title: WRITTEN QUESTION E-0402/00 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Arrest of the skipper of a fishing vessel on Réunion.

text: 28. 12. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/67 Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (24 March 2000) Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (1) introduced a Community registration and protection scheme for the geographical designations of agricultural products and certain foodstuffs. Wine sector products are not covered. Meat-based products such as pork pies are among the types of foodstuff to which the scheme applies. Application for inclusion in the scheme is a voluntary matter. It would be up to a group of the relevant producers to launch the procedure for registration of the name Melton Mowbray Pork Pies under Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92. Article 4 of the Regulation requires submission of a specification exactly defining the product and geographical area concerned and showing how the two are linked. Compliance with the criteria set for registering the name as a (cid:145)geographical indication(cid:146) or those for registering it as a (cid:145)designation of origin(cid:146) must be demonstrated. A decision on conformity of the application with the Regulation(cid:146)s requirements would not be possible unless all the necessary information had been transmitted to the Commission through the agency of the United Kingdom authorities. A Community procedure for objection to the protection of any particular name is designed to protect the interests of other producers. This involves a notice in the Official Journal. (1) OJ L 208, 24. 7. 1992. (2000/C 374 E/078) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0402/00 by Camilo Nogueira RomÆn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission Subject: Arrest of the skipper of a fishing vessel on RØunion (15 February 2000) The Galician citizen JosØ Ram(cid:243)n Hombre Sobrido, skipper of the fishing vessel Camouco, was arrested more than two months ago on RØunion, where he is still being detained. The Commission(cid:146)s Director-General for Fisheries did not give a specific reply to my question on the subject in Parliament(cid:146)s Committee on Fisheries. Is the Commission aware of the situation, and does it know on what grounds this European citizen is being detained by the authorities of France, an EU Member State? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (3 April 2000) In September 1999 Mr Hombre Sobrido, the master of the fishing vessel Camouco, which flies a Panama flag and is owned by Merce Pesca sa, was arrested by a French frigate for alleged unlawful fishing of toothfish in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Crozet Islands (Reunion). Mr Hombre Sobrido was later released from arrest, but is still confined to the island as the authorities took away his passport. On 14 January 2000 Panama requested the release of the vessel and its master in the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Hamburg. This is a tribunal which has been established by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It delivered its judgement on 7th February 2000 ordering the prompt release on the deposit of a financial security of FRF 8 million. So far the French authorities did not follow the judgement and claim to be not satisfied with the conditions of the deposit. A trial date was scheduled at the Court of Appeals in RØunion for 24 March 2000 for the court to look into the matter of the return of Mr Sobridos passport. A trial on the merits has been convened for 4 April 2000


title: INTERROGAZIONE SCRITTA E-0401/00 di Mikko Pesälä (ELDR) e Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) alla Commissione. Imparzialità dei controlli comunitari sugli alimenti.

eurovoc_concepts:
Russia
food safety
game meat
image
import (EU)
operation of the Institutions
transparency in decision-making
veterinary inspection

formats: html pdf print

text: C 330 E/152 Gazzetta ufficiale delle Comunit(cid:224) europee IT 21. 11. 2000 Premesso che la professionalit(cid:224) caratterizza solitamente il bob di serie A e che l(cid:146)equipaggiamento e gli attrezzi sportivi sono di norma propriet(cid:224) degli atleti o delle societ(cid:224) cui appartengono, oppure delle federazioni nazionali che promuovono l(cid:146)attivit(cid:224) di questi atleti; al punto 1. 13. 3. 2. del Regolamento internazionale, la FIBT «dichiara» di aver diritto a una superficie di 50 cm2 per lato e alla terza parte inferiore della calotta delle slitte, incluse le superfici degli alettoni laterali anteriori e che con questa dichiarazione viola i diritti di propriet(cid:224) e la personalit(cid:224) giuridica degli atleti, delle societ(cid:224) e delle federazioni; gli atleti piø in vista, le societ(cid:224) e le federazioni nazionali incontrano tante difficolt(cid:224) a trovare sponsor per colpa della FIBT che limita la loro libert(cid:224) di svolgere un(cid:146)attivit(cid:224) economica; non ritiene la Commissione che la regolamentazione della FIBT sugli spazi pubblicitari ad essa spettanti per quanto riguarda gli attrezzi sportivi, i caschi di protezione e le tute degli atleti contrasti con il trend della giurisprudenza comunitaria nel settore dello sport professionale? Risposta data dal sig. Monti a nome della Commissione (28 marzo 2000) Sulla base delle sole informazioni fornite dall(cid:146)onorevole parlamentare, la Commissione non Ł in grado di dare una risposta conclusiva. In effetti, solo con piena cognizione dei fatti e del loro contesto economico e giuridico, come pure delle particolarit(cid:224) del settore e della definizione del mercato rilevante Ł possibile appurare se il comportamento di una federazione Ł restrittivo alla luce delle regole di concorrenza. In ogni modo, stabilire a chi appartiene il diritto di disporre degli spazi pubblicitari in causa Ł competenza dell(cid:146)ordinamento nazionale. Nell(cid:146)ipotesi che i diversi ordinamenti nazionali non riconoscano alla Federa- zione internazionale di bobsleigh e di tobogganing (FIBT) il diritto di usufruire di questi spazi pubblicitari, allora andrebbe stabilito se il comportamento descritto dall(cid:146)onorevole parlamentare Ł riconducibile a un(cid:146)intesa vietata dall(cid:146)articolo 81 (ex articolo 85) del trattato o costituisce abuso di posizione dominante ai sensi dell(cid:146)articolo 82 (ex articolo 86) del trattato. Per tale analisi sono necessarie informazioni di cui la Commissione non dispone e che dovrebbero essere tali da consentirle di verificare, fra altre cose, se questo comportamento pregiudica effettivamente il commercio tra gli Stati membri e se la FIBT, supposto che operi in qualit(cid:224) di impresa, occupa una posizione dominante su una parte sostanziale del mercato comune. (2000/C 330 E/172) INTERROGAZIONE SCRITTA E-0401/00 di Mikko Pes(cid:228)l(cid:228) (ELDR) e Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) alla Commissione Oggetto: Imparzialit(cid:224) dei controlli comunitari sugli alimenti (15 febbraio 2000) Dall(cid:146)11 al 21 ottobre 1998 gli ispettori veterinari dell(cid:146)Unione europea si sono recati in Russia, per la precisione nella penisola di Kola, per una missione intesa ad stabilire se fosse possibile autorizzare l(cid:146)esportazione di carne di renna e di selvaggina dalla penisola di Kola verso i paesi dell(cid:146)Unione. Secondo quanto risulta dalla pertinente relazione (XXIV/1472/98), alla missione di accertamento della Commissione ha preso parte un rappresentante della societ(cid:224) interessata ad esportare carni di renna dalla penisola di Kola. Stando alla relazione, la societ(cid:224) in questione ha contribuito all(cid:146)organizzazione del viaggio ed ha predisposto il servizio di interpretazione in occasione dei vari incontri. Pu(cid:242) la Commissione far sapere se Ł prassi abituale che rappresentanti di societ(cid:224) commerciali partecipino alle missioni di accertamento della Commissione in paesi terzi? Ritiene la Commissione che la partecipa- zione a questo tipo di missioni di gruppi aventi un interesse economico nella questione sia atta a rafforzare la fiducia dei consumatori nell(cid:146)imparzialit(cid:224) dei controlli dell(cid:146)Unione europea sugli alimenti? 21. 11. 2000 IT Gazzetta ufficiale delle Comunit(cid:224) europee C 330 E/153 Risposta del Commissario Byrne A nome della Commissione (20 marzo 2000) l(cid:146)onorevole fa riferimento, Come indicato nella relazione(disponibile sul sito web Europa all(cid:146)indirizzo http://europa. eu. int/comm/ funzionari della dg24/), cui Commissione e da un veterinario del ministero dell(cid:146)agricoltura finlandese. Due dei componenti della missione parlavano correntemente il russo, lingua utilizzata durante la missione. Si Ł rivelato impossibile procurarsi un interprete per il terzo ispettore. Per questo motivo Ł stato necessario ricorrere a misure eccezionali, che non fanno parte delle normali prassi dell(cid:146)Ufficio alimentare e veterinario, al fine di poter garantire lo svolgimento e il completamento della missione. la missione era composta da due veterinari A questo scopo Ł stata accettata, per il terzo ispettore, l(cid:146)assistenza di un interprete messo a disposizione dalla societ(cid:224) svedese interessata all(cid:146)esportazione. Peraltro il programma della missione era stato definito d(cid:146)intesa con i servizi veterinari regionali, piuttosto che con quelli centrali e con l(cid:146)assistenza della societ(cid:224) svedese. Un direttore della societ(cid:224) in questione ha accompagnato i componenti della missione per collaborare all(cid:146)organizzazione del viaggio, ma non ha fatto parte del gruppo e, come risulta chiaramente nella relazione, non ha partecipato alle riunioni tecniche. Lo svolgimento della missione e la relativa relazione sui risultati, le conclusioni e le raccomandazioni, non sono stati in alcun modo influenzati da queste circostanze. Tutto quanto riguarda l(cid:146)organizzazione del viaggio e del soggiorno Ł stato pienamente conforme alle disposizioni della Commissione. La Commissione Ł consapevole del fatto che sia necessario garantire che i consumatori abbiano fiducia nell(cid:146)imparzialit(cid:224) delle sue attivit(cid:224) di controllo e d(cid:146)ispezione. I risultati della missione, come si evince dalla pubblicazione della relazione, sono stati ottenuti nella massima trasparenza ed indipendenza e il 10 febbraio 1999 sono stati accettati dagli Stati membri nell(cid:146)ambito del comitato veterinario permanente. (2000/C 330 E/173) INTERROGAZIONE SCRITTA E-0406/00 di Gerhard Schmid (PSE) al Consiglio (16 febbraio 2000) Oggetto: Indennizzo delle imprese tedesche di cabotaggio e spedizione sul Danubio a causa della chiusura del tratto iugoslavo del Danubio Nella citt(cid:224) tedesca di Regensburg hanno sede molte ditte attive esclusivamente nel settore del trasporto sul Danubio dalla Germania a stazioni che si trovano in Iugoslavia. La guerra del Kosovo, la distruzione di jugoslavi del Danubio hanno causato numerosi ponti sul Danubio e la conseguente chiusura di tratti l(cid:146)arresto dell(cid:146)attivit(cid:224) di tali ditte, che, per la loro specializzazione quasi esclusiva nella percorrenza di determinati tratti del Danubio, non hanno quasi nessuna possibilit(cid:224) di riconvertirsi in altri ambiti di attivit(cid:224). Si chiede di conseguenza al Consiglio: 1. 2. 3. Se queste ditte debbano considerarsi danneggiate dalla guerra del Kosovo, alla stessa stregua delle imprese con sede nel Kosovo; se queste ditte possano ottenere aiuti alla ristrutturazione a compensazione dei danni subiti; se queste ditte possano invocare un diritto a un sussidio di ristrutturazione o di consolidamento dell(cid:146)impresa a compensazione delle perdite correnti e a un contributo d(cid:146)incentivazione agli investi- menti con fideiussione pubblica. Risposta (2 maggio 2000) Il Consiglio informa l(cid:146)Onorevole Parlamentare che spetta alla Commissione pronunciarsi sugli aiuti concessi dagli Stati membri conformemente alle disposizioni degli articoli 87 e segg. del trattato CE


title: SCHRIFTLICHE ANFRAGE E-0407/00 von Gerhard Schmid (PSE) an die Kommission. Entschädigung deutscher Donauschiffahrts- und Speditionsunternehmen aufgrund der Sperrung der jugoslawischen Donaustrecke.

eurovoc_concepts:
Germany
Kosovo
carriage of goods
common foreign and security policy
indemnification
inland waterway shipping
redevelopment aid
war damage

text: C 374 E/68 Amtsblatt der Europ(cid:228)ischen Gemeinschaften DE 28. 12. 2000 (2000/C 374 E/079) SCHRIFTLICHE ANFRAGE E-0407/00 von Gerhard Schmid (PSE) an die Kommission (15. Februar 2000) Betrifft: Entsch(cid:228)digung deutscher Donauschiffahrts- und Speditionsunternehmen aufgrund der Sperrung der jugoslawischen Donaustrecke In der Stadt Regensburg (Deutschland) sind mehrere Firmen ans(cid:228)ssig, die ausschlie(cid:223)lich im Donautransport von Deutschland nach Stationen unterhalb Jugoslawiens t(cid:228)tig sind. Der Kosovo-Krieg, die Zerst(cid:246)rung von Donaubr(cid:252)cken und die darauf folgende Sperrung der jugoslawischen Donaustrecke haben dazu gef(cid:252)hrt, da(cid:223) die gesch(cid:228)ftliche T(cid:228)tigkeit dieser Firmen zum Erliegen gekommen ist. Aufgrund der hohen Spezialisie- rung dieser Firmen auf ganz bestimmte Donauverkehre besteht nahezu keine M(cid:246)glichkeit, auf andere T(cid:228)tigkeitsfelder auszuweichen. Deshalb frage ich die Kommission: 1. M(cid:252)ssen diese Firmen als durch den Kosovo-Krieg Gesch(cid:228)digte angesehen werden, wie die Unter- nehmen im Kosovo selbst? 2. K(cid:246)nnen diese Firmen finanzielle Aufbauhilfe zum Ausgleich ihrer Sch(cid:228)den erhalten? 3. Haben diese Firmen Anrecht auf eine nicht r(cid:252)ckzahlbare Aufbau- bzw. Unternehmenssicherungshilfe zum Ausgleich der laufenden Verluste und auf F(cid:246)rdermittel f(cid:252)r den investiven Bereich mit (cid:246)ffentlicher Ausfallb(cid:252)rgschaft? Antwort von Herrn Patten im Namen der Kommission (29. M(cid:228)rz 2000) Der Kommission sind die besonderen Probleme der direkt und indirekt am Donauverkehr beteiligten Unternehmen infolge der Sperrung der Donau nach der Zerst(cid:246)rung der Br(cid:252)cken bei Novi Sad durch die NATO bekannt. Die Frage eines Ausgleichs f(cid:252)r die Verluste kann jedoch erst gekl(cid:228)rt werden, wenn die Frage der Schadensersatzpflicht, sofern eine solche besteht, von den betreffenden Rechtsgremien entschieden worden ist. Was die Wiederaufnahme des Schiffsverkehrs auf der Donau betrifft, so pr(cid:252)ft die Europ(cid:228)ische Kommission gegenw(cid:228)rtig einen Antrag der Donau-Kommission zur Kofinanzierung eines Projektvorschlags f(cid:252)r die Sanierung eines Schiffskanals, indem die Tr(cid:252)mmer der von der NATO zerst(cid:246)rten Br(cid:252)cken sowie nicht explodierte Munition beseitigt und auch das Flu(cid:223)bett und seine Ufer ausgebessert werden. Das Projekt und sein Umfeld sind sowohl vom politischen und technischen als auch vom rechtlichen Standpunkt aus komplex. (2000/C 374 E/080) SCHRIFTLICHE ANFRAGE E-0410/00 von Glenys Kinnock (PSE) an die Kommission (23. Februar 2000) Betrifft: Kambodscha Ist der Kommission bekannt, da(cid:223) es immer noch unerwiesene Aussagen (cid:252)ber eine ganze Reihe von Problemen in Kambodscha gibt, wie z. B. (cid:228)u(cid:223)erste Armut, Hunger in einigen Gebieten, ein hohes Ma(cid:223) an Korruption und Menschenrechtsverletzungen? H(cid:228)lt die Kommission es f(cid:252)r notwendig, zu diesem Zeitpunkt irgendwelche Bedingungen anzuwenden?


title: Commission Regulation (EC) No 341/2000 of 15 February 2000 fixing the exchange rate applicable to certain direct aids and measures of a structural or environmental nature

eurovoc_concepts:
agricultural guidance
aid per hectare
environmental policy
exchange rate
structural policy

text: 16. 2. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 43/19 COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 341/2000 of 15 February 2000 fixing the exchange rate applicable to certain direct aids and measures of a structural or environ- mental nature THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 of 15 December 1998 establishing agrimonetary arrangements for the euro (1), Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1410/1999 amending Regulation (EC) No 2808/98 laying down detailed rules for the application of the agrimonetary system for the euro in agriculture (2), and in particular Article 2 thereof, Whereas: (1) (2) (3) Under Article 42 of Commission Regulation (EC) No laying down 2342/1999 of 28 October 1999 (3), detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal as regards premium schemes (4), the date of submission of the application constitutes the to which operative event animals covered by the premium schemes in the beef and veal sector are allocated. Under Article 43 of that Regulation conversion into national currency of premium amounts and of the extensification payment is carried out in accordance with the average, calculated pro rata temporis, of the exchange rates applicable in the month of December preceding the allocation year. for determining the year Under Article 4(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2808/98 of 22 December 1998 laying down detailed rules for the application of the agrimonetary system for the euro in agriculture (5), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1410/1999, the exchange rate in the case of amounts of a structural or environmental nature is 1 January of the year during which the decision to grant the aid is taken. Under Article 4(3) of that Regulation, the exchange rate to be used is the average of the exchange rates applicable during the month preceding the date of the operative event, calculated pro rata temporis. the operative event for Under Article 12 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 293/98 of 4 February 1998 determining the operative events applicable to products in the fruit and vegetables sector, to processed fruit and vegetable products and partly to live plants and floricultural products and to certain products listed in Annex I to the EC Treaty, and (1) OJ L 349, 24. 12. 1998, p. 1. (2) OJ L 164, 30. 6. 1999, p. 53. (3) OJ L 281, 4. 11. 1999, p. 30. (4) OJ L 160, 26. 6. 1999, p. 21. (5) OJ L 349, 24. 12. 1998, p. 36. repealing Regulation (EEC) No 1445/93 (6), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1410/1999, the conver- sion rate to be applied for the conversion each year into national currency of the maximum aid per hectare to improve the quality and marketing of nuts and locust beans fixed in Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 790/89 (7), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1825/97 (8) is the average of the exchange rates applicable during the month before 1 January of the annual reference period within the meaning of Article 19 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2159/ 89 (9), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1363/ 95 (10), calculated pro rata temporis. Under Article 6(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2700/93 of 30 September 1993 on detailed rules for the application of the premium in favour of sheepmeat and goatmeat producers (11), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1410/1999, the conversion rate to be applied to the amount of the balance of the premium in the sheep- meat sector is the average of the exchange rates applic- able during the month before the last day of the marketing year in respect of which the premium is granted, calculated pro rata temporis. Under Article 6(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2700/93, the conversion rate to be applied to the amount of the advance payment in the sheepmeat sector is the average of the exchange rates applicable during the month before the first day of the marketing year in respect of which the premium is granted, calculated pro rata temporis, (4) (5) HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 1. The conversion rate to be applied to: — the amounts of premiums in the beef and veal sector referred to in Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999, — the maximum aid per hectare to improve marketing in the nuts and locust beans sector fixed in Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 790/89, and — the amounts of a structural or environmental nature referred to in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2799/98, is set out in Annex I. (6) OJ L 30, 5. 2. 1998, p. 16. (7) OJ L 85, 30. 3. 1989, p. 6. (8) OJ L 260, 23. 9. 1997, p. 9. (9) OJ L 207, 19. 7. 1989, p. 19. (10) OJ L 132, 16. 6. 1995, p. 8. (11) OJ L 245, 1. 10. 1993, p. 99. L 43/20 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 16. 2. 2000 The conversion rate to be applied to the amount of the balance and of the premium referred to in the 2. fourth subparagraph of Article 5(6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2467/98 (1), and to the amount of the deduction referred to in Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3493/90 (2) is set out in Annex II. 3. The conversion rate to be applied to the amount of the advance payment referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 5(6) of Regulation (EC) No 2467/98 and to the amount of the deduction referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 3493/90 is set out in Annex III. This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. Article 2 This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 15 February 2000. For the Commission Franz FISCHLER Member of the Commission (1) OJ L 312, 20. 11. 1998, p. 1. (2) OJ L 337, 4. 12. 1990, p. 7. 16. 2. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 43/21 ANNEX I Rate of conversion referred to in Article 1(1) EUR 1 = (average 1. 12. 1999 to 31. 12. 1999) 7,44023 Danish krone 329,655 Greek drachma 8,58622 0,626674 Swedish krona pound sterling ANNEX II Rate of conversion referred to in Article 1(2) EUR 1 = (average 2. 12. 1999 to 1. 1. 2000) 7,44036 Danish krone 329,705 Greek drachma 8,58643 0,626326 Swedish krona pound sterling ANNEX III Rate of conversion referred to in Article 1(3) EUR 1= (average 31. 12. 1999 to 2. 1. 2000) 7,44048 Danish krone 329,762 Greek drachma 8,58502 0,626045 Swedish krona pound sterling


title: Gewijzigd voorstel voor een Richtlijn van de Raad betreffende de beschermende maatregelen tegen het binnenbrengen en de verspreiding in de Gemeenschap van voor planten en voor plantaardige producten schadelijke organismen - (gecodificeerde versie) (COM(1999) 365 - C5-0264/1999 - 1997/0338(CNS))

eurovoc_concepts:
crop production
fight against insects
harmful plant
protection of plant life

formats: pdf print

text: C 339/38 Publicatieblad van de Europese Gemeenschappen NL 29. 11. 2000 Dinsdag, 15 februari 2000 AANGENOMEN TEKSTEN 1. Voor planten en voor plantaardige producten schadelijke organismen * (pro- cedure zonder verslag) C5-0264/1999 Gewijzigd voorstel voor een richtlijn van de Raad betreffende de beschermende maatregelen tegen het binnenbrengen en de verspreiding in de Gemeenschap van voor planten en voor plantaardige producten schadelijke organismen (gecodificeerde versie) (COM(1999) 365 2 C5-0264/1999 2 1997/0338(CNS)) (Raadplegingsprocedure) Dit voorstel wordt goedgekeurd. 2. Ruimte voor vrijheid, veiligheid en rechtvaardigheid B5-0109/2000 Resolutie van het Europees Parlement over de vorderingen van 1999 in de verwezenlijking van een ruimte van vrijheid, veiligheid en rechtvaardigheid volgens artikel 2, vierde streepje van het Verdrag betreffende de Europese Unie Het Europees Parlement, (cid:25) gezien de Verdragen, de bijgevoegde protocollen en verklaringen, en vooral artikel 39 van het Verdrag betreffende de Europese Unie en de andere bepalingen over de toepassing van het Gemeenschapsrecht, A. overwegende dat het jaarlijks debat tot doel heeft om na te gaan welke vooruitgang er gemaakt is in de totstandbrenging van een ruimte van vrijheid, veiligheid en rechtvaardigheid (RVVR) en de nako- ming van de verbintenissen die aangegaan zijn op grond van de Verdragen, internationale overeen- komsten, het afgeleid recht en de beleidskeuzen van de Europese Raad, B. onder verwijzing naar zijn resolutie van 14 januari 1999 over de vorderingen van 1998 in de samen- werking voor justitie en binnenlandse zaken, volgens titel VI van het Verdrag betreffende de Europese Unie (1), en de andere resoluties over de totstandbrenging van een ruimte van vrijheid, veiligheid en rechtvaardigheid die sindsdien aangenomen zijn, C. overwegende dat de ruimte van vrijheid, veiligheid en rechtvaardigheid niet op de juiste wijze en met de vereiste waarborgen tot stand kan komen zolang het Europees Parlement geen medebeslissingsrecht krijgt en het Hof van Justitie niet op alle aspecten van deze ruimte rechterlijke controle mag uitoefe- nen, D. overwegende dat de ontwikkeling van het juridisch kader van de ruimte van vrijheid, veiligheid en rechtvaardigheid momenteel vrij gecompliceerd verloopt en weinig transparant en begrijpelijk is voor de burger, waardoor het beginsel van de rechtszekerheid zelf dreigt te worden ondermijnd, E. overwegende dat voor het jaar 1999 de volgende feiten het meest in het oog springen: a) het van kracht worden van het Verdrag van Amsterdam per 1 mei, (cid:25) zodat, van de ene kant, een aantal beleidsonderdelen die vroeger intergouvernementeel gere- geld werden, nu onder de bevoegdheid van de Gemeenschap vallen, maar met beperking van de functie van het Hof van Justitie en een onbegrijpelijk uitstel van vijf jaar in de medeverant- woordelijkheid van het Europees Parlement voor de nieuwe titel IV van het VEG, zodat een echte rechterlijke en democratische controle van de besluiten niet mogelijk is, (1) PB C 104 van 14. 4. 1999, blz. 135


title: 19th Report from the Commission on the implementation in 1995-96 of Regulation (EEC) 3820/85 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport

eurovoc_concepts:
labour inspectorate
labour law
member country
road transport
working time

formats: html pdf

text: COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 15. 02. 2000 COM(2000) 84 final 19TH REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION on the implementation in 1995-96 of Regulation (EEC) 3820/85 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport 19TH REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION on the implementation in 1995-96 of Regulation (EEC) 3820/85 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport Contents 4. 3. Scales. 6 Changes. 7 Regulatory measures. 5 Administrative measures. 5 Executive Summary. 3 Introduction. 5 1. National initiatives 2. 2. 1 2. 2 Penalties 3. 1 3. 2 Relations and co-operation between the Member States 4. 1 4. 2 Summary Tables 5. 1 5. 2 Conclusion and comments 6. 1 6. 2 Concerted checks. 8 Exchanges of information. 8 Checks: summary. 9 Offences: summary. 10 Conclusions and comments by Member States. 11 Conclusions and comments by the Commission. 13 Table of Penalties. 19 Summary of Data received from the Member States 5. 6. Number of checks at the roadside. 21 Number of drivers checked at premises of undertaking. 22 Number of working days checked at the roadside. 23 Number of working days checked at the premises of the undertaking. 24 Reference Period. 20 Calculation of minimum checks to be carried out. 20 Checks 3. 1 3. 2 3. 3 3. 4 Offences: number of offences recorded 4. 1 4. 2 4. 3 4. 4 Article 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85: driving period. 25 Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85: breaks. 27 Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85: rest periods. 29 Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85: service timetable and duty roster. 31 Annex A Annex B 1. 2. 3. 4. 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Report sets out trends and statistics covering the Member States’ inspection and enforcement activities during the period 1995-96 concerning the driving time, breaks and rest period provisions of Regulation (EEC) No. 3820/85. The Report is based on statistics provided by the Member States and includes their views on implementation. All Member States submitted data to the Commission for the current period. Some only did so following the threat of infringement proceedings. Austria and Italy, which did not make a return for the last report, provided data on this occasion, although Austria only did so for 1996. Unfortunately the Greek statistics were not forwarded in a suitable format for this report and could not be included. Generally there was some progress in providing data in the standard form, nevertheless some Member States still only give total figures, and the returns made are still not uniform. This has once again delayed the production of the Report, and has hindered a comprehensive and effective comparison. The statistics indicate that the overall number of offences detected has increased again, but the emphasis has changed. While there continues to be a downward trend in terms of offences concerning rest periods from 41% in 1991-92 to 28% in 1995-96, there has been a corresponding rise in the overall percentage of offences relating to breaks from 20% in 1991-92 to 29% in 1995-96 with a similar rise more recently in terms of driving time offences and to a lesser extent concerning service timetable and duty rosters. Offences against driving time rules now represent the highest number of infringements. The statistics seem to reflect the increasing pressure on drivers to drive longer than permitted and to ignore the minimum breaks provided in the Regulation. The trend in the number of offences detected differs from country to country. In most of the Member States the number of offences detected has increased (in Denmark, Finland, Germany, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom), while in some it has decreased (Belgium, France, Ireland, Netherlands). Germany continues to report by far the highest number of offences detected (80% of all detected offences), and also has the highest ratio of the total number of offences detected to the total number of working days checked, indicating a well-targeted enforcement practice. The number of enforcement checks also differs this time from country to country. The number of checks rose again in the majority of Member States; in others, such as Germany, Luxembourg and Ireland it decreased – as these latter Member States already easily surpass the minimum checking requirement, this reduction in checks does not run counter to their current Community obligations. Indeed, from the statistics provided, all Member States except Portugal now meet the basic standard of 1%, with Denmark, Germany and Spain continuing to maintain an enforcement rate of over 2%. Member States have taken various initiatives. France has revised its penalties upwards quite significantly. Immobilisation as a penalty is being used increasingly both in France and Germany. The Benelux enforcement agencies have taken several initiatives to promote a greater exchange of information and achieve a common understanding of enforcement practice. 3 Working time legislation, when adopted, will provide a complementary element to the Regulation. Enforcement of these provisions will lead to the need for a clear understanding of interpretation by the enforcement authorities, and the Commission will seek to promote a common interpretation throughout Member States. their The advent of the digital tachograph also draws nearer. This will provide a basis for more comprehensive enforcement action. The Commission has now received responses from the majority of Member States on the issue of uniform and effective enforcement of the Regulation and intends to draw up a report highlighting the positive progress achieved in some quarters and the evident disparities between for Member States, improvements may be put forward. for example in terms of penalties imposed. Proposals In summary, the Commission intends to • Take steps to encourage Member States to improve data provision; and • Evaluate the effectiveness and uniformity of enforcement practice in a report to be accompanied by proposals as appropriate. 4 1. INTRODUCTION This report, which covers the period 1995-96, is the third in the new series of Commission reports which exclusively covers Regulation (EEC) No 3820/851. The information provided has been supplied by the Member States on the standard form, introduced by the Decision of 22 February 1993 2. While most Member States have submitted their data in a format close to the standard form, their returns are still not all uniform and some of the data submitted was fragmentary, incomplete or, in the case of Greece, for different reference periods. Delays in returns were reduced but only as a result of the threat of infringement proceedings by the Commission. However, due to the standard form and the fact that this report is presented in the same format as the last one, it is easier to compare the statistics with those of the last period. The report also sets out any initiatives communicated by Member States and includes the latest developments at Community level. 2. NATIONAL INITIATIVES 2. 1. Regulatory measures Austria indicated that it had introduced Regulation (EEC) 3820/85 by means of § 102 11a-11d Kraftfahrgesetz (law concerning vehicles), the Arbeitszeitgesetz (law on working time) and the Arbeitsruhegesetz (law on rest periods). In Germany the “Fahrpersonalgesetz” (law concerning driving personnel) was changed in August 1997 - the regulations relating to fines were transferred to the “Fahrpersonalverordnung” (regulation about driving personnel). The regulation, which also sets out national exemptions under Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No. 3820/85, has been changed following the ratification of the second and third amendments of the AETR agreement (tachographs instead of a logbook). The provisions of the Regulation are now also applied to the driving time and rest period records of vehicles with the maximum authorised weight of between 2. 8 and 3. 5 tonnes and are enforced in a similar way. 2. 2. Administrative Measures In Austria, the Labour Inspectorate has brought a total of 891 criminal charges concerning social regulation in road traffic. Penalties levied total 519,335. € In Belgium 8 new inspectors have been engaged to reinforce the enforcement effort. In Finland the government proposes to include the Customs and Border Guard Service as an additional enforcement body. 1 2 OJ No L 370, 31. 12. 1985, p. 1 OJ No L 72, 25. 03. 1993, p. 33 5 In France in 1995 and 1996, 158 cases were presented to the commissions for administrative sanctions for serious or repeated transport infringements, including working conditions and road safety regulations. The sanctions comprised the temporary or permanent revocation of some or all of the transport authorisations. Thus, 385 Community licences and 322 transport authorisations have been permanently revoked and 229 copies of Community licences and 243 transport authorisations have been temporarily revoked. The French Prime Minster signed an inter-ministerial circular on 26 September 1996 aimed at reinforcing the co-ordination and the targeting of checks by enforcement authorities. The number of enforcement officers was increased by 44, tailored and continuous training for enforcement staff introduced, computers upgraded and new traffic measures put in place. In Germany, fines with a caution were imposed on 9,252 passenger carriers and 198,677 road hauliers. 6,517 passenger carriers and 176,131 road hauliers were presented with penalty notices. 2,054 passenger carriers and 106,794 road hauliers were banned from continuing their journey. From this it is evident that the number of sanctions involving immobilisation has increased considerably. The Dutch government hosted an informal international expert meeting at the Hague on 16 and 17 September 1996 to examine the way in which the European Regulations concerning driving times and rest periods for professional drivers are implemented and how infringements are punished in the different Member States. The seminar proved to be a valuable forum for exchanges of views. In the United Kingdom, there continued to be a heavy emphasis in 1995 and 1996 on enforcement targeted at particular locations and suspected drivers and operators, in addition to routine checks for drivers’ hours compliance. Much of this involved intelligence gathered from “silent checks”, where a vehicle’s use and location is recorded without the driver’s knowledge and followed by a thorough check of drivers’ charts to see whether all the information has been recorded. This helps to detect systematic abuse of the Regulation’s provisions. More statistics are being gathered relating to the enforcement activities of the police which will help present a fuller picture of the level of enforcement within the United Kingdom. 3. PENALTIES 3. 1. Scales Five Member States (Austria, Denmark, Finland, Ireland and the United Kingdom) transmitted information about the scale of penalties imposed for infringements of the Regulation to the Commission. A wide range of fines between Member States is still apparent. (See Annex A). In Austria fines vary between € 37 and € 2204. € € 132 on the haulage operator In Denmark a fine of for every offence against the provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3820/85 53 is imposed on the driver and 6 and 3821/85. However a fine can be imposed which also reflects the type and gravity of the offence. In Finland, the sanctions are directed at the driver or employer depending on the offence in question. Offences are punishable by a ‘daily fine’, which corresponds to 33. 3% of a person’s daily income, with social exceptions. The sanction imposed varies with the offence. Punishment for an offence against regulations on driving and rest periods varies from 6 to 12 ‘daily fines’. For example, neglecting the use of the record sheet brings 8 ‘daily fines’, neglecting the regulations on the use of the record sheets 6 ‘daily fines’, and so on. In Ireland, the maximum fine is € 1266 and/or 6 month’s imprisonment. € In the United Kingdom, the maximum fines that could have been imposed in 1995/96 for both drivers and those who cause or permit drivers’ hours and tachograph offences ranged from 6494 fine in Northern Ireland came into effect on 3 June 1996. In an addition to a fine, the offences of falsifying a chart and altering or forging a seal on a tachograph carry a penalty of up to two years imprisonment. 6494. The maximum 1299 to € € 3. 2. Changes the regulation concerning major offences has been integrated into In France, legislation “loi no. 95-96” from the 1 February 1995. New penalties have been created; others have been made more stringent in this law: - offences concerning tachographs attract a more severe penalty with a maximum fine of 30,489 and one year imprisonment upon conviction. These penalties also apply to offences involving manipulation of speed-limiters. € Decree no. 95-602 of 5 May 1995 also raises the penalties where driving time and rest period rules have been seriously infringed as well as for some offences regarding the 758, now is meted use of record sheets. A fine of approximately out for these offences. Decree no. 95-601 of 5 May 1995 raises the penalty for refusing to immobilise vehicles upon request. The current penalty system will be extended with the creation of a sanction of administrative immobilisation of vehicles. 1517, instead of € € In Northern Ireland the levels of fines in operation in 1995 and 1996 have been increased and are contained in the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 and the Passenger and Goods Vehicles (Recording Equipment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 as amended on 3 June 1996 by the European Communities Road Traffic and Vehicles – Passenger and Goods Vehicles – (Recording Equipment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1996. 4. RELATIONS AND CO-OPERATION BETWEEN MEMBER STATES Although this heading is not included explicitly in the standard form, a number of Member States made comments on checks and exchanges of information. 7 4. 1. Concerted checks Directive 88/599/EEC of 23 November 1988 calls for an exchange of information and mutual assistance on the part of the Member State as regards the implementation of the enforcement measures. Denmark registered 10 co-ordinated checks with other Member States: 7 with Germany and 3 with Sweden. The checks have been conducted on vehicles chosen at random crossing into Denmark at the land frontier at Padborg and vehicles chosen at random arriving from Denmark in the state ports at Helsingør. Each check was carried out over a period of 8 hours. 1170 vehicles were checked, 222 offences were recorded, of which 29 constituted offences against Regulation (EEC) 3820/85. Sweden also confirmed that co-ordinated checks were carried out with its Scandinavian neighbours. Luxembourg mentioned that concerted checks have been undertaken regularly with the neighbouring Member States, for instance with the Benelux Member States, Germany, France and United Kingdom. The different services of the Member States agree upon a common date and the organisation of the control. These operations are made in principal on one day between 3 a. m. and 3. p. m. In Northern Ireland, examiners carried out three joint enforcement operations with officials from the Republic of Ireland. 4. 2. Exchanges of information it had exchanged information with all Denmark stated that it exchanged information with 11 other Member States. Sweden noted that its neighbouring Scandinavian countries. Luxembourg mentioned that meetings are organised quarterly between the Benelux States where information was exchanged and common positions developed. Belgium added that several initiatives have been taken in the framework of Benelux and also with France and Germany to develop a better exchange of information on issues such as major offences committed by their own carriers in other Member States. Currently they were jointly considering methods for a uniform exchange of information and appropriate sanctions for such companies. Belgium requested that those initiatives should be co-ordinated by the European Union. 8 Number of working days checked as a proportion of the minimum of number days be checked to (d/a) 128% 120%* 261% 177% 162% 407% 130% 135% 129% 138% 38% 265% 102% 5. 5. 1. SUMMARY TABLES Checks: summary Number of days actually checked as a proportion of the minimum number of working days to be checked Member State - a - - b - - c - - d - - e - Minimum of number working days to be checked Number of working days checked (national) Number of working days checked (non- national) Total number working of days checked Austria (1) Belgium (2) Denmark (3) Finland France 277,205 675,400 198,000 191,400 296,491 476,387 59,194 332,437 - 355,685 808,824 517,348 339,500 2,505,000 3,534,451 532,742 4,067,193 Germany 3,638,942 9,056,565 5,749,819 14,806,384 Greece Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal (4) Spain Sweden United Kingdom (5) 587,199 703,361 58,981 762,342 2,589,221 3,187,139 307,476 3,494,615 65,682 538,690 591,250 56,979 661,498 195,641 27,607 82,256 26,350 84,586 743,754 221,991 1,680,000 4,049,034 410,902 4,459,936 400,000 348,187 59,824 408,011 2,008,698 3,347,874 126,305 3,474,179 173%* Note (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) * From 1 January 1996 to 31 December 1996 In the Table 5. 1 above, as in Tables 3. 1 to 3. 4 in Annex B, figures relating to checks carried out by the gendarmerie, the Ministry of Finance (Customs) and the Ministry of Employment and Labour are absent. Statistics for checks not disaggregated between nationals/ non-nationals but overall total (d) In the Table 5. 1 above, as in Tables 3. 1 to 3. 4 in Annex B, statistics on checks carried out by the Labour Inspectorate and gendarmerie were not submitted. They therefore represent only a partial picture of enforcement activity This figure does not include any enforcement activities carried out by the police. included in If the individual country ratio between enforcement checks and offences detected is applied to the unattributed offences submitted by Belgium and the United Kingdom (see Table 5. 2), this would imply that the overall number of working days checked could total 3,661,350 and 12,876,954 respectively, and would consequently mean that the checking percentage should be adjusted to 542% for Belgium and 641% for the United Kingdom. 9 5. 2. Offences: summary Number of offences recorded: Articles 6,7,8 and 14 of Regulation (EEC) 3820/85 Overview by Member State Member State PASSENGERS GOODS Total Nationals EEC Third countries Total non- nationals Nationals EEC Austria 1,859 239 489 Belgium * Denmark Finland France (1) 217 417 67 9 - 284 426 - 3,679 4,146 13,790 2,567 6,227 1,515 Third countries Total non- nationals 1,627 138 - 5,306 4,284 - 21,239 *7,516 6,716 1,515 45,132 Germany 37,289 4,076 1,029 5,105 691,558 148,275 65,522 210,797 944,749 Greece Ireland Italy 404 1,939 Luxembourg 4 Netherlands 1,021 Portugal 598 Spain Sweden United Kingdom ** 81,751 729 733 24 99 20 34 66 340 256 20 2 83 1 - 13 - 21 31 26 182 21 34 79 340 277 51 6,376 23,352 121 10,887 5,490 1,333 11,304 214 1,053 434 1,613 250 892 860 1 177 2 71 29 99 73 215 7,021 1,230 26,703 436 582 1,684 13,626 279 991 933 6,446 82,091 3,330 13,021 Note (1) * France does not distinguish between nationals and non-nationals, but between residents and non-residents. No detailed figures about passenger and good offences. The following figures on offences detected have not been incorporated into the Table above, nor in Tables 4. 1 - 4. 4 in Annex B, as they were not suitably disaggregated: Total Gendarmerie: Ministry of Finance Ministry of Employment and Labour: 260 22,260 3,988 Total 26,508 ** The following figure on offences detected has not been included in the Table above, nor in tables 4. 1 – 4. 4 in Annex B as it was not suitably disaggregated:- UK police forces: 35,241 (1995-96) 10 Number of offences recorded: Articles 6, 7, 8 and 14 of Regulation (EEC) 3820/85 Overview by category of offence (includes passengers and goods; nationals, EEC and third countries) Article Type of offence Number of offences*** 6 7 8 14 Driving periods Breaks Rest periods 442,157 337,938 330,570 Service roster timetable and duty 46,268 TOTAL 1,150,218 ***excludes undisaggregated figures (Austria – 21,239; Finland – 1,515) 6. CONCLUSION AND COMMENTS 6. 1. Conclusion and comments by the Member States Belgium concluded from its statistics that driving time and rest period offences remain the most important issue for drivers. About 40% of road transport offences detected concern violations of the provisions of Regulations (EEC) no. 3820/85 and 3821/85. Data for the first semester of 1997 even indicates a further deterioration to 42%. For this reason Belgium is considering raising its level of fines. A draft proposal for a new law has been circulated to all concerned and, despite delays, it is hoped to finalise it soon. Belgium pointed out that the number of working days checked has increased, because 8 new inspectors have been employed. France reported that the number of checks at the roadside and at the premises of undertakings and the number of vehicles in 1996 had been drawn up using two different computer systems and the data used did not cover the same statistical fields. This has led to an underestimation of the results for 1996. While the number of vehicles checked at the roadside decreased in 1996 compared to 1995, the number of working days checked at the roadside and on the premises have both increased by 2%. The number of working days checked, as a proportion of the minimum number of days to be checked would as a consequence increase to 163%. In both 1995 and 1996, 75% of the offences detected on the road contravened Regulation (EEC) 3820/85. Finland advised that checks carried out had made no distinction between goods and passenger transport. However, these checks have mainly involved goods vehicle traffic. The number of passenger vehicles checked represented about 5% of the total. According to their estimates, for every vehicle checked at the roadside three record sheets have been examined; in checks made on the premises, for every undertaking 10 tachograph discs per driver were examined. Drivers’ nationalities were not recorded in the course of the checks, but this will be changed for the 1998 statistics. Statistics from the Mobile Police indicate that there were 670 offences leading to prosecution in 1995 and 845 in 1996. Over and above these offences, in both years there were minor offences which resulted in a caution but which were not registered. Such offences 11 included, for example, the misuse of or omission to use the period recording switch. In summary, during the years under review, the number of inspections clearly exceeded the minimum level required by Directive 88/599//EEC and the gathering of information has also become more effective. Germany pointed out that it has clearly surpassed the 1% minimum standard for checks. It explained that the relatively high number of checks of non-national drivers was due to the fact that Germany has probably one of the highest rates of transit in the EU. The number of vehicles being subject to the Regulation (EEC) No. 3820/85 has slightly decreased in 1995/96 compared to 1993/94. This is reflected in the number of checks at the roadside and in the number of working days checked at the roadside. The number of drivers checked at road hauliers’ premises has slightly increased, but as regards the premises of passenger transport undertakings and of own account transport it has decreased. There is a marked increase in the number of offences detected in relation to driving times and breaks for goods transport but not as regards passenger transport. The number of immobilisations due to serious offences has clearly risen. Germany also advocates a re-working of the standard data form for the Commission biennial report in order to include more details in future reports such as offences against Regulation (EEC) 3821/85, and information exchanges collaboration between Member States. The Netherlands pointed out that its enforcement policy emphasises prevention rather than punitive measures. The enforcement authorities mount a visible presence rather than issue “on the spot” fines. In the period under review the RVI (Netherlands National Transport Inspectorate) continued to develop preventative methods to promote compliance with the Regulation. The objective is to reach the best possible agreement with transport entrepreneurs on how they make provision within their companies for compliance. Failure to act in accordance with these agreements is a criminal offence. Within this framework, every undertaking is inspected at least once within an agreed period. If in the course of such checks serious violations are recorded, penalties are imposed immediately. If during roadside checks, violations are detected for which an official report has to be drawn up, immediate enforcement action is taken. Data based on such violations is subsequently used to carry out targeted checks on transport companies. Portugal expressed the hope that it would be in a position to reach the minimum level of the checks prescribed by the Directive 88/99/CEE for the period 1999-2000, leaving aside checks carried out by the Labour Inspectorate and Gendarmerie. The United Kingdom indicated that this was the first time that data on checks carried out by the Police service in the UK has been available for inclusion in its return, as previously any Police data had been difficult to obtain. Nevertheless, the police data represents the true scale of their enforcement of drivers’ hours compliance in the UK as a number of individual forces do not as yet record data – or at least if they do, it is not in a form which is compatible with the standard report form. The police statistics are only noted in an annex to the UK submission that could not be taken into account in the standard form. The true extent of drivers’ hours enforcement is consequently underestimated. None of the other Member States made any comments under this heading. 12 6. 2. Conclusions and comments by the Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 3820/85 continues to provide a common Community standard for setting maximum driving times and rest periods for road transport operators. Its implementation within the Member States can play a vital role in enhancing road safety, transport efficiency and fair competition within the Union. However the Commission is aware that Member States have differing perceptions about how to implement this legislation. Checks are carried out with varying degrees of frequency and intensity, often by differing authorities acting under separate national rules. Infringements are penalised with differing degrees of severity. In some Member States several enforcement authorities may provide partial data for the Commission’s report, instead of all the information being co-ordinated and compiled in the standard form, which renders an accurate comparison more difficult. Moreover, the Commission recognises the continuing potential for circumvention of the current recording equipment and the need for greater co-operation between Member States to ensure a co-ordinated approach to enforcement. For that reason it convened a two-day meeting of national experts in October 1995 to facilitate an exchange of views on aspects of the interpretation and enforcement of the Regulation which proved to be highly informative. The Karolus programme, which facilitates exchanges between officials in Member States, was also used to promote further understanding between national enforcement authorities. Belgium and Luxembourg continue to detect many more offences among non- nationals than among nationals. However an equal number of non-nationals and nationals are checked so there appears to be no discrimination between nationals and non-nationals in enforcement practice. The Commission will continue to monitor the situation in all Member States. 6. 2. 1. Lack of data remains a problem A lack of timely, detailed and sufficiently comprehensive data from Member States continues to hinder an overall comparison. The reasons vary from country to country. For this report Greece was the only Member State that did not make a return in the given format. Its statistics also comprise two year totals for interim years which cannot be broken down and then reassembled for the two consecutive years covered by the report. The Commission has reluctantly had to open infringement proceedings against Greece to resolve this issue. Austria and Italy, which did not provide any data last time, made a return for this period, although the return for Austria covered only 1996. The two other latest Community entrants, Finland and Sweden, which provided incomplete data last time, have forwarded a more comprehensive return for the current period 1995-1996. Some Member States continue to provide total numbers only - returns are still not in a uniform format. As regards offences under Articles 6, 7, 8 and 14 of Regulation (EEC) 3820/85, Finland and Austria have not yet managed to provide detailed data, instead forwarding a total number for each type of offence that could only be included in the general statistics. In addition, France does not distinguish between nationals and non-nationals, but between residents and non-residents, which may nuance any comparisons. 13 The Belgian and Portuguese competent authorities continue to provide a piece-meal return which means a smaller comprehensive figure in terms of checks and offences detected being ascribed to them and in so doing probably masks the overall level of enforcement activity carried out. The United Kingdom has also indicated that its police forces undertake significant enforcement work and hopes to be in a position to forward full statistics on these activities in the near future. 6. 2. 2. The minimum standard of checks has been reached by most of the Member States The overall number of enforcement checks continues to rise within the EU. Within this overall picture there are differences between Member States. Some, such as France, Portugal and Spain, recorded a further increase, while for others enforcement levels stayed largely the same, while for a few, such as Germany and Luxembourg, there was a decrease in activity, although enforcement operations continued to be significantly above the minimum number required. In general, data from Portugal indicates an upward trend. The result is that, on the summary statistic of the number of working days checked as a proportion of the minimum number of days to be checked, Portugal increased the number of checks. Ireland has a much higher number of vehicles being subject to Regulation. Thus, the total number of days worked has risen sharply and consequently the minimum number of checks required has also risen, but enforcement has not kept pace with this development. Therefore, the number of working days checked as a proportion of the minimum number of days to be checked turned out to be 1. 30 %, as opposed to 3. 86 % in the 1993-1994 report. In general, most Member States easily surpassed the basic standard of 1 %. Denmark, Germany and Spain still attain an enforcement rate of over 2%, as in 1993-1994, with Germany maintaining the highest Union percentage of checks with over 4%. It is also significant to note that the new Member States were able to raise the level of checks from under 1% in 1993-1994 to over 1% now (Finland from. 44% to 1. 78%; Sweden from. 13% to 1. 02%; Austria to 1. 28%). And Belgium despite only forwarding partial data also increased its checking rate from 0. 66% to 1. 20%. Consequently, all Member States bar Portugal increased their percentage of checks carried out over the basic standard of 1%. Despite a request to include the statistics from all the Portuguese enforcement bodies in their return, this was not forthcoming. The lack of a single body to co-ordinate all of Portugal’s national statistics may mask an underlying compliance with the Directive’s minimum requirements. Indeed, Portugal has indicated its intention to meet the minimum enforcement rate of 1% by 1999, but this may only be based on the statistics of one of the enforcement bodies. 6. 2. 3. The number of offences against rest periods decreased, while all the others increased. There has been a rise in the number of offences against Article 6 (Driving periods), Article 7 (breaks) and Article 14 (Service timetable and duty roster). Driving time offences have remained a constant and significant proportion (38%) of total offences 14 detected and have even increased (34% in 1993-1994). For this period, the number of driving time offences surpasses those concerning rest periods and now represents the category with the highest number of infringements. Offences detected against breaks have continued to rise and now form 29% of the total and offences relating to the service timetable and duty roster return to their former percentage of 4% of the total offences detected. It should be recognised that more Member States have provided data on these offences. However it still is significant that the number of offences detected relating to Article 8 (rest periods) has decreased from 39% in 1993-1994 to 29% for 1995- 1996. This is not due to a general decline in the number of offences detected in Member States - some countries have even recorded increases like Denmark and Portugal - but reflects developments in the sector. The figures seem to indicate a greater pressure in the road transport sector for drivers to drive longer than permitted, despite the flexibility already provided in the Regulation. 6. 2. 4. In most of the Member States the number of offences detected has increased In most Member States the total number of offences detected has increased, as in Denmark, Finland, Germany, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and in the United Kingdom. In others it has decreased (Belgium, France, Ireland, Netherlands). This result can be due to different factors. Firstly it may reflect a real increase in the number of offences committed; secondly it may also indicate a more targeted effort on the part of the enforcement authorities; finally it may in some instances simply indicate a better collection and collation of statistics. Nonetheless it paints a disturbing picture of an increasing disrespect for the rules and the need for a more significant enforcement effort. An examination of the figures submitted by the Member States reveals the following: amongst the Member States where offences increased, in Germany and Luxembourg the total number of days worked did not increase. Fewer checks were carried out but more offences were detected. Thus, in the absence of a reported major shift in enforcement targeting strategy, the rise in the number of offences detected here appears to reflect primarily an overall increase in offence rates. In returns from six Member States (Denmark, Finland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom) the total number of days worked increased. Bar Finland, these Member States also undertook more checks and uncovered a much larger number of offences. This increase reflects not only more intensive enforcement efforts, but also a general rising trend in offences rates. In Finland, by contrast, an increase in checks did not lead to a concomitant rise in offences detected. In the Member States in which the number of offences have decreased (Belgium, France and Ireland), Belgium and France increased the total number of days worked to be checked as well as the number of their enforcement operations. These factors may indicate a comparative decline in offence rates. The Netherlands reported a decrease in the number of days worked, the number of checks carried out and offences detected. The Dutch put the decrease in offences detected down to a success in their particular preventative sectoral enforcement measures. 15 In general, there appears to be an overall increase in offences detected throughout the Union. An intensification or reduction in the number of checks does not automatically lead to a corresponding rise or fall in the number of offences detected. While this may in some instances reflect the deterrent effect of more frequent enforcement activities, is evident that in a large proportion of Member States increased enforcement it activity is helping to highlight a growing problem. The need for more effective and uniform enforcement throughout the Union is an issue that the Commission intends to address in its forthcoming report to the Council on this issue. 6. 2. 5. Success rates in detecting offences vary widely The ratio of the total number of offences detected to the total number of working days checked reveals a wide disparity in the success of Member States in targeting potential offenders. Germany and Austria were the most successful with 6. 4 and 6 offences detected respectively for every 100 working days checked. They were followed by Italy (3. 8 offences), Spain (1. 9) and the Netherlands (1. 8 offences). In some other Member States the detection levels were below 1 offence per 100 working days checked. This ratio serves to indicate the benefits to be gained by an exchange of experience and adoption of the most effective and nationally appropriate best practice throughout the Union. 6. 2. 6. Interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 continues to be refined through rulings made by the Court of Justice of the European Communities. The period covered is up to mid 1998. In its ruling of the 30 April 1998, Clarke & Sons and Ferne, Case C-47/97, Rec. 1998, p. I-2147, the Court established that a passenger transport service, supplied on a number of occasions pursuant to a block reservation made by a tour operator and providing for a single journey from an airport to a hotel with a stop, on occasions at a tourist attraction, where the precise route to be taken is not predetermined, does not constitute a ‘regular service’ within the meaning of Article 4(3) of the Regulation. Consequently, such services cannot claim exemption from the provisions of the Regulation. The Court considered what constituted a ‘regular service’ by reference to Article 2(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 684/923. The main factors to be considered should be that the service is open to all; provides for the carriage of passengers at specified intervals along specified routes; has a degree of regularity in the service exemplified in the provision of a timetable; and is not dependent on reservations made by customers but is predetermined by the transport undertaking. In Sjöberg, Case C-387/96, Rec. 1998 p. I-1225, the Court ruled that the exception in respect of vehicles used by public authorities to provide public services which are not in competition with professional road hauliers, provided for in Article13(1)(b) of the Regulation does not apply to vehicles belonging to an undertaking which is wholly owned by a public authority and which operates a public passenger service under a contract granting it an exclusive right for a specified period following a call for the competing tenders. While the Court recognised the Commission’s view that 3 OJ No L 74, 20. 3. 1992, p. 1 16 essential consideration was the absence of competition during the period of the contract, it ruled against the Commission’s view, considering that the exemptions should be interpreted narrowly to respect the aims of the Regulation - road safety and no distortion of competition. Absence of competition with professional transport operators, in the Court’s view, should be seen not only during performance of the contract, but also at the time when the exclusive right to operate a public service is granted. The Court has therefore clarified the notion of vehicles used by public authorities to provide public services which are not in competition with professional transport operators to mean only vehicles for which no element of competition occurs not even prior to the granting of a contract. 6. 2. 7. Digital tachograph implementation draws nearer Council Regulation (EC) No. 2135/984 was adopted by the Council on 24 September 1998. It amends Regulation (EEC) 3821/85 on recording equipment and Directive 88/599/EEC concerning the application of Regulations (EEC) 3820/85 and (EEC) No 3821/85. In so doing it paves the way for the introduction of the new digital tachograph. A Committee on the Adaptation of the Tachograph has been constituted, comprising representatives of the Member States, enforcement bodies, the social partners and manufacturers to draw up the specifications of the new tachograph. Once these have been agreed and are published in the Official Journal, 24 months later vehicles put into service for the first time must be fitted with the new recording those goods and passenger vehicles having a maximum equipment. In addition, weight exceeding 12 and 10 tonnes respectively and which were registered for the first time from 1 January 1996 shall, in so far as the transmission of signals to their recording equipment is exclusively electrical, fit the digital tachograph when their equipment needs replacement. Member States will ensure that they are in a position to issue driver cards no later than 21 months following the date of publication of the specifications. The Committee is close to finalising its views on the specifications and it is hoped that these will be agreed by the end of 1999. 6. 2. 8. Exchange of views on enforcement Several meetings of national experts were arranged to discuss and exchange views on the implementation of the Regulation and more recently in connection with the digital tachograph. During these meetings, national experts identified various differences of opinion between Member States in the interpretation and enforcement of the Regulation’s provisions. The Commission has taken note of the diverging views and the desire to promote a harmonised approach. The Commission has been encouraged by the constructive dialogue that has taken place and intends to address these concerns initially within its forthcoming report to the Council on effective and uniform enforcement. 4 OJ No L 274, 9. 10. 98, p. 1 17 6. 2. 9. Introduction of working time for the road transport sector On 18 November 1998 the Commission published a package of measures (COM 662/98 final)5 designed to bring those sectors and activities currently excluded from the general working time directive6 within its scope. Within the road transport sector, non-mobile workers are to be included within the provisions of the general directive, while mobile workers, including self-employed drivers, are to be covered by a separate directive. In its White Paper, the Commission had originally envisaged incorporating working time within the Regulation but since then it took on board the reservations of the Member States; the reluctance of the employer’s federation; the desirability of a broader range of activities to be regulated; the diversity of arrangements in Member States and the need to recognise subsidiarity – for these reasons a separate directive was proposed. The Commission proposal envisages the working time rules operating in a supplementary way to the basic rules on driving times and rest periods contained in the Regulation. The Parliament at first reading endorsed the Commission’s proposal and advocated stricter rules7. The Economic and Social Committee did likewise8. At the time of drafting this report, the debate in the Council is continuing, but progress has been limited. 6. 2. 10. Final comments Effective application of the rules on driving times and rest periods is in everyone’s interest. The Commission continues to encourage all Member States to take co- operative initiatives promoting exchanges of information and personnel as well as undertaking joint exercises. This can only enhance enforcement practices and contribute to a better understanding of the application of the Regulation. The Commission is currently drawing up a report to the Council on the effective and uniform enforcement of the Regulation, based on input from the Member States, which may contain proposals to improve enforcement. The coming introduction of the digital tachograph should be the first step in a more systematic and wide-ranging review of enforcement standards and practice. 5 6 7 8 OJ No C 43, 17. 2. 99, p. 1 OJ No L 307, 13. 12. 93, p. 18 OJ No C 279, 1. 10. 99, p. 270 OJ No C 138, 18. 5. 99, p. 33 18 Member State Type of penalty Annex A Austria Belgium Denmark Finland France Ireland Italy Netherlands Spain Minor Offences € € 37 62 € Serious offences € 2,204 or up to 6 weeks in prison. € 248 € Fine of at least depending on the nature and gravity of the offence. 53 for the driver and 132 for the company, the amount Fines are related to income: a ‘one day’ fine represents 33. 3% of a person’s daily income, with social exemptions. Offences are punishable using this daily fine criterion; the number of ‘daily fines’ imposed reflects the severity of the offence. The average penalty for an infringement of these rules is 120-137 € € € 1517 maximum. 16 minimum. The law 95-96 of 1 February 1995 created new offences and raised the penalties for others. € Severe infringements may attract a 30,489 and one year fine of up to imprisonment € and/or six months 1,266 imprisonment € 4,447 € There are set fines for each breach of a provision of the Regulation ranging from € 45 - 1,365 € 30-284 284 - 1,388 (First Category) € 1,388-2,414 (Second Category) Sweden Fines range from € 139 to € 231. United Kingdom € 1,299 (Level 3) to Maximum fines for drivers and those who cause or permit driver’s hours and tachograph offences range from € 6494 (Level 5). Northern Ireland now also has the 6,494. In same maximum penalty of addition to a fine, the offences of falsifying a chart and altering or forging a seal on a tachograph carry a penalty years imprisonment. two up of to € Note Entries for Belgium, Italy, Spain and Sweden are based on figures supplied by national experts from these countries in 1995. Data for other Member States was not supplied. 19 ANNEX B Statistical data 1. 2. Reference period From 1 January 1995 to 31 December 1996. Calculation of minimum checks to be carried out (Article 2 of Directive 88/599/EEC)9 Member State Austria (1) Belgium Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Ireland (2) Italy Luxembourg Netherlands (3) Portugal Spain Sweden United Kingdom Number of days worked per driver during the reference period. Total number of vehicles subject to Regulation (EEC) No. 3820/85 (annual average) -a- - b - 240 440 440 440 480 480 460 390 450 500 430 480 400 464 115,502 153,500 45,000 43,500 521,875 758,113 127,652 663,903 14,596 107,738 137,500 350,000 200,000 432,909 Total number of days worked Minimum checks (1% of c) a x b - c - 27,720,480 67,540,000 19,800,000 19,100,000 250,500,000 363,894,240 58,719,920 258,922,170 6,568,200 53,869,000 59,125,000 168,000,000 40,000,000 200,869,776 - d - 277,205 675,400 198,000 191,000 2,505,000 3,638,942 587,199 2,589,221 65,682 538,690 591,250 1,680,000 400,000 2,008,698 Note (1) (2) (3) From 1 January 1996 to 31 December 1996 Figures relate to total number of goods vehicles over 1,524 kgs and large public service vehicles registered in the State. A number of these would be exempted from Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3820/85. However there is no breakdown of figures available. The Netherlands explained that the number of vehicles specified at (b) is lower than shown in the survey for 1993-94. A substantial increase in that period (as compared with 1991-92) is presumably the result of the substantial increase in the number of licensees for whom it was at the time insufficiently clear whether they were using vehicles to which the provisions of the Regulation were applicable. The figures specified in 2 (c) and 2 (d), which are also smaller, are directly connected with this. 9 OJ No L 325 29. 11. 88. p. 55 20 3. 3. 1 Checks Number of checks at the roadside Member State Type of operation EEC Third countries Total nationals non- Nationals other Member States Austria (1) Belgium Denmark Finland France (5) Germany Greece Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden United Kingdom Note carriage of passengers carriage of goods total number (2) carriage of passengers carriage of goods carriage of passengers carriage of goods total number (4) carriage of passengers carriage of goods total number (4) carriage of passengers carriage of goods carriage of passengers carriage of goods carriage of passengers carriage of goods carriage of passengers carriage of goods total number (2) carriage of passengers carriage of goods carriage of passengers carriage of goods carriage of passengers carriage of goods carriage of passengers carriage of goods total number (2) carriage of passengers carriage of goods carriage of passengers carriage of goods total number (2) carriage of passengers carriage of goods 792 6398 45,758 5,294 73,689 (3) 121,600 68,000 23. 802 466. 591 221,005 3,571,455 9,634 42,663 55,090 71,268 825,245 489 6091 3,906 90,683 13,869 86,020 123,977 297,521 1,120,603 4,969 92,948 98,476 66,678 437,298 11 597 10,119 6,235 76,734 - 55 3,006 7,794 135 2,445 327 - 80,713 1,915,614 108,365 2,073,170 1,795 5,056 7,383 13,450 107,403 443 7901 1,311 32,558 2,127 10,319 15,251 50,424 177,198 715 15,988 16,744 3,862 26,189 273 284 804 1,439 10,557 46 155 139 7,120 193 1,040 1,442 7,669 19,455 181 2,793 3,001 650 3,039 66 3,603 17,913 6,370 79,179 11,242 132,820 189,078 3,988,784 11,702 48,003 63,277 14,889 117,960 489 8,056 1,450 39,678 2,320 11,359 16,693 58,093 196,653 896 18,781 19,745 4,512 29,228 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) From 1 January 1996 to 31 December 1996 This total includes statistics for vehicles for which no differentiation between goods and passengers was provided. EEC total, including nationals. Where the Member States were unable to supply more detailed figures. France does not distinguish between nationals and non-nationals, but between residents and non-residents. 21 3. 2 Number of drivers checked at premises of undertaking Member State Austria (1) Belgium Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden United Kingdom Carriage passengers of Carriage of goods Carriage on own account Carriage for hire or reward 801 106 - 12,739 26,384 455 794 632 4,690 4,757 18,510 445 7,274 9,372 3,906 - 11. 000 (2) 110,041 112,180 3,162 56 3,467 23,966 6,927 399 119,313 - 5,357 2,174 2,893 9,242 9,876 62,272 1,295 34,310 2,264 (3) 3,447 (3) 44 2,832 - 9,538 37 4,938 58 6,410 - 71,244 726 28,882 Note (1) (2) (3) From 1 January 1996 to 31 December 1996 Total number provided. This number does not include 101 carriages, where differentiation between carriage on own account and carriage for hire or reward could not be provided. 22 3. 3 Number of working days checked at the roadside Member State Type of transport Austria (1) Belgium Denmark Finland France (5) Germany Greece Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden United Kingdom Note carriage of passengers carriage of goods total number (2) carriage of passengers carriage of goods carriage of passengers carriage of goods total number carriage of passengers carriage of goods total number (4) carriage of passengers carriage of goods carriage of passengers carriage of goods carriage of passengers carriage of goods carriage of passengers carriage of goods carriage of passengers carriage of goods carriage of passengers carriage of goods carriage of passengers carriage of goods carriage of passengers carriage of goods total number (2) carriage of passengers carriage of goods carriage of passengers carriage of goods total number (2) carriage of passengers carriage of goods Third countries Total non nationals EEC Nationals 2,339 19,307 133,855 15,387 254,982 other member states 33 2,337 35,849 24,104 297,721 (3) 484,364 171 8,977 23,345 564 10,048 1,020 221,000 75,743 1,587,879 411,473 6,792,922 3,134 50,959 236,309 2,763,763 1,159 18,912 7,812 181,366 24,304 123,748 155,949 445,552 1,713,091 14,051 287,734 302,825 180,639 1,553,063 - - 119,627 3,008,370 123,672 2,498,150 608 4,068 70,082 195,622 988 26,083 2,622 65,116 3,829 11,928 21,779 78,948 287,414 2,173 47,547 49,841 18,046 91,179 104 108 4,789 36,983 105 431 278 14,240 1,316 2,401 4,571 13,848 30,692 580 9,323 9,983 3,445 13,635 204 11,314 59,194 24,668 307,769 - 37,681 495,061 243,299 5,506,520 3,846 55,135 74,871 232,605 1,093 26,514 2,900 79,356 5,145 14,329 26,350 92,796 318,106 2,753 56,870 59,824 21,491 104,814 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) From 1 January 1996 to 31 December 1996 This total includes statistics for vehicles for which no differentiation between goods and passengers was provided. EEC total including nationals Where the Member States were unable to supply more detailed figures France does not distinguish between nationals and non-nationals, but between residents and non-residents. 23 3. 4 Number of working days checked at premises of undertaking. Member State Austria (1) Belgium Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden United Kingdom Carriage Passengers of Carriage of goods Carriage on own account Carriage for hire or reward 12,619 5,463 5,115 233,789 401,801 37,068 36,359 3,222 187,600 852 293,693 10,286 320,065 150,017 200,555 26,849 118,500 (2) 1,637,040 1,450,369 612,200 150,708 33,686 284,720 38,840 1,596,698 35,076 1,294,107 38,287 124,002 38,297 259,196 1,832,532 - 258,129 (3) 391,078 (3) 5,910 489 28,320 - 222,437 271 187,633 337,095 15,841 256,400 - 1,667,954 23,483 1,097,522 Note (1) (2) (3) From 1 January 1996 to 31 December 1996 Total number provided. This number does not include 61 carriages, where differentiation between carriage on own account and carriage for hire or reward could not be provided. 24 4. Offences Number of offences recorded. 4. 1 Article 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85: driving period. Member Type of PASSENGERS GOODS State Offence nationals EEC Third countries total non- nationals nationals EEC third countries total non- nationals PASSENGERS AND GOODS nationals non- nationals Austria (1) Belgium Denmark (2) Finland (1) France (3) Germany Greece Ireland - daily driving period - six days maximum - fortnight - daily driving period - six days maximum - fortnight - daily driving period - six days maximum - fortnight - daily driving period - six days maximum - fortnight - daily driving period - six days maximum - fortnight - daily driving period - six days maximum - fortnight - daily driving period - six days maximum - fortnight - daily driving period - six days maximum - fortnight 79 - - 146 - - } } 10 } - - - 146 - - 1,715 - - 2,340 2 - } } 617 } 69 - - 2,409 2 - 1,794 - - 2,555 2 - 10,780 1,288 528 931 17 14 55 18 13 4 2 1 593 6 2 1 0 0 11,381 131 1,524 23 16 260,244 6,525 3,086 58,070 426 39 24,598 1,378 3,347 82,668 1,804 3,386 271,024 7,813 3,614 5,856 57 84,192 1,827 3,402 5 2 1 1,756 43 144 43 17 13 - - - 43 17 13 1,811 61 157 48 19 14 25 Member Type of PASSENGERS GOODS State Offence nationals EEC Third countries total non- nationals National s EEC third countries Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden (2) United Kingdom - daily driving period - six days maximum - fortnight - daily driving period - six days maximum - fortnight - daily driving period - six days maximum - fortnight - daily driving period - six days maximum - fortnight - daily driving period - six days maximum - fortnight - daily driving period - six days maximum - fortnight - daily driving period - six days maximum (4) - fortnight 579 215 34 - - - 19 - - 258 - - 23,843 41 323 29 17 1 1 - - 12 - - 16 - - 97 - - } } 156 } } } 59 } } } 8 } 44 - 7 2 - 1 51 3 - - - - - - - 6 - - 2 - 1 } } 67 } 80 20 1 1 - - 12 - - 22 - - 97 - - 4 - 2 8,760 954 854 54 - - 2,915 - 89 2048 7 - 404 26 63 176 - - 781 - - 99 - - } } 638 } } } 274 } } } 31 } 1,427 - 43 172 - 8 76 6 - - - - 27 - - 11 - - 4 - 0 (1) (2) (3) (4) No disaggregated figures provided Total number of driving period offences without distinction. France does not distinguish between nationals and non-nationals, but between residents and non-residents. Six days maximum driving period offences included within weekly rest period. total non- nationals 480 32 63 176 - - 808 - - 110 - - PASSENGERS AND GOODS nationals non- nationals 9,339 1,169 888 54 - - 2,934 - 89 2,306 7 - 23,843 41 323 560 52 64 177 - - 820 - - 132 - - 97 - - } } 305 } } } 794 } } } 372 } 176 - 8 1,471 - 50 180 - 10 26 4. 2 Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No. 3820/85: breaks Member State Type of offence PASSENGERS nationals EEC GOODS third countries total non- nationals nationals EEC third countries total non- nationals PASSENGERS AND GOODS nationals non- nationals Austria (1) Belgium Denmark (2) Finland (1) France (3) Germany Greece Ireland Italy - driving for more than 4. 5 hours without a break - breaks too short - driving for more than 4. 5 hours without a break - breaks too short - driving for more than 4. 5 hours without a break - breaks too short - driving for more than 4. 5 hours without a break - breaks too short - driving for more than 4. 5 hours without a break - breaks too short - driving for more than 4. 5 hours without a break - breaks too short - driving for more than 4. 5 hours without a break - breaks too short - driving for more than 4. 5 hours without a break - breaks too short - driving for more than 4. 5 hours without a break - breaks too short 7 5 8 9 145 - - 8 9 210 146 385 111 2,500 14 2 399 113 217 151 407 122 6,233 6,134 494 140 113 132 607 272 108,838 112,291 27,069 17,015 9,091 3,627 36,160 20,642 115,071 118,425 36,767 20,914 6,898 2,869 719 532 7,108 1,783 89 38 242 107 - 1 47 9 89 39 289 116 851 573 7,739 1,920 97 43 328 121 132 41 631 137 8 4 29 2 - - 10 3 8 4 39 5 27 Member State Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden United Kingdom (4) Type of offence PASSENGERS GOODS nationals EEC third countries total non- nationals nationals EEC third countries total non- nationals PASSENGERS AND GOODS nationals non- nationals - driving for more than 4. 5 hours without a break - breaks too short - driving for more than 4. 5 hours without a break - breaks too short - driving for more than 4. 5 hours without a break - breaks too short - driving for more than 4. 5 hours without a break - breaks too short - driving for more than 4. 5 hours without a break - breaks too short - driving for more than 4. 5 hours without a break - breaks too short 4 - 110 - 69 6 10,611 - 134 208 - 8 2 - 21 3 46 - 35 - - - - - 3 - 6 - - - 2 - 24 3 46 41 36 - 1,255 - 1,942 457 233 - 6,025 157 14 68 - 89 22 97 78 - 1 1 - 11 2 24 2 157 15 69 - 100 24 40 - 1,365 - 2,011 463 10,611 157 23 71 - 124 27 46 121 367 162 80 6,233 80 (1) (2) (3) (4) No disaggregated figures provided. Total number provided. Total number of break offences provided. France does not distinguish between nationals and non-nationals, but between residents and non-residents. The ‘breaks too short’ offences are included in statistics for ‘driving for more than 4,5 hours without break’. 28 4. 3 Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 3280/85: rest periods PASSENGERS GOODS Member Type of State offence nationals EEC third countries total non- nationals nationals EEC third countries total non- nationals nationals non- nationals PASSENGERS AND GOODS 43 18 26 25 333 (3) 3 - 29 25 495 1,292 1 16 53 - 1,345 16 538 19 1,374 41 3,110 (3) Austria (1) - daily - weekly Belgium - daily - weekly Denmark - daily - weekly Finland (1) - daily - weekly France (2) - daily - weekly Germany - daily 10,365 2,454 - weekly 1,780 14 Greece Ireland Italy - daily - weekly - daily - weekly - daily - weekly 70 7 196 62 1 1 20 1 170 8 - - 15 1 2,624 194,108 43,111 20,452 63,563 204,473 66,187 22 6,466 2,545 29 2,574 8,246 2,596 11,921 175 5,342 126 1 1 35 2 3,058 124 2,668 1,225 14 - 188 23 - - 31 8 14 - 219 31 3,128 131 2,864 1,287 15 1 254 33 29 Member State of Type Offence PASSENGERS GOODS PASSENGERS AND GOODS nationals EEC third countries total non- nationals nationals EEC third countries total non- nationals nationals non- nationals Luxembourg - daily - weekly Netherlands - daily - weekly Portugal - daily Spain - weekly - daily - weekly Sweden - daily United Kingdom - weekly - daily - weekly - - 892 - 124 29 1,969 241 276 291 173 - 1 19 - 11 3 - - 152 15 2 - - - - 3 1 6 27 1 28 3 82 5 6,616 764 13 979 57 - 33 7 - 1 19 - 14 4 - - 158 462 521 42 3 2,662 1,147 458 144 - - 43 - 3 2 44 52 15 82 5 28 3 807 7,508 - 36 9 565 510 159 13 1,103 86 1,969 241 738 2,953 1,320 82 6 826 - 50 13 - - 723 552 162 Note (1) (2) (3) No disaggregated figures provided France does not distinguish between nationals and non-nationals, but between residents and non-residents Daily and weekly rest periods offences together. 30 4. 4 Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No. 3820/85: Service timetable and Duty roster. Member State Austria (1) Belgium Denmark Finland (1) France (2) Germany Greece Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden United Kingdom Type offence Faulty Incorrectly applied Faulty Incorrectly applied Faulty Incorrectly applied Faulty Incorrectly applied Faulty Incorrectly applied Faulty Incorrectly applied Faulty Incorrectly applied Faulty Incorrectly applied Faulty Incorrectly applied Faulty Incorrectly applied Faulty Incorrectly applied Faulty Incorrectly applied Faulty Incorrectly applied Faulty Incorrectly applied Faulty Incorrectly applied of Nationals EEC Third countries Total nationals non- } } 1 (3) } } 274 (3) - 87 56 125 68 - 68 17 - - - - 89 23 12,939 31,784 57 106 - 10 - 203 - 2 10 3 - - - - 10 1 - 5 7 40 157 3 7 - - - 6 - 1 4 - 1 - - - 1 - - - - - - - 1 - - } } 102 (3) - 209 - 3 14 3 1 - - - 11 1 - 5 7 40 157 3 8 - - (1) (2) No disaggregated figures provided France distinguishes between residents and non-residents, not nationals and non-nationals 31


title: ΓΡΑΠΤΗ ΕΡΩΤΗΣΗ E-0407/00 υποβολή: Gerhard Schmid (PSE) προς την Επιτροπή. Αποζημίωση γερμανικών εταιριών ναυσιπλοΐας στο Δούναβη και μεταφορών εν συνεχεία του κλεισίματος του γιουγκοσλαβικού τμήματος του Δούναβη.

text: C 374 E/68 Επι΄σηµη Εφηµερι΄δα των Ευρωπαι¤κω΄ν Κοινοτη΄των EL 28. 12. 2000 (2000/C 374 E/079) GRAPTH ERVTHSH E-0407/00 ypobolh·: Gerhard Schmid (PSE) prow thn Epitroph· (15 Febroyari·oy 2000) Ue·ma: Αποζηµι΄ωση γερµανικω΄ν εταιριω΄ν ναυσιπλοι΅ας στο ∆ου΄ναβη και µεταφορω΄ν εν συνεχει΄α του κλεισι΄µατος του γιουγκοσλαβικου΄ τµη΄µατος του ∆ου΄ναβη Στο Ρε΄νγκενσµπουργκ (Γερµανι΄α) εδρευ΄ουν πολλε΄ς εταιρι΄ες που ε΄χουν ως αποκλειστικη΄ δραστηριο΄τητα τη µεταφορα΄ εµπορευµα΄των µε΄σω του ∆ου΄ναβη απο΄ τη Γερµανι΄α σε µε΄ρη νοτιο΄τερα της Γιουγκοσλαβι΄ας. Ο πο΄λεµος του Κοσυφοπεδι΄ου, η καταστροφη΄ γεφυρω΄ν του ∆ου΄ναβη και το κλει΄σιµο του γιουγκοσλαβικου΄ τµη΄µατος του ∆ου΄ναβη που ακολου΄θησε ει΄χε ως αποτε΄λεσµα την παυ΄ση της δραστηριο΄τητας αυτω΄ν των επιχειρη΄σεων. Λο΄γω της µεγα΄λης εξειδι΄κευσης των εν λο΄γω εταιριω΄ν σε συγκεκριµε΄νες µεταφορε΄ς µε΄σω του ∆ου΄ναβη, δεν υπα΄ρχει σχεδο΄ν καµι΄α δυνατο΄τητα αναπροσανατολισµου΄ των δραστηριοτη΄των τους. Για το λο΄γο αυτο΄ ερωτω΄ την Επιτροπη΄: 1. Πρε΄πει οι εταιρι΄ες αυτε΄ς να αντιµετωπι΄ζονται ως θυ΄µατα του πολε΄µου στο Κοσυφοπε΄διο ο΄πως αυτε΄ς που εδρευ΄ουν στο ι΄διο το Κοσυφοπε΄διο; 2. Μπορου΄ν να λα΄βουν οι εν λο΄γω επιχειρη΄σεις οικονοµικη΄ ενι΄σχυση ανασυγκρο΄τησης σε αντιστα΄θµισµα των ζηµιω΄ν που υπε΄στησαν; 3. Έχουν δικαι΄ωµα σε µη επιστρεπτε΄α ενι΄σχυση ανασυγκρο΄τησης η΄ επιχειρηµατικη΄ς εξασφα΄λισης για να αντισταθµι΄σουν τις τρε΄χουσες απω΄λειες και σε ενισχυ΄σεις για τον επενδυτικο΄ τοµε΄α µε δηµο΄σια εγγυ΄ηση; Apa·nthsh toy k. Patten ej ono·matow thw Epitroph·w (29 Marti·oy 2000) Η Επιτροπη΄ ε΄χει γνω΄ση των ειδικω΄ν προβληµα΄των των εταιρειω΄ν που εµπλε΄κονται α΄µεσα η΄ ε΄µµεσα, στις µεταφορε΄ς µε΄σω του ∆ουνα΄βεως λο΄γω του κλεισι΄µατος του ∆ουνα΄βεως που οφει΄λεται στην καταστροφη΄ απο΄ το ΝΑΤΟ των γεφυρω΄ν στο Novi Sad. Ωστο΄σο, το θε΄µα οποιασδη΄ποτε αντιστα΄θµισης για αυτε΄ς τις απω΄λειες δεν µπορει΄ να αντιµετωπιστει΄ ε΄ως ο΄του δεν θα ε΄χει λυθει΄ το θε΄µα της υπαιτιο΄τητας, εφο΄σον υπα΄ρχει, για αυτε΄ς τις απω΄λειες, στα αρµο΄δια δικαστη΄ρια. Όσον αφορα΄ την αποκατα΄σταση της ναυσιπλοι΅ας στο ∆ου΄ναβη, η Ευρωπαι¤κη΄ Επιτροπη΄ εξετα΄ζει προς το παρο΄ν αι΄τηση που υπε΄βαλε η επιτροπη΄ ∆ουνα΄βεως για προ΄ταση συγχρηµατοδο΄τησης ενο΄ς ε΄ργου σχετικα΄ µε το α΄νοιγα ενο΄ς καναλιου΄ ναυσιπλοι΅ας µε την αποµα΄κρυνση των ερειπι΄ων των γεφυρω΄ν τις οποι΄ες κατε΄στρεψε το ΝΑΤΟ, και επι΄σης κα΄θε µη εκραγε΄ντος πολεµικου΄ υλικου΄, καθω΄ς και τη διευθε΄τηση της κοι΄της και των οχθω΄ν του ποταµου΄. Το ε΄ργο και το περιεχο΄µενο΄ του ει΄ναι πολυ΄πλοκο, απο΄ πολιτικη΄, τεχνικη΄ και νοµικη΄ α΄ποψη. (2000/C 374 E/080) GRAPTH ERVTHSH E-0410/00 ypobolh·: Glenys Kinnock (PSE) prow thn Epitroph· (23 Febroyari·oy 2000) Ue·ma: Καµπο΄τζη Τελει΄ α΄ραγε η Επιτροπη΄ εν γνω΄σει του γεγονο΄τος ο΄τι εξακολουθου΄ν να γι΄νονται καταγγελι΄ες για ολο΄κληρο φα΄σµα προβληµα΄των στην Καµπο΄τζη, που ξεκινου΄ν απο΄ απελπιστικη΄ φτω΄χεια, και σε ορισµε΄νες περιοχε΄ς πει΄να και φθα΄νουν σε υψηλα΄ επι΄πεδα διαφθορα΄ς και παραβια΄σεων των ανθρωπι΄νων δικαιωµα΄των; Θεωρει΄ α΄ραγε η Επιτροπη΄ απαραι΄τητο να επιβα΄λει περιοριστικου΄ς ο΄ρους κατα΄ την παρου΄σα στιγµη΄;


title: INTERROGAZIONE SCRITTA E-0396/00 di Doris Pack (PPE-DE) alla Commissione. Diritti televisivi della FIBT.

eurovoc_concepts:
copyright
freedom to provide services
infringement of EU law
sport
sporting event
sports body

text: C 303 E/188 Gazzetta ufficiale delle Comunit(cid:224) europee IT 24. 10. 2000 non prima del 31 marzo 2000, per un periodo massimo di 30 giorni, e a determinate condizioni ritenute inaccettabili dal ministro degli Esteri irlandese. Pu(cid:242) la Commissione far sapere se intenda indagare con urgenza sull(cid:146)operato delle autorit(cid:224) israeliane e impegnarsi a intervenire a nome di questi cittadini UE, per garantire che sia accordato loro l(cid:146)accesso a Israele, senza che siano trattati come una minaccia per la sicurezza nazionale? Risposta data dal sig. Patten a nome della Commissione (24 febbraio 2000) La Commissione Ł a conoscenza della vicenda dell(cid:146)associazione caritatevole cattolica della contea di Wexford, cui Ł stato negato l(cid:146)ingresso in Israele. A tal riguardo, la Commissione ha ricevuto un(cid:146)ampia e dettagliata documentazione da parte di alcuni parlamentari e della rappresentanza diplomatica israeliana a Bruxelles. In base a tali informazioni, la deplorevole situazione sarebbe il risultato di una sfortunata catena di eventi. La Commissione condivide la preoccupazione espressa dalle autorit(cid:224) irlandesi ed Ł fiduciosa che il problema possa essere opportunamente risolto in tempi brevi. Si sottolinea a tal riguardo che il ministero degli esteri irlandese Ł in stretto contatto con il governo israeliano al fine di pervenire ad una rapida soluzione. Sebbene la Commissione non sia competente per le questioni relative alla tutela consolare e all(cid:146)accesso ai paesi terzi, essa Ł disposta ad interporre i propri uffici su richiesta delle autorit(cid:224) irlandesi. (2000/C 303 E/215) INTERROGAZIONE SCRITTA E-0396/00 di Doris Pack (PPE-DE) alla Commissione (15 febbraio 2000) Oggetto: Diritti televisivi della FIBT La Federazione Internazionale di Bobsleigh e di Tobogganing (FIBT), con sede a Milano (Italia), organizza ogni anno gare di bob a due e a quattro per la Coppa del Mondo nonchØ campionati europei e mondiali. La FIBT affida queste gare a singole Federazioni nazionali e ai gestori delle piste sulla base di un contratto che essi devono accettare come vuole la FIBT. In virtø del punto 1. 13. 4. del Regolamento nazionale della FIBT, tutti i diritti televisivi, cinematografici, video, radiofonici e quelli relativi ai nuovi media, inclusi i diritti di CD-Rom e Internet, per citarne solo alcuni, per tutte le gare della FIBT sono propriet(cid:224) esclusiva della FIBT stessa. Appellandosi a questo Regolamento internazionale, la FIBT ha concluso un contratto a lungo termine con Eurosport. Agli organizzatori locali e alle Federazioni nazionali che si accollano il rischio economico delle gare, Ł per(cid:242) fatto divieto di commercializzare in proprio i diritti di trasmissione. Agli organizzatori locali e alle Federazioni facenti parte della FIBT, che organizzano le gare, vengono sottratte le risorse necessarie per finanziare in futuro la costruzioni di piste da bob. Non ritiene la Commissione che: 1. le regole della FIBT e il suo contratto contrastino con il trend della giurisprudenza comunitaria nel settore dello sport, e che 2. la regolamentazione della FIBT leda il principio di libera circolazione dei servizi? 24. 10. 2000 IT Gazzetta ufficiale delle Comunit(cid:224) europee C 303 E/189 Risposta del Commissario Reding a nome della Commissione (27 marzo 2000) Secondo la giurisprudenza della Corte di giustizia, lo sport e le attivit(cid:224) connesse, come l(cid:146)organizzazione e la trasmissione di manifestazioni sportive, devono rispettare la normativa comunitaria nella misura in cui costituiscono un(cid:146)attivit(cid:224) economica ai sensi dell(cid:146)articolo 2 del Trattato (1). Le norme comunitarie sulla concorrenza si applicano quindi in linea di principio a pratiche come la vendita collettiva dei diritti televisivi da parte delle federazioni sportive per le manifestazioni da loro patrocinate. Tuttavia, una decisione sulla compatibilit(cid:224) della vendita collettiva dei diritti televisivi per le manifestazioni di bobsleigh con la normativa comunitaria sulla concorrenza presuppone un attento esame dei fatti e delle circostanze. In questo contesto, va esaminato se la pratica concerne il commercio fra gli Stati membri e limita in misura considerevole la concorrenza nel relativo mercato, il che Ł probabile almeno quando la vendita collettiva riguarda i diritti di trasmissione per sport molto seguiti dal pubblico, ceduti a prezzi elevati. Per quanto riguarda la libert(cid:224) di prestazione di servizi, i principi della libera circolazione all(cid:146)interno del mercato interno non valgono solo per le autorit(cid:224) pubbliche, ma anche per le norme di qualsiasi altro tipo destinate a disciplinare in modo collettivo attivit(cid:224) retribuite. la trasmissione di manifestazioni di La Commissione non ha ricevuto reclami o notifiche riguardanti bobsleigh o la relativa vendita collettiva di diritti televisivi in violazione dei principi di libera circolazione (in particolare la libera circolazione dei servizi). Dato che la Commissione sta attualmente esaminando la vendita collettiva dei diritti televisivi per altre manifestazioni sportive e il risultato di questo esame varr(cid:224) anche per la vendita collettiva di diritti televisivi per manifestazioni di bobsleigh, essa non intende per il momento approfondire la questione. (1) V. cause 36/74 (Walrave) del 12/12/1974 o C-415/93 (Bosman) del 15/12/1995. (2000/C 303 E/216) INTERROGAZIONE SCRITTA P-0405/00 di Pasqualina Napoletano (PSE) alla Commissione (9 febbraio 2000) Oggetto: Missione finanziata dalla commissione per la riforma delle dogane in Albania Considerato che nei giorni scorsi la sig. ra Natalina Cea, capo della missione finanziata dalla Commissione in Albania per la riforma delle dogane, ha annunciato di lasciare dopo tre anni l(cid:146)incarico ricoperto con grande professionalit(cid:224) e durante i quali ha dimostrato impegno e coraggio nell(cid:146)espletamento delle sue funzioni; considerati i positivi risultati ottenuti dalla missione, che ha ripristinato il funzionamento del sistema doganale albanese consentendo un fortissimo incremento delle entrate di quello Stato; e che d(cid:146)altra parte ha fortino uno decisiva assistenza nella rielaborazione della legislazione doganale albanese; considerato che la sig. ra Cea ha denunciato l(cid:146)esistenza di un grave clima di intimidazione e difficolt(cid:224) nello svolgimento del suo lavoro; considerato che il Dipartimento italiano delle dogane, da cui Ł stata distaccata la sig. ra Cea, ha sempre sostenuto attivamente ed apprezzato il lavoro della capo missione e, prendendo atto della sua richiesta di avvicendamento, ha avanzato alla commissione una proposta per la sua sostituzione, confermando in tal modo il proprio impegno a proseguire nella difficile missione in corso con l(cid:146)obiettivo di contrastare le illegalit(cid:224) ed intensificare la lotta alla criminalit(cid:224); si chiede alla Commissione: 1. 2. quale giudizio d(cid:224) sulla situazione in Albania in questo particolare e delicato settore di cooperazione? se non ritiene che questa missione debba essere ulteriormente rafforzata e sostenuta attivamente anche a fronte degli ostacoli sinora incontrati?