title: Kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 1980/1999 av den 16 september 1999 om fastställande av exportbidragen för mjölk och mjölkprodukter

eurovoc_concepts:
export refund
milk
milk product

formats: pdf print

text: 17. 9. 1999 SV Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning L 245/7 KOMMISSIONENS FÖRORDNING (EG) nr 1980/1999 av den 16 september 1999 om fastställande av exportbidragen för mjölk och mjölkprodukter EUROPEISKA GEMENSKAPERNAS KOMMISSION HAR ANTAGIT DENNA FÖRORDNING synpunkt och att när priser i den internationella handeln fastställs skall särskild hänsyn tas till med beaktande av Fördraget om upprättandet av Europeiska gemenskapen, med beaktande av rådets förordning (EEG) nr 804/68 av den 27 juni 1968 om den gemensamma organisationen av mark- naden för mjölk och mjölkprodukter (1), senast ändrad genom förordning (EG) nr 1587/96 (2), särskilt artikel 17. 3 i denna, och av följande skäl: 1. 2. I artikel 17 i förordning (EEG) nr 804/68 fastställs att skillnaden mellan priserna i den internationella handeln på de produkter som anges i artikel 1 i den förordningen och priserna på dessa produkter inom gemenskapen kan täckas av ett exportbidrag inom ramen av avtal enligt artikel 228 i Anslutningsakten. I förordning (EEG) nr 804/68, fastställs att då exportbi- dragen för de produkter som anges i artikel 1 i denna förordning, exporterade i naturligt tillstånd, slås fast skall hänsyn tas till följande: — Den befintliga situationen och den framtida utveck- lingen med avseende på priser och tillgången på mjölk och mjölkprodukter på gemenskapsmark- naden, och priser på mjölk och mjölkprodukter i den internationella handeln. — Kostnader för saluförande och de mest förmånliga transportkostnaderna från gemenskapsmarknader till hamnar och andra utförselorter inom gemenskapen samt kostnader som uppstår vid saluförandet av varorna på marknaden i bestämmelselandet. — Målen med den gemensamma organisationen av marknaden för mjölk och mjölkprodukter, nämligen att säkerställa balansen och den naturliga pris- och handelsutvecklingen på denna marknad. — Begränsningar av de avtal som upprättats i enlighet med artikel 228 i Anslutningsakten. — Behovet att marknaden. förhindra störningar på gemenskaps- — Den ekonomiska aspekten av den planerade exporten. 3. Artikel 17. 5 i förordning (EEG) nr 804/68 fastställer att när priser inom gemenskapen bestäms skall hänsyn tas till de gällande priser som är mest förmånliga ur export- (1) EGT L 148, 28. 6. 1968, s. 13. (2) EGT L 206, 16. 8. 1996, s. 21. a) de gällande priserna på marknaderna i tredje länder, b) de förmånligaste importpriserna i sådana tredje länder som är bestämmelseländer för import från andra tredje länder, c) de producentpriser i exporterande tredje länder, med hänsyn till eventuella subventioner som beviljas av dessa länder, som noterats 4. 5. 6. d) anbudspriserna fritt gemenskapens gräns. I artikel 17. 3 i förordning (EEG) nr 804/68 fastställs att situationen på världsmarknaden eller de särskilda kraven på vissa marknader kan göra det nödvändigt att variera exportbidragen för de produkter som anges i artikel 1 i denna förordning beroende på produkternas destina- tioner. I artikel 17. 3 i förordning (EEG) nr 804/68 fastställs att förteckningen över produkter för vilka exportbidrag beviljas och bidragsbeloppen skall fastställas minst en gång var fjärde vecka. Bidragsbeloppet får emellertid förbli på samma nivå i mer än fyra veckor. I enlighet med artikel 16 i kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 174/1999 av den 26 januari 1999 om fast- ställande av särskilda tillämpningsföreskrifter till rådets förordning (EEG) nr 804/68 i fråga om exportlicenser och exportbidrag inom sektorn för mjölk och mjölkpro- dukter (3), ändrad genom fördoning (EG) nr 1596/ 1999 (4), skall bidraget som beviljas för mjölkprodukter med tillsats av socker vara lika med summan av två delar. Den ena skall avse kvantiteten mjölkprodukter och skall beräknas genom att basbeloppet multipliceras med den aktuella produktens innehåll av mjölkprodukter. Den andra skall avse kvantiteten tillsatt sackaros och skall beräknas genom att helproduktens sackarosinnehåll multipliceras med basbeloppet för det exportbidrag som gäller dagen för export av de produkter som avses i artikel 1. 1 d i rådets förordning (EEG) nr 1785/81 av den 30 juni 1981 om den gemensamma organisationen av marknaden för senast ändrad genom kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 1148/98 (6). Den andra delen skall dock endast beräknas om den tillsatta sackarosen är framställd av sockerbetor eller -rör som skördats i gemenskapen. socker (5), (3) EGT L 20, 27. 1. 1999, s. 8. (4) EGT L 188, 21. 7. 1999, s. 39. (5) EGT L 177, 1. 7. 1981, s. 4. (6) EGT L 159, 3. 6. 1998, s. 38. L 245/8 SV Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning 17. 9. 1999 7. 8. 9. 10. Bidragsnivån för ost beräknas för produkter som är avsedda för direkt konsumtion. Ostkanter och ostavfall är inte produkter som är avsedda för det ändamålet. För att undvika oklarheter rörande tolkningen, bör det speci- ficeras att inget exportbidrag kommer att betalas ut för ost med ett värde som är mindre än 230,00 EUR per 100 kg fritt gränsen. I kommissionens förordning (EEG) nr 896/84 (1), senast ändrad genom förordning (EEG) nr 222/88 (2), fastställs ytterligare bestämmelser om beviljandet av exportbidrag vid övergången från ett regleringsår till ett annat. De bestämmelserna ger möjlighet att variera exportbidragen enligt produkternas framställningsdag. för bearbetad ost För beräkningen av exportbidraget måste det fastställas att då kasein eller kaseinater tillsätts bör den kvantiteten inte beaktas. Till följd av att de bestämmelser som anges ovan till- lämpas på den nuvarande situationen på marknaden för mjölk och särskilt på noteringar eller priser för mjölk- produkter inom gemenskapen och på världsmarknaden bör exportbidraget vara det som anges i bilagan till denna förordning. 11. De åtgärder som föreskrivs i denna förordning är fören- liga med yttrandet från Förvaltningskommittén för mjölk och mjölkprodukter. HÄRIGENOM FÖRESKRIVS FÖLJANDE. Artikel 1 De exportbidrag som avses i artikel 17 i förordning (EEG) 1. nr 804/68 för produkter som exporteras i oförändrat tillstånd skall vara de som anges i bilagan. 2. Inga exportbidrag skall betalas ut för export till destina- tion nr 400 av produkter som omfattas av KN-nummer 0401, 0402, 0403, 0404, 0405 och 2309. 3. Inget exportbidrag fastställs för export till destinationerna nr 021, 023, 024, 028, 043, 044, 045, 046, 052, 404, 600, 800 och 804 för produkter med KN-nummer 0406. Artikel 2 Denna förordning träder i kraft den 17 september 1999. Denna förordning är till alla delar bindande och direkt tillämplig i alla medlemsstater. Utfärdad i Bryssel den 16 september 1999. På kommissionens vägnar Franz FISCHLER Ledamot av kommissionen (1) EGT L 91, 1. 4. 1984, s. 71. (2) EGT L 28, 1. 2. 1988, s. 1. 17. 9. 1999 SV Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning L 245/9 BILAGA till kommissionens förordning av den 16 september 1999 om fastställande av exportbidrag för mjölk och mjölkprodukter (i EUR/100 kg nettovikt, om inte annat anges) Produktnummer Destination (*) Exportbidragsbelopp Produktnummer Destination (*) Exportbidragsbelopp 0401 10 10 9000 0401 10 90 9000 0401 20 11 9100 0401 20 11 9500 0401 20 19 9100 0401 20 19 9500 0401 20 91 9100 0401 20 91 9500 0401 20 99 9100 0401 20 99 9500 0401 30 11 9100 0401 30 11 9400 0401 30 11 9700 0401 30 19 9100 0401 30 19 9400 0401 30 19 9700 0401 30 31 9100 0401 30 31 9400 0401 30 31 9700 0401 30 39 9100 0401 30 39 9400 0401 30 39 9700 0401 30 91 9100 0401 30 91 9400 0401 30 91 9700 0401 30 99 9100 0401 30 99 9400 0401 30 99 9700 0402 10 11 9000 0402 10 19 9000 0402 10 91 9000 0402 10 99 9000 0402 21 11 9200 0402 21 11 9300 0402 21 11 9500 0402 21 11 9900 0402 21 17 9000 0402 21 19 9300 0402 21 19 9500 0402 21 19 9900 0402 21 91 9100 0402 21 91 9200 0402 21 91 9300 0402 21 91 9400 0402 21 91 9500 0402 21 91 9600 0402 21 91 9700 970 * * * 970 * * * 970 * * * 970 * * * 970 * * * 970 * * * 970 * * * + 970 * * * + + 970 * * * 970 * * * + + 970 * * * + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 2,327 — 2,327 — 2,327 — 3,597 — 2,327 — 3,597 — 4,551 — — 4,551 — — — 10,50 — 15,77 — — — 15,77 — 38,32 59,85 66,00 38,32 59,85 66,00 75,22 110,55 129,01 75,22 110,55 129,01 90,00 90,00 0,9000 0,9000 90,00 105,89 111,56 120,00 90,00 105,89 111,56 120,00 120,86 121,69 123,20 131,67 134,61 145,88 152,49 0402 21 91 9900 0402 21 99 9100 0402 21 99 9200 0402 21 99 9300 0402 21 99 9400 0402 21 99 9500 0402 21 99 9600 0402 21 99 9700 0402 21 99 9900 0402 29 15 9200 0402 29 15 9300 0402 29 15 9500 0402 29 15 9900 0402 29 19 9200 0402 29 19 9300 0402 29 19 9500 0402 29 19 9900 0402 29 91 9100 0402 29 91 9500 0402 29 99 9100 0402 29 99 9500 0402 91 11 9110 0402 91 11 9120 0402 91 11 9310 0402 91 11 9350 0402 91 11 9370 0402 91 19 9110 0402 91 19 9120 0402 91 19 9310 0402 91 19 9350 0402 91 19 9370 0402 91 31 9100 0402 91 31 9300 0402 91 39 9100 0402 91 39 9300 0402 91 51 9000 0402 91 59 9000 0402 91 91 9000 0402 91 99 9000 0402 99 11 9110 0402 99 11 9130 0402 99 11 9150 0402 99 11 9310 0402 99 11 9330 0402 99 11 9350 0402 99 19 9110 0402 99 19 9130 0402 99 19 9150 0402 99 19 9310 0402 99 19 9330 0402 99 19 9350 0402 99 31 9110 0402 99 31 9150 0402 99 31 9300 0402 99 31 9500 0402 99 39 9110 0402 99 39 9150 0402 99 39 9300 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 159,96 120,86 121,69 123,20 131,67 134,61 145,88 152,49 159,96 0,9000 1,0589 1,1156 1,2002 0,9000 1,0589 1,1156 1,2002 1,2086 1,3167 1,2086 1,3167 — — 11,31 13,85 16,84 — — 11,31 13,85 16,84 — 19,91 — 19,91 — — 63,94 63,94 — — — 0,2689 0,3228 0,4291 — — — 0,2689 0,3228 0,4291 — 0,4467 0,3832 0,6600 — 0,4467 0,3832 L 245/10 SV Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning 17. 9. 1999 Produktnummer Destination (*) Exportbidragsbelopp Produktnummer Destination (*) Exportbidragsbelopp 0402 99 39 9500 0402 99 91 9000 0402 99 99 9000 0403 10 11 9400 0403 10 11 9800 0403 10 13 9800 0403 10 19 9800 0403 10 31 9400 0403 10 31 9800 0403 10 33 9800 0403 10 39 9800 0403 90 11 9000 0403 90 13 9200 0403 90 13 9300 0403 90 13 9500 0403 90 13 9900 0403 90 19 9000 0403 90 31 9000 0403 90 33 9200 0403 90 33 9300 0403 90 33 9500 0403 90 33 9900 0403 90 39 9000 0403 90 51 9100 0403 90 51 9300 0403 90 53 9000 0403 90 59 9110 0403 90 59 9140 0403 90 59 9170 0403 90 59 9310 0403 90 59 9340 0403 90 59 9370 0403 90 59 9510 0403 90 59 9540 0403 90 59 9570 0403 90 61 9100 0403 90 61 9300 0403 90 63 9000 0403 90 69 9000 0404 90 21 9100 0404 90 21 9910 0404 90 21 9950 0404 90 23 9120 0404 90 23 9130 0404 90 23 9140 0404 90 23 9150 0404 90 23 9911 0404 90 23 9913 0404 90 23 9915 0404 90 23 9917 0404 90 23 9919 0404 90 23 9931 0404 90 23 9933 0404 90 23 9935 0404 90 23 9937 0404 90 23 9939 0404 90 29 9110 0404 90 29 9115 0404 90 29 9120 0404 90 29 9130 0404 90 29 9135 0404 90 29 9150 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 970 * * * + + + + 970 * * * + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 0,6600 0,7522 0,7522 — — — — — — — — 88,48 88,48 104,95 110,56 118,93 119,81 0,8848 0,8848 1,0495 1,1056 1,1893 1,1981 2,327 — — — — — 15,77 — 38,32 59,85 64,80 64,80 64,80 64,80 — — — — 90,00 — 11,31 90,00 105,89 111,56 120,00 — — — — — 11,31 13,85 16,84 19,91 20,81 120,86 121,69 123,20 131,67 134,61 145,88 0404 90 29 9160 0404 90 29 9180 0404 90 81 9100 0404 90 81 9910 0404 90 81 9950 0404 90 83 9110 0404 90 83 9130 0404 90 83 9150 0404 90 83 9170 0404 90 83 9911 0404 90 83 9913 0404 90 83 9915 0404 90 83 9917 0404 90 83 9919 0404 90 83 9931 0404 90 83 9933 0404 90 83 9935 0404 90 83 9937 0404 90 89 9130 0404 90 89 9150 0404 90 89 9930 0404 90 89 9950 0404 90 89 9990 0405 10 11 9500 0405 10 11 9700 0405 10 19 9500 0405 10 19 9700 0405 10 30 9100 0405 10 30 9300 0405 10 30 9500 0405 10 30 9700 0405 10 50 9100 0405 10 50 9300 0405 10 50 9500 0405 10 50 9700 0405 10 90 9000 0405 20 90 9500 0405 20 90 9700 0405 90 10 9000 0405 90 90 9000 0406 10 20 9100 0406 10 20 9230 0406 10 20 9290 0406 10 20 9300 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 152,49 159,96 0,9000 — 0,2689 0,9000 1,0589 1,1156 1,2002 — — — — — 0,2689 0,3228 0,4291 0,4467 1,2086 1,3167 0,4601 0,6600 0,7522 165,85 170,00 165,85 170,00 165,85 170,00 165,85 170,00 165,85 170,00 165,85 170,00 176,22 155,49 161,71 216,00 170,00 — — — 37,68 37,68 22,83 37,68 — — 35,05 35,05 15,29 35,05 — — 15,39 15,39 7,834 15,39 17. 9. 1999 SV Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning L 245/11 Produktnummer Destination (*) Exportbidragsbelopp Produktnummer Destination (*) Exportbidragsbelopp 0406 10 20 9610 0406 10 20 9620 0406 10 20 9630 0406 10 20 9640 0406 10 20 9650 0406 10 20 9660 0406 10 20 9830 0406 10 20 9850 0406 10 20 9870 0406 10 20 9900 0406 20 90 9100 0406 20 90 9913 0406 20 90 9915 0406 20 90 9917 0406 20 90 9919 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * + 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * + + + 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * — — 51,11 51,11 30,98 51,11 — — 51,83 51,83 31,42 51,83 — — 57,86 57,86 35,06 57,86 — — 85,03 85,03 48,35 85,03 — — 70,86 70,86 25,44 70,86 — — — 26,28 26,28 13,38 26,28 — — 31,87 31,87 16,22 31,87 — — — — — 58,77 58,77 31,59 58,77 — — 77,56 77,56 42,12 77,56 — — 82,41 82,41 44,75 82,41 — — 92,10 92,10 50,02 92,10 0406 20 90 9990 0406 30 31 9710 0406 30 31 9730 0406 30 31 9910 0406 30 31 9930 0406 30 31 9950 0406 30 39 9500 0406 30 39 9700 0406 30 39 9930 0406 30 39 9950 0406 30 90 9000 0406 40 50 9000 + 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * — — — 17,88 9,536 8,346 17,88 — — 26,24 13,99 12,25 26,24 — — 17,88 9,536 8,346 17,88 — — 26,24 13,99 12,25 26,24 — — 38,17 20,36 17,81 38,17 — — 26,24 13,99 12,25 26,24 — — 38,17 20,36 17,81 38,17 — — 38,17 20,36 17,81 38,17 — — 43,16 23,02 21,14 43,16 — — 45,28 24,15 21,14 45,28 — — 90,00 90,00 32,98 90,00 L 245/12 SV Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning 17. 9. 1999 Produktnummer Destination (*) Exportbidragsbelopp Produktnummer Destination (*) Exportbidragsbelopp 0406 40 90 9000 0406 90 13 9000 0406 90 15 9100 0406 90 17 9100 0406 90 21 9900 0406 90 23 9900 0406 90 25 9900 0406 90 27 9900 0406 90 31 9119 0406 90 33 9119 0406 90 33 9919 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * — — 92,42 92,42 32,98 92,42 — — 116,37 101,62 60,16 116,37 — — 120,25 105,01 62,17 120,25 — — 120,25 105,01 62,17 120,25 — — 117,54 102,90 44,53 117,54 — — 103,92 90,36 18,57 103,92 — — 102,80 89,77 21,16 102,80 — — 93,10 81,30 18,57 93,10 — — 85,71 74,72 25,56 85,71 — — 85,71 74,72 25,56 85,71 — — 78,60 68,29 20,33 78,60 0406 90 33 9951 0406 90 35 9190 0406 90 35 9990 0406 90 37 9000 0406 90 61 9000 0406 90 63 9100 0406 90 63 9900 0406 90 69 9100 0406 90 69 9910 0406 90 73 9900 0406 90 75 9900 0406 90 76 9300 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * + 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * — — 78,66 68,98 20,01 78,66 33,29 33,29 121,56 105,71 61,40 121,56 — — 121,56 105,71 40,19 121,56 — — 116,37 101,62 60,16 116,37 47,01 47,01 129,64 112,00 57,27 129,64 42,83 42,83 128,55 111,41 63,89 128,55 34,22 34,22 124,18 107,11 48,93 124,18 — — — 124,18 107,11 48,93 124,18 — — 106,91 93,28 52,63 106,91 — — 108,07 93,90 22,27 108,07 — — 96,98 84,68 20,12 96,98 17. 9. 1999 SV Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning L 245/13 Produktnummer Destination (*) Exportbidragsbelopp Produktnummer Destination (*) Exportbidragsbelopp 0406 90 76 9400 0406 90 76 9500 0406 90 78 9100 0406 90 78 9300 0406 90 78 9500 0406 90 79 9900 0406 90 81 9900 0406 90 85 9910 0406 90 85 9991 0406 90 85 9995 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * — — 108,62 94,85 23,22 108,62 — — 102,45 90,24 23,22 102,45 — — 102,26 87,50 18,14 102,26 — — 105,98 92,78 20,12 105,98 — — 104,35 91,91 23,22 104,35 — — 86,27 75,02 19,23 86,27 — — 108,62 94,85 47,61 108,62 33,32 33,32 117,90 102,43 59,27 117,90 — — 117,90 102,43 40,19 117,90 — — 108,07 93,90 21,16 108,07 0406 90 85 9999 0406 90 86 9100 0406 90 86 9200 0406 90 86 9300 0406 90 86 9400 0406 90 86 9900 0406 90 87 9100 0406 90 87 9200 0406 90 87 9300 0406 90 87 9400 0406 90 87 9951 0406 90 87 9971 0406 90 87 9972 + + 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * + 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 097 098 400 * * * — — — — 102,23 86,17 27,65 102,23 — — 103,32 87,41 30,30 103,32 — — 108,62 92,87 34,28 108,62 — — 117,90 102,43 40,24 117,90 — — — 85,19 71,81 24,78 85,19 — — 94,89 80,27 28,02 94,89 — — 96,33 82,36 30,66 96,33 — — 106,68 93,15 42,19 106,68 — — 106,68 93,15 34,41 106,68 45,63 39,68 13,67 45,63 L 245/14 SV Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning 17. 9. 1999 Produktnummer Destination (*) Exportbidragsbelopp Produktnummer Destination (*) Exportbidragsbelopp 0406 90 87 9973 0406 90 87 9974 0406 90 87 9975 0406 90 87 9979 0406 90 88 9100 0406 90 88 9300 2309 10 15 9010 2309 10 15 9100 2309 10 15 9200 2309 10 15 9300 2309 10 15 9400 2309 10 15 9500 2309 10 15 9700 2309 10 19 9010 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * 037 039 097 098 400 * * * + 037 039 097 098 400 * * * + + + + + + + + — — 104,74 91,46 24,08 104,74 — — 113,19 99,26 24,08 113,19 — — 114,45 101,25 31,87 114,45 — — 103,92 90,36 24,08 103,92 — — — 83,50 70,90 30,30 83,50 — — — — — — — — 2309 10 19 9100 2309 10 19 9200 2309 10 19 9300 2309 10 19 9400 2309 10 19 9500 2309 10 19 9600 2309 10 19 9700 2309 10 19 9800 2309 10 70 9010 2309 10 70 9100 2309 10 70 9200 2309 10 70 9300 2309 10 70 9500 2309 10 70 9600 2309 10 70 9700 2309 10 70 9800 2309 90 35 9010 2309 90 35 9100 2309 90 35 9200 2309 90 35 9300 2309 90 35 9400 2309 90 35 9500 2309 90 35 9700 2309 90 39 9010 2309 90 39 9100 2309 90 39 9200 2309 90 39 9300 2309 90 39 9400 2309 90 39 9500 2309 90 39 9600 2309 90 39 9700 2309 90 39 9800 2309 90 70 9010 2309 90 70 9100 2309 90 70 9200 2309 90 70 9300 2309 90 70 9500 2309 90 70 9600 2309 90 70 9700 2309 90 70 9800 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + — — — — — — — — — 13,85 18,47 23,09 27,70 32,32 36,94 40,63 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 13,85 18,47 23,09 27,70 32,32 36,94 40,63 (*) Destinationskoderna anges i bilagan till kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 2645/98 (EGT L 335, 10. 12. 1998, s. 22). Dock gäller följande: — ”097” omfattar alla destinationskoderna från och med 072 till och med 083. — ”098” omfattar alla destinationskoderna från och med 053 till och med 070 samt från och med 091 till och med 096. — ”970” omfattar den export som anges i artikel 36. 1 a och c och artikel 44. 1 a och 44. 1 b i kommissionens förordning (EEG) nr 800/1999 (EGT L 102, 17. 4. 1999, s. 11). För andra destinationer än de som angivits för varje produktkod, anges det gällande exportbidragsbeloppet med ”***”. Om tecknet ”+” har angivits, skall det exportbidragsbelopp tillämpas som gäller för export till alla andra destinationer än de som anges i artikel 1. 2 och 1. 3. Obs: Produktkoderna, inklusive hänvisningar till fotnoter, fastställs i kommissionens ändrade förordning (EEG) nr 3846/87 (EGT L 366, 24. 12. 1987, s. 1)


title: Commission Regulation (EC) No 1990/1999 of 16 September 1999 fixing the export refunds on products processed from cereals and rice

eurovoc_concepts:
cereal product
export
export restriction
rice

text: 17. 9. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 245/31 COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1990/1999 of 16 September 1999 fixing the export refunds on products processed from cereals and rice THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organization of the market in cereals (1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1253/1999 (2), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 of 22 December 1995 on the common organization of the market in rice (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2072/98 (4), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof, (1) Whereas Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 and Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 provide that the difference between quotations or prices on the world market for the products listed in Article 1 of those Regulations and prices for those products within the Community may be covered by an export refund; (2) Whereas Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 provides that when refunds are being fixed account must be taken of the existing situation and the future trend with regard to prices and availabilities of cereals, rice and broken rice on the Community market on the one hand and prices for cereals, rice, broken rice and cereal products on the world market on the other; whereas the same Articles provide that it is also important to ensure equilibrium and the natural development of prices and trade on the markets in cereals and rice and, further- more, to take into account the economic aspect of the proposed exports, and the need to avoid disturbances on the Community market; (4) Whereas the refund to be granted in respect of certain processed products should be graduated on the basis of the ash, crude fibre, tegument, protein, fat and starch this the individual product concerned, content of content being a particularly good indicator of the quantity of basic product actually incorporated in the processed product; (5) Whereas there is no need at present to fix an export refund for manioc, other tropical roots and tubers or flours obtained therefrom, given the economic aspect of potential exports and in particular the nature and origin of certain products processed from cereals, the insignificance of Community participation in world trade makes it unnecessary to fix an export refund at the present time; these products; whereas, for (6) Whereas the world market situation or the specific requirements of certain markets may make it necessary to vary the refund for certain products according to destination; (7) Whereas the refund must be fixed once a month; whereas it may be altered in the intervening period; (8) Whereas certain processed maize products may undergo a heat treatment following which a refund might be granted that does not correspond to the quality of the product; whereas it should therefore be specified that on these products, containing pregelatinized starch, no export refund is to be granted; (9) Whereas the Management Committee for Cereals has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman, (3) Whereas Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1518/95 (5), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2993/ 95 (6), on the import and export system for products processed from cereals and from rice defines the specific criteria to be taken into account when the refund on these products is being calculated; HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 (1) OJ L 181, 1. 7. 1992, p. 21. (2) OJ L 160, 26. 6. 1999, p. 18. (3) OJ L 329, 30. 12. 1995, p. 18. (4) OJ L 265, 30. 9. 1998, p. 4. (5) OJ L 147, 30. 6. 1995, p. 55. (6) OJ L 312, 23. 12. 1995, p. 25. The export refunds on the products listed in Article 1(1)(d) of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 and in Article 1(1)(c) of Regula- tion (EC) No 3072/95 and subject to Regulation (EC) No 1518/95 are hereby fixed as shown in the Annex to this Regulation. L 245/32 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 17. 9. 1999 This Regulation shall enter into force on 17 September 1999. Article 2 This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 16 September 1999. For the Commission Franz FISCHLER Member of the Commission ANNEX to the Commission Regulation of 16 September 1999 fixing the export refunds on products processed from cereals and rice (EUR/tonne) (EUR/tonne) Product code 1102 20 10 9200 (1) 1102 20 10 9400 (1) 1102 20 90 9200 (1) 1102 90 10 9100 1102 90 10 9900 1102 90 30 9100 1103 12 00 9100 1103 13 10 9100 (1) 1103 13 10 9300 (1) 1103 13 10 9500 (1) 1103 13 90 9100 (1) 1103 19 10 9000 1103 19 30 9100 1103 21 00 9000 1103 29 20 9000 1104 11 90 9100 1104 12 90 9100 1104 12 90 9300 1104 19 10 9000 1104 19 50 9110 1104 19 50 9130 1104 21 10 9100 1104 21 30 9100 1104 21 50 9100 1104 21 50 9300 1104 22 20 9100 1104 22 30 9100 Refund 79,65 68,27 68,27 54,84 37,29 71,10 71,10 102,40 79,65 68,27 68,27 46,17 56,67 31,11 37,29 54,84 79,00 63,20 31,11 91,02 73,96 54,84 54,84 73,12 58,50 63,20 67,15 Product code 1104 23 10 9100 1104 23 10 9300 1104 29 11 9000 1104 29 51 9000 1104 29 55 9000 1104 30 10 9000 1104 30 90 9000 1107 10 11 9000 1107 10 91 9000 1108 11 00 9200 1108 11 00 9300 1108 12 00 9200 1108 12 00 9300 1108 13 00 9200 1108 13 00 9300 1108 19 10 9200 1108 19 10 9300 1109 00 00 9100 1702 30 51 9000 (2) 1702 30 59 9000 (2) 1702 30 91 9000 1702 30 99 9000 1702 40 90 9000 1702 90 50 9100 1702 90 50 9900 1702 90 75 9000 1702 90 79 9000 2106 90 55 9000 Refund 85,34 65,42 31,11 30,50 30,50 7,63 14,22 54,29 65,08 61,00 61,00 91,02 91,02 91,02 91,02 34,96 34,96 0,00 105,11 80,47 105,11 80,47 80,47 105,11 80,47 110,14 76,44 80,47 (1) No refund shall be granted on products given a heat treatment resulting in pregelatinization of the starch. (2) Refunds are granted in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 2730/75 (OJ L 281, 1. 11. 1975, p. 20), amended. NB: The product codes and the footnotes are defined in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 (OJ L 366, 24. 12. 1987, p. 1), amended


title: Alueiden komitean lausunto aiheesta "Ehdotus neuvoston suositukseksi ympäristötarkastusten vähimmäisvaatimuksista jäsenvaltioissa"

eurovoc_concepts:
environmental impact
environmental monitoring
environmental protection
location of industry

formats: html pdf print

text: C 374/48 FI Euroopan yhteiso¨ jen virallinen lehti 23. 12. 1999 Alueiden komitean lausunto aiheesta ”Ehdotus neuvoston suositukseksi ympäristötarkastusten vähimmäisvaatimuksista jäsenvaltioissa” (1999/C 374/12) ALUEIDEN KOMITEA, joka ottaa huomioon ehdotuksen neuvoston suositukseksi ympäristötarkastusten vähimmäisvaatimuksista jäsenvaltioissa, KOM(1998) 772 lopull. — 98/0358 (COD) — aiemmin 98/0358 (SYN), ottaa huomioon neuvoston 16. heinäkuuta 1999 Euroopan yhteisöjen perustamissopimuksen 265 artik- lan ensimmäisen kohdan ja 175 artiklan 1 kohdan mukaisesti tekemän päätöksen pyytää aiheesta alueiden komitean lausunto, ottaa huomioon luettelon toukokuussa 1999 keskeneräisistä komission ehdotuksista, joihin Amsterdamin sopimuksen voimaantulo aiheuttaa oikeusperustan ja/tai menettelytavan muutoksen, SEK(1999) 580 lopull. , ottaa huomioon valiokunta 4:n työohjelman vuodelle 1998, jonka työvaliokunta hyväksyi 15. heinäkuuta 1998, ja jossa päätettiin antaa lausunnon valmistelu valiokunta 4:n ”Maankäyttö — Taajama-asiat — Energia — Ympäristö” tehtäväksi, ottaa huomioon valiokunta 4:n kesäkuun 28. päivänä 1999 enemmistön äänin hyväksymän lausunto- luonnoksen CdR 179/99 rev. 1, jonka esittelijä oli Margaret Eaton (UK, PPE), hyväksyi 15. ja 16. syyskuuta 1999 pitämässään 30. täysistunnossa (syyskuun 16. päivän kokouksessa) seuraavan lausunnon. 1. Johdanto Alueiden komitea on huomannut, että yhteisön lainsä- 1. 1. ädännön voimaan saattaminen ja täytäntöönpano on herättä- nyt viime vuosina yhä enemmän huolestuneisuutta, ja toteaa, että teollisuuslaitosten tarkastuksille on taattava vähimmäis- vaatimukset. On tärkeää, että voimassa oleviin tarkastusjärjes- telyihin tehdään käytännön parannuksia. 2. Lausunnon soveltamisala säännellään Lausunto kohdistuu ilmaa, vettä ja maaperää pilaaviin 2. 1. pistekuormituspäästöihin, yhteisön joita lainsäädännöllä. Tarkoitus on, että suositus koskee ensimmäi- sessä vaiheessa ympäristötarkastuksia sellaisissa teollisuuslai- toksissa, jotka edellyttävät yhteisön lainsäädännön mukaan ennakkolupaa tai lisenssiä. Yhteisön lainsäädännössä jäsenval- tiot velvoitetaan huolehtimaan siitä, että tiettyihin päästöihin tai toimintaan, joka niitä voi aiheuttaa, vaaditaan ennakkolupa tai lisenssi. Toimivaltaiset viranomaiset tarkastavat tai niiden olisi tarkastettava sellaiset teollisuuslaitokset sekä muut yrityk- set ja laitokset (valvonnan alaiset laitokset), joita vaatimukset koskevat. Vähimmäisvaatimusten asettaminen ympäristötar- kastuksille takaa sen, että askel askelelta saavutetaan yhtäläinen tarkastusnormisto, joka estää myös osaltaan kilpailun vääristy- mistä. 2. 2. AK on samaa mieltä ehdotuksen sovellusalasta ja ympäristötarkastusten määrittelyistä sekä tukee tavoitetta, jonka mukaan ympäristötarkastuksilla pyritään korkealaatui- seen ympäristönsuojeluun. AK kannattaa myös yksityiskohtia, jotka liittyvät – – ympäristötarkastussuunnitelman tai -suunnitelmien pitä- miseen direktiivin 90/313/ETY säännösten mukaisesti yleisön saatavilla onnettomuuksien, vaaratilanteiden sekä yhteisön lainsää- dännön noudattamatta jättämistä koskevien tapausten tut- kimiseen. 2. 3. Komitea katsoo, että on syytä ottaa tarkastuskäyntejä koskevat yksityiskohtaiset arviointiperusteet käyttöön ja ryhtyä laatimaan tarkastuskäynneistä kertomuksia ja tekemään niistä päätelmiä vasta sen jälkeen, kun mahdollisessa yhteistyössä IMPELin (Euroopan unionin ympäristölainsäädännön voi- maansaattamista ja täytäntöönpanoa edistävä verkko) on tut- kittu, – mitä tietoja komissio tarkalleen haluaa ja mihin niitä käytetään – mitä käytännön vaikutuksia toimenpiteestä on komissiolle ja jäsenvaltioiden tarkastusorganisaatioille – kuinka paljon se edellyttää henkilöstöresursseja komission lisäksi myös jäsenvaltioilta – mitä vaihtoehtoja on käytettävissä tarvittavien tietojen saamiseksi. 23. 12. 1999 FI Euroopan yhteiso¨ jen virallinen lehti C 374/49 Komitea uskoo, että komissio voi yhteistyössä IMPELin kanssa työstää kansainvälisesti käyttökelpoisen ympäristölupamallin. Siitä saadaan hyvä pohja tarvittaville kertomuksille. Mallin käyttöönottoon olisi syytä varata siirtymäkausi. 3. Yleistä 3. 1. Todettuaan ympäristötarkastusten vähimmäisvaati- musten tarpeellisuuden AK uskoo, että samojen normien saavuttaminen kaikissa jäsenvaltioissa on paitsi ratkaisevaa myös sopusoinnussa komission tiedonannon ja neuvoston päätöslauselman kanssa. Niissä molemmissa ehdotetaan IMPE- Lille (Euroopan unionin ympäristölainsäädännön voimaan- saattamista ja täytäntöönpanoa edistävä verkko) tarkastuksiin liittyviä tehtäviä. Alueet tulevat tekemään yhteistyötä IMPELin kanssa ja osallistumaan ympäristötarkastusten vähimmäisvaa- timusten laatimiseen sekä niiden täytäntöönpanoon. 3. 2. AK toteaa, että ympäristön pilaantumisen ehkäisemi- sen ja vähentämisen yhtenäistämiseen tähtäävän EY:n direktii- vin 96/61 perusteella voidaan kehittää ohjeellisia tarkastusme- netelmiä ja säännellä eniten saastuttavaa toimintaa entistä yhdenmukaisemmin. AK ymmärtää, että osassa jäsenvaltioista lupa- 3. 3. ja valvontaviranomaisina toimivat valtion viranomaisten lisäksi perinteisesti myös alue- ja paikallistason viranomaiset. Suosi- tuksessa tulee mahdollistaa näiden olemassa olevien, hyväksi todettujen järjestelmien toimiminen jatkossakin. 3. 4. Tarkastuksen pätevyys on koko järjestelmän tuki- pylväs. Erilaisten toimeenpanevien laitosten ja jäsenvaltioiden väliset tarkastusten siirrot ja muut kokemuksenvaihdon takaa- vat toimenpiteet tukenevat pyrkimyksiä saavuttaa yhtäläiset normit. Tehokas koulutusjärjestelmä jäsenvaltioissa on välttä- mätöntä, jos yhtäläiset normit halutaan saavuttaa. Se edellyttää lisäresursseja. 3. 5. AK katsoo, että yhteisön ympäristöasioiden hallinta- ja tarkastusjärjestelmä on paitsi hyödyllinen tiedonlähde ym- päristötarkastusten varalle myös kehys, jonka rajoissa valvon- nan alaisten laitosten on mahdollista käsitellä merkittäviä ympäristöasioitaan järjestelmällisesti, mikä tukee jäsenvaltioi- den keskinäisen yhtenäisyyden tavoitetta. Ympäristöasioiden hallinta- ja tarkastusjärjestelmä ei voi koskaan korvata ym- päristötarkastuksia. Tehtäväksi annetun tarkastuksen osalta tulee säätää sen puolueettomuudesta sekä tavasta, jolla hallin- non tulee valvoa tarkastusta. AK katsoo, että kunkin valvonnan alaisen laitoksen 3. 6. toimialalle tai tyypille pitäisi olla oma tarkastussuunnitel- mansa. Suunnitelmasta tulee käydä ilmi sekä se, kuinka usein tarkastuksia on vähintäänkin tehtävä ja että laajojen prosessitarkastuksien pisin sallittu aikaväli. Ylenpalttisia määräyksiä on syytä välttää, mutta sallitut prosessit on kuiten- kin tarkastettava perusteellisesti ja säännöllisesti, muutoin luvat ja edellytykset menettävät merkityksensä (koska sekä tuotantomenetelmät että tavoiteltavat normit muuttuvat ajan kuluessa). Suurinta sallittua aikaväliä on pidettävä takarajana, sillä myönnettyihin lupiin liittyvien edellytysten tarkastamisen on oltava jatkuvaa. AK katsoo, että eri teollisuudenalojen perinpohjaisille 3. 7. prosessitarkastuksille pitää sopia pisimmät sallitut aikavälit. AK:n mielestä Euroopan ympäristökeskuksella voisi olla tässä osuutensa, ja ehkä myös IMPELiä voitaisiin kuulla. Seuraavia arviointiperusteita voidaan käyttää määriteltäessä tietyn teolli- suuden alan tarkastusten välistä enimmäisaikaa: – teknisten muutosten oletettu nopeus – – – – todennäköisyys, toimintaansa oma-aloitteisesti jonka mukaan alan toimijat parantavat sektoriin kohdistuvien ympäristövaikutusten riskit ja suu- ruusluokka säännösten laatijoille ja tarkastettavalle teollisuudelle ai- heutuvat kustannukset tarve sovittaa eri sektoreiden tarkastusvälit siten, että vältetään työmäärien hallitsemattomat ruuhkahuiput – parhaiden käytettävissä olevien tekniikoiden jatkuva tar- kastus – alakohtaiset investointisyklit – onko operaattorilla käytössään ympäristöhallintajärjes- telmää, esim. EMAS tai ISO 14001. 3. 8. Nykyään ei vielä vaadita tarkastusten tulosten julkista- mista, vaikka direktiivissä 90/313/ETY vuodelta 1990 ym- päristöä koskevan tiedon saannin vapaudesta se sallitaan. AK on tyytyväinen ehdotukseen julkistaa tarkastuksen yksityiskoh- dat ja toteaa, että se lisäisi merkittäväsi kansalaisten luottamus- ta sääntelyjärjestelyjä kohtaan. On selvää, että joissakin tarkas- tuksissa kertyy tietoa, jota pidetään joko kaupallisesti arkaluon- toisena tai joka paljastuessaan saattaisi vaarantaa kansallisen turvallisuuden. Mikäli yritykset haluavat pitää kiinni oikeudes- taan omiin tietoihinsa, niiden odotetaan esittävän kantaansa tukevia perusteita tarkastusten tekijöille. Päätöksiä koskevat valitukset tulisi käsitellä riippumattomassa välimiesmenette- lyssä, vaikkapa oikeusistuimessa. C 374/50 FI Euroopan yhteiso¨ jen virallinen lehti 23. 12. 1999 3. 9. AK tietää, että alueviranomaiset ovat ensimmäinen taho, jolta kansalaiset pyytävät tietoja teollisuuslaitoksista. Jos tarkastuksia tekee useampi kuin yksi tarkastuslaitos, kyseisten laitosten kesken tarvitaan erityisjärjestelyjä, jotta paikallisviran- omaiset voivat vastata kaikkiin asiallisiin ympäristöä koskeviin kyselyihin direktiivin 90/313/ETY mukaisesti, vaikka paikallis- viranomainen ei olisikaan tarkastuksista huolehtiva elin. 3. 10. Jäsenvaltioiden tulee varmistaa, että onnettomuuk- sien, vaaratilanteiden ja yhteisön lainsäädännön noudattamatta jättämistä koskevien tapauksien tutkinnan — tulivatpa ne viranomaisten tietoon valituksena tai muulla tavoin — hoitaa toimivaltainen tarkastusviranomainen, jotta voidaan a) b) selvittää tapauksen syyt ja ympäristövaikutukset ja tarvit- taessa tapauksen ja sen vaikutusten vastuukysymykset ja mahdolliset korvausvelvoitteet sekä esittää päätelmiä täytäntöönpanosta vastaavalle viranomaiselle, jos tämä ei ole sama kuin tarkastusviranomainen lieventää tapauksen aiheuttamia ympäristövahinkoja ja mikäli mahdollista korjata ne määrittämällä asianmukaiset toimenpiteet, joihin toimijoiden ja viranomaisten tulee ryhtyä c) määrittää toimenpiteet, joiden avulla onnettomuudet, vaa- ratilanteet ja lainsäädännön noudattamatta jättäminen voi- taisiin välttää tulevaisuudessa d) mahdollistaa tarvittaessa täytäntöönpano- ja seuraamus- menettely. Bryssel 16. syyskuuta 1999. 4. Paikallisviranomaisille koituvat kustannukset AK toteaa, että vähimmäisvaatimusten hyväksyminen 4. 1. aiheuttaa lisäkustannuksia vastuussa oleville viranomaisille. Komitea kannattaa komission ehdotusta rahoitustuen tarkista- misesta samaan aikaan kun jäsenvaltioiden selontekojen jatko- toimia pohditaan. Komitea kehottaa harkitsemaan tässä vai- heessa ”saastuttaja maksaa” -periaatetta yhtenä mahdollisena rahoitusvaihtoehtona. 5. Loppukommentit 5. 1. AK katsoo, että valvonnan alaiset laitokset ovat mer- kittäviä ”hyvinvoinnin luojia” jäsenvaltioissa, ja että hyväksyt- tyjä tarkastusnormeja tulisi tarkastella myönteisenä toimenpi- teenä, jolla voidaan taata rehti määräysten noudattaminen yhteisön koko lainsäädännön alueella. Laitoksiin tehtävien vierailujen pyrkimyksenä tulee lisäksi olla, että toimijat ottavat käyttöön EMASin tai sitä vastaavan ympäristöhallintajärjes- telmän. AK arvostaa komission päättäväisyyttä, 5. 2. jolla tämä pyrkii jatkuvasti parantamaan ympäristötarkastusten normeja, ja tarjoaa komissiolle tukeaan tällä muuttuvalla ja tärkeällä työsaralla. AK kehottaa Euroopan komissiota esittämään jatkossa jo(t)ka koskee/koskevat muita ym- 5. 3. suosituksen/suosituksia, päristöön vaikuttavia talouden ja hallinnon toiminta-aloja. Alueiden komitean puheenjohtaja Manfred DAMMEYER


title: Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the 'Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products'

eurovoc_concepts:
aquaculture
common organisation of markets
fishery product

text: 23. 12. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374/71 Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products’ (1999/C 374/16) THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS, having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the future for the market in fisheries products in the European Union: responsibility, partnership, competitiveness (COM(1997) 719 final); having regard to the Proposal for a Regulation (EC) from the Council on the common organisation of the market in fishery and aquaculture products (COM(1999) 55 final — 99/0047 CNS) (1); having regard to the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro. In particular Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 which addressed the issue of sustainable use and conservation of marine living resources of the High Seas; having regard to the Commission Decision dated 4 March 1999 to consult the Committee of the Regions on this issue, in accordance with Article 198 C (first paragraph) of the Treaty establishing the European Community; having regard to the Bureau decision dated 7 May 1999 instructing Commission 2 — ‘Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries’ — to draft the opinion; having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 182/99 rev. 1) adopted by Commission 2 on 16 June 1999 [rapporteurs: Sir Simon Day (UK, EPP) and Mr Nordwall (SV, PES)], adopted this opinion at its 30th plenary session on 15 and 16 September 1999 (meeting of 16 September). 1. Introduction 2. The proposed regulation The Commission’s communication (2) set out some 1. 1. guidelines as to how the markets in fishery products could be improved. Extensive consultation followed within the industry at large and the Commission has now published its formal proposals at the behest of the Council of Ministers. 1. 2. Some of the aspects included within that debate have been covered in proposals already published, and on which the Committee of the Regions has already commented. Future proposals are anticipated relating to market transparency. 1. 3. The current proposal on the common organisation of the market in fishery and aquaculture products is intended to replace that which has existed since 17 December 1992 [Regulation (EEC) No 3759/92 (3)] as well as consolidating into a single regulation the provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 105/76 (4), on the recognition of producer organisations in the fishing industry, and No 1772/82 (5), laying down general rules pertaining to producer organisations. (1) OJ C 78, 20. 3. 1999, page 1. (2) COM(1997) 719 final, 16. 12. 1997. (3) OJ L 388, 31. 12. 1992, p. 1-36. (4) OJ L 20, 28. 1. 1976, p. 39-41. (5) OJ L 197, 6. 7. 1982, p. 1-2. 2. 1. The regulation proposes a thorough overhaul of the organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture prod- ucts, in particular: — to enable the common organisation of the markets in these products to contribute to the responsible management of resources, — to improve transparency and knowledge of the these markets, including amongst consumers, — to give greater responsibility, in particular to producer organisations, to achieve optimal management of resources and returns, — to encourage partnerships between different operators to maximise efficiency, — to encourage greater use of forecasting by producer organisations, to adjust supply and demand, — to improve market stability by encouraging fixed price contracts, — to revise the intervention arrangements to improve efficiency, C 374/72 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 23. 12. 1999 — to raise competitiveness, — to clarify and simplify existing regulations. 2. 2. Articles 1-3 make no change to what is currently in force, although the definition of fishery products needs it would appear that aquaculture clarification. As drafted, products are solely farmed and not taken from the sea. There is no distinction made between exclusively wild-caught species, such as crab, urchins, etc. , and exclusively farmed species such as oysters. There are also species that can be either caught or farmed, e. g. scallops and mussels. The list of fishery products set out in the Table under Article 1 refers to various ways in which crustaceans and molluscs can be processed but omits ‘depuration’, a technique used throughout the EU. At all events, essentially sedentary species such as non-marine-fauna bivalve molluscs (clams, razor shells, cockles), gasteropod molluscs (ormer), bivalve molluscs Pectinidae (scallops) and crustaceans such as barnacles, which are taken from natural beds, should be considered in the same way as the same products when they are farmed. 2. 3. Article 4 brings in a new provision which in respect of retail sales will necessitate effective labelling. This will need to show the local market name of the species, the production method (taken at sea or farmed) and the geographic area, by reference to ocean or sea, of the catch. We would welcome this as a minimum requirement but wewould still hope to see greater local branding of fish and aquaculture products. To facilitate marketing of including by tele- auctioning, it is important that there are quality criteria. These are laid down currently in Regulation (EEC) No 103/76 (1) and are enforced by Member States. fish products, 2. 4. Articles 5-12 cover regulations for producer organis- ations. The latter are in effect suppliers’ co-operatives, set up to assist the offshore fisheries industry in ensuring a regular supply of fish to the market, but where appropriate within quota limits, and may exercise an intervention policy to provide a more stable price for fish. 2. 5. Article 5 therefore sets out the rules for the operation of producer organisations and the obligations of their mem- bers. A new provision is proposed in Article 5 para- graph 1(b)(4) which, although not directly within the remit of marketing organisations, encourages producers to consider the delicate nature of the marine environment and promotes fishing methods which complement moves toward sustain- ability. 2. 7. Article 7 affords discretion to Member States to recognise, in addition to those set up under Article 6, producer organisations that agree and undertake to improve the quality and marketing of certain fishery products in accordance with the Regulation (EC) No 2406/96 (2). In this respect, attention needs to be made to further development of vertical inte- gration, especially between family businesses or groups of businesses and the retail chains and supermarkets. As reflected in earlier opinions, we believe that assistance to the fisheries industry should be undertaken in a less discriminatory manner and that assistance is not geographically limited according to the whim of the Member State. Article 8 allows Member States, 2. 8. in certain circum- stances, to ensure that non-members of producer organis- ations, in broad terms, do not undermine the price stability objectives of producer organisations and Article 9 provides for financial compensation in certain circumstances. Whereas, though, Article 8 reproduces Article 5 in Regulation (EEC) No 3759/92, the provisions relating to non-members only apply for a maximum period of 12 months. It is not clear whether this is for the purpose of regular review but, as drafted, it could be construed that this will be an absolute limit. there is one significant change in that 2. 9. Article 10 requires all producer organisations in advance of each fishing year to submit operational pro- grammes showing their marketing plans and how they intend to manage the output of their members. Grant aid to a producer organisation will be withdrawn if these plans are not submitted or where it has failed to implement planned measures. If a producer organisation is penalised twice, the third offence will lead to withdrawal of recognition. 2. 10. As drafted, Article 10 is unworkable. Whereas it is reasonable for a marketing plan to be prepared in advance of the first year, it is not possible to finalise a catch plan until the final quota is determined. In practice this can be as much as six months into the fishing year in question. The fact that not all species are necessarily subject to quota does not invalidate the need to defer the catch plan, as the amount of quota will influence the extent to which non-quota fish are caught. 2. 11. However, recognising the additional burden that Article 10 imposes on producer organisations, Member States are obliged, under Article 11, to provide additional grant aid for a period of five years following the year in which they are granted recognition. This is welcomed. 2. 6. The recognition of producer organisations is under- taken by Member States and Article 6 sets out the procedure for this and also the withdrawal of recognition. Provision is made in Article 38 for reference to, and resolution by, a Management Committee for Fishery Products, representative of all the Member States, in the event of dispute. 2. 12. Article 12 provides additional grant aid to producer organisations which can prove that at least 10 % of their production will be sold through pre-sale contracts. The purpose of this provision is to recognise that such contracts help to plan supply. Grant aid is proposed for five years starting on 1 January 2001, the date from which it is proposed (1) OJ L 20, 28. 1. 1976, p. 29-34. (2) OJ L 334, 23. 12. 1996, p. 1-15. 23. 12. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374/73 that the new regulation comes into force. However, during 1998, proposals were published by the European Commission to amend Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 (1) on control regu- lation. These include a provision under which a Member State may require that the first marketing be by sale at an auction centre. If adopted, such a provision would be in conflict with the proposed Article 12 or, at the very least, could be discriminatory. 2. 13. Articles 13-16 cover interbranch organisations and agreements. Whereas producer organisations cover the off- shore fishing industry, recognition is also available to organis- ations or associations which represent a significant share in the production, trade or processing of fishery products, subject to certain conditions and types of activity undertaken. Thus, for example, the study and development of techniques to optimise the operation of the market, including information and communication technology, the regional branding of fish products and organising training schemes to improve product quality, would all be appropriate activities. Nothing must be done, however, which hinders competition. Non-compliance with the conditions will lead to withdrawal of recognition. There are similar provisions for non-members as for those relating to producer organisations. Unlike producer organis- there is no grant aid provided specifically for ations, interbranch organisations but it is our view that, to improve market efficiency, there should be initial grant aid over a three-year period to facilitate their establishment. The discretionary element relating to recognition should not be made mandatory provided, of course, that the pre-conditions are met. 2. 14. Articles 17-24 govern the principles of intervention. The first relates to pricing policy. Article 17 gives producer organisations the right to set a withdrawal price, in effect a reserve price, below which they will not sell. Removal of products withdrawn from the market in this way must be undertaken in a way which does not interfere with the normal marketing of the product concerned. In order that producers are compensated for the unsold catch, producer organisations are empowered to fund this from an intervention fund. The latter is replenished in part by way of a levy on successful sales. Details of the list of products applicable, the duration in which withdrawal prices are applicable and the level of withdrawal prices proposed and applied have to be notified to the Member State concerned. 2. 15. Under Article 18, the Management Committee for Fishery Products will set a guide price, applicable throughout the EU, in advance of the fishing year, or part of a year, in question, in respect of each fish product. The guide price will take into account the average prices received in the previous three years, current trends in supply and demand, the need to stabilise prices, avoid unnecessary surpluses and to balance the interests of producers and consumers. (1) OJ L 261, 20. 10. 1993, p. 1-16. 2. 16. Article 20 defines the Community withdrawal price as between 70 % and 90 % of the guide price, subject to certain adjustments, but that in no circumstances will the withdrawal price exceed 90 %. 2. 17. Article 21 provides financial compensation to pro- ducer organisations implementing a price intervention policy. Producer organisations must use the Community withdrawal price as its norm, but are allowed to vary this by up to 10 % either way to reflect, in particular, seasonal fluctuations in market prices. Such financial compensation will be paid only where products are withdrawn from the market and either disposed for other than human consumption or do not otherwise interfere with normal marketing. The amount of 2. 18. financial compensation and the quantities eligible will be gradually reduced during the 2001, 2002 and 2003 fishing years but producer organisations will be expected to offset that through their own intervention funds. However, the financial compensation proposed in Article 21, paragraph 3(a), is significantly less then the current regime and, whilst recognising the need to reduce the reliance on intervention, the scale of reductions proposed are unreason- able. 2. 19. Under Article 23, where products are withdrawn from sale due to their inability to meet the withdrawal price and, in respect of certain products, a buyer has not been found at the Community withdrawal price (subject to the 10 % tolerance factor) and the product is then stored or preserved, ‘carry-over aid’ may be payable. There are limits to what can be claimed and in any event the grant aid will not exceed the costs of preservation or storage. Of the permitted processing methods, marinating is now included. The discretionary element in this Article should be made mandatory, as provided in the original Regulation (EEC) No 3759/92. 2. 20. The effect of this provision is to encourage producer organisations to use this facility as a temporary withdrawal from the market rather than a permanent withdrawal and the revised grant aid system is designed to provide an incentive for this to happen. In the context of fishery resources, this is a sensible direction to take. 2. 21. For those producer organisations that set their own withdrawal prices under Article 17, a flat rate grant is payable. We are pleased to see that this is mandatory. However, Article 24, paragraph 5, appears to be contradictory. In any event, the quantities eligible for flat rate aid should remain unchanged from that specified in the original Regulation (EEC) No 3759/92. 2. 22. Article 25 provides for private storage aid for prod- ucts that are frozen on board vessels. The rules for this are similar to carry-over aid set out in Article 23 but, for the same reasons as set out in paragraph above, the discretionary element should be removed. C 374/74 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 23. 12. 1999 2. 23. Articles 26-27 are concerned with compensation payments in respect of tuna fish for canning. The European there are no significant Commission believes that whilst changes as to the principles of these compensation payments, the threshold for payments is too high and, as a consequence, likely to result in payments being made when the grounds for them could be insufficient. The proposal is that the threshold is reduced from 91 % to 85 % of the Community producer price. The COR disagrees with the Commission proposal, and thinks that the threshold should remain at 91 %. Articles 28-30 concern trade with third countries. In 2. 24. order to ensure more competitive and stable supplies to the processing industry, particularly of species which the EU is unable to provide or only in small amounts, it is proposed to suspend import duties on these products, but only if the imported value is equal to, or higher than, the intervention price adopted within the EU. However, the COR thinks that consideration should be given to the position of certain ‘sensitive products’ such as loin fillets of tuna, so that they continue to be covered by the present quota system with CCT duties remaining at 24 %. 2. 25. There are some general provisions included within Articles 31-43. The most significant is the continued provision of a Management Committee for Fishery Products as provided under Article 37 and its jurisdiction on disputes, and the ability to make new measures, under Article 38. 2. 26. that: The financial table incorporated in the annex reveals — annual expenditure on community withdrawal and carry- over grant aid will fall from 12m euros in 2000 to 7m euros from 2003; — annual expenditure on independent withdrawals and carry over grant aid will remain unchanged at 3,5m euros; — annual expenditure on private storage aid will be increased from 0,5m euros in 2000 to 2m euros in 2002 onwards; — annual expenditure on compensatory allowance for tuna will be reduced from 4m to 2,5m euros from 2001 onwards; — annual expenditure on the new allowances to producer organisations will average 5,25m euros in the first three years and 3m euros in the last 2 years. After 2005, only newly created organisations will be eligible for assistance and the expenditure is expected to be 0,5m euros per annum; — expenditure on the new allowances to producer organis- ations for recourse to contracts is estimated at 1,7m euros in 2001, 2,7m euros in 2002 and 4,7m until 2005; — the additional allowance in respect of the reform of the market organisation is expected to cost 3m euros in 2001, rising to 5m euros in 2003 and 2,7m euros in 2004 and 2005. The schedule shows a credit of 4,5m euros in 2006 which is not explained. If this figure is reduced to zero then this column in the table adds up correctly. Taking these figures as stated, noting that 2. 27. they represent estimated maximum figures, the assistance provided to support the common market organisation for fisheries products rises from 20m euros in 2000 to 25m euros in 2003, falls to 22,7m euros in 2004/2005 and falls further to 15,5m euros in 2006, assuming that there is not a 4,5m euros credit (see previous paragraph). 3. Conclusions The proposal largely consolidates existing regulations, 3. 1. but the main emphasis is on increasing efficiency and there is a welcome recognition of the role of producer organisations in achieving that. However, it is vital that the regulation reflects practicalities, especially in relation to the timescale for the production of marketing and catch plans. 3. 2. There is a need to ensure consistency of approach by all Member States and therefore elements of discretion should be removed. 3. 3. One of the efficiency gains that could be achieved is through encouraging greater co-operation and communication between the managers of fish auctions and fish catchers in the various regions of the EU and the use of electronic auctions. Financial assistance to facilitate the greater use of electronic auctions would help develop this initiative. 3. 4. The proposals to improve labelling to give details of origin are welcomed. These could go further to extend into regional branding and marketing but, as a minimum requirement, are acceptable. 3. 5. The effect of reducing intervention aid is to put EU producers at a potential disadvantage relative to third countries. Care must be taken to ensure that this does not lead to an increase in imports of fish products from third countries at the expense of the EU fisheries industry. 4. Recommendations We recommend the following amendments to the draft regulation: (i) In Article 4, paragraph 2, after ‘indicate’ insert ‘as a minimum and on the basis that it does not prejudice local branding of fish and aquaculture products, especially where this improves customer awareness and confidence’. 23. 12. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374/75 (ii) In Article 5, paragraph 1(b)(4) amend: ‘encourage the adoption of those methods of fishing which do most to maintain equilibrium and sustainability of the resource’. (iii) In Article 7, paragraph 1, delete ‘may’ and insert ‘shall’. (iv) (v) (vi) In Article 8, delete ‘period not longer than 12 months’ and insert ‘periods not longer than 12 months without annual review’. In Article 10, paragraph 1, delete ‘Before the beginning of the fishing year’ and in paragraph 1(b) after ‘members’ insert ‘the plan to be submitted within two months of the date on which the producer organisation concerned is formally notified of the final quota for all species for the fishing year in question’. In Article 12, paragraph 1, ‘Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary’. insert at the beginning (vii) In Article 13, paragraph 1, after ‘Member States’ delete ‘may’ and insert ‘shall’. (viii) In Article 13, insert a new numbered paragraph 8 as follows ‘Member States shall grant aid the establishment of interbranch organisations over a 3 year period in accordance with the provisions of Article 11’. Brussels, 16 September 1999. (ix) (x) (xi) In Article 21, paragraph 3(a)(i), for ‘2 %’ substitute ‘5 %’; in paragraph 3(a)(ii) for ‘5 %’ substitute ‘8 %’; in paragraph 3(a)(iii) for ‘8 %’ substitute ‘10 %’ and in paragraph 3(b) for ‘8 %’ substitute ‘10 %’. In Article 23, paragraph 3, both in the first paragraph and the second paragraph, delete ‘may’ and insert ‘shall’. In Article 24, paragraph 5, delete the first sentence in its entirety and in the second sentence delete ‘referred to in the previous subparagraph’ and insert ‘of the products concerned and put up for sale in accordance with Article 5(1)’. (xii) In Article 25, paragraph 2, delete ‘may’ and insert ‘shall’. (xiii) The triggering threshold for compensation payments for tuna for canning should remain at 91 %. (xiv) Provision should be made for financial assistance to encourage greater co-operation and communication between managers of fish auctions and fish catchers in the various regions of the EU and in particular towards the use of electronic auctions. (xv) In Annexes I and II, the lists of fresh and frozen products eligible for Community private storage aid should include swordfish. (xvi) The inclusion in Annex V of certain sensitive products such as loin fillets of tuna should be reviewed. The President of the Committee of the Regions Manfred DAMMEYER


title: Νομοθετικό ψήφισμα του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου σχετικά με τις τρέχουσες νομοθετικές διαδικασίες (Ανακοίνωση της Επιτροπής στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο και το Συμβούλιο - Συνέπιες από την έναρξη της ισχύος της Συνθήκης του ΄Aμστερνταμ) στον τομέα της περιφερειακής πολιτικής, των μεταφορών και του τουρισμού (SEC(1999)581 - C4-0219/1999)

eurovoc_concepts:
Treaty of Amsterdam
common transport policy
rail transport
transport company
transport regulations
transport statistics

text: 25. 2. 2000 EL Επι΄σηµη Εφηµερι΄δα των Ευρωπαι¨κω΄ν Κοινοτη΄των C 54/79 6. Περιφερειακη΄ πολιτικη΄, µεταφορε΄ς και τουρισµο΄ς ***Ι (∆ιαδικασι΄α χωρι΄ς ε΄κθεση) Πε΄µπτη, 16 Σεπτεµβρίου 1999 A5-0005/1999 Νοµοθετικο΄ ψη΄φισµα του Ευρωπαι¨κου΄ Κοινοβουλι΄ου σχετικα΄ µε τις τρε΄χουσες νοµοθετικε΄ς διαδικασι΄ες (Ανακοι΄νωση της Επιτροπη΄ς στο Ευρωπαι¨κο΄ Κοινοβου΄λιο και το Συµβου΄λιο % Συνε΄πιες απο΄ την ε΄ναρξη της ισχυ΄ος της Συνθη΄κης του Άµστερνταµ) στον τοµε΄α της περιφερειακη΄ς πολιτικη΄ς, των µεταφορω΄ν και του τουρισµου΄ (SEC(1999)581 (cid:14) C4-0219/1999) (∆ιαδικασι΄α συναπο΄φασης: επιβεβαι΄ωση των πρω΄των αναγνω΄σεων) Το Ευρωπαι¨κο΄ Κοινοβου΄λιο, (cid:26) ε΄χοντας υπο΄ψη τον κατα΄λογο των προτα΄σεων και της Επιτροπη΄ς που εκκρεµου΄σαν την 1η Μαι΅ου 1999 και για τις οποι΄ες η ε΄ναρξη ισχυ΄ος της Συνθη΄κης του Άµστερνταµ συνεπα΄γεται τροποποι΄ηση νοµικη΄ς βα΄σης και διαδικασι΄ας (SEC(1999)0581 (cid:11) C4-0219/1999), (cid:11) ε΄χοντας υπο΄ψη το ψη΄φισµα΄ του της 4ης Μαι΅ου 1999 σχετικα΄ µε τις συνε΄πειες της ε΄ναρξης ισχυ΄ος της Συνθη΄κης του Άµστερνταµ (κατα΄σταση των εκκρεµουσω΄ν νοµοθετικω΄ν προτα΄σεων στο Συµβου΄λιο την 1η Μαι΅ου 1999 µε ε΄νδειξη της νε΄ας νοµικη΄ς βα΄σης και ενδεχο΄µενη τροποποι΄ηση της νοµοθετικη΄ς διαδικα- σι΄ας λο΄γω της ε΄ναρξης ισχυ΄ος της Συνθη΄κης του Άµστερνταµ) (1), (cid:26) ε΄χοντας υπο΄ψη το α΄ρθρο 251, παρα΄γραφος 2 της Συνθη΄κης ΕΚ, (cid:26) ε΄χοντας υπο΄ψη την (A5-0005/1999), ε΄κθεση της Επιτροπη΄ς Περιφερειακη΄ς Πολιτικη΄ς, Μεταφορω΄ν και Τουρισµου΄ 1. α) β) γ) δ) ε) επιβεβαιω΄νει ως πρω΄τες αναγνω΄σεις στο πλαι΄σιο της διαδικασι΄ας συναπο΄φασης τα κει΄µενα που εγκρι΄θηκαν: στις 25 Οκτωβρι΄ου 1996 σχετικα΄ µε την προ΄ταση οδηγι΄ας του Συµβουλι΄ου που τροποποιει΄ την οδηγι΄α 91/0440/ΕΟΚ που αφορα΄ (COM(1995)0337 (cid:11) C4-0555/1995 (cid:11) 1995/0205(COD) (cid:11) πρω΄ην 1995/0205(SYN)) (2)· την ανα΄πτυξη των σιδηροδρο΄µων κοινοτικω΄ν στις 10 Μαρτι΄ου 1999 σχετικα΄ µε την προ΄ταση οδηγι΄ας του Συµβουλι΄ου που τροποποιει΄ την οδηγι΄α 91/0440/ΕΟΚ που αφορα΄ (COM(1998)0480 (cid:11) C4-0561/1998 (cid:11) 1998/0265(COD) (cid:11) πρω΄ην 1998/0265(SYN)) (3)· την ανα΄πτυξη των σιδηροδρο΄µων κοινοτικω΄ν στις 10 Μαρτι΄ου 1999 σχετικα΄ µε την προ΄ταση οδηγι΄ας του Συµβουλι΄ου που τροποποιει΄ την οδηγι΄α 95/0018/ΕΚ που αφορα΄ τις α΄δειες σιδηροδροµικω΄ν επιχειρη΄σεων (COM(1998)0480 (cid:11) C4-0562/1998 (cid:11) 1998/0266(COD) (cid:11) πρω΄ην 1998/0266(SYN)) (4)· στις 9 Φεβρουαρι΄ου 1999 σχετικα΄ µε την προ΄ταση οδηγι΄ας του Συµβουλι΄ου που αφορα΄ τον οδικο΄ τεχνικο΄ ε΄λεγχο των οχηµα΄των επαγγελµατικη΄ς χρη΄σης που κυκλοφορου΄ν στην Κοινο΄τητα (COM(1998)0117 (cid:11) C4-0346/1998 (cid:11) 1998/0097(COD) (cid:11) πρω΄ην 1998/0097(SYN)) (5)· στις 29 Φεβρουαρι΄ου 1996 σχετικα΄ µε το σχε΄διο κανονισµου΄ (ΕΚ) του Συµβουλι΄ου που αφορα΄ τις στατι- στικε΄ς εκδηλω΄σεις που αφορου΄ν τις αεροπορικε΄ς µεταφορε΄ς επιβατω΄ν, εµπορευµα΄των και ταχυδροµει΄ου (COM(1995)0353 (cid:11) C4-0419/1995 (cid:11) 1995/0232(COD) (cid:11) πρω΄ην 1995/0232(SYN)) (6)· στ) στις 19 Φεβρουαρι΄ου 1998 σχετικα΄ µε την προ΄ταση οδηγι΄ας του Συµβουλι΄ου που αφορα΄ τις απαιτη΄σεις ασφαλει΄ας και τη βεβαι΄ωση επαγγελµατικη΄ς επα΄ρκειας των πληρωµα΄των θαλα΄µου στην πολιτικη΄ αεροπορι΄α (COM(1997)0382 (cid:11) C4-0460/1997 (cid:11) 1997/0212(COD) (cid:11) πρω΄ην 1997/0212(SYN)) (7)· ζ) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) στις 31 Μαρτι΄ου 1998 σχετικα΄ µε την προ΄ταση οδηγι΄ας του Συµβουλι΄ου που αφορα΄ τα τε΄λη αεροδροµι΄ου (COM(1997)0154 (cid:11) C4-0362/1997 (cid:11) 1997/0127(COD) (cid:11) πρω΄ην 1997/0127(SYN)) (8)· ΣΠ της συνεδρι΄ασης της ι΄διας ηµεροµηνι΄ας, Με΄ρος ΙΙ, σηµει΄ο 7. EE C 347 της 18. 11. 1996, σελ. 427. EE C 175 της 21. 6. 1999, σελ. 115. EE C 175 της 21. 6. 1999, σελ. 119. EE C 150 της 28. 5. 1999, σελ. 27. EE C 178 της 18. 3. 1996, σελ. 12. Η προ΄ταση αυτη΄ δεν περιλαµβα΄νεται στο παρα΄ρτηµα 2 (κατα΄σταση των εκκρεµουσω΄ν προτα΄σεων της Επιτροπη΄ς την 1η Μαι΅ου 1999) του εγγρα΄φου SEC(1999)0581, αλλα΄ αποτελει΄ αντικει΄µενο του παραρτη΄- µατος 1 (στο σηµει΄ο 19). EE C 80 της 16. 3. 1998, σελ. 205. EE C 138 της 4. 5. 1998, σελ. 30. C 54/80 Πε΄µπτη, 16 Σεπτεµβρίου 1999 Επι΄σηµη Εφηµερι΄δα των Ευρωπαι¨κω΄ν Κοινοτη΄των EL 25. 2. 2000 η) θ) ι) στις 17 Ιουλι΄ου 1998 σχετικα΄ µε την προ΄ταση κανονισµου΄ (ΕΚ) του Συµβουλι΄ου που τροποποιει΄ τον κανο- νισµο΄ (ΕΟΚ) 0295/91 για τη θε΄σπιση κοινω΄ν κανο΄νων που αφορου΄ν ε΄να συ΄στηµα αντισταθµιστικω΄ν παροχω΄ν σε περι΄πτωση α΄ρνησης επιβι΄βασης κατα΄ τις τακτικε΄ς αεροπορικε΄ς µεταφορε΄ς (COM(1998)0041 (cid:11) C4-0106/1998 (cid:11) 1998/0022(COD) (cid:11) πρω΄ην 1998/0022(SYN)) (1)· στις 18 Σεπτεµβρι΄ου 1996 σχετικα΄ µε την προ΄ταση κανονισµου΄ ΕΚ του Συµβουλι΄ου που τροποποιει΄ τον κανονισµο΄ (ΕΟΚ) 3922/91 του Συµβουλι΄ου, που αφορα΄ την εναρµο΄νιση των τεχνικω΄ν απαιτη΄σεων και διοι- κητικω΄ν διαδικασιω΄ν στον τοµε΄α της πολιτικη΄ς αεροπορι΄ας (COM(1996)0186 (cid:11) C4-0336/1996 (cid:11) 1996/0119(COD) (cid:11) πρω΄ην 1996/0119(SYN)) (2)· στις 23 Μαρτι΄ου 1999 σχετικα΄ µε την προ΄ταση κανονισµου΄ (ΕΚ) του Συµβουλι΄ου που τροποποιει΄ τον κανο- νισµο΄ (ΕΟΚ) 3922/91 του Συµβουλι΄ου, της 16ης ∆εκεµβρι΄ου 1991, που αφορα΄ την εναρµο΄νιση των τεχνι- κω΄ν κανο΄νων και διοικητικω΄ν διαδικασιω΄ν στον τοµε΄α της πολιτικη΄ς αεροπορι΄ας (COM(1998)0759 (cid:11) C4-0136/1999 (cid:11) 1998/0349(COD) (cid:11) πρω΄ην 1998/0349(SYN)) (3)· ια) στις 18 ∆εκεµβρι΄ου 1998 σχετικα΄ µε την προ΄ταση οδηγι΄ας του Συµβουλι΄ου που αφορα΄ την προσε΄γγιση των νοµοθεσιω΄ν των κρατω΄ν µελω΄ν σχετικα΄ µε τη µεταφορα΄ επικι΄νδυνων εµπορευµα΄των µε σκα΄φη εσωτερικη΄ς ναυσιπλοι΅ας (COM(1997)0367 (cid:11) C4-0449/1997 (cid:11) 1997/0193(COD) (cid:11) πρω΄ην 1997/0193(SYN)) (4)· ιβ) στις 20 Οκτωβρι΄ου 1998 σχετικα΄ µε την προ΄ταση οδηγι΄ας του Συµβουλι΄ου που τροποποιει΄ την οδηγι΄α 82/0714/ΕΟΚ της 4ης Οκτωβρι΄ου 1982 για τη θε΄σπιση τεχνικω΄ν προδιαγραφω΄ν για τα πλοι΄α εσωτερικη΄ς ναυσιπλοι΅ας (COM(1997)0644 (cid:11) C4-0066/1998 (cid:11) 1997/0335(COD) (cid:11) πρω΄ην 1997/0335(SYN)) (5)· ιγ) στις 20 Απριλι΄ου 1994 σχετικα΄ µε την προ΄ταση οδηγι΄ας του Συµβουλι΄ου που αφορα΄ τη συγκρο΄τηση ευρω- παι¨κου΄ συστη΄µατος αναφορω΄ν πλοι΄ων στις θαλα΄σσιες περιοχε΄ς των κρατω΄ν µελω΄ν της Κοινο΄τητας (COM(1993)0647 (cid:11) C3-0023/1994 (cid:11) 0491(COD) (cid:11) πρω΄ην 0491(SYN)) (6)· ιδ) στις 12 Μαρτι΄ου 1999 σχετικα΄ µε την προ΄ταση οδηγι΄ας του Συµβουλι΄ου που αφορα΄ τους ο΄ρους επα΄νδρω- σης σκαφω΄ν τακτικω΄ν υπηρεσιω΄ν επιβατικω΄ν µεταφορω΄ν και πορθµει΄ων που εκτελου΄νται µεταξυ΄ κρατω΄ν µελω΄ν και την προ΄ταση κανονισµου΄ (ΕΚ) του Συµβουλι΄ου που τροποποιει΄ τον κανονισµο΄ (ΕΟΚ) 3577/92 που αφορα΄ την εφαρµογη΄ της αρχη΄ς της ελευ΄θερης κυκλοφορι΄ας των υπηρεσιω΄ν θαλα΄σσιων µεταφορω΄ν στο εσωτερικο΄ καµποτα΄ζ) (COM(1998)0251 (cid:11) C4-0423/1998 (cid:11) 1998/0158(COD) (cid:11) πρω΄ην 1998/0158(SYN)) (cid:11) C4-0424/1998 (cid:11) 1998/0159(COD) (cid:11) πρω΄ην 1998/0159(SYN)) (7)· (θαλα΄σσιο κρατω΄ν µελω΄ν των ιε) στις 11 Φεβρουαρι΄ου 1999 σχετικα΄ µε την προ΄ταση οδηγι΄ας του Συµβουλι΄ου που αφορα΄ τις λιµενικε΄ς εγκαταστα΄σεις υποδοχη΄ς αποβλη΄των πλοι΄ων και καταλοι΄πων φορτι΄ου (COM(1998)0452 (cid:11) C4-0484/1998 (cid:11) 1998/0249(COD) (cid:11) πρω΄ην 1998/0249(SYN)) (8)· ιστ) στις 20 Οκτωβρι΄ου 1998 σχετικα΄ µε την τροποποιηµε΄νη προ΄ταση οδηγι΄ας του Συµβουλι΄ου που αφορα΄ την εναρµο΄νιση των ο΄ρων εξε΄τασης των συµβου΄λων ασφαλει΄ας για τις οδικε΄ς, σιδηροδροµικε΄ς και εσωτερικε΄ς πλωτε΄ς µεταφορε΄ς επικι΄νδυνων εµπορευµα΄των (COM(1998)0803 (cid:11) C4-0242/1998 (cid:11) 1998/0106(COD) (cid:11) πρω΄ην 1998/0106(SYN)) (9)· ιζ) στις 12 Φεβρουαρι΄ου 1999 (10) σχετικα΄ µε την προ΄ταση οδηγι΄ας του Συµβουλι΄ου περι΄ τροποποι΄ησης της οδηγι΄ας 92/106/ΕΟΚ του Συµβουλι΄ου που αφορα΄ τη θε΄σπιση κοινω΄ν κανο΄νων για ορισµε΄νες συνδυασµε΄νες εµπορευµατικε΄ς µεταφορε΄ς µεταξυ΄ των κρατω΄ν µελω΄ν και στις 15 Απριλι΄ου 1999 (11) σχετικα΄ µε την προ΄- ταση οδηγι΄ας του Συµβουλι΄ου περι΄ τροποποι΄ησης της οδηγι΄ας 96/53/ΕΚ του Συµβουλι΄ου που αφορα΄ τον καθορισµο΄, για ορισµε΄να οδικα΄ οχη΄µατα που κυκλοφορου΄ν στην Κοινο΄τητα, των µε΄γιστων επιτρεπο΄µενων διαστα΄σεων στις εθνικε΄ς και διεθνει΄ς µεταφορε΄ς και των µε΄γιστων επιτρεπο΄µενων βαρω΄ν στις διεθνει΄ς µετα- φορε΄ς (COM(1998)0414 (cid:11) C4-0485/1998 (cid:11) 1998/0226(COD) (cid:11) πρω΄ην 1998/0226(SYN) και C4-0486/1998 (cid:11) 1998/0227(COD) (cid:11) πρω΄ην 1998/0227(SYN))· 2. αναθε΄τει στην Προ΄εδρο΄ του να διαβιβα΄σει το παρο΄ν νοµοθετικο΄ ψη΄φισµα στο Συµβου΄λιο και την Επιτροπη΄. EE C 292 της 21. 9. 1998, σελ. 209. (1) (2) EE C 320 της 28. 10. 1996, σελ. 73. (3) EE C 177 της 22. 6. 1999, σελ. 20. (4) EE C 98 της 9. 4. 1999, σελ. 486. (5) EE C 341 της 9. 11. 1998, σελ. 32. (6) EE C 128 της 9. 5. 1994, σελ. 137. (7) EE C 175 της 21. 6. 1999, σελ. 438. EE C 150 της 28. 5. 1999, σελ. 432. (8) (9) EE C 341 της 9. 11. 1998, σελ. 29. (10) EE C 150 της 28. 5. 1999, σελ. 614. (11) EE C 219 της 30. 7. 1999, σελ. 414


title: Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the 'Proposal for a Council Directive on a transparent system of harmonised rules for driving restrictions on heavy goods vehicles involved in international transport on designated roads'

eurovoc_concepts:
administrative transparency
approximation of laws
commercial vehicle
international transport
road traffic
traffic regulations

text: 23. 12. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374/85 Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive on a transparent system of harmonised rules for driving restrictions on heavy goods vehicles involved in international transport on designated roads’ (1999/C 374/19) THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS, having regard to the list of Commission proposals pending on 1 May 1999 for which the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam involves a change in the legal basis and/or procedure (SEC(1999) 581 final); having regard to the Proposal for a Council Directive on a transparent system of harmonised rules for driving restrictions on heavy goods vehicles involved in international transport on designated roads (COM(1998) 115 final — 98/0096 COD ex SYN) (1); having regard to the decision taken by the Council, notified by its letter of 14 June 1999, to consult the Committee of the Regions, under Articles 265, first paragraph and Article 71 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above matter; having regard to its Bureau decision of 15 September 1999 to appoint Mr Weingartner (A, PPE) as rapporteur-general to draw up the relevant opinion under Rule 39 of the COR Rules of Procedure; having regard to its Resolution on a European Charter of regional and local authorities for a progressive and sustainable transport policy (CdR 347/97 fin) (2); in view of the Economic and Social Committee Opinion of 9 and 10 September 1998 on the Proposal for a Council Directive on a transparent system of harmonised rules for restrictions on heavy goods vehicles involved in international transport on designated roads (CES 1135/98), unanimously adopted the following opinion at its 30th plenary session of 15 and 16 September 1999 (meeting of 16 September). 1. Introduction 1. 1. The Commission draft directive points out that there are currently no European rules on transport restrictions for heavy goods vehicles. Up to now these matters have been governed by national legislation, which explains the lack of coordination and the considerable variations. economic interests clash with the need, in some Member States, for an appropriate solution to improving road safety, reducing traffic density, protecting the environment and taking account of social considerations in the transport industry. 2. Comments The draft directive seeks to facilitate intra-Community 1. 2. international road transport of goods by attempting to har- monise existing driving bans on major roads (the TEN road network). These driving bans mainly relate to weekends and public holidays, when 7 out of the 15 Member States currently operate such restrictions. The new draft directive, which some Member States 1. 3. have requested from the Commission, deals with an area where There are no Community rules for this area because 2. 1. responsibility for road traffic management lies with the national, and sometimes also with the regional governments, of the Member States. The European Commission argues that a Community directive can be adopted because both the Community and the Member States are jointly responsible for this area (Article 75 (3) (1) (a)(c)(d) of the EC Treaty). The COR takes the view that irrespective of this argument, it must be stressed that adopting this directive will reduce national responsibilities (and in many Member States regional responsi- bilities also) and will thus run counter to the subsidiarity principle. (1) OJ C 198, 24. 6. 1998, p. 17. (2) OJ C 251, 10. 8. 1998, p. 7. (3) Art. 71 (Treaty of Amsterdam). C 374/86 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 23. 12. 1999 2. 2. It is noteworthy that those Member States which currently operate driving restrictions — i. e. Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Austria and Portugal — are traditionally holiday countries with heavy traffic density during peak periods due to leisure and holiday traffic. Switzerland, a non-EU country, and a large number of the central and eastern European countries, which are without exception holiday destinations, also have such restrictions on goods transport by road. international transport accounts for only a small proportion of overall goods transport by road. However, international road transport primarily uses the network of major roads (the TEN road network) and accounts for a very significant proportion of the traffic on these roads (50 % and over). And it is exactly the TEN that is affected by the proposed reduction in driving bans. 2. 3. While substantial areas of southern European countries are only affected by summer holiday traffic, the ever increasing number of short breaks tends to transfer leisure and holiday traffic to the spring and autumn months also; as a result the central European countries and the Alpine countries are also considerably affected by peak leisure and holiday traffic during the low season and in winter. 2. 8. Road safety is another factor which must be carefully researched and documented. There is insufficient evidence to support the European Commission’s contention that at first sight it was not clear that heavy goods vehicle (HGV) driving bans had reduced accidents during these periods. 2. 4. Limiting the weekend driving ban to Sundays, as is proposed in the draft directive, would cause massive traffic disruption in all holiday countries on Saturdays, as that day is still the main arrival and departure days for holidaymakers. The same also goes for the proposed restriction of the public holiday driving bans. For this reason, the automobile clubs ADAC, ACI, FFAC, and O¨ AMTC have issued a joint statement calling for the existing driving bans for heavy goods vehicles to be maintained. 2. 9. It can be assumed that an easing of the HGV driving bans would entail additional international goods transport by road; traffic relief during the remaining week days could scarcely be expected and it is therefore difficult to argue that this measure will improve road safety. It is much more likely that the additional HGV traffic, combined with existing leisure and holiday traffic at weekends and on public holidays, will adversely affect road safety. 2. 5. A key question is whether the proposed harmonisation of regulations on the driving bans in international goods transport would alter the ‘modal split’, i. e. the breakdown between the different modes of transport. The European Commission emphasises that there is no evidence to suggest that the current weekend driving restrictions had shifted goods transport from road to rail. 2. 6. Nevertheless, goods transport by road can be expected to increase sharply as a result of the proposed Community rules extending the permissible time periods for international goods transport by road during weekends and public holidays. This undermines the Community’s objective of a consistent transport policy geared to comprehensive consideration of environmental aspects, a better distribution of transport between the different modes of transport, increased use of environment-friendly modes of transport and shifting goods transport by road over to rail and shipping. International transport involves travel over longer distances and is therefore best suited to a shift towards other modes of transport. 2. 7. The argument that extending time periods for inter- national transport of goods by road is of little consequence as it accounts for only a small percentage of overall goods transport by road, is not completely accurate. It is true that 2. 10. Also significant are the environmental protection issues linked to expanding international HGV traffic. In this respect, the priority is to critically assess the problem of air pollution. i. e. the increased emissions of harmful substances. Irrespective of whether easing restrictions on Saturdays could reduce HGV traffic on the other days of the week, it must be expected that there would be considerably higher congestion on major roads (the TEN road network) on Saturdays. The Commission’s explanatory memorandum stresses that in traffic congestion fuel consumption may be doubled or trebled, with a concomitant increase in harmful substances emissions. A decrease in traffic-related air pollution is therefore not on the cards. 2. 11. At least for sensitive areas like the Alpine region, there is already evidence that during HGV-free weekends, there is a dramatic reduction in noxious emissions and that pollution can therefore be reduced to more tolerable levels, at least for a short time. Ultimately this is also linked to the fact that heavy goods vehicles continue to make a disproportionate contribution to overall levels of traffic related pollutants in the air. HGV traffic, which constitutes 15-20 % of total traffic, produces around 50 % of NOx emissions, which are particu- larly damaging to the environment. 23. 12. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374/87 2. 12. Addressing the consequences of noise emissions, the Commission itself refers to justifiable restrictions during night-time hours in the form of driving bans on noisy HGVs and the consequences under critical geographic conditions, such as in mountainous regions. The proposal to introduce driving restrictions on roads where noise pollution poses a real problem is acceptable, along with the proposal to take account of noise pollution from all types of vehicles in these cases. However, the latter measure in particular requires further research. 2. 13. The Commission’s explanatory memorandum states that all those countries currently operating driving restrictions on HGVs provide for exemptions which are by no means uniform. We endorse the call for strict criteria for establishing a harmonised list of goods which may also be transported at weekends and on public holidays. The COR can also support uniform rules for vehicles to be covered by the exemption requirements (for example, vehicles which already meet the highest standard under the EURO classification). — with goods transport set to grow even more than transport as a whole — and international goods transport by road, to which this regulation relates, records the very highest growth rates. On the other hand, there is a current shift towards a leisure society, with shorter working hours and more leisure time. The result is that in addition to an annual holiday, more and more Community citizens also take short breaks and trips at weekends and on public holidays. For example, the central Alpine region currently has only around two months in the year in late autumn without significant leisure traffic. Consequently, the combination of expanding leisure traffic and the additional goods transport on Saturdays is causing more and more problems from year to year, making coun- termeasures all the more urgent. 3. 3. There is a need for a fundamental improvement in research into the links between the above traffic conditions at weekends and on public holidays and their impact on road safety and the environment. This also applies to the economic repercussions at national level, an issue which has not been adequately addressed to date. 2. 14. Driving bans also of course have a social impact, as they restrict driving time and impose rest periods. Curtailing the existing driving bans would put further unreasonable pressures on people working in road transport. 3. 4. The suggestion in the explanatory memorandum that in future the aim will be a further limitation of driving bans seems to be very clearly targeted at the needs of the road transport industry. A scientifically-based approach, however, requires a global view. 3. Conclusions and recommendations Strict criteria should be used to establish a harmonised 3. 5. list of goods which may also be transported at weekends and on public holidays. It would also make sense to harmonise the types of vehicles covered by the exemption rules, taking account of environmental considerations in particular. 3. 1. The COR rejects the draft directive on harmonised driving bans for HGVs engaged in international goods trans- port on designated roads, as the arguments for maintaining the current rules are stronger. Moreover, the fact that easing the existing driving bans would generate additional HGV traffic gives fresh unilateral advantages to goods transport by road and therefore would run completely counter to the EU’s current aim of skewing transport policy towards better distri- bution of transport i. e. increasing the share of transport modes such as rail and shipping. In order to safeguard the subsidiarity principle, the 3. 6. Committee of the Regions takes the view that national and regional authorities should retain the same responsibility as before for road traffic management, since they are best qualified to assess the need for HGV driving bans. However, existing or proposed restrictions should be notified to the European Commission in good time. The unchecked growth in road transport provides 3. 2. further grounds for rejecting this draft directive. Firstly, all forecasts point to a further increase in road transport overall 3. 7. Although easing the driving bans may seem justifiable from the transport industry’s point of view, the considerations relating to road safety, environmental protection and social tolerability militate in favour of maintaining the current provisions. The discussions on the draft directive ultimately C 374/88 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 23. 12. 1999 come down to a fundamental choice between values, in which the Committee of the Regions, in its capacity as representative of citizens, categorically opts for protecting the interests of the people affected. Brussels, 16 September 1999. The President of the Committee of the Regions Manfred DAMMEYER