title: 1999/581/EC: Commission Decision of 9 December 1998 on State aid granted by Germany to a lignite-fired power station in Cottbus (notified under document number C(1998) 4275) (Text with EEA relevance) (Only the German text is authentic)

eurovoc_concepts:
Germany
State aid
aid to industry
control of State aid
lignite
power plant

formats: html pdf print

text: 20. 8. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 220/33 COMMISSION DECISION of 9 December 1998 on State aid granted by Germany to a lignite-fired power station in Cottbus (notified under document number C(1998) 4275) (Only the German text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) (1999/581/EC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 93(2) thereof, Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof, Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above and having regard to their comments, Whereas: I. PROCEDURE In a complaint received from a Member of the European Parlia- ment on 26 March 1996, the Commission was informed that Germany had granted aid to a lignite-fired power station in Cottbus. By letters dated 7 June 1996 and 5 September 1996, the Commission requested information from the German authorities on the matter. It received replies from Germany on 26 July 1996 and 20 February 1997. By letter dated 12 August 1997, the Commission informed Germany that it had decided to initiate proceedings pursuant to Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of the aid. Germany replied by letter dated 31 October 1997. The Commission decision to initiate proceedings was published the European Communities (1). The in the Official Journal of Commission invited interested parties their comments on the aid. to submit By letter dated 3 March 1998, the comments were transmitted to Germany. On 6 and 7 March 1998, an on-site visit to the power station in Cottbus took place with the participation of Commission representatives. On 9 July 1998, Germany sent its reply to the comments. II. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE AID replace its old lignite-fired power station, which dates from the GDR period, but no longer meets current technical standards, particularly as regards fuel consumption and environmental protection, by a new modern combined heat and power (CHP) plant. The main aim of the project is to provide district heating to the city of Cottbus (approximately 70 % of households are connected to a district heating network). As a by-product, electricity will be produced, and this will be supplied only to the city of Cottbus. The overall project cost is DEM 395 million. The Land of Brandenburg provided support for this investment in order to offset the price differential as compared with a modern gas- fired combined heat/power plant, which would have cost about DEM 185 million. Since Germany had expressly excluded the energy supply industry from subsidisation under the ‘Gemein- schaftsaufgabe’, which is the German regional aid scheme approved by the Commission (2) and according to which investment aid covering up to 35 % of total investment may be granted in Brandenburg, an area falling within Article 92(3)(a) of the EC Treaty, aid was awarded on an ad hoc basis in the amount of DEM 49,95 million. No other national aid, whether ad hoc or under approved aid schemes such as for research and development (R & D) or environmental protection, was granted for the project. Currently, 243 people are employed in the power plant. In the Cottbus project, lignite is being used for the first time anywhere in the world in a CHP-plant as a fuel for the second generation ‘pressurised fluidised bed combustion’ technology. The Commission therefore decided to support this project under the Thermie programme established by Council Regula- tion (EEC) No 2008/90 (3) by providing a further DEM 29 million (Project Nos SF/00122/95/DE/SE and SF/00264/ 97/DE/SE; for eastern German lignite’). The aim was to demonstrate that the pressurised fluidised bed combustion technology may also be applied for the use of lignite as a fuel and thus may increase the chances the Community. ‘Second generation PFCB cogeneration plant technology outside exporting this for As regards the effects of the project on competition, however, the Commission felt that the choice for a more expensive lignite-fired power station and the investment grant connected with it could constitute illegal State aid for the regional lignite producer Laubag, because, although not obtaining prices higher than usual market prices, it would be able to count on long- term supply contracts. Cottbus is located in the largest Eastern German lignite field, in which Lausitzer Braunkohle AG (Laubag) lignite producer. On 26 April 1995, the city of Cottbus decided to the is (1) OJ C 381, 16. 12. 1997, p. 5. the ‘24th outline plan for the joint Federal (2) See point 3. 1. 3 of Government/Länder economic scheme structures’, approved on 30 April 1996 (OJ C 291, 4. 10. 1996, p. 4). improving regional for (3) OJ L 185, 17. 7. 1990, p. 1. L 220/34 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 20. 8. 1999 The view that illegal State aid was involved was based primarily on an undertaking given by Germany in State aid Case N 13/92, where the Commission finally approved investment aid of DEM 600 million for the lignite-fired power station in Schkopau, Saxony-Anhalt (1). A precondition for that approval was that, in order to prevent systematic subsidisation of the Eastern German lignite industry and to avoid distortions of competition within a liberalised electricity market, Germany had to: ‘undertake not to grant any aid in future which is either directly or indirectly linked to the use of lignite. However, subsidies granted in accordance with the terms of Commis- sion decisions approving aid for general purposes such as regional, R & D and environmental aid schemes, which are not in any way linked to the use of particular fuel sources and which are not designed to offset the costs of using particular fuel sources, may continue to be available for electricity generating stations. ’ Since, in the case of Cottbus, the aid was an ad hoc measure not based on any horizontal aid scheme previously approved, the Commission had serious doubts whether, in the light of Germany's undertaking given in 1992, the investment grant provided by the Land of Brandenburg could be considered compatible with the Community rules on State aid. It therefore decided on 30 July 1997 to initiate proceedings under Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty. III. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES Six sets of comments from third parties were received which can be summarised as follows: The ‘Amt Jänschwalde’, which is the local administrative body of a municipality close to the exploitation area of the lignite producer Laubag, stated that the aid for the Cottbus power plant clearly had to be considered to be aid for the regional lignite industry. It added that the aid could not be regarded as being regional aid compatible with the Community rules on State aid because there was no obvious regional objective. Furthermore, it was clear that lignite-fired power stations were not and would not be competitive in the future without contin- uous State aid. As to the environmental effects of the project, it stated that gas was clearly less harmful to the environment than any use of lignite in whatever form. According to Enron Europe Ltd (Enron), an electricity producer and supplier using natural gas, greater price stability in the case of lignite could not be adduced as an argument in its favour because the same effects could be attained with gas prices by hedging them. They also pointed out that a higher level of environmental protection could be achieved by the use of gas. The other four sets of comments did not focus so much on the impact of the measure on the electricity market but rather on (1) Decision of 22 July 1992 (OJ C 203, 11. 8. 1992, p. 15). the use of lignite as a fuel as such, which was, according to them, not sufficiently environmentally friendly. IV. COMMENTS FROM GERMANY In reply to the Commission's decision to initiate Article 93(2) proceedings, Germany argued in particular that the lignite producer Laubag could hardly be considered to be a recipient of the aid since its benefit, if any, was only marginal. This lignite producer did not benefit at all from artificially high prices, but only from a long-term contract which, moreover, accounted for only 0,9 % of its annual lignite production. In addition, Germany pointed out that the 1992 undertaking was not applicable in this case, since the project related primarily to the supply of district heating. The production of electricity, to which the 1992 undertaking related, was only a by-product. Furthermore, it had to be borne in mind that Cottbus was located in an area falling within Article 92(3)(a) of the EC Treaty. In such areas, the Commission allowed investment aid of up to 35 % of overall investment costs. With investment costs of DEM 395 million, the project could theoretically have received assistance of approximately DEM 135 million, i. e. a much larger amount than the amount of aid actually granted so far (DEM 49,95 million granted by the Land of Brandenburg and DEM 29 million granted by the Commission under the Thermie programme). The project was in full compliance with the Community rules on public procurement. Once the decision was made in favour of the lignite-fired CHP plant using the pressurised fluidised bed combustion technology, a Community-wide tender was launched and published in the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Communities of 8 August 1995. Besides this publication, all producers of PFBC technology were directly invited to tender. The contract was ultimately awarded to a German producer. Neither the procurement office nor the complaints committee had received any complaint regarding the implementation of the tender procedure. Moreover, the project was in the nature of a pilot project. The fact that the Community had financed the project under the Thermie programme confirmed this. In addition, the research institutes of the Technical University of Cottbus would monitor very closely the effects of the use of lignite as a fuel with the pressurised fluidised bed combustion technology. The project would be successful if it could be demonstrated that lignite could be used as a competitive fuel. This would have positive effects on employment within the regional lignite industry, which was the main industry in that structurally weak area and still provided 13 000 to 17 000 direct and indirect jobs (1989: 73 000 jobs). 20. 8. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 220/35 Furthermore, the project had positive effects on environmental protection. Thus, there would be significant reductions in pollutant emissions and noise, going even beyond the stand- ards set by German environmental protection legislation. As evidence, Germany submitted the following emission figures. German law Cottbus plant (mg/m3) Sulphur dioxide Nitrogen oxide Carbon dioxide Hydrochloric acid Hydrofluoric acid Dust 250 200 250 100 15 50 200 200 200 30 1,5 20 impact the project would have on the output of the local lignite industry and hence on competition between fuels. This was evidenced by the fact that gas, the fuel which competes with lignite, already had won a large market share in the new German Länder of about 27 %, whereas the average share in Germany as a whole was 21 %. At the end of 1997, 40 % of eastern German households had gas-fired heating. The fuel used in the Cottbus plant accounted for only 0,1 % of the total volume of fuels used in district heating plants in Germany. As regards the alleged environmental advantages of gas over lignite, Germany pointed out that there were larger methane emissions in the case of gas, a fact which was not mentioned by the ‘Amt Jänschwalde’. Regarding the comments of Enron, Germany doubted in particular that gas could achieve the same price stability as lignite through price hedging. This was borne out by the fact that Enron itself was not able to state precisely under which conditions and with the inclusion of which specific risks it could supply gas at constant prices over a long period. As regards the other four sets of comments, Germany reit- erated the positive effects of the project on environmental protection in that it was well within the levels imposed by German law in respect of both emissions and noise. As regards noise reduction, the figures provided by Germany showed the following. (decibels) V. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID Daytime Night German law Cottbus plant German law Cottbus plant 55 60 60 55 55 50 50 52 43 43 45 46 34 45 40 45 45 40 40 35 35 40 31 28 34 35 23 33 Regarding the third parties' observations, Germany commented as follows: In response to the observation made by the ‘Amt Jänschwalde’, Germany stated that it related primarily to the general energy policy of the Land of Brandenburg and in particular to the relocation of the municipality of Horno, which had to be moved because of the expansion of an opencast mine belonging to Laubag. Germany again emphasised the low Lignite is covered not by the ECSC Treaty, but by the EC Treaty. The investment grant of DEM 49,95 million provided by the Land of Brandenburg for the construction of the lignite- fired power station in Cottbus clearly constitutes aid within the meaning of Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty. While the primary beneficiaries of the aid are the operators of the power plant, the aid also indirectly benefits the eastern German lignite industry, and more specifically Laubag. The aid was an incent- ive for the use of lignite as a fuel, although the construction of a power plant run with other fuels such as gas would have been the cheaper solution. The proposed aid may distort competition and affect trade between Member States. The inclusion of the former GDR into the Community in 1990/91 gave a substantial boost to lignite production in the Community. There are only three countries in the Community which produce significant quantities of lignite and Germany accounts for 75 % of Community produc- tion. It is true that lignite is in general burned in power stations located next to the deposits, since it is generally uneconomic to transport it over long distances. Nevertheless, this does not mean that there is no intra-Community trade in lignite. In addition, it has to be borne in mind that, in this case, lignite was chosen in preference to gas, hard coal and mineral oil. On the energy market, each of those fuels can be substituted by any of the others. Consequently, it is necessary to take into consideration the individual markets, the fuel market in general and any intra-Community competition between them. On those markets there is intra-Community trade and competition among companies from the different Member States. The aid therefore is likely to affect competition between companies on the energy market. L 220/36 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 20. 8. 1999 The aid was not based on an aid scheme previously approved by the Commission. It was therefore notifiable individually pursuant to Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty. By not notifying the aid, Germany has failed to fulfil this obligation. The aid was therefore granted illegally. sion) (2) that ad hoc aid must also be examined to see whether it fulfils regional aid requirements under Article 92(3)(a). This applies to the aid for the lignite-fired power station in Cottbus. As regards the eligibility of the aid for one of the exemptions provided for in Article 92(2) and (3) of the EC Treaty, it must first be noted that Germany's undertaking given in connection with State aid in the Schkopau case does not stand in the way of their application in this case. Through the undertaking given, it was intended at that time to ensure that the protective arrangements existing in western Germany for hard coal would not be replicated for lignite in the new Eastern Länder. The Cottbus project, however, is an ad hoc measure which in no way aims at and in no way has the effect of subsidising systematically the Eastern German lignite industry. This is confirmed both by the fact that Laubag will not obtain artificially high prices, but will have to sell its the lignite product at market prices and by the fact required for this project accounts for only a marginal share, i. e. 0,9 %, of Laubag's annual production. Moreover, the project relates primarily to the supply of district heating, whereas the production of electricity, to which the 1992 undertaking relates, is only a by-product. that In considering the applicability of the derogations under Article 92(2) and (3) of the EC Treaty, however, it has to be concluded that the derogations set out in Article 92(2) do not apply in this case in view of the features of the aid and the fact that it does not seek to satisfy the conditions for application of those derogations. The aid may, however, be regarded as compatible with the common market by virtue of the derogation provided for in Article 92(3)(a) of the EC Treaty. The application of that provision is not excluded a priori by the fact that the aid was not granted under the ‘Gemeinschafts- aufgabe’ (the German regional aid scheme). It was not granted under the ‘Gemeinschaftsaufgabe’ because investments in elec- tricity supply may not receive assistance under that scheme. restriction was an autonomous decision made by That Germany and in no way imposed by the Commission in the context of State aid control. The Commission may not there- fore exclude scrutiny of the aid from a regional aspect, but must, as it did in the State aid Case N 295/97 ‘Délipapier’, France (1), assess on an individual basis whether the require- ments of Article 92(3)(a) are met. Moreover, it has to be pointed out that Article 92(3)(a) is also applicable to ad hoc measures. This was confirmed by the Court of Justice, which held in its judgment of 14 September 1994 in Cases C-278, 279 and 280/92 (Spain v. Commis- (1) OJ C 333, 4. 11. 1997, p. 6. Although, under this project, an old power plant is to be replaced by a new one, the aid can be regarded as being granted for initial investment, for which regional aid may be approved in accordance with the guidelines on national regional aid (3). Pursuant to point 4. 4 of the guidelines, initial investment includes ‘the starting-up of an activity involving a fundamental change in the product or production process of an existing establishment (through rationalisation, diversifica- tion or modernisation)’. In addition, Cottbus is located in an area falling within Article 92(3)(a). The permitted aid ceiling there is 35 % for new invest- ment. In this instance, the aid intensity (20 %) remains well below that ceiling. the Thermie programme, Moreover, the aid may promote the economic development of this area. The importance of the project for the employment situation in the area is certainly wider than the 243 direct jobs created within the power plant. The project also aims at the long-term development of the area. Through the new power plant, an effective and modern district heating system will be established which will contribute to the overall improvement of infrastructure in the area, to which not only private house- holds, but also industrial producers and potential investors will have access. Furthermore, the use of the new pressurised fluid- ised bed combustion technology, which was selected for Commission support under is intended to demonstrate that lignite may be used as a compet- itive fuel. If that technology turns out to be successful, there may be positive effects on employment within the lignite- producing industry. In 1989, 73 000 people were employed in the lignite-producing industry in the region. Lignite production was 195 million tonnes in that year. In spite of drastic reduc- tions both in employment and in output after 1989, the lignite industry is still the most important industrial sector in this structurally weak region. It is estimated that, with a production rate of 35-40 million tonnes per annum in the year 2000, about 5 000 people will be directly employed in the produc- tion and processing of lignite. Another 2 000 will be employed in the generation of electricity based on lignite. To these 7 000 direct jobs can be added another 10 000 indirect jobs based on investment in the supply, maintenance and processing industry and therefore heavily dependent on the situation of the lignite industry. In this context, it is obvious that any activity which improves the economic prospects of the lignite industry will also have a positive impact on indirect employment. Furthermore, the Commission takes note that the project will reduce pollution. As the figures provided by Germany demon- strate, emissions and noise disturbances caused by the new plant are far lower than with the old power plant. In this context, it should also be borne in mind that the Cottbus plant is a combined heat and power plant. In its communication of 15 October 1997 regarding a Community strategy to promote combined heat and power (CHP) and to dismantle barriers to its development (4), the Commission once again expressly emphasised the environmentally friendly and energy-saving aspects of this technology. (2) [1994] ECR I, p. 4103. (3) OJ C 74, 10. 3. 1998, p. 9. (4) COM(97) 514 final. 20. 8. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 220/37 Moreover, it has to be recalled that the plant will produce both heat and power and therefore cause lower discharges into the atmosphere than conventional coal-fired stations. The use of combined heat and power technology has been recognised by the Commission in other cases as justifying financial incent- ives (1). In this context, it should also be recalled that, in its decision of 18 December 1991 (2), the Commission approved a one-year aid programme for the restructuring of the heating network in the new German Länder, under which investment grants up to 35 % of the investment costs were permitted to improve the efficiency of the network and reduce environ- mental pollution. The Cottbus project pursues precisely these objectives. Finally, negative effects on the overall Community fuel market are negligible, since the benefit to the lignite producer Laubag is itself only marginal. It has to be borne in mind that Laubag does not benefit at all from artificially high prices, but has to sell its products under market conditions. There is, at best, an indirect benefit stemming from a long-term contract, which accounts for only 0,9 % of Laubag's annual lignite production. The impact on the Community fuel market as a whole can therefore be considered minimal. In addition, it must be borne in mind that the fuel used in the Cottbus plant accounts for only 0,1 % of the total volume of fuel used in Germany to run district heating plants. The Cottbus plant will therefore increase Laubag's share of the overall German fuel market by only 0,001 %. Moreover, gas, the fuel which competes with lignite, is in no way displaced. On the contrary, since 1991 gas has won a market share in the new German Länder of about 27 % (in 1990, practically 0 %), which is higher than its market share in Germany as a whole. At the end of 1997, 40 % of all eastern German households had gas-fired heating. In this context, it should also be noted that none of the third parties emphasised distortions of competition, but rather focused on the environ- mental aspects of using lignite as a fuel, an aspect which cannot be the sole subject of proceedings under Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty. VI. CONCLUSIONS The Commission finds that the aid granted by Germany in breach of Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty is unlawful. However, taking into account the positive effects on regional develop- ment, the reduction of pollution compared to the old plant, the pilot character of the project as well as the fact that there is a the Commission has negligible concluded that the investment grant for the construction of a lignite-fired power station in Cottbus is compatible with the common market, impact on competition, HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: Article 1 The State aid of DEM 49,5 million granted by the Land of Brandenburg for the lignite-fired power station in Cottbus is compatible with the common market pursuant to Article 92(3)(a) of the EC Treaty. This Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany. Article 2 Done at Brussels, 9 December 1998. For the Commission Karel VAN MIERT Member of the Commission (1) For example in Italy, in Case No NN 52/91, Decision of 31 July 1991 (OJ C 23, 30. 1. 1992, p. 5). (2) OJ C 184, 21. 7. 1992, p. 8


title: QUESTION ECRITE no 3867/98 de Joost LAGENDIJK Refus des Pays-Bas de mettre en oeuvre la directive sur les nitrates

eurovoc_concepts: action for failure to fulfil an obligation

text: 11. 10. 1999 FR Journal officiel des Communautés européennes C 289/99 (1999/C 289/130) QUESTION ÉCRITE E-3855/98 posée par Anita Pollack (PSE) à la Commission (4 janvier 1999) Objet: Énergies renouvelables La Commission a-t-elle progressé dans la mise sur pied d’une task-force spécialisée «Énergies renouvelables» qui pourrait élaborer, à l’intention des petites installations de production, des orientations claires et transparentes en matière de raccordement, d’exploitation et de conditions commerciales et attribuer à l’efficacité énergétique un rôle central dans le cadre d’une stratégie européenne intégréeen matière d’énergie et d’environnement? Réponse donnée par M. Papoutsis au nom de la Commission (11 février 1999) En ce qui concerne les sources d’énergie renouvelables, la Commission a, dans le cadre des efforts déployés pour la mise en œuvre du plan d’action établi jusqu’en 2010 présenté dans le livre blanc sur les énergies renouvelables (1) et conformément aux résolutions adoptées par le Parlement et le Conseil sur le fondement de ce document, créé un «groupe de travail sur les énergies renouvelables». Ce groupe est composé de représentants des États membres ayant des compétences stratégiques dans ce domaine. Ils se sont réunis une fois en 1998 et ont fait le point de la situation actuelle concernant les programmes, actions, mesures et plans nationaux dans ce domaine. Ils continueront à se réunir régulièrement pour étudier les progrès accomplis et orienter la progression. En particulier, lors de cette première réunion, ils ont fait un tour d’horizon des activités en faveur des énergies renouvelables entreprises au niveau national, puis ont procédé à un examen plus approfondi de la question sur la base des réponses écrites à un questionnaire que la Commission avait envoyé aux autorités compétentes des États membres. Par ailleurs, par suite de la décision 96/642/CE (2) de la Commission, un comité consultatif de l’énergie a été institué pour étudier, entre autres, la question du rendement énergétique. Les questions relatives au rendement seront abordées plus concrètement dans le cadre de l’étude de l’interaction énergie/environnement. En janvier 1999, un groupe d’experts s’est réuni à Bruxelles pour aider à la préparation du plan d’action pour le rendement énergétique. Ce groupe, qui comprend des représentants des États membres et de la Commission, devrait jouer un rôle déterminant dans le développement du plan d’action et sa mise en œuvre ultérieure en faisant entendre la voix des États membres et en apportant une contribution technique. (1) COM(97) 599 final. (2) JO L 292 du 15. 11. 1996. (1999/C 289/131) QUESTION ÉCRITE P-3867/98 posée par Jan Lagendijk (V) à la Commission (9 décembre 1998) Objet: Refus des Pays-Bas de mettre en œuvre la directive sur les nitrates La Commission européenne sait-elle que le gouvernement néerlandais a décidé, début décembre 1998, de ne pas respecter les dispositions de la directive sur les nitrates (91/676/CEE) (1), adoptée en 1991 sous la présidence néerlandaise? Selon une lettre adressée à la Chambre des députés, le gouvernement néerlandais n’envisage pas de se conformer, en 2002, aux dispositions de cette directive. Même en 2008, les Pays-Bas ne respecteront pas les conditions qu’elle impose, dès lors qu’ils prendront pour base 2,5 vaches par hectare. Pour se conformer à la directive sur les nitrates, les autorités suédoises ont fixé le maximum de vaches par hectare à 1,6, et au Danemark, le gouvernement a prévu un maximum de 1,7 vaches en 2003. Est-il exact qu’une telle limite est nécessaire pour respecter la directive sur les nitrates? La Commission européenne n’estime-t-elle pas que l’élevage intensif néerlandais bénéficie ainsi d’un avantage économique inacceptable par rapport à ses concurrents étrangers? De l’avis de la Commission, quand la procédure de recours en manquement conformément à l’article 169 engagée auprès de la Cour de justice de Luxembourg arrivera-t-elle à son terme? Quand la Commission pense- t-elle pouvoir engager une procédure de recours en manquement conformément à l’article 171 contre le gouvernement néerlandais, au motif que celui-ci se refuse à dûment appliquer la directive sur les nitrates, qu’il a


title: Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 2651/98 af 9. december 1998 om åbning af et toldkontingent for import af visse varer med oprindelse i Norge og fremstillet af landbrugsprodukter som omhandlet i bilaget til Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 3448/93

eurovoc_concepts:
Norway
agreement (EU)
agro-industry
customs tariff
tariff quota
trading operation

text: 10. 12. 98 DA De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende L 335/47 KOMMISSIONENS FORORDNING (EF) Nr. 2651/98 af 9. december 1998 om åbning af et toldkontingent for import af visse varer med oprindelse i Norge og fremstillet af landbrugsprodukter som omhandlet i bilaget til Rådets forord- ning (EF) nr. 3448/93 KOMMISSIONEN FOR DE EUROPÆISKE FÆLLESSKABER HAR (cid:190) under henvisning til Europæiske Fællesskab, traktaten om oprettelse af Det under henvisning til Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 3448/93 af 6. december 1993 om en ordning for handelen med landbrugsprodukter (1), senest visse varer fremstillet af ændret ved Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 2491/ 98 (2), særlig artikel 7, stk. 2, under henvisning til Rådets afgørelse 96/753/EF af 6. december 1996 om indgåelse af en aftale i form af brev- veksling mellem Det Europæiske Fællesskab på den ene side og Kongeriget Norge på den anden side om protokol nr. 2 til overenskomsten mellem Det Europæiske Økono- miske Fællesskab og Kongeriget Norge (3), særlig artikel 2, og ud fra følgende betragtninger: I Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 2454/93 af 2. juli 1993 om visse gennemførelsesbestemmelser til Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 2913/92 om indførelse af en EF- toldkodeks (4), senest ændret ved forordning (EF) nr. 1677/ 98 (5), er der fastsat bestemmelser om konsolidering af ordningerne for forvaltning af toldkontingenter, der skal anvendes i kronologisk rækkefølge efter datoen for anta- gelse af angivelser for overgang til fri omsætning; ifølge artikel 2 i Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1103/97 af 17. juni 1997 om visse bestemmelser vedrørende indførelsen af euroen (6) erstattes enhver henvisning i et retligt instru- ment til ecuen fra 1. januar 1999 af en henvisning til euroen i forholdet 1 EUR:1 ECU; af hensyn til klarheden er det rimeligt at benytte betegnelsen euro i nærværende forordning, idet denne skal anvendes fra den 1. januar 1999; de i denne forordning fastsatte foranstaltninger er i over- ensstemmelse med udtalelse fra Forvaltningskomitéen for Horisontale Spørgsmål i Forbindelse med Handel med Forarbejdede Landbrugsprodukter uden for Bilag II — UDSTEDT FØLGENDE FORORDNING: Artikel 1 Fra den 1. januar til den 31. december 1999 gælder de i bilaget til denne forordning anførte toldsatser for de i samme bilag omhandlede varer med oprindelse i Norge, indtil det i bilaget nævnte årlige kontingent er opbrugt. Artikel 2 i artikel 1 nævnte EF-toldkontingent Det forvaltes af Kommissionen i overensstemmelse med bestemmelserne i artikel 308a til 308c i forordning (EØF) nr. 2454/93. der bør åbnes et toldkontingent for 1999 som fastsat i punkt IV, stk. 2, i aftalen i form af brevveksling mellem Det Europæiske Fællesskab på den ene side og Konge- riget Norge på den anden side om protokol nr. 2 til overenskomsten mellem Det Europæiske Økonomiske Fællesskab og Kongeriget Norge; Artikel 3 Denne forordning træder i kraft på syvendedagen efter offentliggørelsen i De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende. (1) EFT L 318 af 20. 12. 1993, s. 18. (2) EFT L 309 af 19. 11. 1998, s. 28. (3) EFT L 345 af 31. 12. 1996, s. 78. (4) EFT L 253 af 11. 10. 1993, s. 1. (5) EFT L 212 af 30. 7. 1998, s. 18. Den anvendes fra den 1. januar 1999. (6) EFT L 162 af 19. 6. 1997, s. 1. L 335/48 DA De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende 10. 12. 98 Denne forordning er bindende i alle enkeltheder og gælder umiddelbart medlemsstat. i hver Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den 9. december 1998. På Kommissionens vegne Martin BANGEMANN Medlem af Kommissionen BILAG Løbe- nummer KN-kode Beskrivelse Kontingent Toldsats 09. 0764 ex 1806 1806 20 1806 31 1806 32 1806 90 og andre indhold tilberedte Chokolade næringsmidler med af kakao, bortset fra kakaopulver tilsat sødemidler sukker henhørende KN-kode 1806 10 andre under eller 5 500 tons 35,15 EUR/100 kg


title: European university degree in international humanitarian assistance. Volume 1. International law in humanitarian assistance.

eurovoc_concepts:
diploma
humanitarian aid
international law
teaching curriculum
university


title: SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL nr. 3868/98 af W.G. van VELZEN til Kommissionen. Oplagring af atomaffald fra atomkraftreaktoren i Petten (Nederlandene)

eurovoc_concepts:
France
Netherlands
United States
export of waste
fuel reprocessing
irradiated fuel
nuclear power station
nuclear reactor
radioactive waste
storage of waste

text: 15. 10. 1999 DA De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende C 297/111 (1999/C 297/150) SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL P-3868/98 af W. G. van Velzen (PPE) til Kommissionen (9. december 1998) Om: Oplagring af atomaffald fra atomkraftreaktoren i Petten (Nederlandene) Den 20. november 1998 besvarede Cresson på Kommissionens vegne en række spørgsmål om problemerne med oplagringskapaciteten for atomaffald fra højfluxreaktoren i Petten (E-3041/98) (1). Af Kommissionens svar fremgår det, at behandlingen af dette problem henhører under Det Fælles Forskningscenter (FFC), som er ansvarlig for udnyttelsen. Den »andenrangsløsning«, der tales om i svaret, vil også frembyde store problemer, idet reaktorbygnin- 1. gens oplagringsbeholder vil blive fyldt op. Vil Kommissionen derfor hurtigt forsøge at finde en ny løsning? 2. I Kommissionens svar anføres det, at affaldsforvaltningen er et nationalt anliggende. Det drejer sig imidlertid her om et Fælles Forskningscenter, som forvaltes af Kommissionen. Vil ansvaret for løsningen af dette problem derfor ikke bl. a. henhøre under Kommissionen? Vil Kommissionen inddrage andre EU- medlemsstater i løsningen af dette problem? (1) EFT C 142 af 21. 5. 1999, s. 75. Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Edith Cresson (27. januar 1999) Den foreslåede løsning på oplagringsproblemet for brugte brændselselementer fra højfluxreaktoren, løsning, hvis forsinkes. 1. nemlig lagring i reaktorbygningens oplagringsbeholder, er ganske rigtigt en begrænset oplagringen på Habog-værket (Centrale organisatie voor radioactif afval, COVRA-projektet) Oplagringsbeholderen vil være fuld ved udgangen af 1999, så der må findes andre løsninger. Da de nye brændselselementer oprindeligt er fremstillet af amerikansk materiale, kunne de brugte brændsel- selementer også sendes tilbage til USA, som man gjorde før 1988. De amerikanske myndigheder har imidlertid stillet som betingelse, at højfluxreaktoren konverteres fra højberiget uran (HEU) til lavberiget uran (LEU), hvilket er en teknisk dyr operation. Det burde ikke påvirke reaktorens tekniske egenskaber eller forringe dens konkurrencefordele på et allerede meget presset marked. Reaktoren producerer ca. 60 % af de radio- pharmaceutiske produkter, der bruges i Europa. Der er iværksat undersøgelser og hvis resultaterne er lovende, kan det brugte brændsel sendes tilbage til USA i 1999. HFR-budgettet må i så tilfælde revideres for at tage højde for denne dyre løsning. Eventuel brændselsoparbejdning i Frankrig, som rummer visse fordele, er også undersøgt. Det vil dog kræve, at atomaffaldet returneres til Nederlandene efter nogle år. Oparbejdning i Frankrig og de dermed forbundne aktiviteter er desuden en dyr løsning, som der ikke er taget højde for i HFR-budgettet. 2. Ingen medlemsstat har et veletableret, accepteret og autoriseret affaldsbehandlingsanlæg til højaktivt affald eller brugt brændsel, og i øjeblikket er man ikke forpligtet til at returnere atomaffald til det land, hvor anlægget er beliggende. Der ses ingen tendens til, at affaldsoplagring gøres til et internationalt eller europæisk anliggende. (1999/C 297/151) SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL E-3887/98 af Glenys Kinnock (PSE) til Kommissionen (4. januar 1999) Om: Ansøgningsprocedure for støtte til ngo’er Vil Kommissionen oplyse, hvorledes ngo’ers ansøgninger om støtte fra konto B7-6000 vurderes og prioriteres?


title: Règlement (CE) n° 2639/98 de la Commission du 9 décembre 1998 fixant le montant maximal de la restitution à l'exportation de sucre blanc pour la dix-neuvième adjudication partielle effectuée dans le cadre de l'adjudication permanente visée au règlement (CE) n° 1574/98

eurovoc_concepts:
award of contract
export financing
export levy
export refund
white sugar

formats: pdf print

text: 10. 12. 98 FR Journal officiel des Communaut(cid:130)s europ(cid:130)ennes L 335/7 R(cid:221)GLEMENT (CE) No 2639/98 DE LA COMMISSION du 9 d(cid:130)cembre 1998 fixant le montant maximal de la restitution (cid:133) l’exportation de sucre blanc pour la dix-neuvi(cid:138)me adjudication partielle effectu(cid:130)e dans le cadre de l’adjudication permanente vis(cid:130)e au r(cid:138)glement (CE) no 1574/98 LA COMMISSION DES COMMUNAUT(cid:144)S EUROP(cid:144)ENNES, vu le trait(cid:130) instituant la Communaut(cid:130) europ(cid:130)enne, vu le r(cid:138)glement (CEE) no 1785/81 du Conseil, du 30 juin 1981, portant organisation commune des march(cid:130)s dans le secteur du sucre (1), modifi(cid:130) en dernier lieu par le r(cid:138)gle- ment (CE) no 1148/98 (2), et notamment son article 17 paragraphe 5 deuxi(cid:138)me alin(cid:130)a point b), consid(cid:130)rant que, en vertu du r(cid:138)glement (CE) no 1574/98 de la Commission, du 22 juillet 1998, concernant une adjudication permanente pour la d(cid:130)termination de pr(cid:130)l(cid:138)- vement et/ou de restitutions (cid:133) l’exportation de sucre blanc (3), il est proc(cid:130)d(cid:130) (cid:133) des adjudications partielles pour l’exportation de ce sucre; consid(cid:130)rant que, selon les dispositions de l’article 9 para- graphe 1 du r(cid:138)glement (CE) no 1574/98, un montant maximal de la restitution (cid:133) l’exportation est fix(cid:130), le cas (cid:130)ch(cid:130)ant, pour l’adjudication partielle en cause en tenant compte notamment de la situation et de l’(cid:130)volution pr(cid:130)vi- sible du march(cid:130) du sucre dans la Communaut(cid:130) et sur le march(cid:130) mondial; consid(cid:130)rant que, apr(cid:138)s examen des offres, il convient d’ar- r(cid:136)ter pour la dix-neuvi(cid:138)me adjudication partielle les dispositions vis(cid:130)es (cid:133) l’article 1er; consid(cid:130)rant que les mesures pr(cid:130)vues au pr(cid:130)sent r(cid:138)glement sont conformes (cid:133) l’avis du comit(cid:130) de gestion du sucre, A ARR(cid:219)T(cid:144) LE PR(cid:144)SENT R(cid:221)GLEMENT: Article premier Pour la dix-neuvi(cid:138)me adjudication partielle de sucre blanc, effectu(cid:130)e en vertu du r(cid:138)glement (CE) no 1574/98, le montant maximal de la restitution (cid:133) l’exportation est fix(cid:130) (cid:133) 49,124 (cid:130)cus par 100 kilogrammes. Article 2 Le pr(cid:130)sent r(cid:138)glement entre en vigueur le 10 d(cid:130)cembre 1998. Le pr(cid:130)sent r(cid:138)glement est obligatoire dans tous ses (cid:130)l(cid:130)ments et directement applicable dans tout (cid:144)tat membre. Fait (cid:133) Bruxelles, le 9 d(cid:130)cembre 1998. Par la Commission Franz FISCHLER Membre de la Commission (1) JO L 177 du 1. 7. 1981, p. 4. (2) JO L 159 du 3. 6. 1998, p. 38. (3) JO L 206 du 23. 7. 1998, p. 7


title: Commission Regulation (EC) No 2653/98 of 9 December 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 1397/98 adopting the balance and fixing the aid for the supply of products from the eggs and poultrymeat sectors to the Canary Islands under the arrangements provided for in Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1601/92, regarding the amounts of aid

eurovoc_concepts:
Canary Islands
aid system
egg
poultrymeat
supply

text: 10. 12. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 335/51 COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2653/98 of 9 December 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 1397/98 adopting the balance and fixing the aid for the supply of products from the eggs and poultrymeat sectors to the Canary Islands under the arrangements provided for in Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1601/92, regarding the amounts of aid THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1601/92 of 15 June 1992 concering specific measures for the Canary Islands with regard to certain agricultural prod- ucts (1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2348/96 (2), and in particular Article 3 (4), Whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 1397/98 (3) fixed the amounts of the aid for the supply to the archipe- lago, of meat and eggs, originating in the rest of the Community; whereas such aid must be fixed taking into account in particular the costs of supply from the world market, conditions due to the geographical situation of the archipelago and the basis of the current prices on export to third countries for the animals or products concerned; Whereas it follows from applying these rules and criteria to the present situation on the market in poultrymeat that the amounts of aid for such deliveries should be adjusted, taking account of their current volume and ensuring that the share of supplies from the Community is maintained; Whereas Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1103/ 97 of 17 June 1997 on certain provisions relating to the introduction of the euro (4) provides that as from 1 January 1999, all references to the ecu in legal instru- ments are to be replaced by references to the euro at the rate of EUR 1 to ECU 1; whereas, for the sake of clarity, the denomination ‘euro' should be used in this Regula- tion since it is to apply from 1 January 1999; Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Poultrymeat and Eggs, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1397/98 is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation. Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 1999. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 9 December 1998. For the Commission Franz FISCHLER Member of the Commission (1) OJ L 173, 27. 6. 1992, p. 13. (2) OJ L 320, 11. 12. 1996, p. 1. (3) OJ L 187, 1. 7. 1998, p. 46. (4) OJ L 162, 19. 6. 1987, p. 1. L 335/52 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 10. 12. 98 ANNEX ‘ANNEX II Amounts of aid granted for products from the Community market Product code Amount of aid (EUR/100 kg) 0207 12 10 9900 0207 12 90 9190 0207 12 90 9990 0207 14 20 9900 0207 14 60 9900 0207 14 70 9190 0207 14 70 9290 0408 11 80 9100 0408 91 80 9100 28 28 28 20 58 43 Note: The product codes and the footnotes are defined in Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87. '


title: 98/727/EG: Kommissionens beslut av den 9 december 1998 om ändring av beslut 98/439/EG om bidragsberättigande av vissa medlemsstaters beräknade kostnader för året 1998 för genomförande av övervaknings- och kontrollsystemet för den gemensamma fiskeripolitiken [delgivet med nr K(1998) 3938]

eurovoc_concepts:
EU Member State
EU aid
common fisheries policy
expenditure
financial aid
fishing controls

text: 19. 12. 98 SV Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning L 345/55 KOMMISSIONENS BESLUT av den 9 december 1998 om (cid:132)ndring av beslut 98/439/EG om bidragsber(cid:132)ttigande av vissa medlemsstaters ber(cid:132)knade kostnader f(cid:148)r (cid:134)ret 1998 f(cid:148)r genomf(cid:148)rande av (cid:148)vervaknings- och kontrollsystemet f(cid:148)r den gemensamma fiskeripolitiken [delgivet med nr K(1998) 3938] (98/727/EG) EUROPEISKA GEMENSKAPERNAS KOMMISSION HAR FATTAT DETTA BESLUT H(cid:142)RIGENOM F(cid:153)RESKRIVS F(cid:153)LJANDE. med beaktande av F(cid:148)rdraget om uppr(cid:132)ttandet av Euro- peiska gemenskapen, med beaktande av r(cid:134)dets beslut 95/527/EG av den 8 december 1995 (1) om ekonomiskt bidrag fr(cid:134)n gemen- skapen f(cid:148)r vissa av medlemsstaternas kostnader f(cid:148)r genomf(cid:148)rande av (cid:148)vervaknings- och kontrollsystemet f(cid:148)r den gemensamma fiskeripolitiken, s(cid:132)rskilt artikel 6 i detta, och av f(cid:148)ljande sk(cid:132)l: Kommissionens beslut 98/439/EG (2) handlar om bidrags- ber(cid:132)ttigandet f(cid:148)r vissa medlemsstaters ber(cid:132)knade kost- nader f(cid:148)r (cid:134)ret 1998 f(cid:148)r genomf(cid:148)randet av (cid:148)vervaknings- och kontrollsystemet f(cid:148)r den gemensamma fiskeripoli- tiken. F(cid:148)renade kungariket har (cid:148)vers(cid:132)nt uppgifter avseende sin ans(cid:148)kan om ekonomiskt bidrag f(cid:148)r de utgifter som avses i artikel 2 i beslut 95/527/EG och som ber(cid:132)knats f(cid:148)r 1998. Dessa uppgifter (cid:132)r av betydelse n(cid:132)r det g(cid:132)ller niv(cid:134)n p(cid:134) de utgifter som ber(cid:132)ttigar till ekonomiskt bidrag i enlighet med beslut 95/527/EG. Artikel 1 Beslut 98/439/EG (cid:132)ndras p(cid:134) f(cid:148)ljande s(cid:132)tt: 1) I f(cid:148)rsta meningen i artikel 1 skall ”71 867 026 ecu” ers(cid:132)ttas med ”77 788 171 ecu”. 2) I tredje meningen i artikel 1 skall ”20 570 152 ecu” ers(cid:132)ttas med ”23 530 725 ecu”. 3) I bilaga I skall beloppen 8 866 957 pund sterling, 13 425 954 ecu samt 3 449 817 ecu vilka ber(cid:132)knats f(cid:148)r F(cid:148)renade kungariket, ers(cid:132)ttas med 12 777 483 pund sterling, 19 347 099 ecu respektive 6 410 390 ecu. 4) I bilaga I skall totalbeloppen 71 867 026 ecu och 20 570 152 ecu ers(cid:132)ttas med 77 788 171 ecu respektive 23 530 725 ecu. Artikel 2 riktar sig till Konungariket Belgien, Detta beslut Konungariket Danmark, F(cid:148)rbundsrepubliken Tyskland, Republiken Grekland, Konungariket Spanien, Republiken Irland, Republiken Italien, Konungariket Frankrike, Republiken Nederl(cid:132)nderna, Finland, Konungariket Sverige samt F(cid:148)renade konunga- riket Storbritannien och Nordirland. Republiken Portugal, Det (cid:132)r l(cid:132)mpligt att (cid:132)ndra beslut 98/439/EG f(cid:148)r att ta h(cid:132)nsyn till de relevanta beloppen. Utf(cid:132)rdat i Bryssel den 9 december 1998. De (cid:134)tg(cid:132)rder som f(cid:148)reskrivs i denna f(cid:148)rordning (cid:132)r f(cid:148)renliga med yttrandet fr(cid:134)n F(cid:148)rvaltningskommitt(cid:130)n f(cid:148)r fiske och vattenbruk. P(cid:134) kommissionens v(cid:132)gnar Emma BONINO Ledamot av kommissionen (1) EGT L 301, 14. 12. 1995, s. 30. EGT L 302, 15. 12. 1995, s. 45 (r(cid:132)ttelse). (2) EGT L 194, 10. 7. 1998, s. 50


title: Regolamento (CE) n. 2657/98 della Commissione del 9 dicembre 1998 che fissa i dazi all'importazione nel settore del riso

eurovoc_concepts:
CCT duties
customs duties
import
import price
rice

text: L 335/58 IT Gazzetta ufficiale delle Comunit(cid:133) europee 10. 12. 98 REGOLAMENTO (CE) N. 2657/98 DELLA COMMISSIONE del 9 dicembre 1998 che fissa i dazi all’importazione nel settore del riso LA COMMISSIONE DELLE COMUNIT(cid:211) EUROPEE, visto il trattato che istituisce la Comunit(cid:133) europea, visto il regolamento (CE) n. 3072/95 del Consiglio, del 22 dicembre 1995, relativo all’organizzazione comune del mercato del riso (1), modificato da ultimo dal regolamento (CE) n. 2072/98 (2), visto il regolamento (CE) n. 1503/96 della Commissione, del 29 luglio 1996, recante modalit(cid:133) di applicazione del regolamento (CE) n. 3072/95 del Consiglio, per quanto riguarda i dazi all’importazione nel settore del riso (3), modificato da ultimo dal regolamento (CE) n. 1403/97 (4), in particolare l’articolo 4, paragrafo 1, l’applicazione, considerando che l’articolo 11 del regolamento (CE) n. 3072/95 prevede all’importazione dei prodotti di cui all’articolo 1 dello stesso regolamento, delle aliquote dei dazi della tariffa doganale comune; che tuttavia, per i prodotti di cui al paragrafo 2 di detto articolo, il dazio all’importazione (cid:138) pari al prezzo d’inter- vento applicabile a tali prodotti all’atto dell’importazione, maggiorato di una determinata percentuale a seconda che si tratti di riso semigreggio o di riso lavorato, previa dedu- zione del prezzo all’importazione, purch(cid:130) tale dazio non superi l’aliquota dei dazi della tariffa doganale comune; considerando che, in virt(cid:151) dell’articolo 12, paragrafo 3 del regolamento (CE) n. 3072/95, i prezzi all’importazione cif in base ai prezzi rappresentativi per il sono calcolati prodotto in questione sul mercato mondiale o sul mercato comunitario d’importazione del prodotto; considerando che il regolamento (CE) n. 1503/96 ha fissato le modalit(cid:133) di applicazione del regolamento (CE) n. 3072/95 per quanto riguarda i dazi all’importazione nel settore del riso; considerando che i dazi all’importazione si applicano fino al momento in cui entra in vigore una nuova fissazione; che essi restano altres(cid:141) in vigore in mancanza di quota- zioni disponibili dalla fonte di riferimento di cui all’arti- colo 5 del regolamento (CE) n. 1503/96 nel corso delle due settimane precedenti la fissazione periodica; considerando che, per permettere il normale funziona- mento del regime dei dazi all’importazione, (cid:138) opportuno prendere in considerazione, al fine del loro calcolo, i tassi di mercato rilevati nel corso di un periodo di riferimento; considerando che l’applicazione del regolamento (CE) n. 1503/96 richiede la fissazione dei dazi all’importazione conformemente agli allegati del presente regolamento, HA ADOTTATO IL PRESENTE REGOLAMENTO: Articolo 1 I dazi all’importazione nel settore del riso, di cui all’arti- colo 11, paragrafi 1 e 2 del regolamento (CE) n. 3072/95, sono fissati nell’allegato I del presente regolamento in base ai dati indicati nell’allegato II. Articolo 2 Il presente regolamento entra in vigore il 10 dicembre 1998. Il presente regolamento (cid:138) obbligatorio in tutti i suoi elementi e direttamente applicabile in ciascuno degli Stati membri. Fatto a Bruxelles, il 9 dicembre 1998. Per la Commissione Franz FISCHLER Membro della Commissione (1) GU L 329 del 30. 12. 1995, pag. 18. (2) GU L 265 del 30. 9. 1998, pag. 4. (3) GU L 189 del 30. 7. 1996, pag. 71. (4) GU L 194 del 23. 7. 1997, pag. 2. 10. 12. 98 IT Gazzetta ufficiale delle Comunit(cid:133) europee L 335/59 ALLEGATO I Dazi applicabili all’importazione di riso e di rotture di riso Codice NC 1006 10 21 1006 10 23 1006 10 25 1006 10 27 1006 10 92 1006 10 94 1006 10 96 1006 10 98 1006 20 11 1006 20 13 1006 20 15 1006 20 17 1006 20 92 1006 20 94 1006 20 96 1006 20 98 1006 30 21 1006 30 23 1006 30 25 1006 30 27 1006 30 42 1006 30 44 1006 30 46 1006 30 48 1006 30 61 1006 30 63 1006 30 65 1006 30 67 1006 30 92 1006 30 94 1006 30 96 1006 30 98 1006 40 00 Paesi terzi (esclusi ACP e Bangladesh) (3) (7) (7) (7) (7) (7) (7) (7) (7) (7) 247,55 247,55 247,55 257,13 247,55 247,55 247,55 257,13 454,35 454,35 454,35 (7) 454,35 454,35 454,35 (7) 454,35 454,35 454,35 (7) 454,35 454,35 454,35 (7) (7) ACP (1) (2) (3) 83,41 83,41 83,41 83,41 83,41 83,41 83,41 83,41 82,30 82,30 82,30 85,66 82,30 82,30 82,30 85,66 146,63 146,63 146,63 160,51 146,63 146,63 146,63 160,51 146,63 146,63 146,63 160,51 146,63 146,63 146,63 160,51 49,58 (in ECU/t) Dazio all’importazione (5) Bangladesh (4) Basmati India e Pakistan (6) Egitto (8) 121,01 121,01 121,01 121,01 121,01 121,01 121,01 121,01 119,44 119,44 119,44 124,23 119,44 119,44 119,44 124,23 212,27 212,27 212,27 232,09 212,27 212,27 212,27 232,09 212,27 212,27 212,27 232,09 212,27 212,27 212,27 232,09 72,38 7,13 7,13 188,03 188,03 188,03 188,03 188,03 188,03 188,03 188,03 185,66 185,66 185,66 192,85 185,66 185,66 185,66 192,85 340,76 340,76 340,76 370,50 340,76 340,76 340,76 370,50 340,76 340,76 340,76 370,50 340,76 340,76 340,76 370,50 114,00 (1) Per le importazioni di riso originario degli Stati ACP, il dazio all’importazione si applica nel quadro del regime di cui ai regolamenti (CE) n. 1706/98 del Consiglio (GU L 215 dell’1. 8. 1998, pag. 12) e (CE) n. 2603/97 della Commissione (GU L 351 del 23. 12. 1997, pag. 22), modificato. (2) Ai sensi del regolamento (CEE) n. 1706/98, i dazi non sono applicati ai prodotti originari degli ACP e importati direttamente nel dipartimento d’oltremare della Riunione. (3) Il dazio all’importazione di riso nel dipartimento d’oltremare della Riunione (cid:138) stabilito all’articolo 11, paragrafo 3 del regolamento (CE) n. 3072/95. (4) Per le importazioni di riso, eccetto le rotture di riso (codice NC 1006 40 00), originario del Bangladesh il dazio all’importazione si applica nel quadro del regime di cui ai regolamenti (CEE) n. 3491/90 del Consiglio (GU L 337 del 4. 12. 1990, pag. 1) e (CEE) n. 862/91 della Commissione (GU L 88 del 9. 4. 1991, pag. 7), modificato. (5) L’importazione di prodotti originari dei PTOM (cid:138) esente dal dazio all’importazione, a norma dell’articolo 101, paragrafo 1 della decisione 91/482/CEE del Consiglio (GU L 263 del 19. 9. 1991, pag. 1), modificata. (6) Per il riso semigreggio della variet(cid:133) Basmati di origine indiana e pakistana, riduzione di 250 ECU/t [articolo 4 bis del regolamento (CE) n. 1503/96, modificato]. (7) Dazio doganale fissato nella tariffa doganale comune. (8) Per le importazioni di riso di origine e provenienza egiziana, il dazio all’importazione si applica nel quadro del regime di cui ai regolamenti (CE) n. 2184/96 del Consiglio (GU L 292 del 15. 11. 1996, pag. 1) e (CE) n. 196/97 della Commissione (GU L 31 dell’1. 2. 1997, pag. 53). L 335/60 IT Gazzetta ufficiale delle Comunit(cid:133) europee 10. 12. 98 ALLEGATO II Calcolo dei dazi all’importazione nel settore del riso Risone Rotture Semigreggio Lavorato Semigreggio Lavorato Tipo Indica Tipo Japonica 1. Dazio all’importazione (ECU/t) (1) 257,13 494,00 247,55 454,35 2. Elementi di calcolo: a) Prezzo cif Arag (ECU/t) b) Prezzo fob (ECU/t) c) Noli marittimi (ECU/t) d) Fonte — — — — 311,49 275,70 346,34 389,10 — — — — 320,69 363,45 25,65 25,65 USDA USDA Operatori Operatori (1) — — — — (1) Dazio doganale fissato nella tariffa doganale comune


title: Kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 2653/98 av den 9 december 1998 om ändring av förordning (EG) nr 1397/98 om upprättande av en försörjningsbalans och om fastställande av stöd till försörjningen av Kanarieöarna med ägg och fjäderfäkött inom ramen för den ordning som fastställs i artiklarna 2-4 i rådets förordning (EEG) nr 1601/92 vad gäller stödbeloppen

text: 10. 12. 98 SV Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning L 335/51 KOMMISSIONENS F(cid:153)RORDNING (EG) nr 2653/98 av den 9 december 1998 om (cid:132)ndring av f(cid:148)rordning (EG) nr 1397/98 om uppr(cid:132)ttande av en f(cid:148)rs(cid:148)rjningsba- lans och om fastst(cid:132)llande av st(cid:148)d till f(cid:148)rs(cid:148)rjningen av Kanarie(cid:148)arna med (cid:132)gg och fj(cid:132)derf(cid:132)k(cid:148)tt inom ramen f(cid:148)r den ordning som fastst(cid:132)lls i artiklarna 2–4 i r(cid:134)dets f(cid:148)rordning (EEG) nr 1601/92 vad g(cid:132)ller st(cid:148)dbeloppen EUROPEISKA GEMENSKAPERNAS KOMMISSION HAR ANTAGIT DENNA F(cid:153)RORDNING bevara den del av f(cid:148)rs(cid:148)rjningen som h(cid:132)rr(cid:148)r fr(cid:134)n gemen- skapen. med beaktande av F(cid:148)rdraget om uppr(cid:132)ttandet av Euro- peiska gemenskapen, med beaktande av r(cid:134)dets f(cid:148)rordning (EEG) nr 1601/92 av den 15 juni 1992 om s(cid:132)rskilda (cid:134)tg(cid:132)rder f(cid:148)r Kanarie(cid:148)arna r(cid:148)rande vissa jordbruksprodukter (1), senast (cid:132)ndrad genom f(cid:148)rordning (EG) nr 2348/96 (2), s(cid:132)rskilt artikel 3. 4 i denna, och med beaktande av f(cid:148)ljande : I kommissionens f(cid:148)rordning (EG) nr 1397/98 (3) fastst(cid:132)lls st(cid:148)dbeloppen f(cid:148)r f(cid:148)rs(cid:148)rjningen av (cid:148)gruppen med k(cid:148)tt och (cid:132)gg med ursprung i resten av gemenskapen. Dessa st(cid:148)dbe- lopp m(cid:134)ste fastst(cid:132)llas med h(cid:132)nsyn till i synnerhet f(cid:148)rs(cid:148)rj- ningskostnaderna med utg(cid:134)ngspunkt fr(cid:134)n v(cid:132)rldsmark- naden, de villkor som r(cid:134)der till f(cid:148)ljd av (cid:148)arnas geografiska l(cid:132)ge samt det underlag som till(cid:132)mpas vid ber(cid:132)kningen av exportpriserna till tredje land av djur eller de ber(cid:148)rda produkterna. I det r(cid:134)dande marknadsl(cid:132)get inom sektorn f(cid:148)r fj(cid:132)derf(cid:132)k(cid:148)tt medf(cid:148)r till(cid:132)mpningen av dessa best(cid:132)mmelser och kriterier att st(cid:148)dbeloppen f(cid:148)r dessa leveranser m(cid:134)ste (cid:132)ndras f(cid:148)r att ta h(cid:132)nsyn till deras betydelse f(cid:148)r n(cid:132)rvarande och f(cid:148)r att Enligt artikel 2 i r(cid:134)dets f(cid:148)rordning (EG) nr 1103/97 av som har den 17 juni 1997 om vissa best(cid:132)mmelser samband med inf(cid:148)randet av euron (4) skall varje h(cid:132)nvis- ning till ecu i en r(cid:132)ttsakt fr(cid:134)n och med den 1 januari 1999 ers(cid:132)ttas med en h(cid:132)nvisning till euro enligt kursen 1 EUR = 1 ECU. F(cid:148)r tydlighetens skull (cid:132)r det l(cid:132)mpligt att anv(cid:132)nda beteckningen euro i denna f(cid:148)rordning, eftersom den skall till(cid:132)mpas fr(cid:134)n och med den 1 januari 1999. De (cid:134)tg(cid:132)rder som f(cid:148)reskrivs i denna f(cid:148)rordning (cid:132)r f(cid:148)renliga med yttrandet fr(cid:134)n F(cid:148)rvaltningskommitt(cid:130)n f(cid:148)r fj(cid:132)derf(cid:132)- k(cid:148)tt och (cid:132)gg. H(cid:142)RIGENOM F(cid:153)RESKRIVS F(cid:153)LJANDE. Artikel 1 Bilaga II till f(cid:148)rordning (EG) nr 1397/98 skall ers(cid:132)ttas med bilagan till den h(cid:132)r f(cid:148)rordningen. Artikel 2 Denna f(cid:148)rordning tr(cid:132)der i kraft 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 9 december 1998. P(cid:134) kommissionens v(cid:132)gnar Franz FISCHLER Ledamot av kommissionen (1) EGT L 173, 27. 6. 1992, s. 13. (2) EGT L 320, 11. 12. 1996, s. 1. (3) EGT L 187, 1. 7. 1998, s. 46. (4) EGT L 162, 19. 6. 1987, s. 1. L 335/52 SV Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning 10. 12. 98 BILAGA ”BILAGA II St(cid:148)dbelopp beviljade f(cid:148)r produkter med avs(cid:132)ndningsplats p(cid:134) gemenskapsmarknaden KN-nummer St(cid:148)dbelopp (euro/100 kg) 0207 12 10 9900 0207 12 90 9190 0207 12 90 9990 0207 14 20 9900 0207 14 60 9900 0207 14 70 9190 0207 14 70 9290 0408 11 80 9100 0408 91 80 9100 28 28 28 20 58 43 M(cid:132)rk: KN-numren liksom fotnoterna definieras i f(cid:148)rordning (EEG) nr 3846/87. ”