro adoptar(cid:145) las medidas necesa- rias para asegurar que las conductas a que se refieren los art(cid:146)culos 2 y 3, as(cid:146) como la complicidad en dichas conductas o la instigaci(cid:155)n a las mismas, sean objeto de sanciones penales eficaces, proporcionadas y disuasorias, que incluyan, al menos en los casos graves, penas priva- tivas de libertad que puedan dar lugar a la extradici(cid:155)n. 2. No obstante, todo Estado miembro podr(cid:145) establecer, en los casos menos graves de corrupci(cid:155)n activa y pasiva en el sector privado, sanciones de naturaleza distinta a las previstas en el apartado 1. Art(cid:146)culo 5 Responsabilidad de las personas jur(cid:146)dicas 1. Cada Estado miembro adoptar(cid:145) las medidas necesa- rias para asegurar que las personas jur(cid:146)dicas puedan ser consideradas responsables de los actos de corrupci(cid:155)n activa a los que se refiere el art(cid:146)culo 3 cometidos en su provecho por cualquier persona que, actuando a t(cid:146)tulo individual o como parte de un (cid:155)rgano de la persona jur(cid:146)dica, ostente un cargo directivo en el seno de dicha persona jur(cid:146)dica basado en: — un poder de representaci(cid:155)n de dicha persona jur(cid:146)dica, o — una autoridad para adoptar decisiones en nombre de dicha persona jur(cid:146)dica, o — una autoridad para ejercer un control en el seno de dicha persona jur(cid:146)dica, as(cid:146) como por complicidad o instigaci(cid:155)n en la comisi(cid:155)n de dichos delitos. 2. Adem(cid:145)s de los casos a que se refiere el apartado 1, cada Estado miembro adoptar(cid:145) las medidas necesarias para asegurar que pueda considerarse responsable a una persona jur(cid:146)dica cuando la falta de vigilancia o control por parte de una de las personas a que se refiere el apartado 1 haya hecho posible que una persona sometida a la auto- ridad de la persona jur(cid:146)dica cometa en provecho de (cid:130)sta un acto de corrupci(cid:155)n activa del tipo a que se refiere el art(cid:146)culo 3. 3. La responsabilidad de las personas jur(cid:146)dicas en virtud de los apartados 1 y 2 no excluir(cid:145) el ejercicio de acciones penales contra las personas implicadas como autoras, instigadoras o c(cid:155)mplices en casos de corrupci(cid:155)n activa. f(cid:146)sicas Art(cid:146)culo 6 Sanciones a las personas jur(cid:146)dicas 1. Cada Estado miembro adoptar(cid:145) las medidas necesa- rias para asegurar que a la persona jur(cid:146)dica considerada responsable en virtud de lo dispuesto en el apartado 1 del art(cid:146)culo 5 le sean impuestas sanciones efectivas, propor- cionadas y disuasorias, que incluir(cid:145)n multas de car(cid:145)cter penal o administrativo, y que podr(cid:145)n incluir otras sanciones, tales como: L 358/4 ES Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas 31. 12. 98 a) exclusi(cid:155)n del disfrute de ventajas o ayudas p(cid:156)blicas, b) prohibici(cid:155)n temporal o permanente del desempe(cid:157)o de actividades comerciales, c) vigilancia judicial, d) medida judicial de disoluci(cid:155)n. 2. Cada Estado miembro adoptar(cid:145) las medidas necesa- rias para asegurar que a la persona jur(cid:146)dica considerada responsable en virtud de lo dispuesto en el apartado 2 del art(cid:146)culo 5 le sean impuestas sanciones o medidas efectivas, proporcionadas y disuasorias. Art(cid:146)culo 7 Competencia 1. Cada Estado miembro adoptar(cid:145) las medidas necesa- rias para establecer su competencia respecto a las infrac- ciones a que se refieren los art(cid:146)culos 2 y 3, cuando la infracci(cid:155)n haya sido cometida: a) total o parcialmente en su territorio, o b) por uno de sus nacionales, siempre que la legislaci(cid:155)n del Estado miembro permita exigir que dicha conducta sea punible tambi(cid:130)n en el pa(cid:146)s donde ocurri(cid:155), o c) en beneficio de una persona jur(cid:146)dica que opere en el sector privado cuya sede se encuentre en el territorio de dicho Estado miembro. 2. Cada Estado miembro podr(cid:145) decidir que no aplicar(cid:145), o que s(cid:155)lo aplicar(cid:145) en casos o condiciones espec(cid:146)ficos, la norma de competencia establecida en: — la letra b) del apartado 1, — la letra c) del apartado 1. 3. Los Estados miembros que decidan aplicar el apar- tado 2 informar(cid:145)n de ello a la Secretar(cid:146)a General del Consejo, indicando, si procede, los casos o condiciones espec(cid:146)ficos en los que se aplicar(cid:145) la decisi(cid:155)n. 4. Cualquier Estado miembro que en virtud de su legis- laci(cid:155)n no extradite a sus propios nacionales tomar(cid:145) las medidas necesarias para establecer su competencia en lo que se refiere a las infracciones contempladas en los art(cid:146)culos 2 y 3 que sean cometidas por sus propios nacio- nales fuera de su territorio. Art(cid:146)culo 8 Aplicaci(cid:155)n de la Acci(cid:155)n com(cid:156)n 1. En un plazo de dos a(cid:157)os a partir de la entrada en vigor de la presente Acci(cid:155)n com(cid:156)n, cada Estado miembro presentar(cid:145) propuestas adecuadas para la aplicaci(cid:155)n de la presente Acci(cid:155)n com(cid:156)n, con objeto de que las autoridades competentes las estudien con vistas a su adopci(cid:155)n. 2. El Consejo evaluar(cid:145), bas(cid:145)ndose en la informaci(cid:155)n pertinente, el cumplimiento por parte de los Estados miembros de las obligaciones derivadas de la presente Acci(cid:155)n com(cid:156)n al cabo de tres a(cid:157)os de su entrada en vigor. Art(cid:146)culo 9 La presente Acci(cid:155)n com(cid:156)n se publicar(cid:145) en el Diario Oficial. Art(cid:146)culo 10 La presente Acci(cid:155)n com(cid:156)n entrar(cid:145) en vigor el d(cid:146)a de su publicaci(cid:155)n en el Diario Oficial. Hecho en Bruselas, el 22 de diciembre de 1998. Por el Consejo El Presidente C. EINEM


title: WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3801/98 by Sérgio RIBEIRO Breaking of the contract between Texas-Samsung and the Portuguese Government (SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER)

eurovoc_concepts:
Community support framework
European Commission
Portugal
cessation of trading
electronic component
investment aid
redemption

text: C 370/10 Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning SV 21. 12. 1999 Las Palmas kommunförvaltning har ännu inte inlett exproprieringen i samband med projektet för att återbilda miljön ”El Confital e el Rincón” eftersom det juridiska förfarandet för expropriation numera styrs av ett beslut från den spanska högsta domstolen. Enligt detta program, som är en led i arbetet med att sanera slumkvarter, skall 108 hälsovådliga bostäder i det berörda området rivas. Självfallet kommer expropriationen, när tiden är inne, att omfatta ekonomisk kompensation i enlighet med de kriterier som fastställts i den spanska lagen ”Ley de Régimen del suelo y valoraciones” från 1998. Kommunförvaltningen håller på att utarbeta en rapport om enskilda fall som de sociala myndigheterna kommer att använda för att bedöma varje berörd familjs socio-ekonomiska situation för att på så sätt kunna bevilja stöd till och kompensation för deras flyttning och framtida nya bostad. (1) EGT C 142, 21. 5. 1999, s. 147. (1999/C 370/013) SKRIFTLIG FRÅGA E-3801/98 från Sérgio Ribeiro (GUE/NGL) till kommissionen (22 december 1998) Angående: Avtalsbrott mellan Texas-Samsung (Maia) och den portugisiska staten Texas Instruments-Samsung Electronic (TISE), ett företag som tillverkar halvledare, meddelade i förra veckan sina 748 arbetare att företagets verksamhet i Maia i Portugal upphör den 31 mars 1999. Beslutet, som enligt företaget är oåterkalleligt, kommer att få allvarliga sociala följder. Det strider mot ett avtal med den portugisiska staten som baserar sig på ett programavtal som undertecknades i juli 1995 och som skulle gälla fram till 2004. Avtalet gjorde det möjligt att bevilja samriskföretag avsevärda finansiella stimulansmedel. Fastän den portugisiska regeringen redan veckan innan kände till att företaget hade för avsikt att ensidigt bryta avtalet var det företaget som offentliggjorde beslutet. Avtalet har ännu inte offentliggjorts under förevändningen att offentliggörandet kunde skada förhandlingarna där det viktigaste verkar vara att de stimulansmedel som beviljats företaget inom ramen för programavtalet återlämnas. I en situation som denna, som är särskilt allvarlig ur flera synvinklar sett, men i synnerhet ur socialt perspektiv, är det ytterst lämpligt och brådskande att fråga kommissionen om den kände till detta programavtal, om gemenskapsmedel är inblandade samt på vilket sätt de allmänna medlen förvaltas, både då det är fråga om nationella medel eller gemenskapsmedel. Kompletterande svar från Monika Wulf-Mathies på kommissionens vägnar (28 april 1999) Inom ramen för industriprogrammet Pedip II < som är en del av gemenskapens andra stödram för Portugal under perioden 1994-99 < har de portugisiska myndigheterna godkänt ett projekt som drivits av företaget Texas Samsung i staden Maia i Portugal. Stöd på motsvarande 10,6 miljoner euro har betalats ut för själva investeringen och 5,3 miljoner euro för olika utbildningsåtgärder. Stöden har samfinansierats av Europeiska regionala utvecklingsfonden respektive Europeiska socialfonden, i båda fallen med 75 %. De portugisiska myndigheterna har meddelat kommissionen att man vidtagit de åtgärder som anges i investeringsavtalet mellan initiativtagaren och den portugisiska staten. På så sätt hoppas man få tillbaka de medel som betalats ut. De båda parterna håller för närvarande på att diskutera frågan, och om det inte är möjligt att nå en överenskommelse föreskriver portugisisk lag att ett skiljedomsförfarande skall ta vid. Kommissionen kommer att informera parlamentsledamoten om vilka framsteg som gjorts i diskussionerna så snart man fått besked om detta från de portugisiska myndigheterna


title: Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1002/1999 des Rates vom 22. Dezember 1998 über die Ausfuhr bestimmter EGKS-Stahlerzeugnisse aus Bulgarien in die Gemeinschaft im Zeitraum 1. Januar bis 31. Dezember 1999 (Verlängerung des Systems der doppelten Kontrolle)

text: L 123/18 DE Amtsblatt der Europ(cid:132)ischen Gemeinschaften 13. 5. 1999 I (Ver(cid:148)ffentlichungsbed(cid:129)rftige Rechtsakte) VERORDNUNG (EG) Nr. 1002/1999 DES RATES vom 22. Dezember 1998 (cid:129)ber die Ausfuhr bestimmter EGKS-Stahlerzeugnisse aus Bulgarien in die Gemeinschaft im Zeitraum 1. Januar bis 31. Dezember 1999 (Verl(cid:132)ngerung des Systems der doppelten Kontrolle) DER RAT DER EUROP(cid:142)ISCHEN UNION (cid:190) erlassenen Durchf(cid:129)hrungsvorschriften der Gemeinschaft m(cid:129)ssen daher verl(cid:132)ngert werden (cid:190) gest(cid:129)tzt auf den Vertrag zur Gr(cid:129)ndung der Europ(cid:132)ischen Gemeinschaft, insbesondere auf Artikel 113, auf Vorschlag der Kommission, in Erw(cid:132)gung nachstehender Gr(cid:129)nde: Das Europa-Abkommen zur Gr(cid:129)ndung einer Assoziation zwischen den Europ(cid:132)ischen Gemeinschaften und ihren Mitgliedstaaten einerseits und der Republik Bulgarien andererseits (1) ist am 1. Februar 1995 in Kraft getreten. Mit dem Beschluß Nr. 3/1999 des Assoziationsrates (2) haben die Vertragsparteien das mit dem Beschluß Nr. 3/97 (3) eingef(cid:129)hrte System der doppelten Kontrolle f(cid:129)r den Zeitraum 1. Januar bis 31. Dezember 1999 verl(cid:132)n- gert. Die mit der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 86/98 des Rates vom 19. Dezember 1997 (cid:129)ber die Ausfuhr bestimmter EGKS- und EG-Stahlerzeugnisse aus Bulgarien in die Gemein- schaft im Zeitraum 1. Januar bis 31. Dezember 1999 (Erneuerung des Systems der doppelten Kontrolle) (4) dazu HAT FOLGENDE VERORDNUNG ERLASSEN: Artikel 1 Die Verordnung (EG) Nr. 86/98 des Rates findet gem(cid:132)ß den Bestimmungen des Beschlusses Nr. 3/1999 des Asso- ziationsrates, Assoziation zwischen den Europ(cid:132)ischen Gemeinschaften und ihren Mitgliedstaaten einerseits und Bulgarien andererseits, im Zeitraum 1. Januar bis 31. Dezember 1999 weiterhin Anwendung. Im Titel, in der Pr(cid:132)ambel sowie in Artikel 1 Abs(cid:132)tze 1 und 4 der Verord- nung wird die Zeitangabe „1. Januar bis 31. Dezember 1998“ durch den „1. Januar bis 31. Dezember 1999“ ersetzt. Artikel 2 Diese Verordnung tritt am Tag ihrer Ver(cid:148)ffentlichung im Amtsblatt der Europ(cid:132)ischen Gemeinschaften in Kraft. Sie gilt ab 1. Januar 1999. Diese Verordnung ist in allen ihren Teilen verbindlich und gilt unmittelbar in jedem Mitgliedstaat. Geschehen zu Br(cid:129)ssel am 22. Dezember 1998. Im Namen des Rates Der Pr(cid:132)sident C. EINEM (1) ABl. L 358 vom 31. 12. 1994, S. 3. (2) Siehe Seite 56 dieses Amtsblatts. (3) ABl. L 13 vom 19. 1. 1998, S. 85. (4) ABl. L 13 vom 19. 1. 1998, S. 29


title: 98/737/GBVB: Besluit van de Raad van 22 december 1998 tot verlenging van Gemeenschappelijk Optreden 95/545/GBVB ten aanzien van de deelneming van de Unie aan de structuren voor de tenuitvoerlegging van het vredesakkoord voor Bosnië-Herzegovina en tot wijziging van Besluit 98/607/GBVB

eurovoc_concepts:
Bosnia and Herzegovina
EU aid
diplomatic representation
joint action
peacekeeping
settlement of disputes

text: L 354/4 NL Publicatieblad van de Europese Gemeenschappen 30. 12. 98 BESLUIT VAN DE RAAD van 22 december 1998 tot verlenging van Gemeenschappel¶k Optreden 95/545/GBVB ten aanzien van de deelneming van de Unie aan de structuren voor de tenuitvoerlegging van het vredesakkoord voor Bosni(cid:137)-Herzegovina en tot w¶ziging van Besluit 98/607/ GBVB (98/737/GBVB) DE RAAD VAN DE EUROPESE UNIE, Artikel 2 Gelet op het Verdrag betreffende de Europese Unie, inzonderheid op artikel J. 3, Overwegende dat de Raad op 11 december 1995 Gemeen- schappel¶k Optreden 95/545/GBVB ten aanzien van de deelneming van de Unie aan de structuren voor de tenuit- voerlegging van het vredesakkoord voor Bosni(cid:137)-Herzego- vina (1) heeft vastgesteld, dat op 20 november 1996 b¶ Besluit 96/745/GBVB (2) is verlengd en op 26 oktober 1998 b¶ Besluit 98/607/GBVB (3) is aangevuld; Overwegende dat de Raad in z¶n conclusies van 7 december 1998 de Hoge Vertegenwoordiger in Bosni(cid:137)- Herzegovina z¶n voortdurende sterke steun beloofd heeft; Overwegende dat de Unie t¶dens de zitting van de Vredesimplementatieraad op 15/16 december 1998 in Madrid andermaal haar steun heeft toegezegd aan de inspanningen van de Hoge Vertegenwoordiger; Overwegende dat Gemeenschappel¶k Optreden 95/545/ GBVB op 31 december 1998 verstr¶kt en verlengd dient te worden; dat ervoor gezorgd moet worden dat de Unie haar b¶drage aan de kosten van die verlenging voortzet, BESLUIT: Artikel 1 Gemeenschappel¶k Optreden verlengd tot en met 31 december 1999. 95/545/GBVB wordt Artikel 2 van Besluit 98/607/GBVB wordt vervangen door: „Artikel 2 Dit besluit treedt in werking op de dag waarop het wordt vastgesteld en is van toepassing tot en met 31 december 1999. ”. Artikel 3 Dit besluit treedt in werking op de dag waarop het wordt vastgesteld. Artikel 4 Dit besluit wordt bekendgemaakt in het Publicatieblad. Gedaan te Brussel, 22 december 1998. Voor de Raad De Voorzitter C. EINEM (1) PB L 309 van 21. 12. 1995, blz. 2. (2) PB L 340 van 30. 12. 1996, blz. 3. (3) PB L 290 van 29. 10. 1998, blz. 3


title: Regulamento (CE) nº 2789/98 da Comissão de 22 de Dezembro de 1998 que derroga o Regulamento (CE) nº 1445/95 que estabelece as normas de execução do regime dos certificados de importação e de exportação no sector da carne de bovino

eurovoc_concepts:
beef
common organisation of markets
export licence
import licence
quantitative restriction

text: 23. 12. 98 PT Jornal Oficial das Comunidades Europeias L 347/33 REGULAMENTO (CE) Nº 2789/98 DA COMISS(cid:212)O de 22 de Dezembro de 1998 que derroga o Regulamento (CE) nº 1445/95 que estabelece as normas de execu(cid:135)(cid:209)o do regime dos certificados de importa(cid:135)(cid:209)o e de exporta(cid:135)(cid:209)o no sector da carne de bovino A COMISS(cid:212)O DAS COMUNIDADES EUROPEIAS, Tendo em conta o Tratado que institui a Comunidade Europeia, Tendo em conta o Regulamento (CEE) nº 805/68 do Conselho, de 27 de Junho de 1968, que estabelece a organiza(cid:135)(cid:209)o comum do mercado no sector da carne de bovino (1), com a (cid:156)ltima redac(cid:135)(cid:209)o que lhe foi dada pelo Regulamento (CE) nº 1633/98 (2), e, nomeadamente, o nº 2 do seu artigo 9º, Considerando que o Regulamento (CE) nº 1445/95 da Comiss(cid:209)o, de 26 de Junho de 1995, que estabelece as normas de execu(cid:135)(cid:209)o do regime dos certificados de impor- ta(cid:135)(cid:209)o e de exporta(cid:135)(cid:209)o no sector da carne de bovino (3), com a (cid:156)ltima redac(cid:135)(cid:209)o que lhe foi dada pelo Regulamento (CE) nº 2365/98 (4), segundo travess(cid:209)o, do seu artigo 8º, o per(cid:146)odo de efic(cid:145)cia de deter- minados certificados de exporta(cid:135)(cid:209)o com prefixa(cid:135)(cid:209)o da restitui(cid:135)(cid:209)o, e prev(cid:136), no nº 5 do seu artigo 10º, que os pedidos de certificados de exporta(cid:135)(cid:209)o para uma quanti- dade inferior ou igual a 22 toneladas de produtos do c(cid:155)digo NC 0201 n(cid:209)o ficam sujeitos a um prazo de reflex(cid:209)o de cinco dias; estabelece, no nº 1, Considerando que, para evitar prejudicar a boa gest(cid:209)o do mercado imput(cid:145)vel parcialmente aos problemas encon- trados no mercado russo desde o fim de Agosto de 1998, conv(cid:130)m introduzir temporariamente uma maior flexibili- dade na gest(cid:209)o dos certificados de exporta(cid:135)(cid:209)o mediante o prolongamento do per(cid:146)odo de efic(cid:145)cia dos certificados de exporta(cid:135)(cid:209)o, aumentado-o de 30 para 60 dias no que respeita (cid:133)s carnes, e tornando a derroga(cid:135)(cid:209)o do nº 5 do artigo 10º extens(cid:146)vel aos produtos do c(cid:155)digo NC 0202; Considerando que as medidas previstas no presente regu- lamento est(cid:209)o em conformidade com o parecer do Comit(cid:130) de Gest(cid:209)o da Carne de Bovino, ADOPTOU O PRESENTE REGULAMENTO: Artigo 1º 1. Em derroga(cid:135)(cid:209)o do nº 1, segundo travess(cid:209)o, do artigo 8º do Regulamento (CE) nº 1445/95, o per(cid:146)odo de efic(cid:145)cia dos certificados de exporta(cid:135)(cid:209)o com prefixa(cid:135)(cid:209)o da restitui(cid:135)(cid:209)o para os produtos n(cid:209)o constantes dos c(cid:155)digos NC 0102 e 1602 (cid:130) fixado em sessenta dias. 2. Em derroga(cid:135)(cid:209)o do nº 5, primeira frase, do artigo 10º, do Regulamento (CE) nº 1445/95, os pedidos de certifi- cados respeitantes a uma quantidade inferior ou igual a 22 toneladas de produtos dos c(cid:155)digos NC 0201 e 0202 n(cid:209)o ficam sujeitos, a pedido do operador, ao prazo de cinco dias. Artigo 2º O presente regulamento entra em vigor no terceiro dia seguinte ao da sua publica(cid:135)(cid:209)o no Jornal Oficial das Comunidades Europeias. (cid:144) aplic(cid:145)vel aos certificados de exporta(cid:135)(cid:209)o com prefixa(cid:135)(cid:209)o da restitui(cid:135)(cid:209)o pedidos a partir de data de entrada em vigor do presente regulamento e at(cid:130) 31 de Mar(cid:135)o de 1999. O presente regulamento (cid:130) obrigat(cid:155)rio em todos os seus elementos e directamente aplic(cid:145)vel em todos os Estados-membros. Feito em Bruxelas, em 22 de Dezembro de 1998. Pela Comiss(cid:209)o Franz FISCHLER Membro da Comiss(cid:209)o (1) JO L 148 de 28. 6. 1968, p. 24. (2) JO L 210 de 28. 7. 1998, p. 17. (3) JO L 143 de 27. 6. 1995, p. 35. (4) JO L 293 de 31. 10. 1998, p. 49


title: Orientación del Banco Central Europeo de 22 de diciembre de 1998 relativa a las reglas comunes y los estándares mínimos de protección del carácter confidencial de la información estadística individual obtenida por el Banco Central Europeo con la ayuda de los bancos centrales nacionales (BCE/1998/NP28)

eurovoc_concepts:
European Central Bank
central bank
confidentiality
data collection
statistics

formats: html print