title: SKRIFTLIG FORESPØRGSEL P-2193/99 af Herman Schmid (GUE/NGL) til Kommissionen. Triklorætylen.

eurovoc_concepts:
carcinogenic substance
disease of the nervous system
solvent

text: 1. 8. 2000 DA De Europ(cid:230)iske F(cid:230)llesskabers Tidende C 219 E/115 Svar (31. januar 2000) Det (cid:230)rede medlem er sikkert klar over den omfattende karakter af de konklusioner, der blev vedtaget 1. i R(cid:229)det den 26. oktober 1999 med henblik p(cid:229) forberedelsen af den tredje WTO-Ministerkonference i Seattle. R(cid:229)det understregede i sine konklusioner nłdvendigheden af at sikre, at en passende balance mellem yderligere liberalisering af handlen og en styrkelse af de multilaterale regler bidrager til en b(cid:230)redygtig udvikling, miljłbeskyttelse, sociale fremskridt, fattigdomsreduktion og forbrugersundhed. 2. Det (cid:230)rede medlem er uden tvivl ogs(cid:229) klar over, at miljł og arbejdstagernes grundl(cid:230)ggende rettigheder var meget vigtige punkter p(cid:229) EU(cid:146)s dagsorden i Seattle. Hvad fłrstn(cid:230)vnte ang(cid:229)r, gentog R(cid:229)det p(cid:229) ministerkonferencen, at der hele vejen under forhandlingerne błr tages miljłhensyn med henblik p(cid:229) ved rundens afslutning at n(cid:229) til et samlet resultat, hvor de miljłvenlige fłlger fremg(cid:229)r i de relevante dele af den endelige pakke. Dermed fulgte R(cid:229)det den politik, som det havde fastlagt, og som er beskrevet i punkt 11, litra g, i de konklusioner, som det vedtog p(cid:229) samlingen den 26. oktober 1999 i forbindelse med forberedelsen af tredje WTO-Ministerkonference. R(cid:229)det henviser det (cid:230)rede medlem hertil. Med hensyn til arbejdstagernes grundl(cid:230)ggende rettigheder stłtter R(cid:229)det kraftigt deres beskyttelse og gik under hele ministerkonferencen ind for, at dette spłrgsm(cid:229)l skulle omtales i ministererkl(cid:230)ringen. Med henblik p(cid:229) at głre fremskridt i spłrgsm(cid:229)let om handel og arbejdstagerrettigheder foreslog EU at oprette et f(cid:230)lles permanent ILO/WTO-arbejdsforum vedrłrende handels-, globaliserings- og arbejdsmarkedsspłrgsm(cid:229)l for at fremme en bedre forst(cid:229)else for disse spłrgsm(cid:229)l gennem en substansdialog mellem alle de forskellige parter (herunder regeringerne, arbejdsgiverne, fagbev(cid:230)gelsen og andre relevante internationale organisati- oner). Denne dialog błr omfatte en drłftelse af forholdet mellem handelspolitik, handelsliberalisering, udvikling og arbejdstagernes grundl(cid:230)ggende rettigheder. Et s(cid:229)dant f(cid:230)lles forum błr ogs(cid:229) udarbejde opl(cid:230)g til et młde p(cid:229) ministerniveau, som błr finde sted senest i 2001. EU tilbłd at v(cid:230)re v(cid:230)rt ved et s(cid:229)dant ministermłde. I konklusionerne fra samlingen den 26. oktober 1999 understregede R(cid:229)det endvidere nłdvendighe- 3. den af fuldt og helt at inddrage det civile samfund i denne proces og med henblik herp(cid:229) forts(cid:230)tte dialogen med det, s(cid:229)ledes at der kan tages hensyn til dets legitime interesser og łnsker. R(cid:229)det understregede ogs(cid:229) betydningen af n(cid:230)r kontakt med Europa-Parlamentet og de nationale parlamenter og opfordrede til dialog med det civile samfunds organisationer p(cid:229) s(cid:229)vel nationalt som europ(cid:230)isk niveau. 4. Med hensyn til det (cid:230)rede medlems sidste spłrgsm(cid:229)l głres der opm(cid:230)rksom p(cid:229), at der p(cid:229) minister- konferencen i Seattle ikke kunne opn(cid:229)s konsensus om en ministererkl(cid:230)ring, der kunne have fastlagt dagsordenen for en ny runde forhandlinger og retningslinjerne herfor. N(cid:229)r tiden er moden, vil konsulta- tionerne om omfanget af og rammen for en ny runde blive genoptaget i GenŁve, og det drłftes s(cid:229)ledes fortsat, hvilke spłrgsm(cid:229)l der skal forhandles i en ny runde. Det skal bem(cid:230)rkes, at ministrene i Seattle i vidt omfang anerkendte vigtigheden af handlens sociale dimension og af b(cid:230)redygtig udvikling, som l(cid:229) EU meget p(cid:229) sinde. Under hele den proces, som fłlger, vil EU(cid:146)s handlinger nłje fłlge de m(cid:229)l, der blev fastsat i R(cid:229)dets konklusioner, uden at dette berłrer de instrumenter, der anses for at v(cid:230)re hensigtsm(cid:230)ssige for opn(cid:229)elsen af disse m(cid:229)l. (2000/C 219 E/146) SKRIFTLIG FORESP(cid:216)RGSEL P-2193/99 af Herman Schmid (GUE/NGL) til Kommissionen (19. november 1999) Om: Triklor(cid:230)tylen Triklor(cid:230)tylen er et letflygtigt oplłsningsmiddel, der giver nerveskader, og som anses for at v(cid:230)re kr(cid:230)ft- fremkaldende. Kommissionen har traditionelt indtaget en ret overb(cid:230)rende holdning til dette oplłsnings- middel. I Sverige har midlet i lighed med en r(cid:230)kke andre klorerede oplłsningsmidler v(cid:230)ret forbudt i forbrugsvarer siden 1993 og i industrien siden 1996. C 219 E/116 De Europ(cid:230)iske F(cid:230)llesskabers Tidende DA 1. 8. 2000 Har Kommissionen og dens egne eksperter p(cid:229) omr(cid:229)det tilegnet sig de nye forskningsresultater, ifłlge hvilke triklor(cid:230)tylen błr klassificeres som »kr(cid:230)ftfremkaldende«? Svar afgivet p(cid:229) Kommissionens vegne af Margot Wallstr(cid:246)m (4. januar 2000) i bilag I til R(cid:229)dets direktiv 67/548/E(cid:216)F af 27. Siden 1976 er trichlorethylen omfattet af en »harmoniseret« klassifikation i hele F(cid:230)llesskabet som et farligt stof lovgivning om klassificering, emballering og etikettering af farlige stoffer (1). Siden 1988 er trichlorethylen anbragt i kategori 3 af kr(cid:230)ftfremkaldende stoffer (mulige kr(cid:230)ftfremkaldende virkninger hos mennesker). Det har endvidere v(cid:230)ret klassificeret som miljłfarligt siden 1996. juni 1967 om tiln(cid:230)rmelse af Hvad ang(cid:229)r forbudet mod trichlorethylen i Sverige, er det vigtigt at bem(cid:230)rke, at der findes en r(cid:230)kke undtagelser for industrien fra dette forbud. Under de regelm(cid:230)ssige ekspertmłder, der afholdes p(cid:229) Kommissionens vegne, er trichlorethylen blevet gennemdrłftet intensivt siden 1996 med henblik p(cid:229) at tage klassificeringen og m(cid:230)rkningen op til fornyet overvejelse. Dette omfatter ogs(cid:229) drłftelser p(cid:229) nationalt plan, som ekspertmłdet den 2. december 1999 i Frankfurt am Main, hvor en r(cid:230)kke epidemiologiske undersłgelser, der giver anledning til bekymring, blev gennemg(cid:229)et kritisk. De hyppige drłftelser af trichlorethylen og den omhyggelige vurdering af eksisterende data viser, at det er malplaceret at h(cid:230)vde, at Kommissionen traditionelt har indtaget en ret overb(cid:230)rende holdning til dette stof. (1) EFT 196 af 16. 8. 1967. (2000/C 219 E/147) SKRIFTLIG FORESP(cid:216)RGSEL P-2195/99 af Francesco Speroni (TDI) til Kommissionen (19. november 1999) Om: Transport mellem forskellige terminaler inden for samme lufthavn Transport mellem to forskellige terminaler inden for samme lufthavn, f. eks. i forbindelse med den planlagte overfłrsel af flyvninger fra Linate til Malpensa, er et problem for passagerer, der ankommer til Athen med et andet flyselskab end Olympic Airways og skal forts(cid:230)tte rejsen med sidstn(cid:230)vnte selskab, der forest(cid:229)r de fleste indenrigsflyvninger. Da passagererne i s(cid:229) fald selv skal afholde alle udgifter til transport uden for selve lufthavnsomr(cid:229)det (til forskel fra Malpensa, hvor der er gratis transportservice), er de for at undg(cid:229) besv(cid:230)r og tidsspild tilbłjelige til at foretage rejsen til Gr(cid:230)kenland med Olympic Airways, der s(cid:229)ledes vil befinde sig i en fortrinsstilling. Er dette i overensstemmelse med EU-bestemmelserne? Svar afgivet p(cid:229) Kommissionens vegne af Lola de Palacio (2. december 1999) Ifłlge Kommissionens oplysninger er der mod betaling en shuttle-forbindelse i Athen-Hellenikon-luft- havnen mellem łstterminalen, som alle flyselskaber uden for Olympic Airways-gruppen flyver fra, og vestterminalen, som Olympic Airways benytter


title: SCHRIFTLICHE ANFRAGE P-2180/99 von Luciana Sbarbati (ELDR) an die Kommission. Erhaltung der Fischbestände im Mittelmeer.

eurovoc_concepts:
Denmark
European Economic Area
Norway
common commercial policy
customs duties
meat

formats: html pdf print

text: C 203 E/146 Amtsblatt der Europ(cid:228)ischen Gemeinschaften DE 18. 7. 2000 (2000/C 203 E/185) SCHRIFTLICHE ANFRAGE P-2178/99 von Karin Riis-Jłrgensen (ELDR) an die Kommission Betrifft: Zollabgabe f(cid:252)r Fleischausfuhren nach Norwegen (19. November 1999) Ist die Kommission (cid:129) im Zusammenhang mit meiner m(cid:252)ndlichen Anfrage H-0389/99 (1) an die Kommission f(cid:252)r die Fragestunde w(cid:228)hrend der Mai-Tagung 1999 (cid:129) der Auffassung, da(cid:223) es in Einklang mit den Handelsvereinbarungen zwischen Norwegen und der EU steht, da(cid:223) ein d(cid:228)nisches Unternehmen, das Fleisch nach Norwegen exportiert, eine Zollabgabe in H(cid:246)he von NOK 84,31 pro kg Fleisch entrichten mu(cid:223)? Zur Information sei darauf hingewiesen, da(cid:223) der Nettopreis f(cid:252)r dieses Produkt DKK 16,50 f(cid:252)r 850g Fleisch betr(cid:228)gt. (1) Debatten des Europ(cid:228)ischen Parlaments (Mai 1999). Antwort von Herrn Patten im Namen der Kommission (26. November 1999) Bei dem derzeitigen Abkommen zwischen Norwegen und der Gemeinschaft handelt es sich um das Abkommen (cid:252)ber den Europ(cid:228)ischen Wirtschaftsraum (EWR). Nach Artikel 8 dieses Abkommens sind landwirtschaftliche Erzeugnisse (cid:129) abgesehen von einigen genau festgelegten Ausnahmen (cid:129) von seiner Anwendung ausgeschlossen. Dar(cid:252)ber hinaus stellt der EWR kein Zollgebiet dar, so da(cid:223) das Abkommen die norwegische Tarifstruktur nicht beeinflu(cid:223)t. Somit sind in dem Abkommen keine Bestimmungen (cid:252)ber den von den EU-Exporteuren an Norwegen zu zahlenden Zollsatz vorgesehen. (2000/C 203 E/186) SCHRIFTLICHE ANFRAGE P-2180/99 von Luciana Sbarbati (ELDR) an die Kommission (19. November 1999) Betrifft: Erhaltung der Fischbest(cid:228)nde im Mittelmeer Die Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1626/94 (1) des Rates (cid:252)ber technische Ma(cid:223)nahmen zur Erhaltung der Fisch- best(cid:228)nde im Mittelmeer sieht in Artikel 2 Absatz 3 vor, da(cid:223) (cid:132)die Verwendung von Umschlie(cid:223)ungs- und Zugnetzen, die mit einem Boot ausgefahren und vom Ufer aus eingeholt werden (Strandwaden), ((cid:133)) ab dem 1. Januar 2002 untersagt (ist), sofern nicht der Rat auf Vorschlag der Kommission mit qualifizierter Mehrheit aufgrund wissenschaftlicher Nachweise, da(cid:223) die Verwendung dieser Netze keine Nachteile f(cid:252)r die Best(cid:228)nde mit sich bringt, etwas anderes beschlie(cid:223)t. (cid:147) Dieses Verbot wirft die Frage nach den (cid:220)berlebenschancen dieser besonderen Fischereitechnik in vielen K(cid:252)stengebieten des Mittelmeers und insbesondere in der Adria auf. Diese Technik unterscheidet sich n(cid:228)mlich wesentlich sowohl vom Schleppfang als auch von der Umschlie(cid:223)ungstechnik, sie stellt keinerlei Gefahr f(cid:252)r die Umwelt und die Meeresressourcen dar, sofern bestimmte Merkmale wie die Mindestgr(cid:246)(cid:223)e und die Maximalgr(cid:246)(cid:223)e der Netzmaschen, der Ausleger, der Enth(cid:228)utungsmaschine und des Beckens, die Einsatzzeiten und (cid:141)fristen usw. eingehalten werden. Kann die Kommission angeben, welche Ma(cid:223)nahmen sie k(cid:252)nftig zur Rettung der unterschiedlichen Fischereitraditionen ergreifen will, die im gesamten Mittelmeerbereich Teil des historischen Kulturerbes sind? Teilt die Kommission die Auffassung, da(cid:223) die in Artikel 2 Absatz 3 dieser Verordnung vorgesehenen Kriterien und Verfahren zur Gew(cid:228)hrung von Ausnahmeregelungen zum Verbot der Verwendung von Umschlie(cid:223)ungs- und Zugnetzen, die mit einem Boot ausgefahren und vom Ufer aus eingeholt werden, sich als (cid:252)beraus rigide erweisen k(cid:246)nnen? (1) ABl. L 171 vom 6. 7. 1994, S. 1. Antwort von Herrn Fischler im Namen der Kommission (3. Dezember 1999) Die Ma(cid:223)nahme, auf die sich die Frau Abgeordnete bezieht, wurde 1994 vom Rat angenommen, um Jungfische vor den Auswirkungen von Fangger(cid:228)ten zu sch(cid:252)tzen, die in unmittelbarer K(cid:252)stenn(cid:228)he einge- setzt werden, wo die Fische einen Teil ihres Lebenszyklus verbringen. 18. 7. 2000 DE Amtsblatt der Europ(cid:228)ischen Gemeinschaften C 203 E/147 Um den Fischern die M(cid:246)glichkeit zu geben, sich an diese neuen Bedingungen anzupassen, wurde eine befristete Ausnahmeregelung erlassen. Sofern nicht wissenschaftlich nachgewiesen wird, da(cid:223) diese Aus- nahmeregelung keine nachteiligen Auswirkungen auf die Fischbest(cid:228)nde hat, wird sie voraussichtlich am 31. Dezember 2001 auslaufen. Die Kommission wird auf der Grundlage der neuesten wissenschaftlichen Untersuchungen einen Vorschlag f(cid:252)r den Rat vorbereiten, der die Fortsetzung bzw. Beendigung der Ausnahmeregelung zum Inhalt hat. F(cid:252)r die Entscheidung ist die qualifizierte Mehrheit des Rates erforderlich. Dieses Verfahren ist nicht ungew(cid:246)hnlich und auch nicht besonders rigide. Vergleichbare Verfahren sind f(cid:252)r eine Reihe (cid:228)hnlicher Situationen vorgesehen (so etwa in Artikel 3 Absatz 1 und in Artikel 6 Absatz 1 der von der Frau Abgeordneten genannten Verordnung). (2000/C 203 E/187) SCHRIFTLICHE ANFRAGE E-2186/99 von Christos Folias (PPE-DE) an die Kommission (29. November 1999) Betrifft: Versto(cid:223) gegen den Gemeinsamen Zolltarif Die zollrechtlichen Bestimmungen der Gemeinschaft werden auf die Bef(cid:246)rderung, den Verkehr und die Lagerung in Zollfreilagern von Gemeinschaftserzeugnissen angewendet, f(cid:252)r die (und die allein) die Bestimmungen f(cid:252)r vereinfachte Verfahren und Formalit(cid:228)ten gelten. Zust(cid:228)ndig f(cid:252)r die Anwendung der Gemeinschaftsverordnungen und des gemeinschaftlichen Zolltarifs in Griechenland sind die (cid:246)rtlichen Zoll(cid:228)mter und Zollbeh(cid:246)rden sowie auch der Hafenbetrieb von Pir(cid:228)us. Es ist klar, da(cid:223) weder der Verkehr mit noch die vorl(cid:228)ufige Lagerung von Waren in Freih(cid:228)fen und Zollfreilagern die Regelung des Verkehrs mit diesen Waren ver(cid:228)ndert oder sich auf ihre Behandlung, die nach den vereinfachten Verfahren zu erfolgen hat, auswirkt. Unternehmen, die im Versand von Gemeinschaftserzeugnissen t(cid:228)tig sind, haben wiederholt von den Zollbeh(cid:246)rden und insbesondere den Zoll(cid:228)mtern von Pir(cid:228)us sowie dem Hafenbetrieb von Pir(cid:228)us gefordert, eine Mole im Hafen von Pir(cid:228)us oder eine andere Stelle f(cid:252)r das Entladen von Waren aus der Gemeinschaft zu nutzen, wo dann die vereinfachten Verfahren, die f(cid:252)r den Verkehr und die Lagerung von Frachten aus der Gemeinschaft gelten, zur Anwendung kommen k(cid:246)nnen, damit die Betroffenen von allzu vielem Hin und Her, erh(cid:246)hten Ausgaben und Versp(cid:228)tungen usw. befreit werden. Sowohl die Zollbeh(cid:246)rden als auch der Hafenbetrieb von Pir(cid:228)us finden immer wieder die verschiedensten Ausreden f(cid:252)r die Nichtanwendung dieser Verfahren im Verkehr mit und bei der Lagerung von Erzeugnis- sen aus der Gemeinschaft. Gedenkt die Kommission die Regelung f(cid:252)r den Verkehr und die Lagerung von Waren aus der Gemeinschaft sowie die Nichtanwendung der vereinfachten Verfahren in F(cid:228)llen, in denen sie geboten w(cid:228)re, zu unter- suchen? Welche Initiativen gedenkt die Kommission im Zusammenhang mit dem dreisten Versto(cid:223) gegen das Gemeinschaftsrecht und insbesondere die nicht korrekte Anwendung der Gemeinschaftsverordnungen sowie des gemeinschaftlichen Zolltarifs durch die Zollbeh(cid:246)rden und den Hafenbetrieb von Pir(cid:228)us in Griechenland zu ergreifen? Antwort von Herrn Bolkestein im Namen der Kommission (20. Dezember 1999) Der Herr Abgeordnete wird auf die Antwort der Kommission auf die schriftliche Anfrage E-762/98 von Herrn Jarzembowski (1) verwiesen


formats: pdf print

text: C 189/256 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 7. 7. 2000 Friday 19 November 1999 TEXTS ADOPTED 1. EU action plan to combat drugs A5-0063/1999 European Parliament resolution on the communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on a European Union Action Plan to Combat Drugs (2000-2004) (COM(1999) 239 - C5-0093/1999 - 1999/2095(COS)) The European Parliament, (cid:1) having regard to the communication from the Commission of 28 May 1999 on a European Union Action Plan to Combat Drugs (2000-2004) (COM(1999) 239 (cid:1) C5-0093/1999 (cid:1) 1999/2095 (COS)), hereinafter referred to as the ‘Action Plan’, (cid:1) having regard to Article 152 of the EC Treaty, (cid:1) having regard to Title VI of the EU Treaty, (cid:1) having regard in particular to Article 34 of the EU Treaty, under which the Commission and the Member States share the right of initiative in the field of police and judicial cooperation, and in this instance in combating drugs, thereby broadening the scope of action and the responsibilities of the Commission and, by extension, the supervisory power of the European Parliament in this field, (cid:1) having regard to Article 39 of the EU Treaty, which strengthens the role of Parliament in the legisla- tive process governing the adoption of framework decisions, decisions and conventions relating, inter alia, to organised crime and drug trafficking, (cid:1) having regard to the incorporation of the Schengen acquis into the Treaties, (cid:1) having regard to the report of 2 June 1998, including key elements of a post-1999 EU drugs strategy, to the European Council on activities on drugs and drugs-related issues under the UK Presidency (7930/2/1998 (cid:1) C4-0409/1998), (cid:1) having regard to the plan of action of the Council and Commission on how best to implement the provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam on an area of freedom, security and justice (0692/98 (cid:1) C4- 0692/1998 (cid:1) 1998/0923(CNS)), endorsed by the Vienna European Council in December 1998, (cid:1) having regard to the relevant conclusions reached at the European Council meetings in Dublin in December 1996, in Cardiff in June 1998, in Vienna in December 1998 and in Tampere in October 1999, (cid:1) having regard to the United Nations Conventions of 1961, 1971 and 1988 on combating drugs, as well as the Political Declaration and resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly special ses- sion (Ungass) of 8 to 10 June 1998, (cid:1) having regard to Council Directive 1992/0109/EEC of 14 December 1992 (1) on the manufacture and the placing on the market of certain substances used in the illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, as amended by Commission Directive 1993/0046/EEC (2) and completed by Commission Regulation No 1485/1996 (3), and to Council Regulation (EEC) 3677/1990 (4) laying down measures to be taken to discourage the diversion of certain substances to the illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, amended by Regulation (EEC) 0900/1992 (5), (1) OJ L 370, 19. 12. 1992, p. 76. (2) OJ L 159, 1. 7. 1993, p. 134. (3) OJ L 188, 27. 7. 1996, p. 28. (4) OJ L 357, 2. 12. 1990, p. 1. (5) OJ L 96, 10. 4. 1992, p. 1. 7. 7. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 189/257 (cid:1) having regard to the European Union action plan to combat drugs (1995-1999) (COM(1994) 234), Friday 19 November 1999 (cid:1) having regard to Decision No 102/1997/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council adopting a programme of Community action on the prevention of drug dependence within the framework for action in the field of public health (1996-2000) (1), (cid:1) having regard to the Council Joint Actions of 17 December 1996 (2) concerning the approximation of the laws and practices of the Member States of the European Union to combat drug addition and to prevent and combat illegal drug trafficking, of 16 June 1997 (3) concerning the information exchange, risk assessment and the control of new synthetic drugs, and of 3 December 1998 (4) on money laun- dering and the identification, tracing, freezing, seizing and confiscation of the proceeds from crime, (cid:1) having regard to the other instruments of judicial, police and customs cooperation cited in the com- munication (pp. 47-49), and in particular to the OISIN, Falcone and Grotius programmes (5), (cid:1) having regard to the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending Directive 1991/0308/EEC on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering (COM(1999) 352), (cid:1) having regard to the proposal for a Council regulation (EC) completing Regulation (EEC) 0302/1993 establishing a European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) (COM(1999) 430), (cid:1) having regard to its resolutions of 15 June 1995 (6) on the communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on a European Union plan of action to combat drugs (1995- 1999) and of 12 May 1998 (7) on the communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the control of new synthetic drugs (designer drugs), its recommendation to the Council of 6 October 1998 (8) on European cooperation in the framework of the UN General Assembly special session (Ungass) on drugs, and its resolution of 13 April 1999 (9) on a post-1999 EU drugs strategy on activities on drugs and drugs-related issues under the UK Presidency, (cid:1) having regard to the EMCDDA annual reports on the state of the drugs problem in the European Union, (cid:1) having regard to the report of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy Affairs and the opinion of (A5-0063/1999), A. whereas this Action Plan sets out five objectives: (1) maintaining the fight against drugs as a ‘major priority’ for EU internal and external action; (2) an integrated and balanced approach to demand and supply reduction; (3) procuring comparable data; (4) international cooperation and support for the United Nations; and (5) finding ‘appropriate’ resources, ‘while not bidding for new resources’, B. whereas, however, the ‘major priority’ status which is supposedly worth maintaining does not feature in the legislation of the Union or in its budgetary commitment; whereas it is doubtful that that ‘appro- priate’ resources can be found unless provision is made for additional resources; whereas the Action Plan thus paints an overly optimistic picture of the commitment and real capacity of the Union and its Member States to combat drugs, (1) OJ L 19, 22. 1. 1997, p. 25. (2) OJ L 342, 31. 12. 1996, p. 6. (3) OJ L 167, 25. 6. 1997, p. 1. (4) OJ L 333, 9. 12. 1998. (5) OJ L 7, 10. 1. 1997, OJ L 99, 31. 3. 1998 and OJ L 287, 8. 11. 1996 respectively. (6) OJ C 166, 3. 7. 1995, p. 116. (7) OJ C 167, 1. 6. 1998, p. 29. (8) OJ C 328, 26. 10. 1998, p. 43. (9) OJ C 219, 30. 7. 1999, p. 109. C 189/258 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 7. 7. 2000 Friday 19 November 1999 C. whereas it is not instruments, programmes or structures which are most lacking, but rather strong and overtly unambiguous political resolve in areas such as external policy, the coordination and strict monitoring of agreed efforts and a sizeable budgetary commitment; whereas, inter alia, the resources earmarked in the Community budget for the fight against drugs (cid:1) some ECU 31 million for social measures and barely ECU 24 million for all cooperation measures in the 1998 budget, according to the data presented in this Action Plan (cid:1) are woefully inadequate in comparison with the challenges faced, D. whereas the forthcoming Portuguese Presidency ought to convene an extraordinary ‘inter-pillar’ Coun- cil meeting to address the fight against drugs and invite the applicant countries to attend; whereas that Council should meet once a year in order to adopt an ambitious political anti-drugs project subject to a precise timetable; whereas the said Council ought to convene on a yearly basis to assess and adapt the Plan, E. whereas without prejudice to the invitation to the Council given by the Tampere European Council ‘to adopt the 2000-2004 European Strategy against Drugs before the European Council meeting in Helsinki’, the European Council should decide in principle to convene the extraordinary ‘inter-pillar’ Council meeting referred to above; whereas an interinstitutional conference should be responsible for preparing it, F. whereas the need to convene the ‘inter-pillar’ Council can be deduced from conclusion 59 of the Tampere European Council, which is particularly relevant to action to combat drugs, and states that ‘justice and home affairs concerns must be integrated in the definition and implementation of other Union policies and activities’ and that ‘all competencies and instruments at the disposal of the Union, and in particular, in external relations must be used in an integrated and consistent way to build up the area of freedom, security and justice’, G. whereas the coordinating role in anti-drugs operations entrusted to the Horizontal Drugs Group (HDG) should be strengthened further; whereas the HDG could become a ‘high-level working group’; whereas it would prove beneficial to establish regular, direct contact between the HDG and the com- petent bodies of the European Parliament in order to further informal interinstitutional coordination on the issues relating to drug addiction addressed under this Action Plan, H. whereas policies for demand reduction, care and social rehabilitation of drug addicts and supply reduction are not three alternative or contradictory policies, but, rather, inseparable strands within the same mainstreaming policy whose ultimate aim is always social and individual wellbeing, I. whereas this policy can only be devised to cover the long term and can only deliver results gradually, provided that it makes full use of educational, health and social resources and that the necessary means and funds are made available to it, J. whereas an essential element of the drugs policy within the EU consists in improving cooperation between EU institutions, Member States, regions and cities, K. whereas the raison d’être of the fight against drugs lies in helping drug addicts rid themselves of their dependence; whereas achieving this aim will involve coordination amongst decision-makers in the relentless clampdown on drug traffickers, whose activities currently account for 8% of world trade, according to United Nations figures, L. whereas 80% of organised crime worldwide is linked to drug trafficking; whereas the links between drug trafficking and arms dealing, dealing in nuclear material, terrorism, the ‘mafia’, corruption and a number of armed groups and official circles are common knowledge, M. whereas the abuse of drugs leads to biological, psychological and social problems, illnesses, problems in the home and at work, criminal acts, traffic accidents, etc. ; whereas young people are being exposed to the risk of drugs at an increasingly early age; whereas all available means should be employed to protect the under-18s as a matter of priority and to reduce the number of drug-related deaths; whereas the fight against addiction to one or more drugs must go hand in hand with the fight against alcoholism, whose impact on families and society is also particularly devastating, 7. 7. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 189/259 Friday 19 November 1999 N. whereas action must be taken to combat the marked increase now visible in some EU Member States in the consumption of alcoholic beverages by young people; whereas this, combined with the use of drugs (especially synthetic drugs), is leading to increased juvenile delinquency, more traffic accidents, more failures at school, greater family tensions, etc. , O. whereas the clampdown should not be conducted against drug addicts themselves, who should, on the contrary, receive help from society, but rather against the drug traffickers and criminal organisations responsible for drug production, trafficking and dealing, by adapting laws to make quick and effective action in bringing drugs criminals to justice a reality, P. whereas there can be no anti-drugs policy in the European Union without cooperation with third countries; whereas international agreements on combating drugs and anti-drugs clauses in agreements concluded between the Union and third countries are, therefore, an absolute priority; whereas, further- more, development cooperation policy must be revised, so as to bring it into line with the principles enshrined in the Political Declaration issued by the United Nations General Assembly special session in June 1998; whereas engaging in ‘constructive dialogue’ under the guise of Realpolitik would not suffice as a pretext for a laissez-faire policy, Q. whereas Article 152 of the EC Treaty (public health) in its newly worded form now makes it possible to conduct varying national programmes to reduce health risks by stipulating that ‘the Community shall complement the Member States’ action in reducing drug-related health damage, including infor- mation and prevention’; whereas ultimate responsibility for practical measures in regard to treatment and rehabilitation must lie with the Member State, which also finances the treatment programme, R. whereas, however, to avoid conveying a confused and counterproductive message, it would be advi- sable for such programmes to be underpinned by an approach overtly aimed at freeing drug addicts from their dependence and improving their quality of life, S. whereas drug use is a threat to public health, including that of the drug addicts themselves; whereas if the number of deaths is to be reduced it is desirable to promote and develop programmes involving aid, information, rehabilitation and damage limitation, while not debarring Member States from adopt- ing ad hoc measures or pilot schemes, T. whereas large numbers of drug addicts are currently imprisoned in the EU for drug-related offences (trafficking, dealing, theft, etc. ); whereas it is desirable to promote and develop similar programmes to those proposed in the previous paragraph in the prison context, U. whereas the EU must encourage medical scientific research which is focussed on improving the chances of breaking addiction patterns so as to help reduce demand, V. drawing attention to the need to link the fight against poverty and unemployment to the problems of drug addiction and urban delinquency, while the subsidiarity principle is observed and respected in regard to matters concerning juvenile and urban delinquency; taking the view that a project of this kind could form part of action to combat urban delinquency, which Parliament ought to include in the 2000 budget (line B5-820N), W. whereas the projects under the programme of Community action on the prevention of drug depen- dence (1996-2000) and those to be funded under the forthcoming action programme should be prop- erly targeted, rigorously assessed and devised to work in synergy with national programmes, in line with the aims of the action plan, X. sharing the particular alarm expressed by the Commission at the ‘major reduction of financial com- mitment by Member States to social sector activities’ (p. 55), Y. whereas the confiscation of proceeds from drug-related crime should be backed up by the necessary decisions for those proceeds to be allocated to programmes on prevention and the rehabilitation of drug addicts and support programmes for their families, C 189/260 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 7. 7. 2000 Friday 19 November 1999 Z. whereas there is good reason to exploit every possibility afforded by Article 30 of the EU Treaty governing police cooperation, especially by involving Europol, and by Article 31 of the same, which deals with common action on judicial cooperation in criminal matters, including the establishment of minimum rules relating to drug trafficking; whereas the plan of action to establish an area of freedom, security and justice endorsed by the Vienna European Council refers to the establishment of such rules, AA. whereas, likewise, the money laundering directive which, on the Commission’s own admission, has enjoyed only limited success in confiscating assets, must be made tougher and its strict implementa- tion assured; whereas the fight against money laundering will fail to deliver credible results unless conducted on an international scale, which does not, however, preclude vigorous action within the EU, AB. whereas the new synthetic drugs constitute a potential danger and a new problem, particularly given the diversion of their precursors, many of them licit, for illicit ends, the ease with which they can be manufactured and the frequently unusual behavioural patterns of their users; whereas if the effec- tiveness of the early warning system at EU level seems satisfactory, the results of the action to which it leads in the Member States should be evaluated, AC. whereas the means must be found to combat the use of the Internet in facilitating drug trafficking and production; whereas crimes such as drug trafficking should be prosecuted in accordance with applicable law even if it occurs via services over the Internet, AD. whereas Internet providers who remove from the Net information which gives rise to crime should be awarded a quality symbol to strengthen their competitive position; whereas information which combats drug sales and drug abuse is of common interest and should be increased; whereas the Member States should use health information to highlight the health hazards involved in drug abuse, AE. drawing attention to the impact of new technologies, and especially the Internet, on drug abuse through the dissemination of information on chemical precursors and the manufacturing of drugs which is sometimes a direct incitement to drug-taking, AF. whereas the growing problem of doping in sport, which, besides constituting a health matter, raises legal, judicial and police issues, must be included in the European Union’s strategy and Action Plan to Combat Drugs; whereas the Action Plan has paid scant attention to the problem of the harmo- nisation of laws and judicial and police cooperation in this field, goals which a number of sports ministers from the Member States hope to see attained; whereas the willingness of the Member States and the Commission ‘to help in setting up an international agency to deal with this problem in cooperation with sports organisations’, as mentioned in the Commission’s conclusions, does not go far enough, AG. whereas the link between drug taking and road accidents should lead to a policy initiative at Union level, AH. whereas there is good cause to cooperate fully with the United Nations and the UNDCP (United Nations Drug Control Programme), to subscribe to the principles established in the June 1998 Ungass Political Declaration (cid:1) namely joint responsibility, inclusion of drug control in development policies, a balanced approach to demand reduction and supply reduction, respect for human rights and multilateral approaches (cid:1) and to enforce the resolutions adopted on that occasion, AI. AJ. whereas it is necessary to ensure that, in line with Parliament’s request, the handling of European Union funding of the UNDCP should not be entrusted to those governments of third countries which fail to offer guarantees with regard to the sound management of the said funding and respect for human rights, whereas one of the most important prerequisites for combating drugs is the reduction of poverty in the southern developing countries; whereas all possible efforts should be undertaken to remove the social and economic causes that favour continuing drug production; whereas the special preferences granted by the European Union in the Andean Pact countries and the countries of central America under the GPS scheme should be extended further, at least to the level granted by the EU to other 7. 7. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 189/261 developing countries; whereas the GPS scheme alone, however, is not sufficient to encourage farm- ers to shift to other products; whereas communities that have decided to stop the production of drugs and raw materials should be granted special support to develop alternatives, Friday 19 November 1999 AK. whereas the necessary resources should be allocated for the implementation of the EU/Latin Amer- ica/Caribbean coordination and cooperation mechanism in the field of drugs adopted at the first summit of heads of state and government of the three regions in Rio de Janeiro on 28 June 1999, AL. whereas, where external policy is concerned, it is vital that resolute and coherent action be devised and implemented at EU level to combat drug production and trafficking, first and foremost through money laundering agreements and tougher anti-drugs clauses comprising suspension and penalty arrangements, AM. whereas the European Union must maintain close contact with the Dublin Group (the Member States and the Commission, the US, Canada, Japan, Australia and Norway) and its ‘mini-groups’, AN. whereas, in the context of the pre-accession strategy, it would be advisable to give high priority to the acquis in the area of freedom, security and justice, and in this case to the acquis on combating drugs; whereas there is a need to re-evaluate the measures under the Phare and Tacis programmes devoted to combating drugs and strengthen all aspects of cooperation in the fight against drug trafficking and transit with the applicant countries of central and eastern Europe and all countries concerned, especially the Balkan states, Russia and the NISs, Turkey and the Maghreb countries; whereas, as the Commission has proposed, the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) should see its remit extended as soon as possible to include the implementa- tion of drug awareness projects funded under the PHARE programme, AO. whereas the admission of a shortage of resources for programmes targeting developing nations con- trasts with the unfounded assertion that Community efforts have met with considerable success, AP. whereas, failing a drastic improvement in the monitoring of the instruments and programmes under the Action Plan, the indispensable condition for a policy to be effective will not be met; whereas, for evaluation at EU level to be feasible, the Member States must present an exhaustive appraisal of their policies, employing transparency equal to that applied in the economic field, AQ. whereas the persistent lack of comparable data on the drugs problem in the various Member States, as highlighted once again in the analysis of public spending undertaken in chapter VII of the EMCDDA 1998 Annual Report is alarming, AR. whereas the EMCDDA has an essential role to play in gathering data and statistics and analysing policies, legislation and penal practice both in the European Union and in the applicant countries; whereas without comparable data, based on common definitions and concepts, and a budget com- mensurate with the tasks entrusted to it, the Monitoring Centre will be unable to perform its task optimally, AS. whereas at the special meeting on the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice in the European Union held in Tampere on 15 and 16 October 1999 the European Council: (cid:1) underlined the importance of addressing the drugs problem in a comprehensive manner and called on the Council ‘to adopt the 2000-2004 European Strategy against Drugs before the European Council meeting in Helsinki’ (conclusion 50), (cid:1) called for priority to be given to cooperation in preventing drug-related crime (conclusion 42), (cid:1) called for joint investigative teams to be set up without delay, as a first step to combat in particular trafficking in drugs, on the initiative and with the participation of representatives of Europol, thus encouraging the proper implementation of the provisions of Article 30(2) EU (conclusions 43 and 45), C 189/262 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 7. 7. 2000 Friday 19 November 1999 (cid:1) agreed to set up Eurojust (cid:1) which should act in the matter of judicial cooperation as Europol acts in police cooperation (conclusion 46), (cid:1) designated drugs trafficking as one of the areas in which priority should be given to efforts to harmonise national criminal law, thus calling for the start of joint action provided for under Article 31(e) EU (conclusion 48), (cid:1) with regard to money laundering, called for common standards to be developed to prevent the use of corporations and entities registered outside the territory of the Union and for arrange- ments to be concluded with third country offshore-centres (conclusion 57), (cid:1) stressed the need to define clear priorities, policy objectives and measures for the Union’s exter- nal action in justice and home affairs (conclusion 61); Performance and overall aims 1. Shares the objectives of the Action Plan; congratulates the Commission on its honesty in acknowl- edging shortcomings; considers, however, that it paints an overly optimistic picture of the commitment and performance of the Union and its Member States in combating drugs; 2. Welcomes the long-term and cross-sector strategy in the Commission’s Action Plan which takes account of the need for further treatment and evaluation; at the same time, however, stresses that the strategy must be flexible in order to cope with new trends in drug abuse, particularly amongst young people, and that it must also include approaches geared to the local and regional levels; Political resolve and the decision-making process Notes that, at present, the overall budgetary resources implemented by the European Union appear 3. woefully inadequate and the monitoring of action weak; considers that the European Union should be allocated further resources to strengthen its measures to prevent drug addiction, help drug addicts and combat crime; believes that every Member State should set aside resources for treatment programmes to enable every addict to obtain help to get off drugs in accordance with national conditions; calls on the Commission to make suitable financial proposals with a view to facilitating the proposed actions; 4. Calls on the Member States and the Union to show greater political resolve and, if the need for more effective measures to combat drug abuse and drug trafficking cannot be met with existing resources, to commit higher resources on the one hand for internal action, notably in the educational, social, health and medical scientific field, particularly as regards the effects of drugs on health and life expectancy, and, on the other, for international action; condemns, in the light of Article 6(4) of the EU Treaty which requires the Union to ‘provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies’, the persistent lack of comparable data provided by the Member States on drugs and drug addiction and calls on them to remedy this situation forthwith; 5. Considers that urban and regional policy experiments on reducing harmful (health) effects, reducing demand for drugs and crime prevention and investigating the adverse effects on health of various drugs are important as regards finding new ways of dealing with drug-related problems; 6. Welcomes the Commission’s objectives of reducing drug abuse among young people and the number of deaths among addicts but regrets the lack of clarification regarding the measures, timetables and follow- up strategies needed to achieve those objectives; calls therefore on the Commission to elaborate on its objectives in this respect; Calls on the Commission to involve non-governmental organisations in implementing the action plan 7. in order to maintain an integrated and balanced anti-drug strategy in which reductions of supply and demand are regarded as mutually reinforcing factors; Calls on those Member States which, according to UN statistics, are transit countries for drug traf- 8. ficking to clamp down on such activity as soon as possible; 7. 7. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 189/263 Friday 19 November 1999 9. Calls on the forthcoming Portuguese Presidency to convene an extraordinary ‘inter-pillar’ Council meeting devoted to combating drugs and to invite the applicant countries to attend; calls on the European Council meeting in Helsinki to decide in principle on this convocation; calls for an interinstitutional con- ference to be responsible specifically for preparing this ‘inter-pillar’ Council meeting; 10. Calls on the said Council, which should meet once a year, to signal clearly its refusal to consider the drug problem as inevitable by adopting an ambitious political anti-drugs project subject to a precise time- table; 11. Calls on the ‘inter-pillar’ Council to examine each year, on the basis of an EMCDDA report, the progress in implementation by the Monitoring Centre of a global information system on drugs and to develop the methodological tools needed for implementation; Specific objectives and international action 12. Emphasises the need to use all available means to protect the under-18s as a matter of priority through preventive work and focusing on rehabilitative measures for addicted parents of minors, to con- sider increasing Community and national budgets, and pursue measures targeting new synthetic drugs; asks for early prevention measures to be taken in schools as part of coordinated action amongst the Member States; calls for the Comenius programme to make a greater contribution in this vein; 13. Considers that the rehabilitation of drug addicts is, like other measures, of fundamental importance in the fight against drugs, since it helps to curb demand; to this end, supports and encourages the impor- tant social work carried out by therapeutic communities in helping addicts recover, and considers that their capacity to take action must be stepped up; Calls on the Commission, in implementing the action plan, to emphasise the need to intensify 14. efforts in the Member States to combat drug-abuse in prisons, in which care, measures to promote reinte- gration into society and working life, access to drug-free units and the possibility of converting a prison sentence into treatment should be seen as important elements; 15. Calls on the Commission to evaluate the various approaches to treatment and to introduce a range of different treatment programmes with individualised criteria for admission and the objective of non- dependence on drugs; Calls on the Member States to implement programmes to protect public and individual health, and 16. measures to treat drug addicts in prison; 17. Supports the research priorities outlined for drugs under the fifth framework programme and wishes also to include the social aspects of production, the reduction of health risks of drug use and the evaluation of a multilateral approach designed to restrict trade and production; 18. Urges the European Union to apply a coherent policy to combat drug production and trafficking in a consistent manner, using its capacity for bringing political influence to bear and providing effective help to the countries concerned; insists to this end on the urgent need for broader coordination in the fields of justice and home affairs and of external policy, in particular development and trade policy; Calls on the EU and its Member States to encourage and develop damage limitation policies, with- 19. out debarring individual Member States from adopting measures and pilot schemes in this area; 20. Favours the strengthening and rigorous evaluation of action on money laundering; stresses the role which Europol and, in due course, Eurojust should play to this end in conjunction with the European Judicial Network; calls on the European Union to work towards making this action a priority at interna- tional level and towards concluding bilateral and multilateral money laundering agreements; reiterates its request that the funds confiscated from criminals be allocated to programmes to combat drug addiction; C 189/264 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 7. 7. 2000 Friday 19 November 1999 Considers that FATF plays an essential part in combatting money laundering and that its mandate 21. should be extended for a further five years; Calls on the Union and Member States to cooperate constructively with the United Nations and the 22. UNDCP and in particular to apply the principles contained in the Political Declaration and resolutions of the June 1998 United Nations General Assembly special session (Ungass) on combating drugs; hopes, in this respect, to see the respective responsibilities of the European Union and the Member States in enfor- cing those resolutions made clear; 23. Reiterates its request that the handling of European Union funding of the UNDCP should not be entrusted to those governments of third countries which fail to offer guarantees with regard to the sound management of said funding and respect for human rights; Calls for meticulous checks on compliance with the anti-drugs clause in international agreements; 24. asks to that effect that it be accorded the same ‘essential clause’ status as the ‘human rights’ clause; Expects that the control on the external trade of chemicals based on Council Regulation (EEC) 25. 3677/90 and Commission Regulation (EEC) 3769/92 and on a number of precursor control agreements concluded with eight countries of the organisation of American States will be extended to other countries; 26. Calls for the inclusion within the Action Plan of an ‘inter-pillar’ initiative on doping in sport, which should also address the harmonisation of laws, the involvement of sports organisations and judicial and police cooperation as well as comprising preventive measures and public health initiatives, also for ama- teur sport; Calls for use to be made of Article 71(1)(c) of the EC Treaty so as to harmonise provisions in the 27. Member States’ highway codes relating to road accidents caused by drug taking; Pre-accession strategy 28. Deplores the rise of new drugs markets and trafficking syndicates in the countries of central and eastern Europe encouraged by the economic and political difficulties in some of these countries and insists on the importance of the PHARE multibeneficiary drugs programmes; 29. Emphasises that the pre-accession strategy must give high priority to the fight against drugs; stres- ses, however, that the evaluation made hitherto of the success of the projects funded from the measures under the PHARE and TACIS programmes devoted to combating drugs, which received ECU 11 and 4 mil- lion in 1998, has by and large proven inadequate; calls for a fundamental review of these measures; approves the Commission proposal regarding the broad involvement of the applicant countries and Turkey in the EMCDDA; Evaluation 30. Demands that the Commission begin the systematic and rigorous monitoring and evaluation of all action pursued in the fight against drugs, including action taken at international level, drawing in particu- lar on the expertise of the EMCDDA; urges the Member States to present an exhaustive annual appraisal of their policies; urges the Commission to submit an annual report on this basis, setting out a comprehensive review of action to combat drugs, so that the policies pursued in this field can be compared; 31. Calls on the Commission to fund programmes to evaluate the practices used in the fields of preven- tion, treatment and reintegration as well as the social and health implications and, on the basis of its conclusions, to help the Member States frame their national policies; Role and resources of the EMCDDA 32. Calls on the EMCDDA to contribute fully towards the systematic monitoring of the above-men- tioned anti-drug actions, to expand its assistance to the Member States in evaluating their activities to reduce demand, to implement the five harmonised epidemiological indicators, to strengthen its system for evaluating the risks posed by the new synthetic drugs and broaden its scope to cover the risks linked 7. 7. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 189/265 to performance-enhancing drugs; calls therefore for the EMCDDA to be equipped with the harmonised statistics and resources it needs to carry out its task; Friday 19 November 1999 * * * 33. Calls on the European Council to consider this resolution as recommendations for its meeting in Helsinki; reserves the right to react, before the meeting of the ‘inter-pillar’ Council which it demands should be convened, to the general guidelines which the European Council will have laid down in the fight against drugs; Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the European Council, the Commission and 34. Council, and the parliaments and governments of the Member States and applicant countries. 2. Counterfeit travel documents * A5-0050/1999 Initiative of the Federal Republic of Germany with a view to the adoption of a Council Decision on the improved exchange of information to combat counterfeit travel documents (8457/1999 - C5-0011/1999 - 1999/0804(CNS)) The initiative was amended as follows: INITIATIVE OF THE FRG (1) AMENDMENTS BY PARLIAMENT (Amendment 1) Title Initiative of the Federal Republic of Germany with a view to the adoption of a Council Decision on the improved exchange of information to combat counterfeit travel documents Initiative of the Federal Republic of Germany with a view to the adoption of a Council Regulation on the improved exchange of information to combat counterfeit travel docu- ments Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particu- lar Article 34(2)(c) thereof, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 66 thereof, (Amendment 11) First citation (Amendment 3) Recital 2a (new) (2a) the Commission announced in its statement on this Joint Action that it would adopt the necessary initiatives to develop the European image archiving system after the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty; (Amendment 4) Recital 2b (new) (2b) in the long term it would not be rational to allow two parallel systems for exchanging information about forged documents to remain in existence; (1) OJ C 176, 22. 6. 1999, p. 1


title: KIRJALLINEN KYSYMYS P-2179/99 esittäjä(t): Per Stenmarck (PPE-DE) komissiolle. Talousarvio.

eurovoc_concepts:
cooperation policy
drawing up of the EU budget

text: C 219 E/110 Euroopan yhteis(cid:246)jen virallinen lehti FI 1. 8. 2000 (2000/C 219 E/140) KIRJALLINEN KYSYMYS E-2170/99 esitt(cid:228)j(cid:228)(t): John McCartin (PPE-DE) komissiolle (29. marraskuuta 1999) Aihe: Euron k(cid:228)ytt(cid:246)(cid:246)noton vaikutus varhaisel(cid:228)kej(cid:228)rjestelm(cid:228)(cid:228)n Euron k(cid:228)ytt(cid:246)(cid:246)noton j(cid:228)lkeen t(cid:228)n(cid:228) vuonna Irlannin maanviljelij(cid:246)ille suoritetut varhaisel(cid:228)kej(cid:228)rjestelm(cid:228)n mukaiset maksut ovat pienentyneet 5. 055 prosenttia. Maatalousministeri(cid:246) on ilmoittanut, ett(cid:228) menetykset korvataan t(cid:228)ysim(cid:228)(cid:228)r(cid:228)isin(cid:228) heti kun ministeri(cid:246) saa komissiolta palautuksille lopullisen hyv(cid:228)ksynn(cid:228)n. tiedot my(cid:246)nnett(cid:228)vist(cid:228) korvauksista ja kertoa mitk(cid:228) maanviljelij(cid:228)t ovat Voiko komissio antaa tarkat oikeutettuja korvauksiin, milloin komissio aikoo hyv(cid:228)ksy(cid:228) korvaussuunnitelman ja milloin maanviljelij(cid:228)t saavat korvauksensa. Franz Fischlerin komission puolesta antama vastaus (16. joulukuuta 1999) Tammikuun 1. p(cid:228)iv(cid:228)n(cid:228) 1999 tapahtuneen euron k(cid:228)ytt(cid:246)(cid:246)noton j(cid:228)lkeen Irlannin maanviljelij(cid:246)ille suoritetta- vat varhaisel(cid:228)kej(cid:228)rjestelm(cid:228)n mukaiset maksut pieneniv(cid:228)t, mink(cid:228) aiheuttamat menetykset korvataan Irlan- nille maksettavalla tai 1 ja 3 p(cid:228)iv(cid:228)n(cid:228) tammikuuta 1999 sovellettavista valuuttakursseista johtuvien tasaustukien enimm(cid:228)ism(cid:228)(cid:228)r(cid:228)n vahvistamisesta 12 p(cid:228)iv(cid:228)n(cid:228) huhtikuuta 1999 annetun komission asetuksen (EY) N:o 755/1999 (1) nojalla. euron muuntokursseista kansalliseksi rahayksik(cid:246)ksi suoralla tuella Komissio sai 2. marraskuuta 1999 ilmoituksen Irlannin ehdotuksista yhteisen maatalouspolitiikan liit(cid:228)n- n(cid:228)istoimenpiteist(cid:228) (maatalouden ymp(cid:228)rist(cid:246)toimenpiteet ja varhaisel(cid:228)ke), joihin euroon siirtymisell(cid:228) oli vaikutuksia. Kyseisiin ehdotuksiin sis(cid:228)ltyy menetyksien korvaaminen komission asetuksen liitteess(cid:228) maini- tun tasaustukien enimm(cid:228)ism(cid:228)(cid:228)r(cid:228)n mukaisesti. Irlannin ilmoitusta. Tutkinta suoritetaan maatalouden eurom(cid:228)(cid:228)r(cid:228)isen T(cid:228)ss(cid:228) vaiheessa komissio tutkii maatalousalalla valuuttaj(cid:228)rjestelm(cid:228)n 22 p(cid:228)iv(cid:228)n(cid:228) joulukuuta 1998 annetun komission asetuksen (EY) N:o 2808/98 (2) ja EY:n perustamissopi- muksen 88 artiklan 3 kohdassa (aiempi 93 artikla) m(cid:228)(cid:228)r(cid:228)tyn menettelyn mukaisesti. yksityiskohtaisista soveltamista s(cid:228)(cid:228)nn(cid:246)ist(cid:228) koskevista (1) (2) EYVL L 98, 13. 4. 1999. EYVL L 349, 24. 12. 1998. (2000/C 219 E/141) KIRJALLINEN KYSYMYS P-2179/99 esitt(cid:228)j(cid:228)(t): Per Stenmarck (PPE-DE) komissiolle (19. marraskuuta 1999) Aihe: Talousarvio Vuoden 2000 talousarvion suhteen on olemassa vaara, ett(cid:228) Euroopan parlamentti ei noudata vajaa kuusi kuukautta sitten hyv(cid:228)ksytty(cid:228) budjettikehyst(cid:228). Siit(cid:228) olisi vakavia seurauksia ja se merkitsisi kaikille EU:n veronmaksajille mahdollista kustannusten nousua. Neuvosto ehdottaa otsakkeen 4 lineaarista leikkaamista 10 prosentilla. T(cid:228)m(cid:228) osoittaa heikkoa priorisointia, josta saattaa olla kielteisi(cid:228) vaikutuksia. Budjettivallan jotta budjettikehyst(cid:228) voidaan k(cid:228)ytt(cid:228)jien on yhdess(cid:228) m(cid:228)(cid:228)ritelt(cid:228)v(cid:228) v(cid:228)ltt(cid:228)m(cid:228)tt(cid:246)m(cid:228)t ensisijaiset noudattaa. tavoitteet, Onko komissio valmis esitt(cid:228)m(cid:228)(cid:228)n neuvoston tarvitseman perustan sille, ett(cid:228) se voi m(cid:228)(cid:228)ritell(cid:228) tarvittavat ensisijaiset tavoitteet talousarvion toista k(cid:228)sittely(cid:228) silm(cid:228)ll(cid:228) pit(cid:228)en? 1. 8. 2000 FI Euroopan yhteis(cid:246)jen virallinen lehti C 219 E/111 Michaele Schreyerin komission puolesta antama vastaus (4. tammikuuta 2000) Komissio on arvoisan parlamentin j(cid:228)senen kanssa samaa mielt(cid:228) siit(cid:228), ett(cid:228) rahoitusn(cid:228)kymien otsakkeen 4 alle kuuluvien m(cid:228)(cid:228)r(cid:228)rahojen uudelleenjako ensisijaisten tavoitteiden mukaisesti on periaatteessa parempi vaihtoehto kuin menojen leikkaaminen kautta linjan. Sellaisten teht(cid:228)vien kuin Kosovon j(cid:228)lleenrakentami- sen, Marokon kanssa tehtyjen kalastussopimusten, It(cid:228)-Timorin j(cid:228)lleenrakennustoimien ja Turkin avustami- sen rahoittamiseksi olisi harkittava ennemminkin t(cid:228)llaista vaihtoehtoa kuin rahoitusn(cid:228)kymien ylitt(cid:228)mist(cid:228). T(cid:228)h(cid:228)n k(cid:228)sitykseen perustuu komission ehdotus oikaisukirjelm(cid:228)ksi nro 4/2000. Otsakkeen 4 alle kuuluvien m(cid:228)(cid:228)r(cid:228)rahojen kohdentaminen alkuper(cid:228)isest(cid:228) alustavasta talousarvioesityksest(cid:228) poikkeavalla tavalla perustuu t(cid:228)m(cid:228)nhetkisiin poliittisiin tavoitteisiin. Vaikka komissio esimerkiksi ehdottaa, ett(cid:228) rahoitusta yhteis(cid:246)n ulkopuolisten V(cid:228)limeren maiden kanssa harjoitettavalle yhteisty(cid:246)lle leikataan 3,5 prosenttia alustavasta talousarvioesityksest(cid:228), summa j(cid:228)(cid:228) kuitenkin suuremmaksi kuin vuoden 1999 talousarviossa, jotta yhteis(cid:246)n naapurimaille ja Turkille my(cid:246)nnett(cid:228)v(cid:228)n tuen ensisijaisuus nimenomaan tulisi otetuksi huomioon. Oikai- sukirjelm(cid:228) sis(cid:228)lt(cid:228)(cid:228) luettelon m(cid:228)(cid:228)r(cid:228)rahojen suunnitellusta uudelleenjaosta perusteluineen. Komissio ehdottaa, ett(cid:228) neuvosto asettaa ensisijaiset tavoitteensa t(cid:228)m(cid:228)n pohjalta ja ottaa huomioon my(cid:246)s vuoden 1999 talousarvion toteutumisen. Oikaisukirjelm(cid:228) nro 4/2000 sis(cid:228)lt(cid:228)(cid:228) my(cid:246)s rahoitusehdotuksia, jotka ylitt(cid:228)v(cid:228)t otsakkeen 4 yl(cid:228)rajan ja joihin sis(cid:228)ltyy joustov(cid:228)lineen k(cid:228)ytt(cid:246). Komission mielest(cid:228) uusia tarpeita ulkoisten toimien alalla ei voida rahoittaa pelk(cid:228)st(cid:228)(cid:228)n kohdentamalla m(cid:228)(cid:228)r(cid:228)rahoja uudelleen, koska t(cid:228)st(cid:228) k(cid:228)rsiv(cid:228)t jo sovitut ohjelmat. (2000/C 219 E/142) KIRJALLINEN KYSYMYS E-2181/99 esitt(cid:228)j(cid:228)(t): Jorge Moreira da Silva (PPE-DE) neuvostolle (30. marraskuuta 1999) Aihe: Hiilidioksidip(cid:228)(cid:228)st(cid:246)t Portugalissa Kioton 1997 pidetyss(cid:228) ilmastonmuutoskonferenssissa Portugali sai taloutensa j(cid:228)lkeenj(cid:228)(cid:228)neisyyden vuoksi oikeuden lis(cid:228)t(cid:228) hiilidioksidip(cid:228)(cid:228)st(cid:246)j(cid:228) vuoteen 2012 menness(cid:228) 40 prosentilla vuoden 1990 tasoon n(cid:228)hden. Suurin osa Euroopan unionin j(cid:228)senvaltioista suostui v(cid:228)hent(cid:228)m(cid:228)(cid:228)n omia kasvihuonekaasup(cid:228)(cid:228)st(cid:246)j(cid:228)(cid:228)n, mutta Portugali sai oikeuden lis(cid:228)t(cid:228) n(cid:228)iden kaasujen p(cid:228)(cid:228)st(cid:246)j(cid:228) enemm(cid:228)n kuin yksik(cid:228)(cid:228)n toinen EU-maa. Viime viikolla julkistettiin Universidade Nova de Lisboa -yliopiston ymp(cid:228)rist(cid:246)tieteiden tutkimusryhm(cid:228)n tekem(cid:228) laaja tutkimus t(cid:228)rkeimmist(cid:228) kasvihuonekaasup(cid:228)(cid:228)st(cid:246)jen l(cid:228)hteist(cid:228). Tutkimuksen mukaan Portugali on jo nyt lis(cid:228)nnyt 34 prosentilla omia hiilidioksidip(cid:228)(cid:228)st(cid:246)j(cid:228)(cid:228)n vuoden 1990 tasoon verrattuna ja siin(cid:228) ennustetaan, ett(cid:228) vuonna 2010 Portugalin hiilidioksidip(cid:228)(cid:228)st(cid:246)t ovat jo 62 pro- senttia suuremmat kuin vuonna 1990, eli paljon enemm(cid:228)n kuin sille eritt(cid:228)in anteliaasti luvattu 40 prosentin lis(cid:228)ys (vuoteen 2012 menness(cid:228)). Tilanteen vakavuuden vuoksi neuvoston on ehdottomasti ilmoitettava: 1. Mink(cid:228)laiset ovat neuvoston viimeisimm(cid:228)t tiedot kasvihuonekaasujen p(cid:228)(cid:228)st(cid:246)m(cid:228)(cid:228)rist(cid:228) Portugalissa? 2. Mihin konkreettisiin toimiin Portugalin hallitus on ryhtynyt kasvihuonekaasup(cid:228)(cid:228)st(cid:246)jen valvomiseksi ja v(cid:228)hent(cid:228)miseksi? 3. Onko Portugalin lis(cid:228)ksi muita maita, joissa hiilidioksidip(cid:228)(cid:228)st(cid:246)ist(cid:228) Kiotossa vahvistetut enimm(cid:228)ism(cid:228)(cid:228)r(cid:228)t ja t(cid:228)m(cid:228)nhetkisten ennusteiden mukaiset vuoden 2012 p(cid:228)(cid:228)st(cid:246)m(cid:228)(cid:228)r(cid:228)t eroaisivat toisistaan yht(cid:228) paljon? 4. Mit(cid:228) neuvosto aikoo tehd(cid:228) est(cid:228)(cid:228)kseen tilanteen, jossa EU:n j(cid:228)senvaltiot yleisesti j(cid:228)tt(cid:228)v(cid:228)t noudattamatta Kiotossa sovittuja p(cid:228)(cid:228)st(cid:246)jen enimm(cid:228)ism(cid:228)(cid:228)ri(cid:228)?


title: Verordening (EG) nr. 2455/1999 van de Commissie van 19 november 1999 tot vaststelling van forfaitaire invoerwaarden voor de bepaling van de invoerprijzen van bepaalde soorten groenten en fruit

eurovoc_concepts:
agri-monetary policy
citrus fruit
fruit vegetable
grape
import price
pip fruit

text: 20. 11. 1999 NL Publicatieblad van de Europese Gemeenschappen L 299/9 VERORDENING (EG) Nr. 2455/1999 VAN DE COMMISSIE van 19 november 1999 tot vaststelling van forfaitaire invoerwaarden voor de bepaling van de invoerprĳzen van bepaalde soorten groenten en fruit DE COMMISSIE VAN DE EUROPESE GEMEENSCHAPPEN, Gelet op het Verdrag tot oprichting van de Europese Gemeen- schap, (2) vermeld, de forfaitaire waarden bĳ invoer uit derde landen vaststelt. Op grond van de bovenvermelde criteria moeten de forfaitaire invoerwaarden worden vastgesteld op de in de bĳlage bĳ deze verordening vermelde niveaus, Gelet op Verordening (EG) nr. 3223/94 van de Commissie van 21 december 1994 houdende uitvoeringsbepalingen van de invoerregeling voor groenten en fruit (1), laatstelĳk gewĳzigd bĳ Verordening (EG) nr. 1498/98 (2), en met name op artikel 4, lid 1, Overwegende hetgeen volgt: (1) In Verordening (EG) nr. 3223/94 zĳn op grond van de multilaterale handelsbesprekingen in het kader van de Uruguayronde de criteria vastgesteld aan de hand waarvan de Commissie voor de producten en de perioden die in de bĳlage bĳ die verordening zĳn HEEFT DE VOLGENDE VERORDENING VASTGESTELD: Artikel 1 De in artikel 4 van Verordening (EG) nr. 3223/94 bedoelde forfaitaire invoerwaarden worden vastgesteld zoals aangegeven in de bĳlage bĳ deze verordening. in de tabel Deze verordening treedt in werking op 20 november 1999. Artikel 2 Deze verordening is verbindend in al haar onderdelen en is rechtstreeks toepasselĳk in elke lidstaat. Gedaan te Brussel, 19 november 1999. Voor de Commissie Franz FISCHLER Lid van de Commissie (1) PB L 337 van 24. 12. 1994, blz. 66. (2) PB L 198 van 15. 7. 1998, blz. 4. L 299/10 NL Publicatieblad van de Europese Gemeenschappen 20. 11. 1999 bĳ de verordening van de Commissie van 19 november 1999 tot vaststelling van forfaitaire invoerwaarden voor de bepaling van de invoerprĳzen van bepaalde soorten groenten en fruit BĲLAGE GN-code Code derde landen (1) (in EUR/100 kg) Forfaitaire invoerwaarde 0702 00 00 0707 00 05 0709 90 70 0805 20 10 0805 20 30, 0805 20 50, 0805 20 70, 0805 20 90 0805 30 10 0806 10 10 0808 10 20, 0808 10 50, 0808 10 90 0808 20 50 052 204 999 052 628 999 052 204 999 204 999 052 999 052 528 600 999 052 400 508 999 060 388 400 404 800 804 999 052 064 400 720 999 101,8 35,4 68,6 104,3 134,8 119,6 85,4 102,4 93,9 57,7 57,7 50,6 50,6 47,1 77,3 63,8 62,7 148,3 316,6 325,5 263,5 34,7 70,4 84,6 71,0 149,2 22,6 72,1 126,3 65,7 99,0 80,6 92,9 (1) Landennomenclatuur vastgesteld bĳ Verordening (EG) nr. 2645/98 van de Commissie (PB L 335 van 10. 12. 1998, blz. 22). De code „999” staat voor „andere oorsprong”


title: SCHRIFTLICHE ANFRAGE P-2164/99 von Christopher Huhne (ELDR) an die Kommission. Untersuchung über den Anstieg der Bearbeitungskosten beim Umtausch von Devisen.

eurovoc_concepts:
Eurocurrency
United Kingdom
economic consequence
exchange transaction
foreign currency
foreign exchange market
non-participating country
unlawful agreement

text: 8. 8. 2000 DE Amtsblatt der Europ(cid:228)ischen Gemeinschaften C 225 E/61 (2000/C 225 E/060) SCHRIFTLICHE ANFRAGE E-2160/99 von Cristiana Muscardini (NI) an die Kommission (24. November 1999) Betrifft: Kluft zwischen den Zust(cid:228)ndigkeiten f(cid:252)r die Freiz(cid:252)gigkeit und f(cid:252)r die Sicherheit der B(cid:252)rgerinnen und B(cid:252)rger Der Europ(cid:228)ische Rat von Tampere vom 15. und 16. Oktober 1999 hat sich mit der brennenden Sicherheitsfrage, die eng mit der illegalen Zuwanderung verkn(cid:252)pft ist, auseinandergesetzt. Es wird nun endlich zur Kenntnis genommen, da(cid:223) es bei der Zuwanderung um eine europ(cid:228)ische Frage geht und nicht um ein Problem, das von dem einen oder anderen Staat allein gel(cid:246)st werden kann. Beharrlich ignoriert wird allerdings die bestehende Kluft zwischen dem freien Personenverkehr nach der (cid:214)ffnung der Binnen- grenzen, der unter die Zust(cid:228)ndigkeit der Europ(cid:228)ischen Union f(cid:228)llt, und der Bew(cid:228)ltigung der Sicherheits- probleme, die unter die Zust(cid:228)ndigkeit der Mitgliedstaaten f(cid:228)llt und wo es nicht harmonisierte, wenn nicht sogar divergierende, Rechtsvorschriften gibt. Man denke nur daran, da(cid:223) der Verkauf und Gebrauch von Gegenst(cid:228)nden zur pers(cid:246)nlichen Verteidigung und Abschreckung, wie etwa Spr(cid:252)hdosen gegen Diebe und Vergewaltiger, in einigen Staaten erlaubt und in anderen allein schon deren Gebrauch verboten ist. Ohne auf die Ungereimtheiten eines gemeinsamen Marktes, in dem einige Produkte in einigen Staaten erlaubt und in anderen verboten sind, einzugehen: H(cid:228)lt es die Kommission nicht f(cid:252)r zweckm(cid:228)(cid:223)ig (cid:129) solange der (cid:132)dritte Pfeiler(cid:147) noch nicht steht (cid:129) die Mitgliedstaaten zu ersuchen, im Rahmen der Bek(cid:228)mpfung der Kriminalit(cid:228)t und der Ma(cid:223)nahmen f(cid:252)r die Sicherheit der B(cid:252)rgerinnen und B(cid:252)rger Gegenst(cid:228)nde f(cid:252)r eine minimale Verteidigung, wie etwa Spr(cid:252)hdosen gegen Diebe und Vergewaltiger oder elektrische Z(cid:228)une mit niedriger Spannung, EU-weit zuzulassen, wobei den Mitgliedstaaten die Festlegung der Modalit(cid:228)ten f(cid:252)r Verkauf und Installation (cid:252)berlassen werden kann? Antwort von Herrn Vitorino im Namen der Kommission (27. Januar 2000) Nach dem Vertrag (cid:252)ber die Europ(cid:228)ische Union besteht eines der Ziele der Union darin, den B(cid:252)rgern in einem Raum der Freiheit, der Sicherheit und des Rechts ein hohes Ma(cid:223) an Sicherheit zu geben. Dies wurde auch vom Europ(cid:228)ischen Rat anl(cid:228)(cid:223)lich seiner Sondertagung in Tampere am 15. und 16. Oktober 1999 best(cid:228)tigt. Das vorerw(cid:228)hnte Ziel soll unter anderem durch die Entwicklung gemeinsamer Ma(cid:223)nahmen der Mitglied- staaten im Bereich der polizeilichen Zusammenarbeit erreicht werden. Zu dieser polizeilichen Zusammenarbeit geh(cid:246)ren auch gemeinsame Initiativen, unter anderem bei der Verwendung von Ausr(cid:252)stungen. Alle in diesem Bereich unternommenen Schritte m(cid:252)ssen jedoch die Zust(cid:228)ndigkeit der Mitgliedstaaten f(cid:252)r die Aufrechterhaltung von Recht und Ordnung und die Wahrung der inneren Sicherheit unber(cid:252)hrt lassen. Die von der Frau Abgeordneten vorgeschlagenen Ma(cid:223)nahmen fallen offensichtlich in den Zust(cid:228)ndigkeits- bereich der Mitgliedstaaten. Au(cid:223)erdem bekr(cid:228)ftigt die Kommission erneut ihre Bereitschaft, die uneingeschr(cid:228)nkte, sofortige Umsetzung des Vertrags von Amsterdam auf der Grundlage des Wiener Aktionsplans und der politischen Leitlinien sowie konkreten Zielsetzungen des Europ(cid:228)ischen Rats in Tampere zu f(cid:246)rdern. (2000/C 225 E/061) SCHRIFTLICHE ANFRAGE P-2164/99 von Christopher Huhne (ELDR) an die Kommission (19. November 1999) Betrifft: Untersuchung (cid:252)ber den Anstieg der Bearbeitungskosten beim Umtausch von Devisen Kann die Kommission best(cid:228)tigen, da(cid:223) die Bearbeitungskosten beim Umtausch von Devisen zwischen dem Euro und dem £ Sterling im letzten Jahr erheblich angestiegen sind, und wird sie pr(cid:252)fen, ob es unerlaubte Absprachen zwischen den Teilnehmern auf diesem Markt gegeben hat bzw. ob ein Mi(cid:223)brauch einer beherrschenden Stellung vorliegt? C 225 E/62 Amtsblatt der Europ(cid:228)ischen Gemeinschaften DE 8. 8. 2000 Antwort von Herrn Monti im Namen der Kommission (7. Dezember 1999) Der Kommission sind F(cid:228)lle bekannt, in denen die Kosten f(cid:252)r den Devisenhandel zwischen Euro und Pfund Sterling nach Einf(cid:252)hrung des Euro gestiegen sind. Wie die Kommission glaubt, ist dies auf folgende Gr(cid:252)nde zur(cid:252)ckzuf(cid:252)hren: Die Spanne zwischen Ausgabe- und R(cid:252)cknahmekurs an den Devisenm(cid:228)rkten wird in (cid:132)Pips(cid:147) gemessen. Wenn der Ausgabekurs f(cid:252)r GBP/EUR 0,6397 und der R(cid:252)cknahmekurs 0,6399 betr(cid:228)gt, besteht eine Spanne von 2 Pips. So lag die Spanne zwischen Ausgabe- und R(cid:252)cknahmekurs am Privatkundenmarkt f(cid:252)r GBP/ DEM bei 5 Pips f(cid:252)r 5 Mio. GBP. Nach Einf(cid:252)hrung des Euro liegt Spanne zwischen Ausgabe- und R(cid:252)cknahmekurs auf dem Privatkundenmarkt f(cid:252)r GBP/EUR bei 3 Pips f(cid:252)r 10 Mio. EUR. Wegen des Wertunterschieds zwischen dem Euro und der DEM sind die prozentualen Kosten erheblich gestiegen, obwohl die Spanne absolut zur(cid:252)ckgegangen ist. Soviel die Kommission wei(cid:223), betr(cid:228)gt die Spanne zwischen Ausgabe- und R(cid:252)cknahmekurs derzeit auch rund 3 Pips f(cid:252)r GBP/EUR auf dem Interbankenmarkt. Dies erschwert es nat(cid:252)rlich den Banken, im Privatkundengesch(cid:228)ft weniger als 3 Pips zu fordern. Diese Fakten k(cid:246)nnten auf das Fehlen eines Wettbewerbdrucks auf die Erbringer von Devisenleistungen zur Reduzierung ihrer Spannen im Privatkundengesch(cid:228)ft oder im Interbankengesch(cid:228)ft oder in beiden Bereich hindeuten. Jedoch gibt es keinen Beweis daf(cid:252)r, da(cid:223) Verst(cid:246)(cid:223)e gegen EG-Wettbewerbsrecht vorgelegen haben oder vorliegen. Was die Anwendung von Artikel 82 (ex-Artikel 86) EG-Vertrag betrifft, so handeln hunderte von Banken in GBP/EUR und erbringen Devisenleistungen an Firmenkunden. Deshalb d(cid:252)rfte es unwahrscheinlich sein, da(cid:223) sich eine einzelne Bank in einer beherrschenden Stellung befindet oder da(cid:223) mehrere Banken eine gemeinsame beherrschende Stellung einnehmen k(cid:246)nnten. Im Hinblick auf die Anwendung von Artikel 81 (ex-Artikel 85) EG-Vertrag liegen der Kommission keine Angaben dahingehend vor, da(cid:223) es zu Absprachen kam. Generell w(cid:252)rden erfolgreiche Absprachen zur Erhaltung oder Erh(cid:246)hung der Spannen wahrscheinlich zwei Merkmale voraussetzen, die auf diesem Markt nicht vorhanden sein d(cid:252)rften. Die erste Voraussetzung w(cid:228)re eine relativ geringe Anzahl von an der Absprache Beteiligten. Ein Kartell mit hunderten von Teilnehmern d(cid:252)rfte h(cid:246)chst unwahrscheinlich sein. Zweitens w(cid:252)rde eine erfolgreiche Absprache einen gewissen Grad an Preistransparenz erfordern, um die Durchsetzung zu erm(cid:246)glichen. Jedoch ist auf dem Privatkundenmarkt die Spanne grunds(cid:228)tzlich nur dem K(cid:228)ufer und Verk(cid:228)ufer bekannt. Aus diesen Gr(cid:252)nden w(cid:228)re anzunehmen, da(cid:223) ein solches Kartell auf dem Privatkunden-Devisenmarkt keine Aussicht auf Erfolg haben d(cid:252)rfte. Abschlie(cid:223)end sei gesagt, da(cid:223) die Kommission zwar keine f(cid:246)rmliche Beschwerde in der vom Herrn Abgeordneten erw(cid:228)hnten Angelegenheit erhalten hat, aber die Lage trotzdem weiterhin pr(cid:252)fen wird. (2000/C 225 E/062) SCHRIFTLICHE ANFRAGE E-2168/99 von Gerhard Schmid (PSE) an die Kommission (29. November 1999) Betrifft: Telezentren in Bayern Die bayerische Staatsregierung will in allen Landkreisen, die Ziel-5b-Gebiet sind, im Rahmen des Top-elf- Programms sogenannte Telezentren errichten. Insgesamt sollen 40 derartige Zentren in Bayern entstehen. Daf(cid:252)r werden 60 Mio. DM aus (cid:246)ffentlichen Kassen bereitgestellt. Der gr(cid:246)(cid:223)te Teil entf(cid:228)llt dabei auf europ(cid:228)ische F(cid:246)rdermittel. Das 5b-Programm beteiligt sich mit ca. 17,8 Mio. DM, und aus dem Europ(cid:228)i- schen Sozialfonds kommen ca. 7,5 Mio. DM. Das Land Bayern stellt rund 15 Mio. DM zur Verf(cid:252)gung. Dazu wurde auch eine Brosch(cid:252)re aufgelegt. In dieser Brosch(cid:252)re wird mit keinem einzigen Wort erw(cid:228)hnt, da(cid:223) der gr(cid:246)(cid:223)te Teil der F(cid:246)rdergelder aus dem EU-Haushalt stammt. Auch vor Ort sind bei den mir bekannten Projekten keinerlei Hinweise auf europ(cid:228)ische F(cid:246)rdermittel zu sehen


title: Regulamento (CE) n.° 2455/1999 da Comissão, de 19 de Novembro de 1999, que estabelece os valores forfetários de importação para a determinação do preço de entrada de certos frutos e produtos hortícolas

text: 20. 11. 1999 PT Jornal Oficial das Comunidades Europeias L 299/9 REGULAMENTO (CE) N. o 2455/1999 DA COMISSÃO de 19 de Novembro de 1999 que estabelece os valores forfetários de importação para a determinação do preço de entrada de certos frutos e produtos hortícolas A COMISSÃO DAS COMUNIDADES EUROPEIAS, Tendo em conta o Tratado que institui a Comunidade Europeia, Tendo em conta o Regulamento (CE) n. o 3223/94 da Comissão, de 21 de Dezembro de 1994, que estabelece regras de execução do regime de importação dos frutos e dos produtos hortí- colas (1), com a última redacção que lhe foi dada pelo Regula- mento (CE) n. o 1498/98 (2), e, nomeadamente, o n. o 1 do seu artigo 4. o, Considerando o seguinte: (1) O Regulamento (CE) n. o 3223/94 prevê, em aplicação dos resultados das negociações comerciais multilaterais do «Uruguay Round», os critérios para a fixação pela Comissão dos valores forfetários de importação dos países terceiros, relativamente aos produtos e períodos que especifica no seu anexo; (2) Em aplicação dos supracitados critérios, os valores forfe- tários de importação devem ser fixados nos níveis cons- tantes em anexo, ADOPTOU O PRESENTE REGULAMENTO: Artigo 1. o Os valores forfetários de importação referidos no artigo 4. o do Regulamento (CE) n. o 3223/94 são fixados como indicado no quadro constante do anexo. Artigo 2. o O presente regulamento entra em vigor em 20 de Novembro de 1999. O presente regulamento é obrigatório em todos os seus elementos e directamente aplicável em todos os Estados-Membros. Feito em Bruxelas, em 19 de Novembro de 1999. Pela Comissão Franz FISCHLER Membro da Comissão (1) JO L 337 de 24. 12. 1994, p. 66. (2) JO L 198 de 15. 7. 1998, p. 4. L 299/10 PT Jornal Oficial das Comunidades Europeias 20. 11. 1999 do regulamento da Comissão, de 19 de Novembro de 1999, que estabelece os valores forfetários de importação para a determinação do preço de entrada de certos frutos e produtos hortícolas ANEXO Código NC 0702 00 00 0707 00 05 0709 90 70 0805 20 10 0805 20 30, 0805 20 50, 0805 20 70, 0805 20 90 0805 30 10 0806 10 10 0808 10 20, 0808 10 50, 0808 10 90 0808 20 50 Código países terceiros (1) Valor forfetário de importação (EUR/100 kg) 052 204 999 052 628 999 052 204 999 204 999 052 999 052 528 600 999 052 400 508 999 060 388 400 404 800 804 999 052 064 400 720 999 101,8 35,4 68,6 104,3 134,8 119,6 85,4 102,4 93,9 57,7 57,7 50,6 50,6 47,1 77,3 63,8 62,7 148,3 316,6 325,5 263,5 34,7 70,4 84,6 71,0 149,2 22,6 72,1 126,3 65,7 99,0 80,6 92,9 (1) Nomenclatura dos países fixada pelo Regulamento (CE) n. o 2645/98 da Comissão (JO L 335 de 10. 12. 1998, p. 22). O código «999» representa «outras origens»