Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-12-14-Speech-3-313"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051214.21.3-313"6
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I wish to thank the rapporteur and the Committee on Fisheries for its report on this proposal from the Commission. I am pleased to note that the committee has given a favourable assessment to this scheme, which is aimed at improving the Member States’ control capabilities, and that it fully supports the extension of its validity for a further year. I also note that the committee is favourable to financing, under the Community budget, administrative arrangements with the Joint Research Centre with a view to developing new technologies in the area of control, and to the financing of studies on control-related areas, to be carried out at the Commission’s initiative.
The Commission has published four of these communications so far. In its comments on the tables annexed to the communications, the Commission stressed the need to reduce existing disparities regarding the level of sanctions imposed across the Community.
On the same communications, the Commission has also declared its preference for the use of administrative procedures and sanctions when dealing with breaches of the common fisheries policy rules, since they are imposed in a swifter manner and are more effective. The Commission believes that a sanction, such as the suspension of an authorisation to fish, decided by the administrative authority and entering into force immediately, subject to the possibility of a judicial review, is a stronger deterrent. The choice, however, between a penal or administrative procedure lies with the Member State.
In conformity with Article 25(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002, the basic regulation on the CFP, the Commission intends to present in due time a proposal aimed at harmonising at Community level sanctions for serious infringements.
The committee has, however, tabled seven amendments to the proposal. I regret that it is very difficult to accept any of the amendments, mainly for formal reasons, which I would like to explain.
Amendment 2 proposes a change to the time limit for the presentation of national programmes. We would like to keep the existing date of 31 January, as the submission of requests early on in the year will allow the Commission to adopt a decision granting the financial contribution in the first semester. This will, in turn, ease the planning requirements for national administrations. It should also be noted that the national administrations are already fully aware of this time limit.
On Amendment 3 and the related Amendments 1 and 6, the Commission shares the committee’s view that these expenses should be financed under a different heading. This can be done through a budgetary arrangement. However, it is not possible to finance these two new actions if they were not foreseen in the legal text. The Commission deems that this proposal is the appropriate legal text to introduce them and cannot, therefore, accept these amendments.
In Amendment 4, the committee asks the Commission to establish criteria in order to allocate grants when the amount of request exceeds the available appropriations. The Commission’s policy is to allocate grants only when the need for investment has been proven, namely through the national report on control activities, irrespective of the overall amount requested. Establishing criteria will introduce some rigidity to the selection of projects and could entail a risk that grants will be given for projects that are not of general interest. This amendment cannot, therefore, be accepted.
Amendment 5 refers to the contribution rate for the most expensive items, i.e. patrol vessels and aircraft. Increasing the rate to up to 75% of the eligible expenditure will reduce appropriations for other actions. The Commission considers a rate not exceeding 50% to be appropriate, as a general rule, for all kinds of investment. It cannot, therefore, accept this amendment.
Finally, the Commission cannot accept 7, since at the end of 2006 most of the projects will not yet have been completed, meaning a report on the decision will be of little use. I should like to recall that the Commission will present a report on this decision to the European Parliament by 30 June 2008 at the latest.
Concerning Mr Morillon’s oral question to the Commission, may I say that I fully share the view that sanctions, including in the fisheries sector, must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offences committed. They must also effectively discourage any further infringement of the same nature. Moreover, sanctions should be non-discriminatory between nationals and non-nationals of Member States. We cannot achieve compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy without creating a level playing field across the European Union for all fishermen.
With a view to promoting transparency and to encouraging the application of adequate and dissuasive sanctions against those who commit serious infringements, the Commission publishes an annual communication on serious infringements to the rules of the community fisheries policy."@en4
|
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I wish to thank the rapporteur and the Committee on Fisheries for its report on this proposal from the Commission. I am pleased to note that the committee has given a favourable assessment to this scheme, which is aimed at improving the Member States’ control capabilities, and that it fully supports the extension of its validity for a further year. I also note that the committee is favourable to financing, under the Community budget, administrative arrangements with the Joint Research Centre with a view to developing new technologies in the area of control, and to the financing of studies on control-related areas, to be carried out at the Commission’s initiative.
The Commission has published four of these communications so far. In its comments on the tables annexed to the communications, the Commission stressed the need to reduce existing disparities regarding the level of sanctions imposed across the Community.
On the same communications, the Commission has also declared its preference for the use of administrative procedures and sanctions when dealing with breaches of the common fisheries policy rules, since they are imposed in a swifter manner and are more effective. The Commission believes that a sanction, such as the suspension of an authorisation to fish, decided by the administrative authority and entering into force immediately, subject to the possibility of a judicial review, is a stronger deterrent. The choice, however, between a penal or administrative procedure lies with the Member State.
In conformity with Article 25(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002, the basic regulation on the CFP, the Commission intends to present in due time a proposal aimed at harmonising at Community level sanctions for serious infringements.
The committee has, however, tabled seven amendments to the proposal. I regret that it is very difficult to accept any of the amendments, mainly for formal reasons, which I would like to explain.
Amendment 2 proposes a change to the time limit for the presentation of national programmes. We would like to keep the existing date of 31 January, as the submission of requests early on in the year will allow the Commission to adopt a decision granting the financial contribution in the first semester. This will, in turn, ease the planning requirements for national administrations. It should also be noted that the national administrations are already fully aware of this time limit.
On Amendment 3 and the related Amendments 1 and 6, the Commission shares the committee’s view that these expenses should be financed under a different heading. This can be done through a budgetary arrangement. However, it is not possible to finance these two new actions if they were not foreseen in the legal text. The Commission deems that this proposal is the appropriate legal text to introduce them and cannot, therefore, accept these amendments.
In Amendment 4, the committee asks the Commission to establish criteria in order to allocate grants when the amount of request exceeds the available appropriations. The Commission’s policy is to allocate grants only when the need for investment has been proven, namely through the national report on control activities, irrespective of the overall amount requested. Establishing criteria will introduce some rigidity to the selection of projects and could entail a risk that grants will be given for projects that are not of general interest. This amendment cannot, therefore, be accepted.
Amendment 5 refers to the contribution rate for the most expensive items, i.e. patrol vessels and aircraft. Increasing the rate to up to 75% of the eligible expenditure will reduce appropriations for other actions. The Commission considers a rate not exceeding 50% to be appropriate, as a general rule, for all kinds of investment. It cannot, therefore, accept this amendment.
Finally, the Commission cannot accept 7, since at the end of 2006 most of the projects will not yet have been completed, meaning a report on the decision will be of little use. I should like to recall that the Commission will present a report on this decision to the European Parliament by 30 June 2008 at the latest.
Concerning Mr Morillon’s oral question to the Commission, may I say that I fully share the view that sanctions, including in the fisheries sector, must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offences committed. They must also effectively discourage any further infringement of the same nature. Moreover, sanctions should be non-discriminatory between nationals and non-nationals of Member States. We cannot achieve compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy without creating a level playing field across the European Union for all fishermen.
With a view to promoting transparency and to encouraging the application of adequate and dissuasive sanctions against those who commit serious infringements, the Commission publishes an annual communication on serious infringements to the rules of the community fisheries policy."@cs1
"Hr. formand, jeg vil gerne takke ordføreren og Fiskeriudvalget for dets betænkning om dette forslag fra Kommissionen. Jeg noterer med tilfredshed, at udvalget har givet en positiv vurdering af denne ordning, som sigter mod at forbedre medlemsstaternes kontrolmuligheder, og at den fuldt ud støtter, at den skal forblive i kraft endnu et år. Jeg noterer også, at udvalget er positivt over for tanken om under Fællesskabets budget at finansiere administrative ordninger sammen med Det Fælles Forskningscenter, med henblik på at udvikle nye teknologier på kontrolområdet og at finansiere studiet af kontrolrelaterede områder, der skal foretages på Kommissionens initiativ.
Kommissionen har offentliggjort fire af disse rapporter indtil nu. I sine kommentarer til de tabeller, der er vedføjet rapporterne som bilag, har Kommissionen understreget nødvendigheden af at reducere de nuværende ulige konkurrencevilkår i Fællesskabet.
Vedrørende samme rapporter har Kommissionen også erklæret sin forkærlighed for anvendelsen af administrative procedurer og sanktioner, når det drejer sig om overtrædelse af bestemmelserne i den fælles fiskeripolitik, eftersom de kan pålægges hurtigere og er mere effektive. Kommissionen mener, at en sanktion, såsom suspension af fisketilladelse, der træffes af den administrative myndighed og træder i kraft straks, dog med mulighed for, at jurister kan se på sagen, er et stærkere afskrækkende middel. Men valget mellem en strafferetlig eller administrativ procedure ligger hos medlemsstaten.
I overensstemmelse med artikel 25, stk. 4, i Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 2371/2002, basisforordningen under den fælles fiskeripolitik, agter Kommissionen på et passende tidspunkt at forelægge et forslag, der sigter mod at harmonisere sanktioner for alvorlige overtrædelser på fællesskabsniveau.
Men udvalget har stillet syv ændringsforslag til forslaget. Jeg beklager, at det er meget vanskeligt at acceptere nogen af disse forslag, især af formelle grunde, som jeg nu gerne vil forklare.
Ændringsforslag 2 lægger op til en ændring af tidsgrænsen for forelæggelsen af nationale programmer. Vi vil gerne bevare den eksisterende dato, den 31. januar, da forelæggelse af anmodninger tidligt på året vil gøre det muligt for Kommissionen at vedtage en beslutning, som giver finansielt bidrag i første halvår. Det vil på sin side lette kravene til planlægning for de nationale administrationer. Det bør også noteres, at de nationale administrationer allerede er helt opmærksomme på tidsgrænsen.
Med hensyn til ændringsforslag 3 og de dermed forbundne ændringsforslag 1 og 6, deler Kommissionen udvalgets opfattelse, at disse udgifter bør afholdes under en anden budgetpost. Det kan gøres via et budgetmæssigt arrangement. Men det er ikke muligt at finansiere disse to nye aktioner, hvis der ikke er lagt op til dem i det juridiske dokument. Kommissionen mener, at dette forslag er den rigtige juridiske tekst til at indføre dem, og kan derfor ikke acceptere disse ændringsforslag.
I ændringsforslag 4 anmoder udvalget Kommissionen om at fastlægge kriterier for fordeling af bevillinger, når summen af ansøgningerne overstiger de bevillinger, der er til rådighed. Det er Kommissionens politik kun at bevilge penge, når nødvendigheden af investeringer er bevist, nemlig gennem den nationale rapport om kontrolaktiviteterne, uanset størrelsen på det samlede beløb, der søges. At fastlægge kriterier vil føre til en vis mangel på fleksibilitet i udvælgelsen af projekter og kan medføre risiko for, at der gives bistand til projekter, der ikke er af almen interesse. Dette ændringsforslag kan derfor ikke accepteres.
Ændringsforslag 5 henviser til bidragsprocenten for kostbare ting, såsom patruljebåde og flyvemaskiner. At forøge denne sats til op til 75 % af de mulige udgifter vil reducere bevillingerne til andre aktioner. Kommissionen mener, at et niveau på ikke over 50 % for alle former for investering er passende som generel regel. Jeg kan derfor ikke acceptere dette ændringsforslag.
Endelig kan Kommissionen ikke acceptere ændringsforslag 7, eftersom de fleste af projekterne ikke vil være afsluttet ved udgangen af 2006, hvilket indebærer, at en rapport om beslutningen ikke vil være megen nytte til. Jeg vil gerne erindre om, at Kommissionen vil forelægge en rapport om beslutningen for Europa-Parlamentet senest den 30. juni 2008.
Med hensyn til hr. Morillons mundtlige forespørgsel til Kommissionen vil jeg gerne sige, at jeg fuldt ud deler den opfattelse, at sanktioner, herunder i fiskerisektoren, skal stå i forhold til alvoren af de overtrædelser, der er blevet begået. De må også effektivt afskrække fra yderligere overtrædelser af samme karakter. Desuden bør sanktioner være ikke-diskriminerende mellem indfødte og ikke-indfødte beboere af en stat. Vi kan ikke gennemtvinge overholdelse af reglerne for den fælles fiskeripolitik uden at skabe lige konkurrencevilkår i hele EU for alle fiskere.
Med henblik på at fremme gennemskuelighed og anvendelsen af tilstrækkelig afskrækkende sanktioner mod dem, der begår alvorlige overtrædelser, offentliggør Kommissionen en årsrapport om alvorlige overtrædelser af reglerne i den fælles fiskeripolitik."@da2
".
Herr Präsident, ich möchte dem Berichterstatter und dem Fischereiausschuss für ihren Bericht über den Vorschlag der Kommission danken. Erfreut stelle ich fest, dass der Ausschuss dieses Verfahren, mit dem die Überwachungsmöglichkeiten der Mitgliedstaaten verbessert werden sollen, positiv beurteilt hat und dass er sich uneingeschränkt für die Verlängerung seiner Gültigkeit um ein weiteres Jahr ausspricht. Ich stelle auch fest, dass der Ausschuss der Finanzierung von Verwaltungsvereinbarungen mit der Gemeinsamen Forschungsstelle über die Entwicklung neuer Überwachungstechnologien aus dem Gemeinschaftshaushalt und der Finanzierung von Studien auf mit der Fischereiüberwachung verbundenen Gebieten, die auf Initiative der Kommission in Auftrag gegeben werden, positiv gegenüber steht.
Bislang hat die Kommission vier solcher Mitteilungen veröffentlicht. In ihren Anmerkungen zu den der Mitteilung als Anhang beigefügten Tabellen hob die Kommission die Notwendigkeit hervor, bestehende Ungleichheiten in der Höhe der in der Gemeinschaft verhängten Sanktionen zu verringern.
In diesen Mitteilungen erklärte die Kommission auch, dass sie bei Verletzungen der Vorschriften der Gemeinsamen Fischereipolitik die Anwendung von Verwaltungsverfahren und Sanktionen vorzieht, weil sie schneller und wirksamer durchsetzbar sind. Nach Überzeugung der Kommission wirkt eine Sanktion wie die unmittelbar in Kraft tretende Aufhebung der Fanggenehmigung durch eine Verwaltungsbehörde, sofern sie gerichtlich überprüfbar ist, stärker abschreckend. Die Wahl zwischen einem Strafverfahren und einem Verwaltungsverfahren liegt jedoch beim Mitgliedstaat.
Gemäß Artikel 25(4) der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 2371/2002 des Rates, der grundlegenden Verordnung über die GFP, beabsichtigt die Kommission, in absehbarer Zeit einen Vorschlag zur Harmonierung von Sanktionen bei schweren Verstößen auf Gemeinschaftsebene vorzulegen.
Der Ausschuss hat jedoch sieben Änderungsanträge zum Vorschlag vorgelegt. Leider lassen sich alle Änderungsanträge nur sehr schwer akzeptieren, hauptsächlich aus formalen Gründen, was ich erläutern möchte.
In Änderungsantrag 2 wird eine Änderung der Fristen für die Vorlage der Überwachungsprogramme durch die Mitgliedstaaten vorgeschlagen. Wir möchten bei dem jetzigen Datum, dem 31. Januar, bleiben, da bei Einreichung der Anträge Anfang des Jahres die Kommission noch im ersten Halbjahr eine Entscheidung über die Gewährung der finanziellen Beteiligung treffen kann. Das wiederum wird den nationalen Verwaltungen die erforderliche Planung erleichtern. Es sei auch darauf hingewiesen, dass sich die nationalen Behörden über diese Frist bereits völlig im Klaren sind.
Bezüglich Änderungsantrag 3 und den damit verbundenen Änderungsanträgen 1 und 6 teilt die Kommission die Auffassung des Ausschusses, dass diese Aufwendungen durch eine andere Haushaltslinie finanziert werden sollten. Das kann über eine Haushaltsvereinbarung geschehen. Eine Finanzierung dieser beiden neuen Aktionen ist jedoch nicht möglich, wenn sie im Rechtstext nicht vorgesehen waren. Die Kommission hält diesen Vorschlag für den geeigneten Rechtstext, um die Aktionen aufzunehmen, und kann daher diese Änderungsanträge nicht akzeptieren.
In Änderungsantrag 4 fordert der Ausschuss die Kommission zur Festlegung von Kriterien zur Gewährung von Darlehen auf, wenn der beantragte Betrag die verfügbaren Mittelzuweisungen übersteigt. Es ist die Politik der Kommission, Darlehen nur dann zu gewähren, wenn unabhängig von der beantragten Gesamtsumme die Notwendigkeit von Investitionen nachgewiesen wurde, nämlich durch den nationalen Bericht über Überwachungsaktivitäten. Die Aufstellung von Kriterien bringt eine gewisse Inflexibilität bei der Auswahl von Projekten mit sich und könnte mit der Gefahr verbunden sein, dass Darlehen für Projekte gewährt werden, die nicht im allgemeinen Interesse liegen. Diesem Änderungsantrag kann daher nicht zugestimmt werden.
Änderungsantrag 5 nimmt Bezug auf den Beteiligungssatz für die teuersten Gegenstände, nämlich Patrouillenboote und Hubschrauber. Eine Anhebung des Satzes auf bis zu 75 % der erstattungsfähigen Ausgaben wird die Zuweisungen für andere Aktionen verringern. Die Kommission hält einen Satz von höchstens 50 % für alle Arten von Investitionen generell für angemessen. Sie kann daher diesem Änderungsantrag nicht zustimmen.
Schließlich kann die Kommission Änderungsantrag 7 nicht akzeptieren, da die meisten Projekte Ende 2006 noch nicht abgeschlossen sein werden, so dass ein Bericht über die Entscheidung nur von geringem Nutzen sein wird. Ich möchte daran erinnern, dass die Kommission dem Europäischen Parlament bis spätestens 30. Juni 2008 einen Bericht über diese Entscheidung vorlegen wird.
Was Herrn Morillons mündliche Anfrage an die Kommission betrifft, so teile ich voll und ganz die Ansicht, dass Sanktionen, auch auf dem Fischereisektor, der Schwere des begangenen Verstoßes angemessen sein müssen. Sie müssen auch wirksam von weiteren, gleich gearteten Verstößen abhalten. Bei Sanktionen sollte darüber hinaus auch nicht unterschieden werden zwischen Staatsangehörigen und Nichtstaatsangehörigen von Mitgliedstaaten. Wir können die Einhaltung der Rechtsvorschriften der Gemeinsamen Fischereipolitik nicht erreichen, wenn wir nicht für alle Fischer überall in der Europäischen Union gleiche Ausgangsbedingungen schaffen.
Mit Blick auf die Förderung der Transparenz und der Verhängung angemessener und abschreckender Sanktionen gegen jene, die schwere Verstöße begehen, gibt die Kommission jährlich eine Mitteilung über schwere Verstöße gegen die Rechtsvorschriften der Gemeinsamen Fischereipolitik heraus."@de9
".
Κύριε Πρόεδρε, θέλω να ευχαριστήσω τον εισηγητή και την Επιτροπή Αλιείας για την έκθεσή της σχετικά με την πρόταση της Επιτροπής. Διαπιστώνω με ικανοποίηση ότι η αρμόδια κοινοβουλευτική επιτροπή αξιολόγησε ευνοϊκά αυτό το σχέδιο, το οποίο αποσκοπεί στη βελτίωση των ικανοτήτων ελέγχου των κρατών μελών, και ότι στηρίζει πλήρως την παράταση της ισχύος του για ένα ακόμη έτος. Θέλω επίσης να σημειώσω ότι η εν λόγω επιτροπή τάσσεται υπέρ της χρηματοδότησης, στο πλαίσιο του κοινοτικού προϋπολογισμού, των διοικητικών ρυθμίσεων με το Κοινό Κέντρο Ερευνών, με σκοπό την ανάπτυξη νέων τεχνολογιών στον τομέα του ελέγχου και τη χρηματοδότηση μελετών σχετικά με θέματα που άπτονται του ελέγχου με πρωτοβουλία της Επιτροπής.
Η Επιτροπή έχει δημοσιεύσει τέσσερις τέτοιες ανακοινώσεις έως τώρα. Στις παρατηρήσεις που συνοδεύουν τους πίνακες που προσαρτώνται στις ανακοινώσεις της, η Επιτροπή τονίζει την ανάγκη μείωσης των υφιστάμενων διαφορών ως προς τη βαρύτητα των κυρώσεων που επιβάλλονται ανά την Κοινότητα.
Στις ίδιες ανακοινώσεις, η Επιτροπή εξέφρασε επίσης την προτίμησή της για τη χρήση διοικητικών διαδικασιών και κυρώσεων στις περιπτώσεις παράβασης των κανόνων της κοινής αλιευτικής πολιτικής, καθώς επιβάλλονται ταχύτερα και είναι πιο αποτελεσματικές. Η Επιτροπή πιστεύει ότι οι κυρώσεις οι οποίες αποφασίζονται από τη διοικητική αρχή και τίθενται αμέσως σε εφαρμογή, ενώ υπόκεινται σε ενδεχόμενη δικαστική αναθεώρηση, όπως λόγου χάρη η αναστολή του δικαιώματος αλίευσης, αποτελούν ισχυρότερο αποτρεπτικό παράγοντα. Η επιλογή, ωστόσο, μεταξύ ποινικής ή διοικητικής διαδικασίας εξαρτάται από το εκάστοτε κράτος μέλος.
Σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 25, παράγραφος 4, του κανονισμού (ΕΚ) αριθ. 2371/2002 του Συμβουλίου –του βασικού κανονισμού της ΚΑΠ– η Επιτροπή προτίθεται να παρουσιάσει εν ευθέτω χρόνω πρόταση η οποία θα αποσκοπεί στην εναρμόνιση, σε κοινοτικό επίπεδο, των κυρώσεων για σοβαρές παραβάσεις.
Η κοινοβουλευτική επιτροπή έχει, ωστόσο, καταθέσει επτά τροπολογίες στην πρόταση. Λυπάμαι που είναι πολύ δύσκολο να γίνει δεκτή οποιαδήποτε από τις τροπολογίες, κυρίως για τυπικούς λόγους, τους οποίους θα ήθελα να εξηγήσω.
Στην τροπολογία 2 προτείνεται η αλλαγή του χρονικού ορίου για την παρουσίαση των εθνικών προγραμμάτων. Επιθυμούμε τη διατήρηση της ισχύουσας ημερομηνίας της 31ης Ιανουαρίου, καθώς η κατάθεση των αιτημάτων στις αρχές του έτους θα επιτρέψει στην Επιτροπή να εγκρίνει την απόφαση για τη χορήγηση της χρηματοδοτικής συνεισφοράς το πρώτο τρίμηνο του έτους. Αυτό, με τη σειρά του, θα χαλαρώσει τις απαιτήσεις προγραμματισμού για τις εθνικές διοικήσεις. Πρέπει επίσης να σημειωθεί ότι οι εθνικές διοικήσεις είναι ήδη πλήρως ενήμερες γι’ αυτό το χρονικό όριο.
Όσον αφορά την τροπολογία 3 και τις σχετικές τροπολογίες 1 και 6, η Επιτροπή συμμερίζεται την άποψη της κοινοβουλευτικής επιτροπής ότι οι εν λόγω δαπάνες πρέπει να χρηματοδοτούνται από διαφορετική κατηγορία του προϋπολογισμού. Αυτό μπορεί να επιτευχθεί μέσω ενός δημοσιονομικού διακανονισμού. Ωστόσο, δεν είναι δυνατή η χρηματοδότηση αυτών των δύο νέων δράσεων αν δεν προβλέπονται στο νομικό κείμενο. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή θεωρεί ότι η υπό συζήτηση πρόταση αποτελεί το κατάλληλο νομικό κείμενο για την εισαγωγή τους και δεν μπορεί, ως εκ τούτου, να δεχτεί τις εν λόγω τροπολογίες.
Στην τροπολογία 4, η Επιτροπή Αλιείας ζητεί από την Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή να καθιερώσει κριτήρια για τη χορήγηση χρηματοδοτήσεων όταν το ποσό που ζητείται υπερβαίνει τα διαθέσιμα κονδύλια. Η πολιτική της Επιτροπής είναι να χορηγεί χρηματοδοτήσεις μόνο όταν έχει αποδειχθεί η ανάγκη για επενδύσεις, συγκεκριμένα μέσω της εθνικής έκθεσης σχετικά με τις δραστηριότητες ελέγχου, ανεξαρτήτως του συνολικού ποσού που ζητείται. Η καθιέρωση κριτηρίων θα επιφέρει κάποια δυσκαμψία στις διαδικασίες επιλογής των έργων, ενώ ενδέχεται να δημιουργήσει τον κίνδυνο χορήγησης χρηματοδοτήσεων για έργα τα οποία δεν είναι γενικού ενδιαφέροντος. Η εν λόγω τροπολογία δεν μπορεί, ως εκ τούτου, να γίνει δεκτή.
Η τροπολογία 5 αναφέρεται στη χρηματοδοτική συμμετοχή της Κοινότητας για τα πιο ακριβά αντικείμενα, όπως σκάφη περιπολίας και αεροσκάφη. Η αύξηση της χρηματοδοτικής συμμετοχής σε ποσοστό έως και 75% της επιλέξιμης δαπάνης θα μειώσει τα διαθέσιμα κονδύλια για τις άλλες δράσεις. Η Επιτροπή θεωρεί ενδεδειγμένο για όλα τα είδη των επενδύσεων ένα ποσοστό που δεν θα υπερβαίνει, κατά κανόνα, το 50%. Δεν μπορεί, ως εκ τούτου, να δεχτεί την εν λόγω τροπολογία.
Τέλος, η Επιτροπή δεν μπορεί να δεχτεί την τροπολογία 7, καθώς στα τέλη του 2006 τα περισσότερα έργα δεν θα έχουν ακόμη ολοκληρωθεί, κάτι που σημαίνει ότι η έκθεση σχετικά με την υλοποίηση της απόφασης δεν θα είναι ιδιαίτερα χρήσιμη. Υπενθυμίζω ότι η Επιτροπή θα παρουσιάσει έκθεση σχετικά με την εν λόγω απόφαση στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο έως τις 30 Ιουνίου 2008 το αργότερο.
Σχετικά με την προφορική ερώτηση του κ. Morillon προς την Επιτροπή, επιτρέψτε μου να δηλώσω ότι συμμερίζομαι πλήρως την άποψη ότι οι κυρώσεις στον τομέα της αλιείας, μεταξύ άλλων, πρέπει να είναι ανάλογες της σοβαρότητας των αδικημάτων που διαπράττονται. Πρέπει, επίσης, να αποθαρρύνουν αποτελεσματικά οποιαδήποτε άλλη παρόμοια παράβαση. Επιπλέον, κατά την επιβολή των κυρώσεων, δεν πρέπει να γίνονται διακρίσεις μεταξύ των υπηκόων κρατών μελών και των υπηκόων τρίτων χωρών. Δεν μπορούμε να επιτύχουμε τη συμμόρφωση με τους κανόνες της κοινής αλιευτικής πολιτικής χωρίς τη δημιουργία ίσων όρων ανταγωνισμού για όλους τους αλιείς στο σύνολο της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.
Αποβλέποντας στην προώθηση της διαφάνειας και την ενθάρρυνση της εφαρμογής επαρκών και αποτρεπτικών κυρώσεων εις βάρος όσων διαπράττουν σοβαρές παραβάσεις, η Επιτροπή δημοσιεύει ετήσια ανακοίνωση σχετικά με τις σοβαρές παραβάσεις των κανόνων της κοινοτικής αλιευτικής πολιτικής."@el10
".
Señor Presidente, quiero dar las gracias al ponente y a la Comisión de Pesca por su informe sobre esta propuesta de la Comisión. Me satisface observar que la comisión ha emitido un juicio favorable sobre este plan, que pretende mejorar las capacidades de control de los Estados miembros, y que apoya plenamente prorrogar su validez durante un año más. También observo que la comisión parlamentaria es favorable a financiar, con cargo al presupuesto comunitario, los acuerdos administrativos suscritos con el Centro Común de Investigación con vistas al desarrollo de nuevas tecnologías en materia de control, así como la financiación de estudios sobre los ámbitos vinculados al control, que serán realizados por iniciativa de la Comisión.
Hasta la fecha, la Comisión ha publicado cuatro de estas comunicaciones. En sus comentarios sobre las tablas adjuntas a dichas comunicaciones, la Comisión destacó la necesidad de reducir las disparidades existentes respecto al nivel de las sanciones impuestas a escala comunitaria.
En estas mismas comunicaciones, la Comisión también ha manifestado su preferencia por el uso de procedimientos y sanciones administrativas cuando se trate del incumplimiento de las normas de la Política Pesquera Común, ya que su imposición es más rápida y eficaz. La Comisión considera que una sanción, como la suspensión de una autorización de pesca, decidida por una autoridad administrativa y que se aplique de forma inmediata, sujeta a la posibilidad de revisión judicial, es un elemento de disuasión más fuerte. Sin embargo, la elección entre un procedimiento penal o administrativo es competencia del Estado miembro.
De conformidad con el apartado 4 del artículo 25 del Reglamento (CE) n° 2371/2002 del Consejo, el Reglamento de base de la PPC, la Comisión pretende presentar oportunamente una propuesta encaminada a armonizar a escala comunitaria las sanciones aplicables a las infracciones graves.
Sin embargo, la comisión ha presentado siete enmiendas a la propuesta. Lamento la extrema dificultad de aceptar ninguna de las enmiendas, sobre todo por razones formales que explicaré a continuación.
La enmienda 2 propone un cambio en el límite de tiempo para la presentación de programas nacionales. Nos gustaría mantener la fecha vigente del 31 de enero, ya que la presentación de solicitudes a principios de año permitirá que la Comisión adopte una decisión que garantice la contrapartida financiera en el primer semestre. A su vez, ello reducirá los requisitos de planificación de las administraciones nacionales. También cabe destacar que las administraciones nacionales ya son plenamente conscientes de esta limitación temporal.
En cuanto a la enmienda 3 y las enmiendas asociadas 1 y 6, la Comisión comparte el punto de vista de la comisión parlamentaria de que estos gastos deberían financiarse con cargo a una rúbrica distinta. Esto puede lograrse mediante una disposición presupuestaria. Sin embargo, no es posible financiar estas dos nuevas acciones si no estaban previstas en el texto jurídico. La Comisión considera que esta propuesta es el texto jurídico apropiado para introducirlas y, por lo tanto, no puede aceptar estas enmiendas.
En la enmienda 4, la comisión parlamentaria pide a la Comisión que establezca criterios con el fin de asignar subvenciones cuando la cantidad de solicitudes supere los créditos disponibles. La política de la Comisión consiste en conceder subvenciones únicamente cuando se haya demostrado la necesidad de invertir, concretamente por el informe nacional sobre actividades de control, al margen de la cantidad global solicitada. El establecimiento de criterios introduciría cierta rigidez en la selección de proyectos y podría comportar el riesgo de que las subvenciones se concedieran a proyectos que no fuesen de interés general. Por lo tanto, esta enmienda es inaceptable.
La enmienda 5 se refiere al porcentaje de la aportación para los equipos más caros, es decir, los buques y aviones patrulla. El aumento del porcentaje a un 75 % de los gastos subvencionables reducirá los créditos para otras acciones. La Comisión considera que un porcentaje no superior al 50 % sería apropiado, como norma general, para todos los tipos de inversión. Por lo tanto, no puede aceptar esta enmienda.
Finalmente, la Comisión no puede aceptar la enmienda 7 porque a finales de 2006 todavía no se habrán ultimado la mayoría de los proyectos, ya que en su opinión un informe sobre la decisión será de escasa utilidad. Quiero recordar que la Comisión presentará un informe sobre esta decisión al Parlamento Europeo a más tardar el 30 de junio de 2008.
Por lo que respecta a la pregunta oral a la Comisión del señor Morillon, permítanme decir que comparto plenamente el punto de vista de que las sanciones, incluidas las del sector pesquero, deben ser proporcionales a la gravedad de la infracción cometida. También deben desalentar con eficacia cualquier infracción posterior de la misma naturaleza. Además, las sanciones no deben discriminar entre los ciudadanos de los Estados miembros y aquellos que no lo son. No podremos lograr la conformidad con las normas de la Política Pesquera Común si no aseguramos la igualdad de condiciones en la Unión Europea para todos los pescadores.
Con el objetivo de promover la transparencia y alentar la aplicación de sanciones adecuadas y disuasorias contra los que cometen infracciones graves, la Comisión publica una comunicación anual sobre infracciones graves de las normas de la Política Pesquera Común."@es20
"Mr President, I wish to thank the rapporteur and the Committee on Fisheries for its report on this proposal from the Commission. I am pleased to note that the committee has given a favourable assessment to this scheme, which is aimed at improving the Member States’ control capabilities, and that it fully supports the extension of its validity for a further year. I also note that the committee is favourable to financing, under the Community budget, administrative arrangements with the Joint Research Centre with a view to developing new technologies in the area of control, and to the financing of studies on control-related areas, to be carried out at the Commission’s initiative.
The Commission has published four of these communications so far. In its comments on the tables annexed to the communications, the Commission stressed the need to reduce existing disparities regarding the level of sanctions imposed across the Community.
On the same communications, the Commission has also declared its preference for the use of administrative procedures and sanctions when dealing with breaches of the common fisheries policy rules, since they are imposed in a swifter manner and are more effective. The Commission believes that a sanction, such as the suspension of an authorisation to fish, decided by the administrative authority and entering into force immediately, subject to the possibility of a judicial review, is a stronger deterrent. The choice, however, between a penal or administrative procedure lies with the Member State.
In conformity with Article 25(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002, the basic regulation on the CFP, the Commission intends to present in due time a proposal aimed at harmonising at Community level sanctions for serious infringements.
The committee has, however, tabled seven amendments to the proposal. I regret that it is very difficult to accept any of the amendments, mainly for formal reasons, which I would like to explain.
Amendment 2 proposes a change to the time limit for the presentation of national programmes. We would like to keep the existing date of 31 January, as the submission of requests early on in the year will allow the Commission to adopt a decision granting the financial contribution in the first semester. This will, in turn, ease the planning requirements for national administrations. It should also be noted that the national administrations are already fully aware of this time limit.
On Amendment 3 and the related Amendments 1 and 6, the Commission shares the committee’s view that these expenses should be financed under a different heading. This can be done through a budgetary arrangement. However, it is not possible to finance these two new actions if they were not foreseen in the legal text. The Commission deems that this proposal is the appropriate legal text to introduce them and cannot, therefore, accept these amendments.
In Amendment 4, the committee asks the Commission to establish criteria in order to allocate grants when the amount of request exceeds the available appropriations. The Commission’s policy is to allocate grants only when the need for investment has been proven, namely through the national report on control activities, irrespective of the overall amount requested. Establishing criteria will introduce some rigidity to the selection of projects and could entail a risk that grants will be given for projects that are not of general interest. This amendment cannot, therefore, be accepted.
Amendment 5 refers to the contribution rate for the most expensive items, i.e. patrol vessels and aircraft. Increasing the rate to up to 75% of the eligible expenditure will reduce appropriations for other actions. The Commission considers a rate not exceeding 50% to be appropriate, as a general rule, for all kinds of investment. It cannot, therefore, accept this amendment.
Finally, the Commission cannot accept 7, since at the end of 2006 most of the projects will not yet have been completed, meaning a report on the decision will be of little use. I should like to recall that the Commission will present a report on this decision to the European Parliament by 30 June 2008 at the latest.
Concerning Mr Morillon’s oral question to the Commission, may I say that I fully share the view that sanctions, including in the fisheries sector, must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offences committed. They must also effectively discourage any further infringement of the same nature. Moreover, sanctions should be non-discriminatory between nationals and non-nationals of Member States. We cannot achieve compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy without creating a level playing field across the European Union for all fishermen.
With a view to promoting transparency and to encouraging the application of adequate and dissuasive sanctions against those who commit serious infringements, the Commission publishes an annual communication on serious infringements to the rules of the community fisheries policy."@et5
".
Arvoisa puhemies, haluan kiittää esittelijää ja kalatalousvaliokuntaa tästä komission ehdotusta koskevasta mietinnöstä. Totean ilokseni, että valiokunta on antanut myönteisen arvion kyseisestä järjestelystä, jonka tavoitteena on parantaa jäsenvaltioiden valvontavalmiuksia, ja että siinä kannatetaan täysin järjestelyn voimassaolon jatkamista lisävuodella. Huomaan myös valiokunnan suhtautuvan myönteisesti siihen, että EU:n talousarviosta rahoitetaan yhteisen tutkimuskeskuksen kanssa toteutettavia hallinnollisia järjestelyjä, joiden tarkoituksena on kehittää uusia valvontatekniikoita, sekä siihen, että rahoitusta myönnetään myös komissioon aloitteesta tehtäville valvontaan liittyville tutkimuksille.
Komissio on tähän mennessä julkaissut jo neljä tällaista tiedonantoa. Tiedonantojen liitteinä olevista taulukoista esittämissään huomautuksissa komissio on painottanut tarvetta vähentää eri puolilla Euroopan unionia määrättyjen seuraamusten nykyisiä tasoeroja.
Samaisissa tiedonannoissa komissio on myös ilmoittanut kannattavansa yhteisen kalastuspolitiikan sääntöjen rikkomuksissa hallinnollisten menettelyjen ja seuraamusten käyttöä, koska ne voidaan määrätä nopeammin ja ne ovat tehokkaampia. Komissio pitää voimakkaana pelotteena esimerkiksi kalastusluvan lakkauttamisen kaltaista seuraamusta, josta hallintoviranomainen tekee päätöksen ja joka pannaan täytäntöön välittömästi kuitenkin niin, että asian osalta voidaan harjoittaa oikeudellista valvontaa. Jäsenvaltiot saavat kuitenkin itse valita, käyttävätkö rikosoikeudellista vai hallinnollista menettelyä.
Komissio aikoo yhteisen kalastuspolitiikan perustana olevan neuvoston asetuksen (EY) N:o 2371/2002 25 artiklan 4 kohdan mukaisesti tehdä aikanaan ehdotuksen vakavia rikkomuksia koskevien seuraamusten yhdenmukaistamiseksi Euroopan unionissa.
Valiokunta on kuitenkin jättänyt käsiteltäväksi seitsemän ehdotusta koskevaa tarkistusta. Valitettavasti tarkistuksia on vaikea hyväksyä lähinnä muodollisista syistä, joita haluaisin seuraavaksi hieman selventää.
Tarkistuksessa 2 ehdotetaan muutosta määräaikaan, johon mennessä kansalliset ohjelmat on toimitettava. Haluaisimme säilyttää nykyisen määräajan 31. päivässä tammikuuta, koska jos rahoituspyynnöt esitetään vuoden alussa, komissio voi tehdä päätöksensä rahoitusosuuden myöntämisestä vuoden alkupuolella. Tämä puolestaan keventää kansallisten hallintovirastojen suunnittelutarpeita. On otettava myös huomioon, että kyseinen määräaika on jo täysin kansallisten hallintovirastojen tiedossa.
Tarkistuksen 3 ja siihen liittyvien tarkistusten 1 ja 6 osalta komissio yhtyy valiokunnan kantaan siitä, että asianomaiset menot olisi rahoitettava toisesta budjettikohdasta. Tämä voidaan hoitaa budjettijärjestelyllä. Asianomaista kahta uutta toimintaa ei kuitenkaan voida rahoittaa, ellei niihin ole varauduttu oikeudellisessa säädöksessä. Komissio katsookin, että ne on tarkoituksenmukaista ottaa käyttöön juuri tällä oikeudellisella säädöksellä, joten se ei voi hyväksyä kyseisiä tarkistuksia.
Tarkistuksessa 4 valiokunta pyytää komissiota laatimaan kriteerit, joiden perusteella voidaan myöntää avustuksia silloin, kun rahoituspyyntöjen määrä ylittää käytettävissä olevat määrärahat. Komission periaatteena on, että avustuksia myönnetään vain silloin, kun investointitarve on näytetty toteen esimerkiksi valvontatoimintaa koskevassa kansallisessa kertomuksessa, ja tällöin ei tuijoteta rahoituspyynnön kokonaissummaa. Kriteerien laadinta tekee hankkeiden valinnan hieman jäykemmäksi ja saattaa aiheuttaa vaaran siitä, että avustuksia myönnetään hankkeille, jotka eivät ole yleisen edun mukaisia. Näin ollen tätäkään tarkistusta ei voida hyväksyä.
Tarkistuksessa 5 käsitellään suurimpia menoeriä eli valvonta- ja ilma-aluksia koskevia rahoitusosuuksia. Osuuden korottaminen 75 prosenttiin tukikelpoisista menoista supistaa muiden toimien määrärahoja. Komissio katsoo, että rahoitusosuudeksi sopii parhaiten enintään 50 prosenttia yleisesti ja kaikkien investointien osalta. Sen vuoksi se ei voi hyväksyä tätä tarkistusta.
Komissio ei myöskään voi hyväksyä tarkistusta 7, koska useimmat hankkeista eivät ole vielä vuoden 2006 lopussa päättyneet, joten päätöksestä laadittavasta kertomuksesta on vain vähän hyötyä. Haluankin muistuttaa, että komissio laatii päätöksestä kertomuksen Euroopan parlamentille 30. kesäkuuta 2008 mennessä.
Saanen todeta, että olen täysin samaa mieltä näkemyksestä, jonka jäsen Morillon esitti suullisessa kysymyksessään komissiolle ja jonka mukaan seuraamusten on myös kalastusalalla oltava oikeassa suhteessa rikkomusten vakavuuteen. Niillä on myös tehokkaasti estettävä samanlaatuisten rikkomusten uusiminen. Seuraamusten pitäisi olla lisäksi tasapuolisia niin jäsenvaltioiden kuin muidenkin maiden kansalaisille. Yhteisen kalastuspolitiikan sääntöjä ei kyetä noudattamaan ellemme luo tasavertaisia toimintaedellytyksiä kaikille Euroopan unionin kalastajille.
Komissio haluaa lisätä avoimuutta ja kannustaa jäsenvaltioita soveltamaan vakaviin rikkomuksiin syyllistyneiden osalta asianmukaisia ja varoittavia seuraamuksia. Sen vuoksi komissio julkaiseekin vuosittain tiedonannon yhteisen kalastuspolitiikan sääntöjen vastaisista vakavista rikkomuksista."@fi7
".
Monsieur le Président, je souhaite remercier le rapporteur et la commission de la pêche pour son rapport sur cette proposition de la Commission. Je suis heureux de constater que la commission parlementaire a évalué favorablement ce régime, qui vise à améliorer les capacités de contrôle des États membres, et qu’elle soutient pleinement sa prolongation pour une durée d’un an. Je prends acte également que la commission est favorable au financement, par le budget communautaire, des dispositions administratives convenues avec le Centre commun de recherche visant à la mise en œuvre des nouvelles technologies en matière de contrôle et les études sur les domaines liés au contrôle menées sur l’initiative de la Commission.
La Commission a publié à ce jour quatre de ces communications. Dans ses commentaires sur les tableaux annexés aux communications, la Commission souligne la nécessité de réduire les disparités existantes concernant le niveau des sanctions infligées dans la Communauté.
Dans ces mêmes communications, la Commission fait également part de sa préférence pour l’utilisation de procédures et de sanctions administratives pour le traitement des infractions aux règles de la politique commune de la pêche, car leur application est plus rapide et elles sont plus efficaces. La Commission pense qu’une sanction, telle que la suspension de l’autorisation de pêcher, décidée par l’autorité administrative et immédiatement appliquée et assortie d’une possibilité d’examen judiciaire, est un moyen de dissuasion plus fort. Toutefois, le choix entre une procédure pénale ou administrative est du ressort de l’État membre.
Conformément à l’article 25, paragraphe 4, du règlement (CE) n° 2371/2002 du Conseil, qui est le règlement de base de la PCP, la Commission a l’intention de présenter en temps utile une proposition visant à harmoniser au niveau communautaire les sanctions pour infractions graves.
Toutefois, la commission a déposé sept amendements à la proposition. Je regrette qu’il soit très difficile de les accepter, principalement pour des raisons de forme, ce que je voudrais expliquer.
L’amendement 2 propose de changer la date limite de présentation des programmes nationaux. Nous voudrions maintenir la date actuellement fixée au 31 janvier, car la soumission des demandes plus tôt dans l’année permettra à la Commission d’adopter une décision garantissant le versement de la contribution financière au premier semestre. Ceci facilitera, en outre, la planification des exigences pour les administrations nationales. Il faut également souligner que les administrations nationales sont déjà pleinement au courant de cette date limite.
Pour l’amendement 3 et les amendements 1 et 6 qui y sont associés, la Commission partage l’avis de la commission parlementaire selon lequel ces dépenses devraient figurer dans une ligne budgétaire différente. Cela peut se faire moyennant une disposition budgétaire. Toutefois, il n’est pas possible de financer ces deux nouvelles actions si elles ne sont pas prévues dans le texte juridique. La Commission considère que cette proposition est le texte juridique approprié pour les introduire et ne peut, en conséquence, accepter ces amendements.
Dans l’amendement 4, la commission parlementaire demande à la Commission d’établir des critères afin d’allouer des subventions quand le montant de la demande dépasse les crédits disponibles. La Commission a pour politique d’allouer des subventions seulement quand la nécessité d’un investissement a été prouvée, à savoir au moyen du rapport national sur les activités de contrôle, indépendamment du montant global demandé. Établir des critères introduirait une certaine rigidité dans la sélection des projets et pourrait impliquer le risque que les subventions soient allouées à des projets qui ne sont pas d’intérêt général. Par conséquent, cet amendement ne peut être accepté.
L’amendement 5 concerne le taux de contribution pour les actions les plus coûteuses, par exemple les navires et avions de patrouille. Augmenter le taux jusqu’à 75 % des dépenses éligibles réduirait les crédits pour les autres actions. La Commission considère qu’un taux ne dépassant pas 50 % est approprié, en règle générale, pour tous les types d’investissement. En conséquence, elle ne peut accepter cet amendement.
Enfin, la Commission ne peut accepter l’amendement 7 puisque, à la fin de 2006, la plupart des projets ne seront pas encore achevés, ce qui signifie qu’un rapport sur la décision sera de peu d’utilité. Je voudrais rappeler que la Commission présentera un rapport sur cette décision au Parlement européen le 30 juin 2008 au plus tard.
En ce qui concerne la question orale de M. Morillon à la Commission, permettez-moi de dire que je partage pleinement l’avis que les sanctions, y compris dans le secteur de la pêche, doivent être proportionnelles à la gravité des délits commis. Elles doivent également décourager efficacement toute infraction de la même nature. De plus, en matière de sanctions, il ne devrait pas y avoir de discrimination entre ressortissants des États membres et ressortissants de pays tiers. Nous ne pouvons pas assurer la conformité aux règles de la politique commune de la pêche si tous les pêcheurs dans toute l’Union européenne ne sont pas traités sur un pied d’égalité.
Afin de promouvoir la transparence et d’encourager l’application de sanctions adéquates et dissuasives contre ceux qui commettent des infractions graves, la Commission publie une communication annuelle sur les infractions graves aux règles de la politique communautaire de la pêche."@fr8
"Mr President, I wish to thank the rapporteur and the Committee on Fisheries for its report on this proposal from the Commission. I am pleased to note that the committee has given a favourable assessment to this scheme, which is aimed at improving the Member States’ control capabilities, and that it fully supports the extension of its validity for a further year. I also note that the committee is favourable to financing, under the Community budget, administrative arrangements with the Joint Research Centre with a view to developing new technologies in the area of control, and to the financing of studies on control-related areas, to be carried out at the Commission’s initiative.
The Commission has published four of these communications so far. In its comments on the tables annexed to the communications, the Commission stressed the need to reduce existing disparities regarding the level of sanctions imposed across the Community.
On the same communications, the Commission has also declared its preference for the use of administrative procedures and sanctions when dealing with breaches of the common fisheries policy rules, since they are imposed in a swifter manner and are more effective. The Commission believes that a sanction, such as the suspension of an authorisation to fish, decided by the administrative authority and entering into force immediately, subject to the possibility of a judicial review, is a stronger deterrent. The choice, however, between a penal or administrative procedure lies with the Member State.
In conformity with Article 25(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002, the basic regulation on the CFP, the Commission intends to present in due time a proposal aimed at harmonising at Community level sanctions for serious infringements.
The committee has, however, tabled seven amendments to the proposal. I regret that it is very difficult to accept any of the amendments, mainly for formal reasons, which I would like to explain.
Amendment 2 proposes a change to the time limit for the presentation of national programmes. We would like to keep the existing date of 31 January, as the submission of requests early on in the year will allow the Commission to adopt a decision granting the financial contribution in the first semester. This will, in turn, ease the planning requirements for national administrations. It should also be noted that the national administrations are already fully aware of this time limit.
On Amendment 3 and the related Amendments 1 and 6, the Commission shares the committee’s view that these expenses should be financed under a different heading. This can be done through a budgetary arrangement. However, it is not possible to finance these two new actions if they were not foreseen in the legal text. The Commission deems that this proposal is the appropriate legal text to introduce them and cannot, therefore, accept these amendments.
In Amendment 4, the committee asks the Commission to establish criteria in order to allocate grants when the amount of request exceeds the available appropriations. The Commission’s policy is to allocate grants only when the need for investment has been proven, namely through the national report on control activities, irrespective of the overall amount requested. Establishing criteria will introduce some rigidity to the selection of projects and could entail a risk that grants will be given for projects that are not of general interest. This amendment cannot, therefore, be accepted.
Amendment 5 refers to the contribution rate for the most expensive items, i.e. patrol vessels and aircraft. Increasing the rate to up to 75% of the eligible expenditure will reduce appropriations for other actions. The Commission considers a rate not exceeding 50% to be appropriate, as a general rule, for all kinds of investment. It cannot, therefore, accept this amendment.
Finally, the Commission cannot accept 7, since at the end of 2006 most of the projects will not yet have been completed, meaning a report on the decision will be of little use. I should like to recall that the Commission will present a report on this decision to the European Parliament by 30 June 2008 at the latest.
Concerning Mr Morillon’s oral question to the Commission, may I say that I fully share the view that sanctions, including in the fisheries sector, must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offences committed. They must also effectively discourage any further infringement of the same nature. Moreover, sanctions should be non-discriminatory between nationals and non-nationals of Member States. We cannot achieve compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy without creating a level playing field across the European Union for all fishermen.
With a view to promoting transparency and to encouraging the application of adequate and dissuasive sanctions against those who commit serious infringements, the Commission publishes an annual communication on serious infringements to the rules of the community fisheries policy."@hu11
"Signor Presidente, desidero ringraziare il relatore e la commissione per la pesca per la relazione presentata su questa proposta della Commissione europea. Noto con soddisfazione che la commissione per la pesca ha espresso una valutazione favorevole su questo regime, inteso a potenziare le capacità di controllo degli Stati membri, e che sostiene senza riserve la proroga della sua validità per un altro anno. Noto inoltre che la commissione per la pesca è favorevole a finanziare, a titolo del bilancio comunitario, accordi amministrativi con il Centro comune di ricerca per sviluppare nuove tecnologie in materia di controllo; essa inoltre approva il finanziamento di studi in settori connessi al controllo, da condurre su iniziativa della Commissione europea.
Finora la Commissione ha pubblicato quattro di tali comunicazioni. Nei commenti alle tabelle allegate alle comunicazioni, la Commissione ha sottolineato l’esigenza di ridurre le disparità attualmente esistenti nel livello di sanzioni comminate nei vari paesi della Comunità.
Nelle medesime comunicazioni, la Commissione si è dichiarata favorevole a impiegare, contro le violazioni delle norme della politica comune della pesca, procedure e sanzioni di carattere amministrativo, che vengono comminate con maggiore rapidità e si dimostrano più efficaci. A parere della Commissione una sanzione come la sospensione dell’autorizzazione alla pesca, che sia decisa in via amministrativa, entri immediatamente in vigore e sia soggetta alla possibilità di revisione giudiziaria, costituisce un deterrente più efficace. Spetta comunque allo Stato membro scegliere tra la procedura penale e quella amministrativa.
Conformemente all’articolo 25, paragrafo 4 del regolamento (CE) n. 2371/2002 del Consiglio, che è il regolamento fondamentale della PCP, la Commissione intende presentare a tempo debito una proposta volta ad armonizzare a livello comunitario le sanzioni da comminare per le infrazioni gravi.
La commissione per la pesca ha però presentato sette emendamenti alla proposta. Mi duole dire che è molto difficile accettarne qualcuno, principalmente per ragioni formali che vorrei ora illustrare.
L’emendamento n. 2 propone di modificare il termine per la presentazione dei programmi nazionali. Noi vorremmo mantenere l’attuale data del 31 gennaio, poiché la presentazione delle richieste all’inizio dell’anno consentirà alla Commissione di decidere in merito alla concessione dei contributi finanziari entro il primo semestre; questo, a sua volta, renderà più facile per le amministrazioni nazionali rispettare i requisiti per la pianificazione. Occorre poi notare che le amministrazioni nazionali sono perfettamente a conoscenza di questo termine.
Quanto all’emendamento n. 3 e agli emendamenti nn. 1 e 6, ad esso collegati, la Commissione europea condivide il parere della commissione per la pesca secondo cui queste spese dovrebbero essere finanziate nell’ambito di una rubrica diversa. A tale scopo si può utilizzare un accordo di bilancio, tuttavia non è possibile finanziare queste due nuove azioni se esse non erano contemplate nel testo giuridico. La Commissione ritiene che questa proposta costituisca il testo giuridico adatto per introdurle, e non può quindi accettare gli emendamenti in questione.
Con l’emendamento n. 4 la commissione per la pesca invita la Commissione europea a fissare criteri per l’erogazione delle sovvenzioni qualora gli importi richiesti superino gli stanziamenti disponibili. La Commissione europea si attiene alla politica di erogare sovvenzioni solo quando la necessità di investimento sia stata provata, in particolare tramite la relazione nazionale sulle attività di controllo, indipendentemente dall’importo totale richiesto. Fissando dei criteri si introdurrebbe una certa rigidità nella selezione dei progetti, e ciò comporterebbe il rischio di erogare sovvenzioni a progetti che non siano di interesse generale. Non è dunque possibile accogliere quest’emendamento.
L’emendamento n. 5 riguarda l’aliquota di partecipazione per le attrezzature più costose, cioè navi e aeromobili. Aumentando tale aliquota al 75 per cento della spesa ammissibile, si ridurrebbero gli stanziamenti disponibili per altre azioni. In generale la Commissione ritiene che un’aliquota non superiore al 50 per cento sia la più adatta per tutti i tipi di investimento, e di conseguenza non può accettare quest’emendamento.
Infine, la Commissione non può accogliere l’emendamento n. 7, in quanto alla fine del 2006 la maggior parte dei progetti non sarà ancora stata portata a termine, e una relazione sulla decisione sarebbe quindi di scarsa utilità. Ricordo che la Commissione presenterà al Parlamento europeo una relazione su questa decisione entro il termine massimo del 30 giugno 2008.
Per quanto riguarda l’interrogazione orale presentata alla Commissione dall’onorevole Morillon, posso dire che condivido senza riserve l’opinione secondo cui le sanzioni – anche nel settore della pesca – devono essere proporzionate alla gravità delle infrazioni commesse; esse devono costituire altresì un efficace deterrente contro ulteriori infrazioni dello stesso tipo. Inoltre, le sanzioni non devono discriminare tra i cittadini degli Stati membri e quelli di paesi terzi. Non possiamo ottenere il rispetto delle norme della politica comune della pesca, senza creare un contesto uniforme che valga per tutti i pescatori in tutta l’Unione europea.
Allo scopo di promuovere la trasparenza e incoraggiare l’applicazione di adeguate sanzioni dissuasive contro i responsabili di gravi infrazioni, la Commissione pubblica una comunicazione annuale sulle gravi infrazioni alle norme della politica comune della pesca."@it12
"Mr President, I wish to thank the rapporteur and the Committee on Fisheries for its report on this proposal from the Commission. I am pleased to note that the committee has given a favourable assessment to this scheme, which is aimed at improving the Member States’ control capabilities, and that it fully supports the extension of its validity for a further year. I also note that the committee is favourable to financing, under the Community budget, administrative arrangements with the Joint Research Centre with a view to developing new technologies in the area of control, and to the financing of studies on control-related areas, to be carried out at the Commission’s initiative.
The Commission has published four of these communications so far. In its comments on the tables annexed to the communications, the Commission stressed the need to reduce existing disparities regarding the level of sanctions imposed across the Community.
On the same communications, the Commission has also declared its preference for the use of administrative procedures and sanctions when dealing with breaches of the common fisheries policy rules, since they are imposed in a swifter manner and are more effective. The Commission believes that a sanction, such as the suspension of an authorisation to fish, decided by the administrative authority and entering into force immediately, subject to the possibility of a judicial review, is a stronger deterrent. The choice, however, between a penal or administrative procedure lies with the Member State.
In conformity with Article 25(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002, the basic regulation on the CFP, the Commission intends to present in due time a proposal aimed at harmonising at Community level sanctions for serious infringements.
The committee has, however, tabled seven amendments to the proposal. I regret that it is very difficult to accept any of the amendments, mainly for formal reasons, which I would like to explain.
Amendment 2 proposes a change to the time limit for the presentation of national programmes. We would like to keep the existing date of 31 January, as the submission of requests early on in the year will allow the Commission to adopt a decision granting the financial contribution in the first semester. This will, in turn, ease the planning requirements for national administrations. It should also be noted that the national administrations are already fully aware of this time limit.
On Amendment 3 and the related Amendments 1 and 6, the Commission shares the committee’s view that these expenses should be financed under a different heading. This can be done through a budgetary arrangement. However, it is not possible to finance these two new actions if they were not foreseen in the legal text. The Commission deems that this proposal is the appropriate legal text to introduce them and cannot, therefore, accept these amendments.
In Amendment 4, the committee asks the Commission to establish criteria in order to allocate grants when the amount of request exceeds the available appropriations. The Commission’s policy is to allocate grants only when the need for investment has been proven, namely through the national report on control activities, irrespective of the overall amount requested. Establishing criteria will introduce some rigidity to the selection of projects and could entail a risk that grants will be given for projects that are not of general interest. This amendment cannot, therefore, be accepted.
Amendment 5 refers to the contribution rate for the most expensive items, i.e. patrol vessels and aircraft. Increasing the rate to up to 75% of the eligible expenditure will reduce appropriations for other actions. The Commission considers a rate not exceeding 50% to be appropriate, as a general rule, for all kinds of investment. It cannot, therefore, accept this amendment.
Finally, the Commission cannot accept 7, since at the end of 2006 most of the projects will not yet have been completed, meaning a report on the decision will be of little use. I should like to recall that the Commission will present a report on this decision to the European Parliament by 30 June 2008 at the latest.
Concerning Mr Morillon’s oral question to the Commission, may I say that I fully share the view that sanctions, including in the fisheries sector, must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offences committed. They must also effectively discourage any further infringement of the same nature. Moreover, sanctions should be non-discriminatory between nationals and non-nationals of Member States. We cannot achieve compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy without creating a level playing field across the European Union for all fishermen.
With a view to promoting transparency and to encouraging the application of adequate and dissuasive sanctions against those who commit serious infringements, the Commission publishes an annual communication on serious infringements to the rules of the community fisheries policy."@lt14
"Mr President, I wish to thank the rapporteur and the Committee on Fisheries for its report on this proposal from the Commission. I am pleased to note that the committee has given a favourable assessment to this scheme, which is aimed at improving the Member States’ control capabilities, and that it fully supports the extension of its validity for a further year. I also note that the committee is favourable to financing, under the Community budget, administrative arrangements with the Joint Research Centre with a view to developing new technologies in the area of control, and to the financing of studies on control-related areas, to be carried out at the Commission’s initiative.
The Commission has published four of these communications so far. In its comments on the tables annexed to the communications, the Commission stressed the need to reduce existing disparities regarding the level of sanctions imposed across the Community.
On the same communications, the Commission has also declared its preference for the use of administrative procedures and sanctions when dealing with breaches of the common fisheries policy rules, since they are imposed in a swifter manner and are more effective. The Commission believes that a sanction, such as the suspension of an authorisation to fish, decided by the administrative authority and entering into force immediately, subject to the possibility of a judicial review, is a stronger deterrent. The choice, however, between a penal or administrative procedure lies with the Member State.
In conformity with Article 25(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002, the basic regulation on the CFP, the Commission intends to present in due time a proposal aimed at harmonising at Community level sanctions for serious infringements.
The committee has, however, tabled seven amendments to the proposal. I regret that it is very difficult to accept any of the amendments, mainly for formal reasons, which I would like to explain.
Amendment 2 proposes a change to the time limit for the presentation of national programmes. We would like to keep the existing date of 31 January, as the submission of requests early on in the year will allow the Commission to adopt a decision granting the financial contribution in the first semester. This will, in turn, ease the planning requirements for national administrations. It should also be noted that the national administrations are already fully aware of this time limit.
On Amendment 3 and the related Amendments 1 and 6, the Commission shares the committee’s view that these expenses should be financed under a different heading. This can be done through a budgetary arrangement. However, it is not possible to finance these two new actions if they were not foreseen in the legal text. The Commission deems that this proposal is the appropriate legal text to introduce them and cannot, therefore, accept these amendments.
In Amendment 4, the committee asks the Commission to establish criteria in order to allocate grants when the amount of request exceeds the available appropriations. The Commission’s policy is to allocate grants only when the need for investment has been proven, namely through the national report on control activities, irrespective of the overall amount requested. Establishing criteria will introduce some rigidity to the selection of projects and could entail a risk that grants will be given for projects that are not of general interest. This amendment cannot, therefore, be accepted.
Amendment 5 refers to the contribution rate for the most expensive items, i.e. patrol vessels and aircraft. Increasing the rate to up to 75% of the eligible expenditure will reduce appropriations for other actions. The Commission considers a rate not exceeding 50% to be appropriate, as a general rule, for all kinds of investment. It cannot, therefore, accept this amendment.
Finally, the Commission cannot accept 7, since at the end of 2006 most of the projects will not yet have been completed, meaning a report on the decision will be of little use. I should like to recall that the Commission will present a report on this decision to the European Parliament by 30 June 2008 at the latest.
Concerning Mr Morillon’s oral question to the Commission, may I say that I fully share the view that sanctions, including in the fisheries sector, must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offences committed. They must also effectively discourage any further infringement of the same nature. Moreover, sanctions should be non-discriminatory between nationals and non-nationals of Member States. We cannot achieve compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy without creating a level playing field across the European Union for all fishermen.
With a view to promoting transparency and to encouraging the application of adequate and dissuasive sanctions against those who commit serious infringements, the Commission publishes an annual communication on serious infringements to the rules of the community fisheries policy."@lv13
"Mr President, I wish to thank the rapporteur and the Committee on Fisheries for its report on this proposal from the Commission. I am pleased to note that the committee has given a favourable assessment to this scheme, which is aimed at improving the Member States’ control capabilities, and that it fully supports the extension of its validity for a further year. I also note that the committee is favourable to financing, under the Community budget, administrative arrangements with the Joint Research Centre with a view to developing new technologies in the area of control, and to the financing of studies on control-related areas, to be carried out at the Commission’s initiative.
The Commission has published four of these communications so far. In its comments on the tables annexed to the communications, the Commission stressed the need to reduce existing disparities regarding the level of sanctions imposed across the Community.
On the same communications, the Commission has also declared its preference for the use of administrative procedures and sanctions when dealing with breaches of the common fisheries policy rules, since they are imposed in a swifter manner and are more effective. The Commission believes that a sanction, such as the suspension of an authorisation to fish, decided by the administrative authority and entering into force immediately, subject to the possibility of a judicial review, is a stronger deterrent. The choice, however, between a penal or administrative procedure lies with the Member State.
In conformity with Article 25(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002, the basic regulation on the CFP, the Commission intends to present in due time a proposal aimed at harmonising at Community level sanctions for serious infringements.
The committee has, however, tabled seven amendments to the proposal. I regret that it is very difficult to accept any of the amendments, mainly for formal reasons, which I would like to explain.
Amendment 2 proposes a change to the time limit for the presentation of national programmes. We would like to keep the existing date of 31 January, as the submission of requests early on in the year will allow the Commission to adopt a decision granting the financial contribution in the first semester. This will, in turn, ease the planning requirements for national administrations. It should also be noted that the national administrations are already fully aware of this time limit.
On Amendment 3 and the related Amendments 1 and 6, the Commission shares the committee’s view that these expenses should be financed under a different heading. This can be done through a budgetary arrangement. However, it is not possible to finance these two new actions if they were not foreseen in the legal text. The Commission deems that this proposal is the appropriate legal text to introduce them and cannot, therefore, accept these amendments.
In Amendment 4, the committee asks the Commission to establish criteria in order to allocate grants when the amount of request exceeds the available appropriations. The Commission’s policy is to allocate grants only when the need for investment has been proven, namely through the national report on control activities, irrespective of the overall amount requested. Establishing criteria will introduce some rigidity to the selection of projects and could entail a risk that grants will be given for projects that are not of general interest. This amendment cannot, therefore, be accepted.
Amendment 5 refers to the contribution rate for the most expensive items, i.e. patrol vessels and aircraft. Increasing the rate to up to 75% of the eligible expenditure will reduce appropriations for other actions. The Commission considers a rate not exceeding 50% to be appropriate, as a general rule, for all kinds of investment. It cannot, therefore, accept this amendment.
Finally, the Commission cannot accept 7, since at the end of 2006 most of the projects will not yet have been completed, meaning a report on the decision will be of little use. I should like to recall that the Commission will present a report on this decision to the European Parliament by 30 June 2008 at the latest.
Concerning Mr Morillon’s oral question to the Commission, may I say that I fully share the view that sanctions, including in the fisheries sector, must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offences committed. They must also effectively discourage any further infringement of the same nature. Moreover, sanctions should be non-discriminatory between nationals and non-nationals of Member States. We cannot achieve compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy without creating a level playing field across the European Union for all fishermen.
With a view to promoting transparency and to encouraging the application of adequate and dissuasive sanctions against those who commit serious infringements, the Commission publishes an annual communication on serious infringements to the rules of the community fisheries policy."@mt15
".
Mijnheer de Voorzitter, ik wil de rapporteur en de Commissie visserij bedanken voor het verslag over het voorstel van de Commissie. Ik ben ingenomen met het gunstige oordeel van de commissie over de onderhavige regeling die bedoeld is om de controlecapaciteiten van de lidstaten te verbeteren. Voorts ben ik verheugd over haar volledige steun om deze met nog een jaar te verlengen. Ik constateer dat de commissie instemt met de financiering, in het kader van de communautaire begroting, van administratieve regelingen met het Gemeenschappelijk Centrum voor Onderzoek met het oog op de ontwikkeling van nieuwe technologieën op controlegebied alsmede met de financiering van studies op controlegerelateerde gebieden die in opdracht van de Commissie worden verricht.
De Commissie heeft tot nu toe vier van deze mededelingen gepubliceerd. In haar toelichting op de tabellen die als bijlagen aan de mededelingen zijn gehecht, onderstreept de Commissie de noodzaak bestaande ongelijkheden in de sancties die over de gehele Gemeenschap worden opgelegd, weg te werken.
Wat dezelfde mededelingen betreft, heeft de Commissie verklaard voorkeur te hechten aan de toepassing van administratieve procedures en sancties wanneer beleidsvoorschriften van het gemeenschappelijk visserijbeleid worden geschonden, omdat die in korte tijd worden opgelegd en doeltreffender zijn. De Commissie is van mening dat een sanctie, zoals een schorsing van de vergunning, die door een bestuurlijk orgaan wordt uitgevaardigd en onmiddellijk in werking treedt, onder voorbehoud van een mogelijke rechterlijke toetsing, een doelmatigere afschrikkingsmaatregel is. De keuze tussen administratieve maatregelen of strafvervolging berust evenwel bij de desbetreffende lidstaat.
In overeenstemming met artikel 25, lid 4, van Verordening (EG) nr. 2371/2002 van de Raad, de basisverordening inzake het GVB, is de Commissie voornemens te zijner tijd een voorstel in te dienen dat ertoe strekt de sancties voor ernstige inbreuken op communautair niveau te harmoniseren.
De commissie heeft nochtans zeven amendementen op het voorstel ingediend die tot mijn spijt, en met name om formele redenen, heel moeilijk te accepteren zijn. Ik zou graag een en ander willen toelichten.
In amendement 2 wordt voorgesteld een wijziging aan te brengen in de tijdslimiet voor de indiening van de nationale programma's. We willen vasthouden aan de huidige datum van 31 januari want als er vroeg in het jaar verzoeken worden ingediend, kan de Commissie in het eerste semester overgaan tot de goedkeuring van een besluit voor de toekenning van de financiële bijdrage en dat biedt weer voordelen op planningsgebied voor de nationale besturen. Voorts dient te worden opgemerkt dat de nationale besturen al volledig op de hoogte zijn van deze tijdslimiet.
Ten aanzien van amendement 3 en de bijbehorende amendementen 1 en 6 is de Commissie het eens met de Commissie visserij dat de desbetreffende uitgaven onder een andere begrotingsrubriek moeten worden gedekt. Dit kan geschieden aan de hand van een budgettaire regeling. Het is echter niet mogelijk deze twee nieuwe acties te financieren als de wettekst er niet in voorziet. De Commissie is van mening dat dit voorstel de geëigende wettekst is voor de invoering ervan en dus kunnen deze amendementen niet worden aanvaard.
In amendement 4 verzoekt de Commissie visserij de Commissie om criteria vast te stellen voor de toekenning van subsidies indien de financiële middelen ontoereikend blijken. Het beleid van de Commissie is dat zij enkel subsidies toekent als de noodzaak van investering is aangetoond, te weten via het nationaal verslag inzake controlewerkzaamheden, ongeacht het totale verzochte bedrag. De vaststelling van criteria zal leiden tot rigiditeit bij de selectie van projecten en zou het risico met zich mee kunnen brengen dat subsidies worden verstrekt voor projecten die niet van algemeen belang zijn. Dit amendement kan derhalve niet worden aanvaard.
Amendement 5 heeft betrekking op het steunpercentage voor de duurste onderdelen, dat wil zeggen vaartuigen en vliegtuigen die worden ingezet voor inspectie en bewaking. Het optrekken van het steunpercentage tot niet meer dan 75 procent van de in aanmerking komende uitgaven zal ten koste gaan van kredieten voor andere maatregelen. De Commissie geeft, als algemene regel, de voorkeur aan een steunpercentage van niet meer dan 50 procent voor alle investeringstypen. Dientengevolge kan zij dit amendement niet aanvaarden.
Tot slot kan de Commissie amendement 7 niet aanvaarden, omdat de meeste projecten aan het einde van 2006 nog niet zijn afgerond. Dit houdt in dat een verslag over de toepassing van de beschikking weinig nut zal hebben. Ik herinner eraan dat de Commissie niet later dan 30 juni 2008 een verslag inzake deze beschikking zal indienen bij het Europees Parlement.
Met betrekking tot de mondelinge vraag van de heer Morillon aan de Commissie verklaar ik het volmondig eens te zijn met het standpunt dat ook in de visserijsector sancties evenredig moeten zijn aan de ernst van de vergrijpen. Voorts dienen zij op doeltreffende wijze verdere inbreuken van soortgelijke aard te ontmoedigen. Bovendien mag er bij sancties geen onderscheid worden gemaakt tussen onderdanen van lidstaten en niet-onderdanen. We kunnen niet verwachten dat de voorschriften van het gemeenschappelijk visserijbeleid worden nageleefd als er geen gelijk speelveld in de gehele Europese Unie wordt gecreëerd voor alle vissers.
Teneinde de transparantie en de toepassing van adequate en afschrikwekkende sancties te bevorderen jegens hen die ernstige overtredingen begaan, zal de Commissie een jaarlijkse mededeling uitbrengen over ernstige schendingen van de voorschriften van het gemeenschappelijk visserijbeleid."@nl3
"Mr President, I wish to thank the rapporteur and the Committee on Fisheries for its report on this proposal from the Commission. I am pleased to note that the committee has given a favourable assessment to this scheme, which is aimed at improving the Member States’ control capabilities, and that it fully supports the extension of its validity for a further year. I also note that the committee is favourable to financing, under the Community budget, administrative arrangements with the Joint Research Centre with a view to developing new technologies in the area of control, and to the financing of studies on control-related areas, to be carried out at the Commission’s initiative.
The Commission has published four of these communications so far. In its comments on the tables annexed to the communications, the Commission stressed the need to reduce existing disparities regarding the level of sanctions imposed across the Community.
On the same communications, the Commission has also declared its preference for the use of administrative procedures and sanctions when dealing with breaches of the common fisheries policy rules, since they are imposed in a swifter manner and are more effective. The Commission believes that a sanction, such as the suspension of an authorisation to fish, decided by the administrative authority and entering into force immediately, subject to the possibility of a judicial review, is a stronger deterrent. The choice, however, between a penal or administrative procedure lies with the Member State.
In conformity with Article 25(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002, the basic regulation on the CFP, the Commission intends to present in due time a proposal aimed at harmonising at Community level sanctions for serious infringements.
The committee has, however, tabled seven amendments to the proposal. I regret that it is very difficult to accept any of the amendments, mainly for formal reasons, which I would like to explain.
Amendment 2 proposes a change to the time limit for the presentation of national programmes. We would like to keep the existing date of 31 January, as the submission of requests early on in the year will allow the Commission to adopt a decision granting the financial contribution in the first semester. This will, in turn, ease the planning requirements for national administrations. It should also be noted that the national administrations are already fully aware of this time limit.
On Amendment 3 and the related Amendments 1 and 6, the Commission shares the committee’s view that these expenses should be financed under a different heading. This can be done through a budgetary arrangement. However, it is not possible to finance these two new actions if they were not foreseen in the legal text. The Commission deems that this proposal is the appropriate legal text to introduce them and cannot, therefore, accept these amendments.
In Amendment 4, the committee asks the Commission to establish criteria in order to allocate grants when the amount of request exceeds the available appropriations. The Commission’s policy is to allocate grants only when the need for investment has been proven, namely through the national report on control activities, irrespective of the overall amount requested. Establishing criteria will introduce some rigidity to the selection of projects and could entail a risk that grants will be given for projects that are not of general interest. This amendment cannot, therefore, be accepted.
Amendment 5 refers to the contribution rate for the most expensive items, i.e. patrol vessels and aircraft. Increasing the rate to up to 75% of the eligible expenditure will reduce appropriations for other actions. The Commission considers a rate not exceeding 50% to be appropriate, as a general rule, for all kinds of investment. It cannot, therefore, accept this amendment.
Finally, the Commission cannot accept 7, since at the end of 2006 most of the projects will not yet have been completed, meaning a report on the decision will be of little use. I should like to recall that the Commission will present a report on this decision to the European Parliament by 30 June 2008 at the latest.
Concerning Mr Morillon’s oral question to the Commission, may I say that I fully share the view that sanctions, including in the fisheries sector, must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offences committed. They must also effectively discourage any further infringement of the same nature. Moreover, sanctions should be non-discriminatory between nationals and non-nationals of Member States. We cannot achieve compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy without creating a level playing field across the European Union for all fishermen.
With a view to promoting transparency and to encouraging the application of adequate and dissuasive sanctions against those who commit serious infringements, the Commission publishes an annual communication on serious infringements to the rules of the community fisheries policy."@pl16
"Senhor Presidente, gostaria de agradecer ao relator e à Comissão das Pescas pelo seu relatório sobre esta proposta da Comissão. Congratulo-me por verificar que a comissão parlamentar deu o seu parecer favorável a este regime, que visa melhorar as capacidades de controlo dos Estados-Membros e que apoia inteiramente a prorrogação da sua vigência por mais um ano. Verifico igualmente que a comissão parlamentar é favorável ao financiamento, no âmbito do orçamento comunitário, de protocolos administrativos com o Centro Comum de Investigação, com vista a desenvolver novas tecnologias no domínio do controlo, bem como ao financiamento de estudos sobre domínios ligados ao controlo, a efectuar por iniciativa da Comissão.
Até à data, a Comissão publicou quatro dessas comunicações. Nos seus comentários aos quadros que constam em anexo à comunicação, a Comissão salientou a necessidade de reduzir as actuais disparidades no que diz respeito ao nível das sanções aplicadas em toda a Comunidade.
Nessas mesmas comunicações, a Comissão declarou também a sua preferência pelo recurso a processos e sanções administrativos, sempre que se trata de infracções às regras da política comum da pesca, já que tais penas são aplicadas com rapidez e são mais eficazes. A Comissão pensa que uma sanção, como seja a suspensão de uma autorização de pesca, decidida pela autoridade administrativa e capaz de entrar em vigor imediatamente, sujeita à possibilidade de uma reapreciação judicial, é um factor de dissuasão mais forte. No entanto, a opção entre um processo-crime ou um processo administrativo é da competência do Estado-Membro.
Nos termos do nº 4 do artigo 25º do Regulamento do Conselho (CE) nº 2371/2002, que é o regulamento de base da PCP, a Comissão tenciona apresentar no momento apropriado uma proposta destinada a harmonizar a nível comunitário os níveis de sanções para infracções graves.
A comissão parlamentar apresentou, porém, sete alterações à proposta. Lamento que seja muito difícil aceitar qualquer uma dessas alterações, principalmente por razões formais, aspecto que gostaria de explicar.
A alteração 2 propõe uma modificação do prazo para a apresentação de programas nacionais. Gostaríamos de manter a data actual de 31 de Janeiro, já que a apresentação de projectos no início do ano permitirá à Comissão adoptar uma decisão relativa à concessão da contribuição financeira no primeiro semestre. Por sua vez, isso facilitará os procedimentos de planeamento das administrações nacionais. É ainda de notar que as administrações nacionais já estão inteiramente cientes deste prazo.
Quanto à alteração 3 e às alterações relacionadas 1 e 6, a Comissão partilha o ponto de vista da comissão parlamentar segundo a qual essas despesas deveriam ser financiadas no âmbito de uma rubrica diferente. Isso é possível através de uma disposição orçamental. No entanto, não é possível financiar as duas novas acções, se estas não estiverem previstas no texto jurídico. A Comissão considera que esta proposta constitui o diploma apropriado para as introduzir, pelo que não pode aceitar as referidas alterações.
Na alteração 4, a comissão parlamentar pede à Comissão que estabeleça critérios para atribuição de subvenções, sempre que o montante pedido exceda as dotações disponíveis. A política da Comissão consiste em atribuir subvenções apenas quando se demonstre a necessidade de investimento, nomeadamente através do relatório nacional sobre actividades de controlo, independentemente do montante total solicitado. O estabelecimento de critérios vai introduzir alguma rigidez na selecção dos projectos e pode implicar o risco de serem atribuídas subvenções a projectos que não sejam de interesse geral. Por estas razões, essa proposta não pode ser aceite.
A alteração 5 refere-se à taxa de contribuição para as rubricas mais dispendiosas, ou seja, navios-patrulha e aeronaves de patrulha. O aumento da taxa para um máximo de 75% da despesa elegível irá reduzir as dotações para outras acções. A Comissão considera que uma taxa não superior a 50% será apropriada, como regra geral, para todos os tipos de investimento. Não posso, por isso, aceitar esta alteração.
Por fim, a Comissão não pode aceitar a alteração 7, já que, no final de 2006, a maior parte dos projectos ainda não estarão terminados, de onde resulta que um relatório sobre a decisão de pouca utilidade será. Gostaria de recordar que a Comissão vai apresentar um relatório sobre esta decisão ao Parlamento Europeu até 30 de Junho de 2008, o mais tardar.
No que diz respeito à pergunta oral do senhor deputado Morillon à Comissão, permitam-me que diga que partilho inteiramente a opinião de que as sanções, inclusivamente no sector das pescas, devem ser proporcionais à gravidade das infracções cometidas. Devem também desencorajar efectivamente qualquer nova infracção da mesma natureza. Além disso, as sanções devem ser não discriminatórias relativamente a nacionais e não nacionais dos Estados-Membros. Não conseguiremos cumprir as regras da política comum da pesca sem criar condições equitativas para todos os pescadores, em toda a União Europeia.
Com vista a promover a transparência e a encorajar a aplicação de sanções adequadas e dissuasoras contra quem comete infracções graves, a Comissão publica anualmente uma comunicação sobre infracções graves às regras da política comum da pesca."@pt17
"Mr President, I wish to thank the rapporteur and the Committee on Fisheries for its report on this proposal from the Commission. I am pleased to note that the committee has given a favourable assessment to this scheme, which is aimed at improving the Member States’ control capabilities, and that it fully supports the extension of its validity for a further year. I also note that the committee is favourable to financing, under the Community budget, administrative arrangements with the Joint Research Centre with a view to developing new technologies in the area of control, and to the financing of studies on control-related areas, to be carried out at the Commission’s initiative.
The Commission has published four of these communications so far. In its comments on the tables annexed to the communications, the Commission stressed the need to reduce existing disparities regarding the level of sanctions imposed across the Community.
On the same communications, the Commission has also declared its preference for the use of administrative procedures and sanctions when dealing with breaches of the common fisheries policy rules, since they are imposed in a swifter manner and are more effective. The Commission believes that a sanction, such as the suspension of an authorisation to fish, decided by the administrative authority and entering into force immediately, subject to the possibility of a judicial review, is a stronger deterrent. The choice, however, between a penal or administrative procedure lies with the Member State.
In conformity with Article 25(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002, the basic regulation on the CFP, the Commission intends to present in due time a proposal aimed at harmonising at Community level sanctions for serious infringements.
The committee has, however, tabled seven amendments to the proposal. I regret that it is very difficult to accept any of the amendments, mainly for formal reasons, which I would like to explain.
Amendment 2 proposes a change to the time limit for the presentation of national programmes. We would like to keep the existing date of 31 January, as the submission of requests early on in the year will allow the Commission to adopt a decision granting the financial contribution in the first semester. This will, in turn, ease the planning requirements for national administrations. It should also be noted that the national administrations are already fully aware of this time limit.
On Amendment 3 and the related Amendments 1 and 6, the Commission shares the committee’s view that these expenses should be financed under a different heading. This can be done through a budgetary arrangement. However, it is not possible to finance these two new actions if they were not foreseen in the legal text. The Commission deems that this proposal is the appropriate legal text to introduce them and cannot, therefore, accept these amendments.
In Amendment 4, the committee asks the Commission to establish criteria in order to allocate grants when the amount of request exceeds the available appropriations. The Commission’s policy is to allocate grants only when the need for investment has been proven, namely through the national report on control activities, irrespective of the overall amount requested. Establishing criteria will introduce some rigidity to the selection of projects and could entail a risk that grants will be given for projects that are not of general interest. This amendment cannot, therefore, be accepted.
Amendment 5 refers to the contribution rate for the most expensive items, i.e. patrol vessels and aircraft. Increasing the rate to up to 75% of the eligible expenditure will reduce appropriations for other actions. The Commission considers a rate not exceeding 50% to be appropriate, as a general rule, for all kinds of investment. It cannot, therefore, accept this amendment.
Finally, the Commission cannot accept 7, since at the end of 2006 most of the projects will not yet have been completed, meaning a report on the decision will be of little use. I should like to recall that the Commission will present a report on this decision to the European Parliament by 30 June 2008 at the latest.
Concerning Mr Morillon’s oral question to the Commission, may I say that I fully share the view that sanctions, including in the fisheries sector, must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offences committed. They must also effectively discourage any further infringement of the same nature. Moreover, sanctions should be non-discriminatory between nationals and non-nationals of Member States. We cannot achieve compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy without creating a level playing field across the European Union for all fishermen.
With a view to promoting transparency and to encouraging the application of adequate and dissuasive sanctions against those who commit serious infringements, the Commission publishes an annual communication on serious infringements to the rules of the community fisheries policy."@sk18
"Mr President, I wish to thank the rapporteur and the Committee on Fisheries for its report on this proposal from the Commission. I am pleased to note that the committee has given a favourable assessment to this scheme, which is aimed at improving the Member States’ control capabilities, and that it fully supports the extension of its validity for a further year. I also note that the committee is favourable to financing, under the Community budget, administrative arrangements with the Joint Research Centre with a view to developing new technologies in the area of control, and to the financing of studies on control-related areas, to be carried out at the Commission’s initiative.
The Commission has published four of these communications so far. In its comments on the tables annexed to the communications, the Commission stressed the need to reduce existing disparities regarding the level of sanctions imposed across the Community.
On the same communications, the Commission has also declared its preference for the use of administrative procedures and sanctions when dealing with breaches of the common fisheries policy rules, since they are imposed in a swifter manner and are more effective. The Commission believes that a sanction, such as the suspension of an authorisation to fish, decided by the administrative authority and entering into force immediately, subject to the possibility of a judicial review, is a stronger deterrent. The choice, however, between a penal or administrative procedure lies with the Member State.
In conformity with Article 25(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002, the basic regulation on the CFP, the Commission intends to present in due time a proposal aimed at harmonising at Community level sanctions for serious infringements.
The committee has, however, tabled seven amendments to the proposal. I regret that it is very difficult to accept any of the amendments, mainly for formal reasons, which I would like to explain.
Amendment 2 proposes a change to the time limit for the presentation of national programmes. We would like to keep the existing date of 31 January, as the submission of requests early on in the year will allow the Commission to adopt a decision granting the financial contribution in the first semester. This will, in turn, ease the planning requirements for national administrations. It should also be noted that the national administrations are already fully aware of this time limit.
On Amendment 3 and the related Amendments 1 and 6, the Commission shares the committee’s view that these expenses should be financed under a different heading. This can be done through a budgetary arrangement. However, it is not possible to finance these two new actions if they were not foreseen in the legal text. The Commission deems that this proposal is the appropriate legal text to introduce them and cannot, therefore, accept these amendments.
In Amendment 4, the committee asks the Commission to establish criteria in order to allocate grants when the amount of request exceeds the available appropriations. The Commission’s policy is to allocate grants only when the need for investment has been proven, namely through the national report on control activities, irrespective of the overall amount requested. Establishing criteria will introduce some rigidity to the selection of projects and could entail a risk that grants will be given for projects that are not of general interest. This amendment cannot, therefore, be accepted.
Amendment 5 refers to the contribution rate for the most expensive items, i.e. patrol vessels and aircraft. Increasing the rate to up to 75% of the eligible expenditure will reduce appropriations for other actions. The Commission considers a rate not exceeding 50% to be appropriate, as a general rule, for all kinds of investment. It cannot, therefore, accept this amendment.
Finally, the Commission cannot accept 7, since at the end of 2006 most of the projects will not yet have been completed, meaning a report on the decision will be of little use. I should like to recall that the Commission will present a report on this decision to the European Parliament by 30 June 2008 at the latest.
Concerning Mr Morillon’s oral question to the Commission, may I say that I fully share the view that sanctions, including in the fisheries sector, must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offences committed. They must also effectively discourage any further infringement of the same nature. Moreover, sanctions should be non-discriminatory between nationals and non-nationals of Member States. We cannot achieve compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy without creating a level playing field across the European Union for all fishermen.
With a view to promoting transparency and to encouraging the application of adequate and dissuasive sanctions against those who commit serious infringements, the Commission publishes an annual communication on serious infringements to the rules of the community fisheries policy."@sl19
".
Herr talman! Jag vill tacka föredraganden och fiskeriutskottet för detta betänkande om kommissionens förslag. Jag är glad över att kunna notera att utskottet har gjort en gynnsam bedömning av denna ordning, vilken syftar till att förbättra medlemsstaternas kontrollförmåga, och att det till fullo stöder förlängningen av dess giltighetstid med ytterligare ett år. Jag noterar även att utskottet är gynnsamt inställt till att inom ramen för gemenskapens budget finansiera administrativa arrangemang med Gemensamma forskningscentret i syfte att utveckla ny teknik inom området för kontroll, och till att finansiera studier inom kontrollrelaterade områden, vilka ska genomföras på kommissionens initiativ.
Kommissionen har hittills publicerat fyra sådana meddelanden. I sina kommentarer till de tabeller som bifogas meddelandena betonade kommissionen behovet av att minska de befintliga skillnaderna i påföljdsnivån i gemenskapen.
När det gäller dessa meddelanden har kommissionen också förklarat att den föredrar att använda administrativa förfaranden och påföljder när det gäller brott mot reglerna i den gemensamma fiskeripolitiken, eftersom de införs snabbare och effektivare. Kommissionen anser att en påföljd, exempelvis ett indraget fisketillstånd, som beslutas av den administrativa myndigheten och träder i kraft omedelbart, med möjlighet till domstolsgranskning, har en starkt avskräckande effekt. Valet mellan ett straffrättsligt eller administrativt förfarande ligger emellertid hos medlemsstaten.
I enlighet med artikel 25.4 i rådets förordning (EG) nr 2371/2002, grundförordningen för GFP, har kommissionen för avsikt att i rätt tid lägga fram ett förslag i syfte att på gemenskapsnivå harmonisera påföljderna för allvarliga överträdelser.
Utskottet har emellertid lagt fram sju ändringsförslag till förslaget. Jag beklagar att det är mycket svårt att godta något av ändringsförslagen, främst av formella skäl, vilket jag skulle vilja förklara.
I ändringsförslag 2 föreslås en ändring av tidsfristen för presentationen av nationella program. Vi skulle vilja behålla den nuvarande dagen 31 januari, eftersom inlämnandet av förfrågningar i början av året ger kommissionen möjlighet att anta ett beslut om beviljande av det ekonomiska bidraget under det första halvåret. Det kommer i sin tur att underlätta planeringskraven för nationella administrationer. Det bör också noteras att de nationella administrationerna redan är fullt medvetna om denna tidsfrist.
När det gäller ändringsförslag 3 och de relaterade ändringsförslagen 1 och 6 delar kommissionen utskottets åsikt att dessa utgifter bör finansieras under en annan rubrik. Det kan ske genom ett budgetarrangemang. Det är emellertid inte möjligt att finansiera dessa två nya åtgärder om de inte förutses i lagtexten. Kommissionen anser att detta förslag är den lämpliga lagtexten för att införa den och kan därför inte godta dessa ändringsförslag.
I ändringsförslag 4 uppmanar utskottet kommissionen att fastställa kriterier för att fördela bidrag när det begärda beloppet överskrider de tillgängliga anslagen. Kommissionens policy är att endast tilldela bidrag när behovet av investeringen har bevisats, genom den nationella rapporten om kontrollverksamhet, oberoende av det totalbelopp som begärs. Fastställandet av kriterier kommer att ge en viss stelhet till valet av projekt och skulle kunna medföra en risk för att bidrag ges till projekt som inte är av allmänt intresse. Detta ändringsförslag kan därför inte godtas.
Ändringsförslag 5 rör bidragets nivå för de dyraste punkterna, det vill säga fartyg och flygplan som används för inspektioner och övervakning av fiskeriverksamheten. Att höja bidragsnivån till upp till 75 procent av de tillgängliga utgifterna minskar anslagen för andra åtgärder. Kommissionen anser att som allmän regel är en bidragsnivå som inte överskrider 50 procent lämplig för alla typer av investeringar. Den kan därför inte godta detta ändringsförslag.
Slutligen kan kommissionen inte godta ändringsförslag 7, eftersom de flesta av projekten ännu inte kommer att ha slutförts i slutet av 2006, vilket innebär att en rapport om beslutet inte kommer att vara speciellt användbar. Jag vill påminna om att kommissionen kommer att lägga fram en rapport om detta beslut för Europaparlamentet senast den 30 juni 2008.
När det gäller Philippe Morillons muntliga fråga till kommissionen vill jag säga att jag till fullo delar åsikten att påföljder, däribland i fiskerisektorn, måste stå i proportion till graden av allvar hos de förseelser som begås. De måste också avskräcka från ytterligare överträdelser av samma karaktär. Påföljder får vidare inte vara diskriminerande mellan medborgare och icke-medborgare i medlemsstaterna. Vi kan inte uppnå ett uppfyllande av reglerna i den gemensamma fiskeripolitiken utan att skapa lika villkor över hela Europeiska unionen för alla fiskare.
I syfte att främja öppenhet och uppmuntra till användning av tillräckliga och avskräckande påföljder mot dem som begår allvarliga överträdelser publicerar kommissionen ett årligt meddelande om allvarliga överträdelser av reglerna i den gemensamma fiskeripolitiken."@sv21
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Joe Borg,"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4,17
"Member of the Commission"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,11,13,4
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples