title: Opinion of Committee of the Regions on the 'Communication from the Commission to the Member States laying down guidelines for the Community initiative for rural development (Leader+)'

eurovoc_concepts:
EU initiative
Structural Funds
cross-border cooperation
deprived urban area
equal treatment
rural development

text: C 156/18 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 6. 2000 Opinion of Committee of the Regions on: — the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Member States laying down guidelines for the Community initiative for rural development (Leader+)’, — the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Member States establishing the guidelines for Community Initiative Programmes (CIPs) for which the Member States are invited to submit proposals for support under the Equal initiative’, and — the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Member States laying down guidelines for a Community initiative concerning trans-European cooperation intended to encourage harmonious and balanced development of the European territory (Interreg)’ (2000/C 156/04) THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS, having regard to the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Member States laying down the guidelines for a Community Initiative concerning trans-European co-operation intended to encourage harmonious and balanced development of the European territory (Interreg)’ COM(1999) 479 final; having regard to the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Member States laying down guidelines for the Community Initiative for rural development (Leader+)’ COM(1999) 475 final; having regard to the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Member States establishing the guidelines for Community Initiative Programmes for which the Member States are invited to submit proposals for support under the Equal initiative’ COM(1999) 476 final; having regard to the Commission’s decision of 25 October 1999 to consult the Committee on this subject, in accordance with Article 265c (1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community; having regard to its Bureau’s decision of 2 June 1999 to assign the preparation of an opinion to Commission 1 for Regional Policy, Structural Funds, Economic and Social Cohesion, Cross-Border and Inter-Regional Cooperation; having regard to the contribution of the Commission for Social Policy, Public Health, Consumer Protection, Research and Tourism (Commission 5) (rapporteur: Mrs Sexton, Member of Longford County Council (IRL/ELDR); having regard to the contribution of the Commission for Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries (Commission 2) (rapporteur: Mr Correia, President of Tavira Municipal Council, (P/EPP); having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 219/99 rev. 3) adopted by Commission 1 on 1 December 1999 (rapporteur: Mrs Storm Rasmussen, Mayor of the County of Copenhagen DK/PES), at its 32nd plenary session of 16 and 17 February 2000 (meeting of 17 February) adopted the following opinion. 1. Introduction 1. 1. In the light of the Commission’s Communication on the Community initiatives 2000-2006 (Commission work programme No 97/020) and the Communication from the Commission to the Member States laying down guidelines for a Community initiative concerning trans-European co- operation intended to encourage harmonious and balanced development of the European territory (Interreg) (COM(1999) 479 final) the Committee of the Regions is drawing up an own-initiative opinion on the subject, as its contribution to the debate on the Interreg, Leader+ and Equal Community initiatives during the next Structural Fund period. The opinion does not cover the Urban initiative. The Committee calls on the Commission and the 1. 2. Member States’ representatives on the management com- mittees in charge of the individual Community initiatives to 6. 6. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 156/19 ensure that regional and local interests are taken into account, as this opinion recommends. 2. General comments on the Community initiatives 2. 1. The Community initiatives are of key importance and interest to EU regional and local authorities, which often have the responsibility of managing programmes or implementing projects. The Committee therefore welcomes the increased emphasis on regional and local authority involvement in the Community initiatives under the new Structural Funds period. 2. 2. Bearing in mind the subsidiarity principle, the Com- mittee would stress that both the framing and execution of plans and programmes primarily fall within the local and regional authorities’ remit. Basically the Committee agrees with the proposed 2. 3. concentration of support for Community initiatives, which are to be reduced from the current thirteen to four. The principle of continuity and current development trends are largely respected in the thrust of these initiatives. Interreg cross-border, transnational and Interregional cooperation intended to encourage harmoni- ous and balanced development in Europe; Leader+ development of rural areas; Equal Transnational cooperation to promote new means of combating all forms of discrimi- nation and inequalities in connection with the labour market, and Urban economic and social renewal in urban areas with acute problems. 2. 4. One welcome simplification is that each Community initiative is to be financed by only one of the Structural Funds. Interreg and Urban are financed under the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), Leader+ under the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and Equal under the European Social Fund (ESF). Hence the scope of each Community initiative will also include measures covered by the other Funds. For instance, Interreg, under the ERDF, should also be able to support activities that normally belong under the ESF or EAGGF. In this way, action under each Community initiative will be more closely tailored to the problems to be tackled and to the needs of the authorities deploying the resources. That will reduce the administrative burden but also require a special effort on the part of the authorities responsible for the Structural Funds. 2. 5. The Community initiatives supplement the other Struc- tural Fund initiatives under the programmes for objectives 1, 2 and 3 regions. The Community initiative programmes must therefore be coordinated with the Member States’ programming documents and the operational programmes. The Committee is pleased to note that one of the key 2. 6. principles underpinning the new Community initiatives is a bottom-up approach, combined with regional and local responsibility and involvement (the partnership principle). The vital role played by regional and local authorities in connection implementation and assessment of pro- with the framing, grammes needs to be stressed. Since these authorities are closest to grassroots level, they are best placed to know how to tackle challenges. In this connection, the Committee would reiterate the need, when the Member State sets the programme in motion, for provision to be made for close partnership with bodies and associations representing the local and regional authorities which implement the programme. 2. 7. Administrative and assessment arrangements should be as simple and informal as possible, and approval procedures should be speeded up; accordingly, the administrative machin- ery should be streamlined. 2. 8. The purpose of the Community initiatives is to support initiatives of particular Community interest. Consequently Community initiative-related funding should not depend on whether or not the project concerned is to be carried out in an area designated under a Community objective. On the other hand, the task of structural policy is to help alleviate income discrepancies between the regions; the Community therefore designates eligible areas and regional programmes. In the Committee’s view, the partners in cooperation footing under Community 2. 9. must participate on an equal initiatives. 2. 10. On 1 July 1999 the Council decided that EUR 10,4 billion (in 1999 prices) should be earmarked for Community initiatives; to include EUR 4 875 million for Interreg, EUR 700 million for Urban, EUR 2 020 million for Leader+ and EUR 2 847 million for Equal. 2. 11. The Committee notes that support for the Com- munity initiatives is to be scaled down over the forthcoming period 2000-2006. Interreg 3. Comments on Interreg The purpose of the new Interreg initiative is to promote 3. 1. cross-border, transnational and Interregional cooperation so as to encourage balanced development in Europe. C 156/20 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 6. 2000 3. 2. The Committee is happy to observe that the proposals for Interreg III recognise the value of the regional and local authorities’ role. 3. 3. The Committee notes with satisfaction that this initiat- ive is founded on the experiences of the previous Interreg programmes; its inclusion of experiences from the innovative actions provided for in ERDF Article 10 is also welcomed. 3. 4. The Interreg initiative has three strands: Strand A Strand B Strand C Cross-border cooperation aiming to promote integrated regional development between bor- der regions, including external and maritime borders (Interreg III A); Transnational cooperation with a view to contributing to harmonious and sustainable development across large groups of European regions — macroregions (Interreg III B); Interregional cooperation to foster exchanges of experiences within regional development and cohesion policies and techniques, as well as promoting the networking within areas of regional policy (Interreg III C). 3. 5. In the Committee’s view, it is important that the A, B and C programmes should not overlap but be mutually complementary so as to facilitate a broad spectrum of partnership formulae and relations. As a result authorities which have played only a limited part to date in Interregional cooperation should have the possibility of participating along with more experienced regions and municipalities in Interreg cooperation. 3. 6. The Committee feels that the management of Interreg resources needs to be simplified substantially by in effect devolving decisionmaking powers to the parties concerned and by creating the right balance between simplification and flexibility so as to ensure speedy and efficient payment of funds. Hence the division of responsibility between the vertical and horizontal partnership must be clarified, redtape cut and monitoring, assessment and control tightened so as to place financial management on a sounder footing. 3. 7. The Commission attaches importance to establishing genuinely cross-border and transnational activities and admin- istrative units. Characteristic features of genuine cross-border cooperation include common decisionmaking procedures encompassing programme development, project selection and financing, as well as common administrative structures. 3. 8. The Committee is pleased to note that the Commission proposes to grant a ‘global grant’ directly to each Interreg III programme A and B region. Programmes are most effective when the bottom-up principle, is observed, i. e. when regional and local partners themselves take the initiative and projects are selected jointly by the regional, local and social partners. Hence joint decisions are taken on which activities are key the programme and should therefore be components of supported. The Committee welcomes the possibility of funding up 3. 9. to 100 % of the costs of establishing and developing joint programming, monitoring and programme management structures (technical assistance). 3. 10. Public sector structures and the definition of public tasks and resources differ from Member State to Member State. The Committee recommends that consideration be given — in the light of experiences from the current Interreg programmes and heeding the existing rules on competition — to allowing private funding in certain forms to co-finance EU support and placing such funding on an equal footing with public sector co-financing. Funders could include trade unions, NGOs or associations supporting more general aims. Co-financing should therefore be assessed on the basis of the purpose rather than the source of funding. 3. 11. The Committee observes that the Commission’s list of border areas eligible under Interreg II A and the geographical delimitation of Interreg II B macro-regions has been adjusted in the new Interreg guidelines. The Committee supports the Commission’s proposal 3. 12. to set up an observatory for cross-border, transnational and Interregional cooperation, provided that funding of Interreg programmes does not suffer as a result. A system for coordinat- ing, developing and disseminating experiences from Interre- gional cooperation is much needed. 4. Strand A — Cross-border cooperation (Interreg III A) 4. 1. Many of Europe’s national frontiers were fixed in the course of this century. It takes a long time for the discord and distrust generated by a change of border to give way to peaceful co-existence and fruitful cooperation. In particular, the regions adjoining the central and eastern European countries are all too aware that a border tends to divide two countries instead of serving as a meetingpoint. It is therefore most important to continue to prioritise support for cooper- ation across the EU’s external frontiers, including maritime frontiers. 6. 6. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 156/21 4. 2. Cross-border cooperation serves a valuable purpose in improving the populations’ mutual historical, cultural and political understanding and attempting to eliminate linguistic, cultural, political, administrative and other obstacles to cross- border cooperation. 4. 3. The Committee agrees with the Commission that the existing Interreg II A areas serve as basis for framing future programmes for cross-border cooperation. The Committee of the Regions is pleased to note that the guidelines also focus on the EU’s external borders. Interreg III A is a very important programme for levelling out regional differences in living standards, in particular along the long border between the EU and Russia. The Interreg III A programme helps the Baltic states which have applied for membership to embrace the EU’s development policy. 4. 4. Island or maritime regions depend on cross-sea com- munications and contacts. Maritime communication routes must be improved and developed, to give greater coherence to the Single Market’s cross-border labour market, industry and commerce, educational sector and cultural life. It is therefore advisable to introduce more flexible arrangements to enable islands to befit from Strand A, particularly for the most remote regions which are faced with the ending of the Community initiative Regis. 4. 5. The Committee is therefore pleased to see that some maritime borders continue to be under Interreg III A. The fact that existing viable, natural maritime partner-regions will continue to be eligible for aid will particularly benefit island communities and isolated and peripheral regions. 4. 6. There are a large number of examples of genuine cross-border Interreg administrative structures, including the ‘Euroregions’. Though the Euroregions are founded on decentralised, transnational political and administrative struc- tures, the Committee is opposed to the Euroregion concept being used as a criterion for eligibility to manage Interreg III A programmes and funds: it should however represent added value. The Commission proposes to frame one programme 4. 7. only per national border, with specific sub-programmes for smaller cross-border cooperation zones. In the Committee’s view, the Interreg III A regions in particular proceed on the basis of their own political priorities, which cannot be encapsulated in one central programme per national border. Further, is inconsistent with the bottom up principle to distance the administrative and financial decisionmaking process from the horizontal partnership between regional, local and social players in cross-border regions. The Committee therefore urges that all programmes concerning cooperation over the same national border should remain autonomous. it 4. 8. The Committee welcomes the broad range of cooper- ation zones proposed by the Commission for purposes of implementing cross-border development strategies. The cross- border programmes reflect the particular challenges facing each individual border region. It is therefore important for the list of spheres of cooperation to form a broad framework into which, for instance, local and regional cooperation in the media sphere could be incorporated. 4. 9. The Committee advocates greater flexibility in the inter-pro- Interreg programmes so as to improve internal gramme cooperation at four levels: programming, policymak- ing and administration, and the project itself. It should be possible for two or more programmes to pursue common goals, coordinate activities and support common projects. Where appropriate, flexibility should also make it possible for Interreg III A programmes to encompass regions in more than two countries, as in the case of the Belgium-France- Luxembourg border region. 4. 10. The Committee endorses the existing rule under which up to 20 % of cross-border programme funding can be allocated to support projects and activities in areas adjoining border regions. One condition for such aid is that the entire border area derives benefit from the funding, (e. g. greater mobility). 5. Strand B — Transnational cooperation (Interreg III B) One of the differences between strand B and strand A 5. 1. cooperation is the larger geographical area and number of partners (macro-regions). Action covers cooperation on spatial planning and regional development. Strand B allows for cooperation with adjoining regions in non-EU countries on projects aiming to develop and reinforce common strategies for the macro-regions. The range of activities eligible under Interreg III B 5. 2. should be broader than under the current Interreg II C programme. In addition to research and studies, it should be possible for projects with more visible impact, including smallscale (infrastructure) investments and pilot projects, to receive support. It will then be easier to evaluate the activities and their value. The spatial planning concept should also be extended so as to allow support for actual regional and business development (e. g. research and technological development, promotion of employment and education and training). For Interreg to make a positive contribution to the 5. 3. EU’s future spatial development policy, the Committee feels that the initiative’s operational programmes should, where C 156/22 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 6. 2000 possible, be consistent with the objectives of the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP). Interreg III B and the ESDP should be mutually complementary so that the latter’s recommendations regarding a more balanced polycentric territorial area, sustainable development, a more balanced transport infrastructure and respect for the environment and cultural heritage are translated into practical projects. 5. 4. In the Committee’s view, the strand B macro-regions should extend to regions that can make a positive contribution to sustainable, harmonious and balanced development. Regions acting as a natural hinterland and having close ties with the macro-region should be able to participate under Interreg III B. The existing Interreg II C programme appears to be 5. 5. a nationally-dominated programme, from which regional authorities can also benefit. However, it is not rooted in the regional and local authorities’ development priorities for the geographical areas covered by the programme. Hence the wisdom of transposing existing Interreg II C programming and management structures to the new Interreg III B programmes should be carefully considered. The Committee believes that the Interreg III B cooper- 5. 6. ation areas should be defined with the full agreement of the regions and the regional groupings concerned, following an assessment of the relevance of the Interreg II C areas. This assessment must take account of the slowness in implementing operational programmes in certain Interreg II C. 6. Strand C — Interregional cooperation (Interreg III C) 6. 1. Interreg III C is to address cooperation between regions throughout Europe. Some regional and local authorities lack the geographical characteristics, experience, capacity or size to participate in strand A or B cross-border or transnational cooperation. The Committee therefore welcomes the new initiative and confirms that funding to promote the establish- ment of networks and smaller scale Interregional schemes for exchanging experiences can be put to good use. to draw up programmes that can span the entire EU and cover a broader range of subjects than in the case of strand B programmes. Strand C should be designed with the aim of ensuring 6. 3. that: — Interregional cooperation has its own qualitative content within Interreg III; — Interregional cooperation complements the other strands as a horizontal instrument for Community-wide dialogue and exchange of experiences on the involvement of local and regional authorities in implementing Community policies; — promotion of Interregional cooperation is implemented by an independent and decentralised programme adminis- tration in Europe. 6. 4. The Interreg III C programmes must have common geographical, thematic or other characteristics. In the Com- mittee’s opinion, strand C should be more innovative and specific in emphasis and support partnership models which are not eligible for support under strands A or B. 6. 5. Looking ahead to the enlargement of the EU, a number of geographical programmes focusing exclusively on territorial and local authorities could be introduced; these programmes, combined with Phare, Tacis and MEDA resources, would be anchored in common political priorities for development of the area concerned. This common network should be able to take decisions on support for projects involving partners from both EU and non-EU countries so as to ensure the initiatives’ relevance to the regional and local authorities’ actual needs and the regions’ priorities. 6. 6. The Committee is pleased to see that local authorities in less-favoured regions, islands and isolated and peripheral regions in particular will be able to participate under strand C. 7. Coordination with aid to non-EU countries The Committee does not agree with the idea that the 6. 2. strand B administrative units should draw up and manage strand C programmes. The strand B programmes are based on geographical macro-regions and relate to spatial planning and regional development. The strand C transnational programmes should be viewed from other angles, and the strand B administrative units intrinsically lack the relevant prerequisites Simplified, coherent procedures are needed in order to 7. 1. reinforce cooperation with the central and eastern European countries and the Mediterranean region and to integrate these countries into EU policies. The Phare, Tacis and MEDA programmes as well as EU instruments to support non-Phare Balkan countries, therefore need to be better coordinated with Interreg III. 6. 6. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 156/23 Interregional cooperation is particularly necessary in 7. 2. the run-up to enlargement of the EU. Cooperation and exchanges of experiences make a key contribution in preparing the applicant countries for membership — and hence to European integration and cohesion. Coordination of aid raises a number of problems: Under the new guidelines, Phare CBC (cross-border 7. 3. cooperation) can only co-finance strand A whereas strand B can be co-financed by the instrument for structural policies for pre-accession (ISPA) or Mainstream Phare. However, strand B projects are not large enough to qualify for them. (ISPA is restricted to aiding large projects over EUR 5 million in the transport and environment sectors, while Mainstream Phare only supports projects over EUR 2 million). 7. 4. The programmes’ procedures and budgets are not compatible. The Phare, ISPA and Tacis budgets operate on a yearly basis whereas Interreg budgets cover several years. Consequently the projects have to be executed within different time frames. 7. 5. The objectives and scope of the programmes differ. Interreg III B focuses on spatial planning while, for instance, the Phare programme concentrates on preparing the applicant countries for EU membership and Tacis facilitates transition in the former Soviet Union countries. The programmes’ different guidelines mean that several separate applications have to be made for the same project. Concurrently the amount of time it takes to approve an application under the respective programmes differs, thereby delaying projects unnecessarily. 7. 6. The Committee proposes that funds be earmarked for co-financing of Interreg III projects in the Phare, Tacis and MEDA budgets, to which the Interreg transnational manage- ment committees can address eligible projects. the overall appropriation earmarked for Community initiatives (EUR 4 875 million for the period 2000-2006). 8. 2. In connection with the adoption of Agenda 2000, the heads of state and government stressed that cross-border activities should be prioritised, in the run-up to EU enlarge- ment. 8. 3. The Committee also feels that it needs to be remem- bered that Interreg II C has only been allocated funding for 1997-1999 under the current Structural Funds period. Hence, in the light of the positive impact made by Interreg II C, the relative priority of transnational activities needs to be upgraded. 8. 4. The Committee therefore advocates a reasonable break- down of appropriations for Interreg III A and B which retains the present Interreg II A level for cross-border activities while at the same time in relative terms, taking account of the fact that Interreg II C transnational activities have only been allocated funding for half the current Structural Fund period. As a result a smaller share should be allocated for the new Interreg III C initiatives. 8. 5. The Committee therefore advocates a breakdown of appropriations for the Interreg III budget lines that reflects the breakdown decided by the heads of state and government in relation to Agenda 2000 and prioritises cross-border activities, especially with a view to enlargement. 8. 6. In order to prevent parts of the Interreg III B transna- tional areas contained with one country being underfunded in comparison with their neighbours, thereby undermining the expected synergies, the Committee of the Regions suggests that the European Commission ask Member States to comply with a principle for the distribution of their ERDF package which ensures internal solidarity within areas and real conti- nuity with Interreg II C. 7. 7. The Committee observes that the Commission paves the way, in the Interreg guidelines, for closer coordination between Interreg and aid to the EU’s neighbours in central and eastern Europe, the Balkans and the Mediterranean region. 9. Recommendations for Interreg III The Committee calls for: 8. Financing 8. 1. The Committee welcomes the higher priority given to the Interreg initiative and the allocation to Interreg III of half (1) the local and regional authorities’ role in programming, implementation, selection and assessment to be stepped up in full application of the subsidiarity principle; (2) procedures to be streamlined significantly by in effect devolving decisionmaking powers to the parties con- cerned and creating the right balance between simplifi- cation and flexibility so as to ensure speedy and efficient payment of funds; C 156/24 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 6. 2000 (3) programmes to be drawn up in line with the partnership principle, with programming, financial and administrative decisions taken by the regional, local and social partners; (14) rejection of the idea that strand B transnational adminis- trative units are to frame and manage strand C pro- grammes; (4) the Interreg A, B and C programmes to be mutually complementary, allowing authorities which have only played a limited part to date in inter-regional cooperation to participate along with more experienced regions in Interreg action; (5) Interreg III programmes to be structured with sufficient flexibility to allow cooperation to span programming, policymaking and administration as well as the project levels; (6) Interreg III resources to be deployed flexibly and be accessible to regions which can make a positive contri- bution to harmonious, balanced development. Regions acting as a natural hinterland and having close ties with the Interreg area should be eligible to participate in Interreg III programmes; (7) uniform grants to be made to all assisted projects and partners, regardless of whether the partners are in an area designated as eligible for objective-related aid; (8) private sector funding to support general purposes to be placed on an equal footing with public sector financing; (9) the Euroregion concept not to serve as criterion for eligibility to act as programming and management body for Interreg III A programmes; (10) the introduction of more Interreg III A programmes across national borders; there are already several such programmes for the present period; (11) the list of areas of action under Interreg III A to serve as a broad framework allowing for cooperation within the relevant spheres; (12) the activities eligible for Interreg III B funding to be extended to cover e. g. smallscale (infrastructure) invest- ments and pilot projects; (13) careful consideration be given to the wisdom of transpos- ing the existing Interreg II C programming and adminis- trative structures to the new Interreg III B programmes; (15) Phare, Tacis and MEDA programmes to be coordinated more effectively with the Interreg III programme, and (16) Interreg III A and B funding to be reasonably apportioned so as to retain cross-border activities while upgrading the relative priority of transnational activities and also allocating an adequate share to initiatives under the new Interreg III C. Equal 10. Comments on Equal 10. 1. The twin goals of optimum employment and social cohesion are major challenges for the European Union. Recognition of the role the Union has to play in combating social exclusion is affirmed in the Amsterdam Treaty. The Treaty explicitly refers to combating exclusion and discrimi- nation. Article 137 provides for ‘measures designed to encourage co-operation between Member States through initiatives aimed at improving knowledge, developing exchanges of information and best practices, promoting innovative approaches and evaluating experiences to combat social exclusion’. There are not only moral and ethical reasons for 10. 2. combating unemployment and social exclusion, but also economic reasons. The pace of modernisation and develop- ment of new technologies has forced a rapid re-appraisal of skills needs across the Union. For those who have access to training and education there are boundless opportunities to take advantage of the developing information society. How- ever, for those members of the labour force who are in low skilled jobs, or even worse, those who are placed outside the labour force, the divide between skilled and unskilled is only accentuated. By working towards opening up the labour market to all, and particularly the most disadvantaged, the Union can release a potential of human resource that might otherwise remain hidden and unused. It is not uncommon when employers are experiencing skills shortages to recruit employees from abroad rather than provide training and education to members of their own labour force who are in low skilled jobs or people from the ranks of the unemployed. 10. 3. The formulation of the European Employment Strat- egy and National Action Plans has prompted the reform of the In terms of objectives and European Social Fund (ESF). priorities, the future shape of the European Social Fund will be guided by the European Employment Strategy. 6. 6. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 156/25 the During programming 10. 4. period 1994-1999 important parts of the ESF activities are taking place within industrial two Community Initiatives: Adapt (adoption of change) and Employment (re-integration of unemployed target groups into the labour market). The latter is sub-divided into four strands: NOW, Horizon, Youthstart and Integra. 10. 5. These two Community Initiatives are important Com- munity instruments for the promotion of changes in policy areas related to employment and the labour market. Both Adapt and Employment have played important roles in setting the stage for future action in the area of innovation and innovative ways of delivering preventative and active measures. By transferring mainstreaming good practices and experiences to other organisations, programmes and projects across the Member States they have provided a basis for the spread of labour market policies. Also, through their transnational partnerships, they have accelerated the learning process. 10. 6. The newly devised Equal Initiative will build on the experiences and successes of Adapt and Employment. It is envisaged that the considerable potential of transnational co- operation, both between individual projects and between project managers and political decision-makers, will be further developed and the transfer of good practice will feed back into the European Employment Strategy. 10. 7. The Commission has correctly acknowledged that lessons can be learned from Adapt and Employment. The expertise that has been garnered must be built on and this is particularly the case in relation to the project promoters and those involved in managing the Initiatives. The value-added created in the final years of the current Community Initiatives must be retained and furthered. 11. Project Profile and Additionality 11. 1. Project Profile 11. 1. 1. The Commission’s proposal pertaining to the avoid- ance of dissipation of financial resources across too many small projects represents a change of direction. In contrast to the present programming period, the Commission’s view is that the number of projects in receipt of funding should be reduced, with the result that the successful projects would tend to be bigger in scale. The issue of whether or not it is viable for ‘small’ projects to develop transnational elements is most important. The Committee of the Regions is of the view that projects should not be judged or evaluated on the basis of size. It is often the case that small projects possess huge potential in terms of devising methods and transfer of best practice. It may be somewhat easier to demonstrate methods of best practice emanating from projects that are smaller in scale than large unwieldy projects. 11. 1. 2. The Commission may fear that the administrative burden placed on organisations, and indeed the Commission, participating in small-scale projects would not lead to a significant multiplier effect. However, the Committee of the Regions believes that if the administration of Equal was to be efficient and simplistic, then the rate of return would be higher and would prove to be a worthwhile exercise for all. 11. 2. Additionality The issue of additionality must also be addressed in 11. 2. 1. the new Equal Initiative. It has been the experience of Adapt and Employment that partners often struggle to raise the co- financing funds. In particular, this has been a problem for local and regional authorities that sign up to large transnational projects. By concentrating funding under the Equal Initiative on projects that are large in scale, some local and regional authorities may be excluded from participating in Equal projects by virtue of the fact that they cannot raise the is re-enforced that necessary co-finance. Thus the point ‘smaller’ type projects may have an important role to play in the Equal Initiative, as co-finance may be realisable for projects that have smaller budgets. 12. Measures 12. 1. measures to be launched under three main strands. It is envisaged that Equal will provide support for i) Strand A: transnational, integrated projects; ii) Strand B: national networking and dissemination; iii) Strand C: policy development. 12. 2. Strand A: Transnational, Integrated Projects 12. 2. 1. It is intended that projects under Strand A would combat discrimination and inequalities in relation to the labour market. Further to calls for proposals, projects would be selected and implemented on the basis of three criteria. These are: a) innovation — to be benchmarked against previous Com- munity Initiative experience; b) empowerment — the direct involvement of those most directly concerned with the fight against labour market discrimination and inequalities; c) integrated approach — successful projects should integrate a range of actions. 12. 2. 2. Under Strand A: Transnational, Integrated Projects, the Commission has recommended that there should be three project phases taking projects from a preparatory phase to an operational phase and finally an evaluation and dissemination phase. C 156/26 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 6. 2000 12. 2. 3. The Committee of the Regions welcomes the fact that the Commission has recommended that the European Social Fund will be the only Structural Fund to finance these integrated project, as this will lead to greater simplification. 12. 2. 4. The Committee of the Regions is of the view that it is most important that the terms innovation, empowerment and integrated approach be clearly defined from the outset of the Initiative. Once these terms are clearly defined in the context of Equal much of the confusion that was apparent with regard to Adapt and Employment should be avoided. 12. 3. Strand B: National Networking and Dissemination 12. 3. 1. It is envisaged by the Commission that Strand B: National Networking and Dissemination, would provide focus for a limited number of thematic areas to be funded by Equal in each Member State. The Committee of the Regions believes that local and regional interests should have an input into the decision making process with the Member State and the Commission in deciding upon relevant thematic areas. The Commission also recommends that each Member State pro- pose suitable mechanisms at national level for the networking of projects and the dissemination of good practice. In the Committee of the Regions view, local and regional interests should be actively involved in the establishment of the aforementioned mechanisms. 12. 4. Strand C: Policy Development 12. 4. 1. The Committee of the Regions agrees with the Commission that Strand C: Policy Development should involve the Commission and Member States working together to create the link between good practice emerging from projects and policy development in thematic areas agreed upon for Equal. The Committee of the Regions is particularly supportive of attempts to develop mechanisms for the benchmarking and dissemination of results. 13. Implementation of Equal 13. 1. In implementing Equal the Commission recommends that each Member State should prepare a national programme according to the themes agreed, in relation to the European Employment Strategy, by a co-ordination structure. Once these programmes are agreed, the Member States will be responsible for launching regular calls for projects and establishing national monitoring committees to oversee the implemen- tation of the Initiative. The Committee of the Regions is of the view that it is at Member State level that the local and regional authorities can play a significant role in shaping the success of Equal. The Committee believes that regional and local interests should be represented on the National Monitoring Committees where they can bring their own local and regional experience to bear on the process. 14. Targeting Measures The Committee of the Regions is concerned that the 14. 1. Commission in setting out its initial position with regard to Equal has indicated that, unlike the present round of Com- munity Initiatives, there will be no ring fencing of funds for certain sectors of society. All organisations involved in combating marginalisation will be left to compete against each other for funding under the Equal Initiative. For example, those sections of society fighting against discrimination on the grounds of disability may have to compete against those attempting to progress equal opportunities for women in the work place. Whether this will result in the selection of the best and most deserving projects is questionable. The Committee of the Regions would encourage the Commission to consider the introduction of measures under the Equal Initiative that would specifically target the various marginalised sections of society. 15. General Remarks and Recommendations 15. 1. The Committee of the Regions recommends that a number of points be borne in mind when drafting the guidelines for Equal. (1) Equal, the newly proposed human resource Community Initiative, is designed to consolidate the achievements of the current Adapt and Employment initiatives. There is the to incorporate new programmes and need, however, measures into a new context, the European that of Employment Strategy. Equal should be shaped into an instrument that will aid community, local, regional and national agencies in their fight against social exclusion in the work place and beyond. (2) The administrative burden of submitting applications for funding should be kept as light as possible. It is often the case that the spectre of an overly bureaucratic process is offputting for potential applicants. (3) Clear definitions should be provided, where possible. The terms innovation, transnationality and mainstreaming need to be clearly defined in the context of Equal. (4) Monitoring activities will have to be developed which will allow for a comparison of project results and degrees of success. (5) It is of paramount importance that effective mainstreaming of successful Equal projects, at national, regional and local level, can only be achieved if a dissemination strategy is developed during the project cycle and not deferred to the very end of it. Leader+ 16. Comments on Leader+ The major innovation of the Leader+ Community 16. 1. initiative (I and II) was the approach adopted, which can be summarised as follows: 6. 6. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 156/27 — integrated action — nearly all aspects of intervention — encouragement and technical support for develop- ment; The Committee therefore proposes that passages to this effect be deleted in the draft communication from the Commission to the Member States. This concerns the second half of the last sentence in point 9 and the whole of the last sentence in point 10. — training at various levels; — establishment/consolidation/modernisation of busi- ness units; 16. 3. Moreover, reference is made to the specificity and originality of the development strategy expected of each Local Action Plan in relation to the operations of mainstream programmes. — development of the use of local raw materials by means of small-scale processing; However, these very programmes are themselves hallmarked by, amongst other things, a sectoral or target group approach. — promotion and marketing of local products and ser- vices; — consolidation and diversification of rural tourism; — preservation and development of natural resources and cultural heritage. — intervention promoting integration — projects and activi- ties developed under the various aspects of the programme are organised into a single, coherent plan of action and do not merely comprise a series of separate projects; — local territorial approach — devised and implemented in line with the resources, potential and expectations of the area concerned; — a bottom-up approach — resulting from efforts to involve local bodies and population in the local development process; — decentralised management — under the responsibility of Local Action Groups who are granted considerable leeway in implementing the process with the flexibility required. 16. 2. The Commission’s document on Leader+ follows the guidelines of the previous programmes. However, a new feature is added, requiring the strategy of local action plans to be linked with one out of a series of specified themes. In the Committee’s view, action must focus on targeted problem areas. The subjects and target groups indicated by the Com- mission are appropriate for inclusion in an integrated develop- ment strategy. However, the Committee feels that the local action group should be able to choose more than just one theme or target group; it therefore urges the Member States to take advantage of the opportunity to amplify the list of possible themes and target groups. 16. 4. The real innovation introduced by the Leader+ pro- gramme is the approach which it has facilitated and encour- aged; it is precisely this advance in methodology which should be preserved and consolidated. 16. 5. Here we feel it important to mention that an action plan for the integrated development of a rural area cannot be comprised of innovative actions above. A plan of this type has to include a large number of initiatives and projects which provide a response to local problems and expectations, which have a local impact and which can consequently help to enhance local development dynamics. What is innovative is the plan as a whole; some non-innovative action can be necessary in order to secure viability, coherence and consist- ency in the overall process. 16. 6. One last point should be noted: the Leader+ approach requires there to be a Local Development Association respon- sible a) for devising and carrying out a Local Action Plan and, in parallel, b) for actively encouraging, mobilising and involving local people and organisations. Without a local dynamic and without encouraging the creation of a local development culture, Leader+ will not work. Thus it is vital that Leader+ continues to include a strong element of encouragement and technical support for develop- ment, allowing a wide range of activities and initiatives to be funded — including the establishment and operation of networks for stimulating development (each with its own nucleus, equipment and human resources), the publication of information and incentive instruments for the territory, and the organisation of events and festivals. The possibility of aiding the acquisition of knowhow and other technical assistance should — possibly on a lesser scale — also apply to rural areas where existing Leader+ groups are renewed. First, it must be recognised that the main point about Leader+ has always been that it can be applied in principle in all rural areas in the fifteen EU Member States and that this may not be thwarted by the guidelines governing the drawing up of plans. 16. 7. The Leader + programme is to place special emphasis on actions which favour an integrated approach, creating synergies and complementarity between the various instru- ments which contribute to the same objective. C 156/28 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 6. 2000 16. 8. gramme encourages small-scale local initiatives. One particularly important feature is that the pro- 16. 9. Leader+ should enhance the work of local develop- ment associations and agents. The direct involvement of Carrefour should be envisaged, to improve the implementation of outreach activities, Interregional cooperation and rural networks. 16. 10. Leader+ is to work in conjunction with other programmes having complementary objectives in the field of job creation, vocational training, craft industries and other social measures. 16. 11. With its constituency made up of many locally elected representatives from rural areas with specific structural problems, the COR welcomes the Leader+ programme with particular interest. 16. 12. Locally elected representatives are the prime movers in development processes in rural areas where bottlenecks occur. Local authorities are the bodies sustaining the main investment projects aimed at creating jobs and kick-starting the economy as a whole. It would therefore be counterpro- ductive if, rather than encouraging local planning, Leader+ were to be governed by a bureaucratic or dirigiste approach at European, national or regional level. 16. 13. The COR would like to see the regulations to make the programme operational implemented as soon as possible. Given the level of expectation created, it would be preferable if applications could be assessed in less than the five months mentioned. Local development agents have little experience of dealing with bureaucracies and will find it difficult to accept long delays. Steps must also be taken to prevent delays in programme implementation. Under the Commission’s proposal, the selec- tion of action groups can span a period of as much as two years after approval of the selection criteria. It should be possible to reduce this process to, for instance, six months. In Brussels, 17 February 2000. the light of experiences from the current programme period, the Committee feels that delays in getting the programmes off the ground would undermine the implementation and impact of action in new Leader areas, which must first build up knowhow. In reselected areas, the expertise accumulated could go to waste. Considering the three actions under the Leader+ 16. 14. programme, the COR feels that the bulk of funding should go on the first of these, namely integrated territorial rural development strategies of a pilot nature. The success of applications for funding should depend on whether a local strategy involving various partners actually exists. The COR would like to see infrastructure projects 16. 15. incorporated into the Leader+ programme, and if they are not eligible for this programme, they should be given priority by the assessors of other programmes. The fact is that any rural development strategy requires some basic infrastructure input otherwise the development process is not sustainable. The Commission’s call for cooperation not to be 16. 16. restricted purely to the exchange of experience is in the main endorsed. However, the exchange of experience should not be excluded from support as a separate form of cooperation. 16. 17. The provision under point 9 of the draft guidelines specifying that Community funding ‘will be granted to a limited number of rural territories only’ should be deleted. The provision whereby it is exclusively local action 16. 18. groups (LAGs) which qualify for financial assistance under Leader+ (point 12, first paragraph) should be deleted. The provision whereby ‘at the decision-making level not more than 50 % of a local partnership may be made up of government officials and elected office-holders’ (point 12, third paragraph) should also be abolished. The President of the Committee of the Regions Jos CHABERT


title: Europa-Parlamentets beslutning om sagen om Andrej Babitskij og pressefriheden samt menneskerettighedskrænkelser i Tjetjenien

eurovoc_concepts:
Russia
communications profession
freedom of the press
human rights
political prisoner

formats: pdf print

text: 29. 11. 2000 DA De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende C 339/277 Torsdag, den 17. februar 2000 3. opfordrer den amerikanske regering at undlade at iværksætte beboelsesaftalen, indtil den amerikanske kongres giver bemyndigelse til formelle kongreshøringer med henblik på at genvurdere minedriftens ind- virkninger i denne region; opfordrer de amerikanske myndigheder til at tilrettelægge integrationsprogrammer for de medlemmer 4. af Dineh-folket, der er blevet flyttet; 5. opfordrer sin Delegation for Forbindelserne med USA til på deres næste møde at drøfte Dineh- (Navajo-) og Hopi-folkets menneskerettigheder, deres ret til udvikling og kulturelle og religiøse rettigheder samt den behandling, USA udsætter dem for; 6. pålægger sin formand at sende denne beslutning til Rådet, Kommissionen, De Forenede Staters rege- ring, De Forenede Staters Kongres, Navajo- og Hopi-folkets stammeråd og guvernøren for staten Arizona. 16. Menneskerettigheder: Sagen om Andrej Babitskij B5-0153, 0155, 0156, 0172 og 0177/2000 Europa-Parlamentets beslutning om sagen om Andrej Babitskij og pressefriheden samt menneske- rettighedskrænkelser i Tjetjenien Europa-Parlamentet, - der henviser til sine tidligere beslutninger om situationen i Tjetjenien, særlig beslutningerne af 18. november 1999 (1), 15. december 1999 (2) og 20. januar 2000 (3), - der henviser til artikel 2 i partnerskabs- og samarbejdsaftalen mellem Den Russiske Føderation og EU, hvori respekten for de demokratiske principper og menneskerettighederne betegnes som et afgørende element i partnerskabet, - der henviser til Den Europæiske Unions fælles strategi over for Rusland som vedtaget af Rådet den 4. juni 1999, - der henviser til konklusionerne fra mødet i Rådet (almindelige anliggender) den 24. januar 2000, A. der er dybt bekymret over den russiske journalist, Andrej Babitskijs skæbne, som indtil sin anholdelse den 16. januar 2000 ved et russisk checkpoint dækkede krigen i Tjetjenien for Radio Liberty og som derefter angiveligt af de russiske myndigheder er udleveret til den tjetjenske hærledelse i udveksling for to russiske krigsfanger, B. der er dybt forvirret over de modstridende erklæringer om den russiske journalists opholdssted, C. beklager de mange tusinde krigsofre blandt den civile befolkning i Tjetjenien, som blev dræbt under de russiske føderale styrkers fuldstændig vilkårlige og uforholdsmæssigt voldsomme militære angreb, og er dybt bekymret over den katastrofale humanitære situation for flere hundredtusinde fordrevne i og uden for Tjetjenien, D. der er bekendt med påstande om, at Andrej Babitskij skulle være blevet mishandlet af de russiske føderale styrker og sikkerhedsstyrker, såvel som påstande om vilkårlig tilbageholdelse, tortur og ned- værdigende behandling af flere tusinde civile i interneringslejre, herunder Tjernokozovo og Mozdok, der kontrolleres af de russiske føderale styrker; E. (1) (2) (3) der er rystet over mange lignende sager om tilbageholdte, intimiderede eller forsvundne journalister, hvilket varsler ilde for pressefriheden i regionen, som i stigende grad er under angreb, »Vedtagne tekster« af denne dato, punkt 15. »Vedtagne tekster« af denne dato, punkt 23. »Vedtagne tekster« af denne dato, punkt 6. C 339/278 De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende DA 29. 11. 2000 Torsdag, den 17. februar 2000 1. giver udtryk for sin bekymring med hensyn til Andrej Babitskys skæbne, hvis indsats tjener til for- billede for fri og uafhængig oplysning under så vanskelige forhold som krigen i Tjetjenien, samt med hen- syn til arbejdsvilkårene for de journalister, som forsøger at skaffe direkte oplysninger fra konfliktområdet; 2. opfordrer de russiske og de tjetjenske myndigheder til omgående af skabe klarhed med hensyn til denne journalists forsvinden; opfordrer Rådet og medlemsstaterne og den højtstående repræsentant for FUSP til at rette henvendelse til den russiske regering og de tjetjenske myndigheder med henblik på omgående at få klarhed om Babitskijs forsvinden; 3. opfordrer de russiske myndigheder til omgående at skabe klarhed med hensyn til forholdene i inter- neringslejrene, de såkaldte »filtreringslejre« i Tjernokozovo og Mozdok, og minder i den sammenhæng om, at alle, der er ansvarlige for vilkårlig tilbageholdelse, mishandling og drab på civile, gør sig skyldig i krigs- forbrydelser og forbrydelser mod menneskeheden; 4. pålægger sin formand at sende denne beslutning til Rådet, Kommissionen, Europarådet, OSCE, FN’s generalsekretær, statsduma og forbundsråd og Den Russiske Føderations regering samt myndighederne i Tjetjenien. 17. Menneskerettigheder: Cambodja B5-0154 og 0161/2000 Europa-Parlamentets beslutning om nødvendigheden af en international proces mod Khmer Rouge Europa-Parlamentet, - der henviser til sine tidligere beslutninger om Cambodja, A. der henviser til, at FN’s generalsekretær den 8. februar 2000 sendte en skrivelse til den cambodjanske premierminister, Hun Sen, og opfordrede ham til omgående at tage skridt til at nedsætte et særligt tribunal til retsforfølgelse af tidligere Khmer Rouge-ledere, B. der henviser til, at FN er yderst forbeholden over for Cambodjas endelige udkast til en lov om retsfor- følgelse af de tidligere Khmer Rouge-ledere, fordi det er hensigten, at flertallet af dommere skal være cambodjanere, C. der henviser til, at FN sender et hold af juridiske eksperter til Phnom Penh i nærmeste fremtid for at bringe disse uoverensstemmelser ud af verden sammen med cambodjanske embedsmænd, D. der henviser til, at FN’s generalsekretær har udpeget fire nøglespørgsmål, der har afgørende betydning for tribunalets karakter og den endelige accept fra FN’s side: de tiltalte skal overgive sig eller anholdes, der må ikke gives amnesti eller benådning, der skal udnævnes internationale anklagere og en undersø- gelsesdommer, og endelig må der ikke være et cambodjansk dommerflertal, og dommerne skal være udnævnt på behørig vis, E. F. der henviser til, at det er påkrævet at retsforfølge lederne af Demokratisk Kampuchea, der havde ansvaret for, at næsten to millioner cambodjanere døde i tidsrummet 1975-1979, der er foruroliget over den intimiderende atmosfære, der tilsyneladende omgiver de oppositionelle kræfter, som åbent støtter denne proces, G. der henviser til, at den demokratiske proces i Cambodja, de nye institutioners stabilitet og rehabilite- ringen af det civile samfund kun kan virkeliggøres, hvis de ansvarlige for folkemordet får en retfærdig rettergang ved en uafhængig domstol,


eurovoc_concepts:
Cambodia
International Court of Justice
crime against humanity
dictatorship
human rights
ruling

text: C 339/278 Journal officiel des Communautés européennes FR 29. 11. 2000 Jeudi, 17 février 2000 1. exprime toute son inquiétude pour le sort d’Andrei Babitsky, dont les activités constituent un exemple d’information libre et indépendante dans un contexte difficile comme celui de la guerre en Tchétchénie, ainsi que pour les conditions de travail des journalistes essayant de fournir des informations directes sur le conflit; 2. en appelle aux autorités russes et tchétchènes pour obtenir immédiatement des éclaircissements sur la disparition de ce journaliste; en appelle au Conseil, aux États membres et au Haut représentant de la PESC pour qu’ils interviennent auprès du gouvernement russe et des autorités tchétchènes afin d’obtenir sans délai des éclaircissements sur sa disparition; 3. en appelle aux autorités russes afin d’obtenir des éclaircissements immédiats sur les conditions d’em- prisonnement dans les centres de détention, également appelés de «filtration», de Tchernokosovo et de Mozdok, rappelant que quiconque est reconnu responsable de détention arbitraire, de mauvais traitements et de meurtre sur des civils est passible d’inculpation pour crimes de guerre et crimes contre l’humanité; 4. charge sa Présidente de transmettre la présente résolution au Conseil, à la Commission, ainsi qu’au Conseil de l’Europe, à l’OSCE, au Secrétaire général des Nations unies, à la Douma et au Conseil fédéral de Russie, au gouvernement russe et aux autorités tchétchènes. 17. Droits de l’homme: Cambodge B5-0154 et 0161/2000 Résolution du Parlement européen sur la nécessité de faire comparaître les Khmers rouges devant un Tribunal international Le Parlement européen, 6 vu ses résolutions antérieures sur le Cambodge, A. B. C. D. E. F. G. considérant la lettre adressée le 8 février 2000 par le Secrétaire général des Nations unies au premier ministre du Cambodge, M. Hun Sen, demandant instamment que des mesures soient prises visant à l’instauration d’un tribunal spécial pour juger les anciens dirigeants Khmers rouges, considérant que l’ONU a émis de sérieuses réserves à l’égard du texte définitif du projet de loi cam- bodgien visant à faire juger les anciens dirigeants khmers rouges par un tribunal composé majoritai- rement de juges cambodgiens, considérant que l’ONU enverra prochainement à Phnom Penh une équipe d’experts juridiques qui essayera de régler les différends avec des fonctionnaires cambodgiens, considérant que le Secrétaire général de l’ONU a établi une liste de quatre points clés qui seront déter- minants pour la nature du tribunal et son approbation ultérieure par l’ONU, à savoir que les accusés soit se rendront, soit seront arrêtés, qu’il n’y aura ni amnistie ni grâce, que seront désignés des pro- cureurs et un juge d’instruction internationaux et enfin, que les juges ne seront pas majoritairement cambodgiens et seront désignés en bonne et due forme, considérant qu’il est nécessaire de juger les dirigeants du Kampuchea démocratique responsables de la mort de près de deux millions de Cambodgiens entre 1975 et 1979, inquiet du climat d’intimidation qui semble s’instaurer à l’égard de l’opposition ouvertement favorable à ce processus, rappelant que le processus démocratique au Cambodge, la stabilité des nouvelles institutions et la réhabilitation de la société civile ne deviendront réalité que si les responsables du génocide font l’objet d’un procès équitable devant un tribunal indépendant; 29. 11. 2000 FR Journal officiel des Communautés européennes C 339/279 Jeudi, 17 février 2000 1. est entièrement favorable à la nouvelle initiative lancée par le Secrétaire général des Nations unies, M. Kofi Annan, à l’adresse du premier ministre, M. Hun Sen, pour la création d’un tribunal international spécial chargé de poursuivre les anciens dirigeants khmers rouges; demande instamment au gouvernement cambodgien d’autoriser la comparution de Ta Mok et 2. d’autres personnes accusées de crimes contre l’humanité et de génocide devant un tribunal ad hoc indé- pendant des Nations unies; rappelle que la transparence et l’impartialité du système judiciaire, la coopération judiciaire interna- 3. tionale et le respect des droits de l’homme, des principes démocratiques et de l’État de droit sont des conditions essentielles à la reprise des relations entre l’Union européenne et le Cambodge; invite instamment les autorités cambodgiennes à renoncer à tout acte d’intimidation à l’égard de 4. l’opposition démocratique; charge sa Présidente de transmettre la présente résolution au Conseil, à la Commission, aux Nations 5. unies, à l’ANASE, ainsi qu’au gouvernement et au parlement cambodgiens. 18. Catastrophe environnementale dans les eaux du Danube B5-0164, 0167, 0168, 0173 et 0179/2000 Résolution du Parlement européen sur la catastrophe écologique provoquée par un déversement de cyanure provenant d’une mine d’or roumaine dans le Lepos, le Somes, la Tisza et le Danube Le Parlement européen, A. B. C. D. E. alarmé par la catastrophe écologique, environnementale, agricole et sociale provoquée par le déverse- ment de cyanure provenant d’une mine d’or située à Aurul, en Roumanie, et détenue par une compa- gnie regroupant la société roumaine d’État Remin S. A. et la société australienne Esmeralda Exploration Limited, ayant son siège à Perth, considérant que plus de 100 000 m3 d’eau fortement cyanurée ont pollué le Lepos et le Somes en Roumanie, la Tisza en Hongrie et le Danube en Serbie et en Bulgarie, considérant la menace que fait peser cette catastrophe sur le delta du Danube, qui est une des princi- pales zones humides d’Europe, avec quelque 4 300 km2, considérant que les concentrations de cyanure sont plus de 700 fois supérieures à la normale et ont provoqué la mort de très nombreux poissons et oiseaux, ainsi que de graves dommages à la flore aquatique, considérant que cet accident a causé un préjudice considérable aux écosystèmes naturels, conduisant à la disparition de la biodiversité, à la contamination des chaînes alimentaires, de l’eau potable et des ressources agricoles en eau par des dépôts de métaux lourds dans les eaux fluviales, et affectera la vie de tous les habitants de la région, principalement les pêcheurs et les personnes vivant du tourisme local; 1. fait part de sa sympathie et de son soutien aux pays victimes de cette catastrophe; 2. considère que l’Union européenne devrait intervenir afin d’aider les pays victimes de cette catastrophe écologique et invite la communauté scientifique, les groupes de défense de l’environnement et les institu- tions européennes à fournir toute l’assistance nécessaire et à participer au nettoyage majeur qui s’impose; 3. note que, selon les informations disponibles, la mine d’Aurul mettait en œuvre une technologie non conforme à l’acquis communautaire en matière d’environnement et invite les autorités roumaines à s’effor- cer d’accélérer l’intégration de l’acquis, notamment dans le domaine de la sécurité industrielle;


eurovoc_concepts:
United States
human rights
indigenous population

text: C 339/276 Publicatieblad van de Europese Gemeenschappen NL 29. 11. 2000 Donderdag, 17 februari 2000 15. Mensenrechten: Inheems Dineh-volk in de Verenigde Staten B5-0152, 0157, 0163, 0171 en 0174/2000 Resolutie van het Europees Parlement over het inheemse Dineh-volk Het Europees Parlement, (cid:1) verwijzend naar de bepalingen in de Verklaring van Wenen van de Wereldconferentie voor Mensen- rechten, die de rechten van inheemse volkeren betreffen en waarin benadrukt werd dat het economi- sche, sociale en culturele welzijn van de inheemse volkeren moet worden beschermd en dat zij recht hebben op hun eigen cultuur en identiteit; (cid:1) verwijzend naar zijn resoluties inzake de rechten van inheemse volkeren, en in het bijzonder naar die van 9 februari 1994 (1) en 19 januari 1995 (2); (cid:1) verwijzend naar de Universele Verklaring van de Verenigde Naties inzake de Rechten van de Mens en de grondbeginselen van Agenda 21 en van het Verdrag inzake Biologische Verscheidenheid; (cid:1) verwijzend naar resolutie 36/55 van de Algemene Vergadering van de Verenigde Naties (cid:1) Verklaring inzake het uitbannen van alle vormen van onverdraagzaamheid en discriminatie op grond van gods- dienst of geloofsovertuiging, (cid:1) verwijzend naar de resoluties 1998/97 en 1990/34 van de VN-subcommissie voor de preventie van discriminatie en de bescherming van minderheden, welke „de gedwongen verhuizing van Hopi en Navajo-families” tot onderwerp hebben, A. overwegende dat het Dineh-volk, dat woonachtig is op het gebied van het Hopi-reservaat (Hopi Parti- tion Lands) in de Verenigde Staten, met uitzetting wordt bedreigd ten gevolge van de toepassing van de Hervestigingswet (Public Law 93-531), die hen verplichtte tot ondertekening van het Huisvesti- gingsakkoord (Accommodation Agreement), B. overwegende dat de Amerikaanse regering zeer binnenkort een begin zal maken met deze verplaat- sing, C. verontrust over de recente Public Law 104-301 en de daarbij gaande Accommodation Agreement, die ertoe zullen leiden dat Dineh-families (Navajo) gedwongen zullen worden hun land in het Black-Messa- gebied te verlaten en het feit dat ze dan niet meer voldoende vee kunnen houden, waardoor hun culturele en sociaal-economische overleving in het gedrang komt, dat hun brandhoutvoorziening hun wordt ontnomen (waardoor vooral in de wintermaanden ernstige ontberingen aan deze families wor- den berokkend), dat hun waterrechten hun worden ontnomen en zij geen mogelijkheid meer hebben tot de jacht en tot medicinaal-religieuze bijeenkomsten, D. overwegende dat de Dineh-families in de „Hopi Partition Lands” dichtbij een mijnbouwconcessie van de Peabody Coal Company wonen, die zich op het Black-Messa-gebied bevindt en dat deze maatschap- pij van het Bureau voor Indiaanse Zaken rechten heeft verkregen op water uit de Navajo Aquifer, welke de enige waterreserve voor de Dineh en de Hopi vormt, wier waterbronnen snel uitgeput drei- gen te raken, waardoor hun bestaan en hun spirituele en religieuze tradities in gevaar komen, E. F. overwegende dat er op Black Messa 10. 000 plaatsen zijn die van belang zijn voor het culturele erfgoed van het Dineh-volk, overwegende dat op 16 juli 1979 bij de breuk van een stuwdam van de United Nuclear Corporation 94 miljoen gallon water, dat door afval van de uraniumwinning was verontreinigd, is uitgestort in de Puerto River in New Mexico en de Little Colorado River, die door de zogenaamde „New Lands” stroomt, waar zich Dineh-families gevestigd hebben die uit de Hopi Partition Lands waren uitgezet, G. bezorgd over de gezondheidstoestand van de Dineh-families die dicht bij de reeds bestaande mijn- bouwconcessiegebieden op de Black Messa wonen en van de families die naar de zo genaamde „New Lands” verplaatst zijn, verzoekt de met de beleidsuitvoering belaste functionarissen van de Amerikaanse regering om een 1. einde te maken aan de vervolging van Dineh-families die zich tegen overplaatsing verzetten, verzoekt de Amerikaanse regering de landrechten van het Dineh-volk te respecteren, evenals de in de 2. Verklaring van Wenen vervatte bepalingen inzake de rechten van inheemse volkeren; (1) PB C 61 van 28. 02. 1994, blz. 69. (2) PB C 43 van 20. 02. 1995, blz. 85. 29. 11. 2000 NL Publicatieblad van de Europese Gemeenschappen C 339/277 Donderdag, 17 februari 2000 3. verzoekt de Amerikaanse regering niet voort te gaan met de Accommodation Agreement totdat het Congres opdracht zal hebben gegeven tot een officiële hoorzitting, waarin de gevolgen van de mijnbouw voor dit gebied nogmaals onder de loupe zullen worden genomen; verzoekt de betrokken Amerikaanse autoriteiten reïntegratieprogramma’s op te zetten ten behoeve 4. van de verplaatste Dineh; 5. verzoekt zijn delegatie voor de betrekkingen met de Verenigde Staten om op haar komende vergade- ring een gedachtewisseling te wijden aan de mensenrechten, het recht op ontwikkeling en de culturele en religieuze rechten van de Dineh en de Hopi en de wijze waarop deze rechten in de Verenigde Staten worden gerespecteerd; 6. verzoekt zijn Voorzitter deze resolutie te doen toekomen aan de Raad, de Commissie, de regering van de Verenigde Staten, het Amerikaanse Congres, de stamraden van de Navajo’s en Hopi’s en de gouver- neur van de staat Arizona. 16. Mensenrechten: De zaak van de Russische journalist Andrei Babitsky B5-0153, 0155, 0156, 0172 en 0177/2000 Resolutie van het Europees Parlement over de zaak Andrei Babitsky, de vrijheid van de media en schendingen van de mensenrechten in Tsjetsjenië Het Europees Parlement, (cid:1) gezien zijn vorige resoluties over de toestand in Tsjetsjenië, met name die van 18 november 1999 (1), 15 december 1999 (2) en 20 januari 2000 (3), (cid:1) overwegende dat in artikel 2 van de Overeenkomst voor partnerschap en samenwerking tussen de Russische Federatie en de Europese Unie is vermeld dat „eerbiediging van de democratische beginselen en de mensenrechten” een essentieel onderdeel vormt van het partnerschap, (cid:1) gezien de gemeenschappelijke strategie van de Europese Unie ten aanzien van Rusland, die op 4 juni 1999 door de Raad werd vastgesteld, (cid:1) gezien de conclusies van de Raad Algemene Zaken van 24 januari 2000, A. ten diepste bezorgd over het lot van de Russische journalist Andrei Babitsky, die de oorlog in Tsjetsje- nië voor Radio Liberty versloeg voordat hij op 16 januari 2000 bij een Russische controlepost werd aangehouden en vervolgens naar verluidt door de Russische autoriteiten aan Tsjetsjeense commandan- ten is overgedragen in ruil voor twee Russische krijgsgevangenen; B. ten zeerste verbaasd over de elkaar tegensprekende verklaringen over de verblijfplaats van de journa- list; C. de duizenden oorlogsslachtoffers onder de burgerbevolking van Tsjetsjenië betreurend, die gedood werden bij de totaal ongerichte en disproportionele militaire aanvallen van de strijdkrachten van de Russische Federatie, en diep bezorgd over de rampzalige humanitaire situatie van honderdduizenden ontheemden in en buiten Tsjetsjenië; D. op de hoogte van beweringen over de slechte behandeling van de heer Babitsky door de Russische federale en veiligheidstroepen, alsook van beweringen dat duizenden burgers willekeurig worden vast- gezet, gemarteld en vernederd in detentiecentra, met name Tschernokozovo en Mozdok, die onder controle staan van de Russische federale strijdkrachten; E. gealarmeerd door een groot aantal soortgelijke gevallen van gevangengenomen, bedreigde of verdwe- nen journalisten, die een schril licht werpen op de steeds verder aangetaste persvrijheid in dit gebied; (1) Punt 15 van de aangenomen teksten van die datum. (2) Punt 23 van de aangenomen teksten van die datum. (3) Punt 6 van de aangenomen teksten van die datum


eurovoc_concepts:
Italy
cessation of trading
energy production
industrial restructuring
pneumatic tyre

text: C 339/280 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29. 11. 2000 Thursday 17 February 2000 4. Considers that according to the polluter-pays principle, the owners of the Aurul mining company should accept full responsibility by compensating victims, financing the clean-up of the areas affected by the disaster and paying for ecological damage; Believes that EC legislation on industrial safety, pollution prevention and liability for environment 5. and consumers should, under no circumstances, be subject to derogation during the negotiations with the applicant countries; Restates its proposal that an EU civil protection intervention corps be created in order to provide and 6. coordinate emergency assistance for industrial and/or natural disasters; 7. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Romanian, Hungarian, Bulgarian and Yugoslav Governments, the Aurul mining company and the Esmeralda Explora- tion Limited company. 19. Company restructuring in Europe B5-0124, 0128 and 0134/2000 European Parliament resolution on restructuring of European industry, with particular reference to the closure of Goodyear in Italy and the problems of ABB-Alstom The European Parliament, - having regard to the 1989 Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers and the relevant provisions of the EC Treaty, in particular Article 136 thereof, which stipulates that the objec- tives of the Member States shall include the promotion of employment, improved living and working conditions, proper social protection and dialogue between management and labour with a view to lasting high employment and the combating of exclusion, - having regard to Directive 75/129/EEC (1), as amended by Directive 92/56/EEC (2), on the approxima- tion of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, - having regard to Directive 94/45/EC (3) on the establishment of a European Works Council or a pro- cedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the pur- pose of informing and consulting employees, - having regard to the Commission proposal on a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community, - having regard to the conclusions of the High-Level Group on the Economic and Social Implications of Industrial Change, - having regard to its earlier resolutions on the restructuring, transfer and closure of undertakings in the EU, in particular those on the Renault-Vilvoorde affair, - having regard to the statement made to the European Parliament by Commissioner Anna Diamanto- poulou on 27 October 1999 on company restructuring (Michelin), A. whereas the management of the multinational Goodyear/Dunlop announced without warning that its only plant in Italy, at Cisterna di Latina, was to be closed, with the decision taking effect on 17 Feb- ruary 2000; whereas the closure will lead to the loss of 574 jobs at the plant itself and have a major impact on approximately 430 indirect jobs, B. whereas in particular the Cisterna di Latina plant has to date proved highly productive and profitable, owing not least to the professional, responsible attitude shown by its employees; whereas despite the lack of any investment by the company for more than 10 years, in 1996 the plant came second in the group’s cost competitiveness charts and first in its quality charts in Europe, (1) OJ L 48, 22. 2. 1975, p. 29. (2) OJ L 245, 26. 8. 1992, p. 3. (3) OJ L 254, 30. 9. 1994, p. 64. 29. 11. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 339/281 Thursday 17 February 2000 C. whereas in 1997, 300 young workers were made redundant and some of the production operations were relocated; whereas under a series of agreements the employees and trade unions agreed to increase productivity through the loss of further jobs at no cost to the company and to the detriment of health and safety at the workplace, D. whereas the company has chosen not to provide the plant’s employees with any prior information on its decisions, or to consult or involve them in any way, but has simply presented them with a fait accompli; whereas, despite the tax relief offered by the Italian Government with a view to pre- venting the closure, the company has failed to take any account of the employees’ willingness to help find alternative solutions which would obviate the need for the plant’s closure and the resulting redun- dancies, E. whereas, overall, the Goodyear plant has received financial and other support from the State worth a total of Lit 166 billion, including tax relief for training schemes, F. whereas the company has not agreed to put the production site up for sale to a competitor, which would enable the jobs and skills to be kept in the area; whereas, furthermore, Goodyear/Dunlop intends to step up sales of its products in Italy, G. whereas the Commission gave its agreement in November 1999 to the merger between the ABB and Alstom Groups; whereas this merger created the new Group ABB-Alstom Power, which is now the world leader in the field of energy production, and employs 58 000 workers (34 000 in Europe), H. whereas the European Works Council of Alstom was informed neither before nor after the merger, I. whereas following a number of restructuring and redundancy notices, issued separately in a range of geographic locations, the ABB-Alstom workers’ representatives fear that they are seeing the first signs of a global restructuring plan which could lead to the loss of up to 12 000 jobs, J. whereas, in addition to causing job losses, decisions such as these on the restructuring, transfer and closure of undertakings very often undermine economic and social cohesion in the areas concerned and are increasingly leading to unease among employees and the public at large, K. whereas European competition policy cannot be considered separately from the European Union’s other policy areas, for example social and employment policy, 1. Condemns the decision taken by the management of Goodyear/Dunlop to close its Italian plant with- out warning in accordance with an economic policy decision taken at group level, and thus to pursue a short-term profit goal out of keeping with a healthy industrial policy and to ignore the extremely serious economic and social damage this will cause in the area; expresses its support for the employees engaged in this fight to protect jobs in Italy and Europe; 2. Welcomes the active role which the Italian Government has played to date and sincerely hopes that further action will be taken to avoid the closure (including the termination of supply contracts) and secure the return of the funding provided should Goodyear/Dunlop keep to its decision; expresses the hope, furthermore, that a way of safeguarding the jobs and acquired rights of the employees will be found with- out delay; Calls on the Italian and European institutions to undertake to ensure that the redundancy proceed- 3. ings are suspended so that serious, substantive discussions may be held; Urges the management of Goodyear/Dunlop to reconsider its unacceptable stance on the issue of 4. selling the plant to a competitor, with a view inter alia to safeguarding skills and jobs; 5. Believes that the Commission, when authorising the merger between ABB and Alstom, did not eval- uate the possible social consequences of this operation, thus not respecting Article 127(2) of the EC Treaty, according to which ‘the objective of a high level of employment shall be taken into consideration in the formulation and implementation of Community policies and activities’; C 339/282 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 29. 11. 2000 Thursday 17 February 2000 6. Asks the Commission not to authorise mergers and other similar operations if the European social legislation, with particular reference to the information and consultation of employees, is not respected by the companies involved; Asks the Commission to take concrete steps in order to guarantee full compliance with Directive 94/ 7. 45/EC by the new ABB-Alstom Group; 8. Calls on the Commission and Member States to tie Community and national aid for undertakings to long-term commitments vis-à-vis employment and local and regional development, and to see to it that the enforcement of these provisions, subject to regular monitoring for which the Commission, the national, regional and local authorities and the social partners should be jointly responsible, is accompanied by penalties for failure to honour those commitments; 9. Calls on the Commission to draw up without delay an evaluation of the application of the directive on collective redundancies and company closures and to make proposals for effective sanctions (in particu- lar financial penalties) in the event of non-observance, together with proposals for improvements to that directive aimed at ensuring more effective protection for jobs and employees; 10. Stresses that the Commission should step up its review of Directive 94/45/EC on the establishment of a European Works Council, inter alia with a view to tightening up the provisions on information and consultation so as to ensure that they take place at the planning stage, before any decisions are taken, and can therefore be effective and have a chance of exerting some influence; expresses the hope, furthermore, that new provisions will be added to the directive with a view to speeding up the establishment of such works councils and enabling them to operate in an independent manner; 11. Calls on the Commission to reform Community legislation and its directives in such a way that the workers affected by a financially motivated plan for collective redundancy, or their representatives, may take legal action in the competent local courts to contest the economic grounds for such a decision before the redundancies themselves are announced; 12. Calls on the Council to adopt at the earliest opportunity a common position on the proposal on a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community; calls on the Commission and Council to take the utmost account of the amendments adopted by Parliament at first reading; expects in particular any failure to comply with the principles and procedures deriving from the transposition of the directive to be subject to penalties including the annulment of the decision in ques- tion; 13. Calls on the Member States to promote and step up dialogue between management and labour and cooperation at company and regional levels with a view to establishing arrangements for prior consulta- tion and dialogue on decisions with major economic and social implications and to putting in place effec- tive measures to protect trade union representatives; 14. Considers that the adoption of harmonised social legislation within the European Union, aimed in particular at preventing ’economic’ redundancies and social dumping by undertakings based in the Union, is now of vital importance to the cohesion of the Union, and calls on the Commission and Council to propose ways of taking European social policy a stage further; 15. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the Council, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, employers’ associations and trade unions and the employees and management of the Goodyear/Dunlop plant at Cisterna di Latina and of the ABB-Alstom Group


title: Commission Regulation (EC) No 369/2000 of 17 February 2000 fixing the maximum export refund on rye in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1758/1999

eurovoc_concepts:
award of contract
export refund
export tax
rye
third country

text: 18. 2. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 46/27 COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 369/2000 of 17 February 2000 fixing the maximum export refund on rye in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1758/1999 THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1253/ 1999 (2), Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2513/98 (4), and in particular Article 7 thereof, Whereas: (1) (2) An invitation to tender for the refund and/or the tax for the export of rye to all third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1758/ 1999 (5). Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 provides that the Commission may, on the basis of the tenders noti- fied, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 23 of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92, decide to fix a maximum export refund taking account of the criteria referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95. In that case a contract is awarded to any tenderer whose bid is equal to or lower than the maximum refund, as well as to any tenderer whose bid relates to an export tax. The application of the abovementioned criteria to the current market situation for the cereal in question results in the maximum export refund being fixed at the amount specified in Article 1. The measures provided for in this Regulation are in the Management accordance with the opinion of Committee for Cereals, (3) (4) HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 For tenders notified from 11 to 17 February 2000, pursuant to the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1758/ 1999, the maximum refund on exportation of rye shall be EUR 65,99/t. This Regulation shall enter into force on 18 February 2000. Article 2 This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 17 February 2000. For the Commission Franz FISCHLER Member of the Commission (1) OJ L 181, 1. 7. 1992, p. 21. (2) OJ L 160, 26. 6. 1999, p. 18. (3) OJ L 147, 30. 6. 1995, p. 7. (4) OJ L 313, 21. 11. 1998, p. 16. (5) OJ L 210, 10. 8. 1999, p. 3


title: Komission asetus (EY) N:o 374/2000, annettu 17 päivänä helmikuuta 2000, asetuksessa (EY) N:o 2776/1999 tarkoitetun maissin tuontia koskevan tarjouskilpailun osana toimitettujen tarjousten osalta

eurovoc_concepts:
CCT duties
Portugal
award of contract
import
maize
third country

text: L 46/32 FI Euroopan yhteisöjen virallinen lehti 18. 2. 2000 KOMISSION ASETUS (EY) N:o 374/2000, annettu 17 päivänä helmikuuta 2000, asetuksessa (EY) N:o 2776/1999 tarkoitetun maissin tuontia koskevan tarjouskilpailun osana toimi- tettujen tarjousten osalta EUROOPAN YHTEISÖJEN KOMISSIO, joka ottaa huomioon Euroopan yhteisön perustamissopimuksen, ottaa huomioon vilja-alan yhteisestä markkinajärjestelystä 30 päivänä kesäkuuta 1992 annetun neuvoston asetuksen (ETY) N:o 1766/92 (1), sellaisena kuin se on viimeksi muutettuna asetuksella (EY) N:o 1253/1999 (2), ja erityisesti sen 12 artiklan 1 kohdan, sekä katsoo seuraavaa: (1) (2) Komission asetuksella (EY) N:o 2776/1999 (3) on avattu tarjouskilpailu, joka koskee enimmäisalennusta maissin tuontitullista Portugaliin. Komission asetuksen (EY) N:o 1839/95 5 artiklan mukaisesti (4), sellaisena kuin se on muutettuna asetuk- sella (EY) N:o 1963/95 (5), komissio voi asetuksen (ETY) N:o 1766/92 23 artiklassa säädettyä menettelyä noudat- taen päättää tarjouskilpailun ratkaisematta jättämisestä toimitettujen tarjousten osalta. (3) (4) Erityisesti asetuksen (EY) N:o 1839/95 6 ja 7 artiklassa säädetyt perusteet huomioon ottaen ei ole aiheellista vahvistaa tuontitullin enimmäisalennusta. Tässä asetuksessa määrätyt hallintokomitean lausunnon mukaiset, toimenpiteet ovat viljan ON ANTANUT TÄMÄN ASETUKSEN: 1 artikla Tarjouskilpailu jätetään ratkaisematta niiden tarjousten osalta, jotka on toimitettu 11. ja 17. helmikuuta 2000 välisenä aikana osana asetuksessa (EY) N:o 2776/1999 tarkoitettua maissin tuontitullin alennusta koskevaa tarjouskilpailua. 2 artikla Tämä asetus tulee voimaan 18 päivänä helmikuuta 2000. Tämä asetus on kaikilta osiltaan velvoittava, ja sitä sovelletaan sellaisenaan kaikissa jäsenval- tioissa. Tehty Brysselissä 17 päivänä helmikuuta 2000. Komission puolesta Franz FISCHLER Komission jäsen (1) EYVL L 181, 1. 7. 1992, s. 21. (2) EYVL L 160, 26. 6. 1999, s. 18. (3) EYVL L 334, 28. 12. 1999, s. 8. (4) EYVL L 177, 28. 7. 1995, s. 4. (5) EYVL L 189, 10. 8. 1995, s. 22


title: Kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 373/2000 av den 17 februari 2000 om fastställande av den största sänkningen av importtullar för sorghum inom ramen för den anbudsinfordran som avses i förordning (EG) nr 2774/1999

eurovoc_concepts:
CCT duties
Spain
award of contract
import
sorghum
third country

text: 18. 2. 2000 SV Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning L 46/31 KOMMISSIONENS FÖRORDNING (EG) nr 373/2000 av den 17 februari 2000 om fastställande av den största sänkningen av importtullar för sorghum inom ramen för den anbudsinfordran som avses i förordning (EG) nr 2774/1999 EUROPEISKA GEMENSKAPERNAS KOMMISSION HAR ANTAGIT DENNA FÖRORDNING med beaktande av Fördraget om upprättandet av Europeiska gemenskapen, med beaktande av rådets förordning (EEG) nr 1766/92 av den 30 juni 1992 om den gemensamma organisationen av mark- naden för spannmål (1), senast ändrad genom kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 1253/1999 (2) särskilt artikel 12. 1 i denna, och anbud ligger på samma nivå som den största sänkningen av importtullar eller på en lägre nivå. (3) (4) Tillämpningen av ovannämnda kriterier på det nuva- rande marknadsläget för ifrågavarande spannmålsslag medför att den största sänkningen av importtullar fast- ställs till det belopp som anges i artikel 1. De åtgärder som föreskrivs i denna förordning är fören- liga med yttrandet från Förvaltningskommittén för spannmål. av följande skäl: (1) (2) En anbudsinfordran om den största sänkningen av importtullar för sorghum till Spanien har inletts genom kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 2774/1999 (3). I enlighet med artikel 5 i kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 1839/95 (4), ändrad genom förordning (EG) nr 1963/95 (5), kan kommissionen, enligt förfarandet som föreskrivs i artikel 23 i förordning (EEG) nr 1766/92, besluta att fastställa den största sänkningen av import- tullar. Vid fastställande av denna måste särskild hänsyn tas till kriterierna i artiklarna 6 och 7 i förordning (EG) nr 1839/95. Kontrakt tilldelas alla anbudsgivare vars HÄRIGENOM FÖRESKRIVS FÖLJANDE. Artikel 1 För de anbud som meddelats från och med den 11 till och med den 17 februari 2000 inom ramen för den anbudsinfordran som avses i förordning (EG) nr 2774/1999, är den största sänkningen av till sorghum fastställd 51,88 EUR/t för en maximal mängd av totalt 1 000 t. importtullar för Denna förordning träder i kraft den 18 februari 2000. Artikel 2 Denna förordning är till alla delar bindande och direkt tillämplig i alla medlemsstater. Utfärdad i Bryssel den 17 februari 2000. På kommissionens vägnar Franz FISCHLER Ledamot av kommissionen (1) EGT L 181, 1. 7. 1992, s. 21. (2) EGT L 160, 26. 6. 1999, s. 18. (3) EGT L 334, 28. 12. 1999, s. 5. (4) EGT L 177, 28. 7. 1995, s. 4. (5) EGT L 189, 10. 7. 1995, s. 22