Activities of Lily JACOBS
Plenary speeches (5)
European rail network for competitive freight (debate)
Support schemes for farmers under the CAP - Modifications to the common agricultural policy - Support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development - Community strategic guidelines for rural development (2007 to 2013) (debate)
Community Tobacco Fund (debate)
CAP ‘Health Check’ (debate)
Commission measures in 2008-2013 to make use of CAP remote-sensing applications (debate)
Amendments (128)
Amendment 9 #
2008/2220(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Believes that ensuring conditions of fair competition for strategic goods such as agricultural and food products should be a major European objective of public interest; considers it vital that there should also be conditions of fair competition for imported products, which tend not to meet standards comparable to those governing Community products; believes that the EU's quality standards need to be applied to third-country products having access to the single European marketthat, while third country imports to the EU must comply with EU food safety requirements, the EU does not need to impose its "process" standards on third countries; believes that European farmers should exploit the strengths of EU farming to a competitive advantage and better inform consumers about the quality of the products on offer;
Amendment 14 #
2008/2220(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Reaffirms that the goal of higher food safety standards should be that of attaining a high level of product quality offering a strong competitive advantage to agricultural producers, and that food safety and the requirements of environment- friendliness must not be allowed to generate significant extra costs for European; considers that where the use of EU taxpayers money can be justified is for supporting farmers; b in delieves that a key role needs to be played here by CAP funding, which farmers in Europe should use for ensuring product safety and higher product qualityring public goods, for which the market may not always reward farmers in meeting higher standards on animal welfare, environmental protection, among others;
Amendment 19 #
2008/2220(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Recalls that the ongoing liberalisation of world agricultural markets is exposing EU producers to direct international competition, and that any additional measures that have to be complied with may be detrimental to competition; but may also play to the advantage of EU farmers if they are effectively able to distinguish their products in the market place and gain premiums in return; EU farmers can turn consumer demands to their advantage by providing consumers with locally produced quality products, higher animal welfare and environmental standards, among others;
Amendment 36 #
2008/2220(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Is concerned at the fact that the majority of European consumers are not sufficiently well informed concerning the food chain, especially as regards products' and raw materials' origins; advocates mandatory indication of place of production of primary products via a 'made in the EU' or 'non-EU' labelbased on a country of origin label, reflecting consumer desire to know more about the origins of the product they are buying; believes such a system should also apply to processed food products and should account for the origins of the main ingredients and raw materials, specifying their place of origin as well as the place of final processing;
Amendment 132 #
2008/2220(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Notes, with regard to the international dimension, the existence of a number of problemissues relating to the competitiveness of the European industry vis-à- vis the Unionindustries of the EU's main trading partners; is concerned at pressure from products from emerging countries which do not meet the same security and quality standards and often benefit from lax controls; reiterates, in this connection, the need to implement the concept of 'qualified market access', as affirmed in numerous resolutions of Parliamentreiterates that third country imports must meet strict EU food safety requirements and believes that European farmers should make better use of the competitive advantage that can be gained by producing high quality products;
Amendment 14 #
2008/2041(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas a suitable division of tasks between the European Union and towns and cities must be decided upon, in which the European Union should play a supporting role in order to stimulate local and regional initiatives and work towards a common, coherent strategy; whereas this must leave room for flexibility for local and regional authorities and must always take account of the subsidiarity principle;
Amendment 30 #
2008/2041(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas European towns and cities should be able to choose from a wide range of instruments so as to put together a tailor- made policy mix in order to solve their specific traffic problems; whereas better, more sustainable and more integrated logistical solutions must be sought in all transport areas (passenger and freight transport, both by land and water);
Amendment 31 #
2008/2041(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas urban mobility is not just about transport but is also very closely linked to all kinds of social, economic and environmental concerns; whereas an urban mobility strategy must contribute to improving the quality of life and health, the protection of the environment and the strengthening of economic growth in European cities;
Amendment 47 #
2008/2041(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas internalising external costs is an important step towards the goal of achieving real costing in the transport sector, the possibility of cross-subsidisation of sustainable urban transport concepts needs to be assessed and efforts must be made to develop new financial instruments and make better and more frequent use of existing financial instruments such as the Structural and Cohesion Funds in the interest of sustainable urban mobility solutions;
Amendment 71 #
2008/0247(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point c
Amendment 123 #
2008/0247(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. For each freight corridor the Member States concerned shall set up an executive board responsible for authorising the corridor implementation plan by the governance body and supervising its execution. The individual members of the executive board shall be mandated by the competent Ministers.
Amendment 124 #
2008/0247(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2
2. For each freight corridor the infrastructure managers concerned and interested railway undertakings, as defined in Article 2 of Directive 2001/14/EC, or groups of railway undertakings using the corridor shall create a governance body responsible for defining and steering the performance and updating of the implementation plan for the freight corridor. The governance body shall make regular reports on its activity to the Member States concerned and, where necessary, to the European coordinators of the TEN-T priority projects referred to in Article 17a of Decision No 1692/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council10 involved in the freight corridor.
Amendment 141 #
2008/0247(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2
2. Applicants for the use of the freight corridor shall be consulted by the governance body before the implementation plan is approved and when it is updated. In the event of a disagreement between the governance body and the applicants, the latter may contact the Commission, whichexecutive board or the regulatory bodies of the corridor. They shall consult the committee referred to in Article 18(1), in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 18(2), on this matter.
Amendment 151 #
Amendment 153 #
2008/0247(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8
Article 8
The infrastructure managers in the freight corridor shall coordinate at least once a year, in accordance with an appropriate manner and timeframe and respecting their respective contractual agreements as defined in Article 6 of Directive 2001/14EC, their schedule for carrying out heavy maintenancall the works on the infrastructure and its equipment that would restrict available capacity on the network.
Amendment 160 #
2008/0247(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 10 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Individual infrastructure managers of a corridor may be assigned to function as the front office of the one-stop shop for the applicants requesting train paths.
Amendment 167 #
2008/0247(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Article 11 – paragraph 1
1. The governance body shall defin, after consulting the executive board or where appropriate the Ministers concerned, define and periodically update the standard categories of freight traffic, which shall be valid in the whole of the freight corridor. At least one of these categories (hereinafter referred to as "priority freight") shall include goods whose transportation is very time-sensitive and which therefore require an efficient transport time and guaranteed punctualityshall be defined as "priority freight".
Amendment 180 #
2008/0247(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1
Article 12 – paragraph 1
1. NotwithstandIn addition to the cases mentioned ing Article 20(2) of Directive 2001/14/EC, the infrastructure managers of the freight corridor shall reserve, if necessary and on the basis of the evaluation of such a need, the capacity needed for priority freight traffic for the coming financial year, prior to the annual exercise to define the working timetable referred to in Article 18 of Directive 2001/14/EC and using as a basis the freight traffic observed and the market study defined in Article 5(1).
Amendment 191 #
2008/0247(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2
Article 12 – paragraph 2
2. The infrastructure managers shall keep, if necessary, a reserve of capacity within the final working timetable to allow them to respond quickly and appropriately to ad hoc requests for capacity as referred to in Article 23 of Directive 2001/14/EC. This capacity must be sufficient to allow requests for train paths to be met while guaranteeing a sufficient level of quality for the allocated train path in terms of journey times on the train path and timetables adapted to priority freight traffic.
Amendment 195 #
2008/0247(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 5
Article 12 – paragraph 5
5. Save in the case of force majeure,If a train path allocated to a “priority freight” operation may not beis cancelled less than three monthdays before its working timetable iwithout the approval of the applicant concerned does not give their approval for such cancellation, the applicant may refer the matter to the regulatory body. As referred to in Article 27 of Directive 2001/14/EC, infrastructure managers may specify in their network statement conditions whereby they shall take account of previous levels of utilisation of priority freight train paths in determining priorities for the allocation process.
Amendment 201 #
2008/0247(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13
Article 13
Notwithstanding Article 16(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC, applicants other than railway undertakings and the international groupings that they make up, may request train paths for freight transport where the latter concern one or more sections of the freight corridor. As defined in Article 16(2) and Article 16(3) of Directive 2001/14/EC, infrastructure managers of the corridor may set and publish requirements for applicants to ensure that their legitimate expectations about future revenues and utilisation of the infrastructure are safeguarded.
Amendment 210 #
2008/0247(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2
Article 14 – paragraph 2
2. The rules of priority referred to in paragraph 1 above must at least provide that the train path allocated to a aim at minimising overall delays while focusing on “priority freight” train complying with the initial provisions for its train path may neither be reallocated to another train, nor modified, except where the initial holder of the train path agrees to reallocation to another train or modificadelays. The governance body shall, in conjunction with applicants, develop and publish: a) train regulation principles that shall ensure that “priority freight” trains receive the best treatment possible regarding the allocation of the reduced capacity, b) contingency plans in case of disruption ofn the train path.corridor that are based on these principles,
Amendment 218 #
2008/0247(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1
Article 16 – paragraph 1
1. The infrastructure managers for the freight corridor shall ensure consistency between the performance schemes along the freight corridor, as defined in Article 11 of Directive 2001/14/EC. This shall include, where applicable, the incentives to retrofit freight wagons for noise. This shall not limit Member States' own initiatives to introducing more progressive incentive schemes for retrofitting for freight.
Amendment 222 #
2008/0247(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1
Article 17 – paragraph 1
1. The regulatory bodies referred to in Article 30 of Directive 2001/14/EC which are responsible for the freight corridor shall cooperate to supervise the international activities of the infrastructure managers and applicants in the freight corridor. They shall consult each other and exchange information. Where necessary, they shall request the necessary information from infrastructure managers in the Member State for which they are responsible. Infrastructure managers and other third parties involved in international capacity allocation are obliged to provide the regulatory bodies concerned without delay all the information that is needed on the international train paths and capacity they are responsible for.
Amendment 180 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Member States shall provide funding for training, research, development and implementation of replacement methods.
Amendment 210 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 2
Article 8 – paragraph 2
2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, great apes shall not be used in procedures, subject to the use of the safeguard clause in Article 50.
Amendment 211 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Every two years, and for the first time two years after the entry into force of this Directive, the Commission shall, in consultation with Member States, conduct a review of the use of non-human primates in procedures and publish the results thereof. The review shall examine the impact of developments in technological, scientific and animal- welfare knowledge, and set targets for the implementation of validated replacement methods.
Amendment 368 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 45
Article 45
The Commission and Member States shall contribute by various means, particularly financial to the development and scientific validation of alternative approaches that could provide the same or higher level of information as that obtained in procedures using animals but that do not involve the use of animals or use fewer animals or that entail less painful procedures and shall take such other steps as they consider appropriate to encourage research in this field.
Amendment 378 #
2008/0211(COD)
Proposal for a directive
Article 50
Article 50
Amendment 10 #
2008/0195(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) As a consequence of differences in interpretation, application and weak enforcement of the provisions of Directive 2002/15/EC by the Member States and of a failure to adhere to the minimum working time standards by transport companies and drivers, competition is distorted, and the safety and health of drivers is jeopardized.
Amendment 12 #
2008/0195(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) In the light of the Commission report and the impact assessment, self-employed drivers should be exincluded fromin the scope of Directive 2002/15/EC.
Amendment 13 #
2008/0195(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Recital 8
Recital 8
Amendment 19 #
2008/0195(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 1 – point 1 – point a
Article 1 – point 1 – point a
Directive 2002/15/EC
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
1. Theis Directive shall apply to mobile workers, as defined in Article 3(d) of this Directive, employed by undertakings established in a Member State, participating in road transport activities covered by Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 or, failing that, by the AETR Agreement.
Amendment 21 #
2008/0195(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 1 – point 1 – point a
Article 1 – point 1 – point a
Directive 2002/15/EC
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
This Directive shall also apply to mobile workers as defined in the second sentence of Article 3(d)self-employed drivers from 23 March 2009.
Amendment 24 #
2008/0195(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 1 – point 2 – point a
Article 1 – point 2 – point a
Directive 2002/15/EC
Article 3 – point a – paragraph 2
Article 3 – point a – paragraph 2
Amendment 27 #
2008/0195(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 1 – point 2 – point b
Article 1 – point 2 – point b
Directive 2002/15/EC
Article 3 – point d
Article 3 – point d
Amendment 29 #
2008/0195(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 1 – point 2 – point c
Article 1 – point 2 – point c
Directive 2002/15/EC
Article 3 – point e
Article 3 – point e
Amendment 30 #
2008/0195(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 1 – point 2 – point d
Article 1 – point 2 – point d
Directive 2002/15/EC
Article 3 – point f
Article 3 – point f
Amendment 36 #
2008/0195(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 1 – point 2 – point e
Article 1 – point 2 – point e
Directive 2002/15/EC
Article 3 – point i
Article 3 – point i
Amendment 40 #
2008/0195(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 1 – point 6
Article 1 – point 6
Directive 2002/15/EC
Article 11 a – paragraph 1
Article 11 a – paragraph 1
(1) Member States shall organise a system of appropriate and regular monitoring and controls in order to guarantee the correct and consistent implementation of the rules contained in this Directive. TIf risk analyses show that a transport company is not properly and consistently complying with the rules on working, driving and rest periods as laid down in this Directive and in Regulation (EC) No 561/2006, Member States shall step up monitoring of the company concerned. In addition they shall ensure that the national bodies responsible for enforcement of theis Directive have an adequate number of qualified inspectors and shall take whatever measures are appropriate.
Amendment 71 #
2008/0180(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point j
Article 2 – point j
(j) “slaughter” means the killing of animals for human consumption or fur production;
Amendment 73 #
2008/0180(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – point m
Article 2 – point m
(m) “fur animals” means animals of the mammal species primarily reared for the production of fur such as minks, polecats, foxes, raccoons, coypuraccoon dogs, coypu, rabbits and chinchillas;
Amendment 125 #
2008/0180(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point f a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point f a (new)
(fa) the killing of fur animals
Amendment 161 #
2008/0180(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4b. Operators of fur farms shall notify the competent authority in advance when animals are to be killed, to enable the Official Veterinarian to check that the requirements set out in this Regulation, and the standard operating procedures, are being observed.
Amendment 41 #
2008/0160(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) To eliminate the present fragmentation of the internal market, there is a need to provide for harmonised rules while taking into account animal welfare consideration and take account of both general animal welfare concerns and the aim of preserving the natural ecological basis for life, there is a need to provide for harmonised rules. A ban on placing seal products on the market is appropriate to that effectfor these purposes.
Amendment 46 #
2008/0160(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
Amendment 49 #
2008/0160(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
Amendment 52 #
2008/0160(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) The fundamental economic and social interests of Inuit communities traditionally engaged in the hunting of seals as a means to ensure their subsistence should not be adversely affected. The hunt is an integrated part of the culture and the identity of the members of the Inuit society. It represents a source of income and contributes to the subsistence of the hunter. Therefore, seal products deriving from hunts traditionally conducted by Inuit communities and which contribute toensure their subsistence should not be covered by the prohibitions provided for in this Regulation.
Amendment 53 #
2008/0160(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
Amendment 57 #
2008/0160(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) In particular, the Commission should be empowered to adopt all measures necessary to ensure that the procedures are in place allowing applications for derognd the correct implementation tof the trade prohibitions set out in this Regulation to be lodged and handled in an efficient manner, as well as to ensure the proper implementation of the provisions of this Regulation concerning certification schemes and labelling and markingprovisions of this Regulation are possible, particularly proof of the origin of original Inuit products. Since those measures are of a general scope and are designed to amend non-essential elements of this Regulation by supplementing it, inter alia, by supplementing it with new non-essential elements, they must be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny provided for in Article 5a of Decision 1999/468/EC. The Commission should also be empowered to decide on derogations to trade prohibitions under this Regulation, suspension or revocation thereof. Since those measures are adopted to ensure the management of the scheme provided for in this Regulation and apply it in individual cases, they must be adopted in accordance with the management procedure provided for in Article 4 of Decision 1999/468/EC.
Amendment 59 #
2008/0160(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1
Article 1
This Regulation establishes harmonised rules concerning the placing on the market and the import in, transit through, or export from, the European Community of seal products; it takes account both of general animal welfare concerns and of the aim of preserving the natural ecological basis for life.
Amendment 60 #
2008/0160(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1
1. 'seal' means specimens of Pinnipeds belonging to the species listed in Annex Iall species of Pinnipeds (Phocidae, Otariidae, Odobenidae);
Amendment 66 #
2008/0160(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 7
Article 2 – paragraph 7
Amendment 69 #
2008/0160(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2
Article 3 – paragraph 2
2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to seal products resulting from hunts traditionally conducted by Inuit communities and which contribute toensure their subsistence.
Amendment 71 #
2008/0160(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4
Article 4
Amendment 74 #
2008/0160(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5
Article 5
Amendment 77 #
2008/0160(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6
Article 6
Amendment 80 #
2008/0160(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7
Article 7
Amendment 91 #
Amendment 93 #
Amendment 108 #
2008/0160(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex II – point 9
Annex II – point 9
Clear requirements for reporting targeting both hunters and inspectors are provided for, which cover where and when animals are killed and which weapons and ammunition are used. The rangeAny observations ofn relevant environmental factors isand the ecological balance are also to be reported.
Amendment 249 #
2008/0147(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 1 – point 2
Article 1 – point 2
Directive 1999/62/EC
Article 7 b – paragraph 2
Article 7 b – paragraph 2
2. The external cost charge shall be related to the cost of traffic-based air pollution, the cost of traffic-based noise pollution, or both. On road sections subject to congestion the external cost charge may also include the cost of congestion during the periods when these road sections are usually congested, under the condition that other road users causing congestion are subject to a comparable charging scheme.
Amendment 298 #
2008/0147(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Article 1 – point 2
Article 1 – point 2
Directive 1999/62/EC
Article 7f – paragraph 3 – point c
Article 7f – paragraph 3 – point c
Amendment 463 #
2008/0147(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Annex
Annex
Directive 1999/62/EC
Annex IIIa – point 4 – point 4.1 – table 1 – title
Annex IIIa – point 4 – point 4.1 – table 1 – title
Table 1: AMaximum chargeable air pollution cost of vehicle (PCV)
Amendment 491 #
2008/0147(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Annex
Annex
Directive 1999/62/EC
Annex IIIa – point 4 – point 4.1 – subparagraph 3
Annex IIIa – point 4 – point 4.1 – subparagraph 3
The values in Table 1 are a maximum chargeable cost which shall apply to any vehicle in a given class. The values in Table 1 represent arithmetic averages of the values given in Table 15 of the “"Handbook on the estimation of external cost in the transport sector”" for vehicles belonging to four different weight classes. Member States may apply a correction factor to the values in Table 1 to reflect the actual fleet composition in terms of vehicle size. The values of Table 1 may be multiplied by a factor of up to 2 in mountain areas to the extent that it is justified by the gradient of roads, altitude and/or temperature inversions.
Amendment 499 #
2008/0147(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Annex
Annex
Directive 1999/62/EC
Annex IIIa – point 4 – point 4.2 – table 2 – title
Annex IIIa – point 4 – point 4.2 – table 2 – title
Table 2: CMaximum chargeable noise cost of vehicles (NCV)
Amendment 520 #
2008/0147(COD)
Proposal for a directive – amending act
Annex
Annex
Directive 1999/62/EC
Annex IIIa – point 4 – point 4.3 – table 3 – title
Annex IIIa – point 4 – point 4.3 – table 3 – title
Table 3: CMaximum chargeable congestion cost of vehicles (CCV)
Amendment 30 #
2008/0105(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1 – point 2
Article 1 – point 2
Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005
Article 12 a – paragraph 1
Article 12 a – paragraph 1
Amendment 44 #
2008/0105(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 1 – point 3
Article 1 – point 3
Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005
Article 16 a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 16 a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
In consultation with their sub-national levels of government, Member States may base their choice on the indicative list of types of operations set out in Annex II of this Regulation and/or any other types of operations provided that those operations are linked to the priorities referred to in the first subparagraph and are aimed at achieving the potential effects specified in Annex II.
Amendment 148 #
2008/0104(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Article 4 – point 30 a (new)
Article 4 – point 30 a (new)
Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007
Article 162 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
Article 162 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
(30a) In Article 162(1)(a) subparagraph 2a is added "All export refunds should be abolished by 2013."
Amendment 161 #
2008/0104(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation – amending act
Annex I
Annex I
Member Sstate 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 20110/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/151 Belgium 3 427 288,740 3 461 561,627 3 496 177,244 3 531 139,016 3 566 450,406 3 602 114,910 3 602 114,910 Bulgaria 998 580,000 1 008 565,800 1 018 651,458 1 028 837,973 1 039 126,352 1 049 517,616 1 049 517,616 Czech Republic 2 792 689,620 2 820 616,516 2 848 822,681 2 877 310,908 2 906 084,017 2 935 144,857 2 935 144,857 Denmark 4 612 619,520 4 658 745,715 4 705 333,172 4 752 386,504 4 799 910,369 4 847 909,473 4 847 909,473 Germany 28 847 420,391 29 135 894,595 29 427 253,541 29 721 526,076 30 018 741,337 30 318 928,750 30 318 928,750 Estonia Estonia 659 295,360 665 888,314 672 547,197 679 272,669 686 065,395 692 926,049 692 926,049 672 547,197 Ireland 5 503 679,280 5 558 716,073 5 614 303,234 5 670 446,266 5 727 150,729 5 784 422,236 5 784 422,236 Greece Greece 836 923,260 845 292,493 853 745,418 862 282,872 870 905,700 879 614,757 879 614,757 Spain 6 239 289,000 6 301 681,890 6 364 698,709 6 428 345,696 6 492 629,153 6 557 555,445 6 557 555,445 France 25 091 321,700 25 342 234,917 25 595 657,266 25 851 613,839 26 110 129,977 26 371 231,277 26 371 231,277 Italy 10 740 661,200 10 848 067,812 10 956 548,490 11 066 113,975 11 176 775,115 11 288 542,866 11 288 542,866 Cyprus 148 104,000 149 585,040 151 080,890 152 591,699 154 117,616 155 658,792 155 658,792 Latvia 743 220,960 750 653,170 758 159,701 765 741,298 773 398,711 781 132,698 781 132,698 Lithuania 1 738 935,780 1 756 325,138 1 773 888,389 1 791 627,273 1 809 543,546 1 827 638,981 1 827 638,981 Luxembourg 278 545,680 281 331,137 284 144,448 286 985,893 289 855,752 292 754,310 292 754,310 Hungary 2 029 861,200 2 050 159,812 2 070 661,410 2 091 368,024 2 112 281,704 2 133 404,521 2 133 404,521 Malta 49 671,960 50 168,680 50 670,366 51 177,070 51 688,841 52 205,729 52 205,729 Netherlands 11 465 630,280 11 580 286,583 11 696 089,449 11 813 050,343 11 931 180,847 12 050 492,655 12 050 492,655 Austria 2 847 478,469 2 875 953,254 2 904 712,786 2 933 759,914 2 963 097,513 2 992 728,488 2 992 728,488 Poland 9 567 745,860 9 663 423,319 9 760 057,552 9 857 658,127 9 956 234,709 10 055 797,056 10 055 797,056 Portugal 1 987 521,000 2 007 396,210 2 027 470,172 2 047 744,874 2 068 222,323 2 088 904,546 2 088 904,546 Romania 3 118 140,000 3 149 321,400 3 180 814,614 3 212 622,760 3 244 748,988 3 277 196,478 3 277 196,478 Slovenia 588 170,760 594 052,468 599 992,992 605 992,922 612 052,851 618 173,380 618 173,380 Slovakia 1 061 603,760 1 072 219,798 1 082 941,996 1 093 771,416 1 104 709,130 1 115 756,221 1 115 756,221 Finland 2 491 930,710 2 516 850,017 2 542 018,517 2 567 438,702 2 593 113,089 2 619 044,220 2 619 044,220 Sweden 3 419 595,900 3 453 791,859 3 488 329,778 3 523 213,075 3 558 445,206 3 594 029,658 3 594 029,658 United Kingdom 15 125 168,940 15 276 420,629 15 429 184,836 15 583 476,684 15 739 311,451 15 896 704,566 15 896 704,566
Amendment 185 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) The management of small amounts is a burdensome task for the competent authorities of the Member States. To avoid excessive administrative burden it is appropriate forto allow Member States to refrain from granting direct payments where the payment would be lower than the Community average support for one hectare or the eligible area of the he flexibility to set a minimum thresholding for which support is claimed would relate to less than one hectareclaim sizes. Member States should be given discretion to opt for the implementation of one of the two criteria taking account of the particularities of the structures of their agricultural economies. As special payment entitlements were allocated to farmers with so-called "landless" holdings the application of the hectare-based threshold would be ineffective. Such farmers should therefore be subject to the averages support-based minimum amount.
Amendment 210 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30
Recital 30
(30) Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, while introducing a decoupled single payment scheme allowed Member States to exclude certain payments from that scheme. At the same time Article 64(3) of that Regulation provided for the revision of the options provided for in Sections 2 and 3 of Chapter 5 of its Title III, in the light of market and structural developments. An analysis of the relevant experience shows that decoupling introduces flexibility in the choice of producers, enabling them to take their production decisions on the basis of profitability and market response. This is particularly the case for the arable crops, hops and seeds sectors, and to a certain extent, also the beef sector. Therefore, the partially coupled payments in theseall sectors should be integrated into the single payment scheme. In order for farmers in the beef sector to gradually adjust to the new support arrangements provision should be made for a phasing-in of the integration of the special premium for male animals and the slaughter premium. Since the partially coupled payments in the fruit and vegetable sectors were only recently introduced, and only as a transitional measure, no review of such schemes is necessary.
Amendment 211 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31
Recital 31
Amendment 222 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32
Recital 32
(32) Member States should be allowed to use up to 10% of their ceilings for granting specific support in clearly defined and prescribed cases. Such support should allow Member States to address environmental issues and improve the quality and marketing of agricultural products. Specific support should also be available to buffer the consequences of the phasing-out of milk quotas and the decoupling of support in particularly sensitive sectors. Given the growing importance of an effective management of risks Member States should be given the option to financially contribute to the premiums farmers pay for crop insurance as well as to the financing of financial compensation of certain economic losses in case of animal or plant diseases. With a view to respecting the Community’s international obligations the resources that could be used for any coupled support measures should be limited at an appropriate level. The conditions applicable to the financial contributions to crop insurance and animal or plant disease related compensation should be established accordingly. Any measures of this nature should be seen as temporary measures to allow Member States to adjust to full decoupling and a more market-orientated policy and should therefore end in 2013.
Amendment 277 #
Amendment 284 #
Amendment 291 #
Amendment 298 #
Amendment 310 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Amendment 340 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3
Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply to direct payments granted to farmers in the French overseas departments, in the Azores and Madeira, in the Canary and Aegean islands.
Amendment 422 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 1 – indent 1 – introductory phrase
Article 30 – paragraph 1 – indent 1 – introductory phrase
1. Member States shall notbe permitted not to grant direct payments to a farmer in one the followunder certaing casesriteria:
Amendment 428 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 1 – indent 1 – point (a)
Article 30 – paragraph 1 – indent 1 – point (a)
(a) where the total amount of direct payments claimed or due to be granted in a given calendar year does not exceed an amount to be set by the Member State up to EUR 251000, or
Amendment 435 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 30 – paragraph 1 – indent 1 – point (b)
Article 30 – paragraph 1 – indent 1 – point (b)
(b) where the eligible area of the holding for which direct payments are claimed or due to be granted does not exceed one hectare. However, Cyprus may set a minimum eligible area of 0.3 hectares and Malta of 0.1five hectares.
Amendment 487 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 47 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Member States shall do as stated in sub 1, 2 and 3 in consultation with its sub- national levels of government.
Amendment 497 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 53 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Article 53 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
1. Any Member State having excluded the sheep and goat and beef payments from the single payment scheme under the conditions of Articles 67 and 68 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 may decide by 1 August 2009 to continue toshall apply the single payment scheme from 2010 under the conditions laid down in this section and in conformity with the decision taken under Article 64(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003. However, Member States may decide to set the part of the component of their national ceiling to be used for additional payments to farmers in accordance with Article 55(1) of this Regulation at a rate lower than that decided under Article 64(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003.
Amendment 509 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 55
Article 55
Amendment 531 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 67
Article 67
Amendment 593 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 68 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. Support for measures referred to in paragraph 1(a) and (b) may only be granted:
Amendment 597 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 – paragraph 3 – point a
Article 68 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) upon full implementation of the single payment schemefull decoupling in theall sector concerned in accordance with Articles 54, 55 and 71s.
Amendment 598 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 – paragraph 3 – point b
Article 68 – paragraph 3 – point b
Amendment 608 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 – paragraph 4
Article 68 – paragraph 4
4. Support under the measures referred to in paragraph 1 (a), (b), and (e) shall be limited to 2.5% of the national ceilings referred to in Article 41. Member States may set sub-limits per measuremust with certainty meet the conditions of the WTO green box.
Amendment 625 #
2008/0103(CNS)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 68 – paragraph 9
Article 68 – paragraph 9
9. The Commission, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 128 (2) , shall define the detailed conditions for the granting of the support referred to under this section, in particular wiand for the formal Commission approval of such support referred to under this section, including the criteria to be used for the designation of the a view to ensure consistency with other Community measures and policies and to avoid cumulation of supportreas and the degressive and transitional nature of support referred to in paragraph 1 (b). Under no circumstances can the Commission approve an aid which is incompatible with the provisions governing a common organisation of the market or which would interfere with the proper functioning of the common organisation. The Commission will only approve such measures if the positive contribution to the development of the sector clearly outweighs the risks of distortions of competition. Any support granted under this article shall end on 1 January 2013.
Amendment 36 #
2008/0079(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12 a (new)
Recital 12 a (new)
(12a) Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2008 on organic production underlined the need to obtain statistical information within the context of the Community Statistical Programme. Recognising that there is a need for the systematic production of Community statistics on organic production and farming, the Commission may propose legislation to cover Community statistics on organic production based on article 285 of the Treaty and within the Community Statistical Programme as well as Council Regulation (EC) No 322/97 on Community statistics.
Amendment 37 #
2008/0079(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point a) (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point a) (new)
a) 'area under cultivation' is the area which, before the harvest, corresponds to the sown area excluding the area ruined by meteorological or other conditions; after the harvest the area under cultivation corresponds to the harvested area.
Amendment 38 #
2008/0079(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point b) (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point b) (new)
b) 'cropped area' is the total sown area for producing a specific crop during the same year, comprising the total areas sown and harvested more than once in the same year.
Amendment 39 #
2008/0079(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point c) (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point c) (new)
c) 'harvested area' is the part of the cropped area that is harvested. It can, therefore, be equal to, or less than, the cropped area.
Amendment 40 #
2008/0079(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. The quality reports shall describe: (a) the organisation of the surveys covered by this Regulation and the methodology applied; (b) the level of precision achieved for the sample surveys referred to in this Regulation; (c) the quality of sources other than surveys which are used.
Amendment 41 #
2008/0079(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 4
Article 8 – paragraph 4
Amendment 42 #
2008/0079(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 5
Article 8 – paragraph 5
Amendment 43 #
2008/0079(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 5 a (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. The principle that additional costs and burdens remain within reasonable limits shall be taken into account.
Amendment 44 #
2008/0079(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Annex II – table 1 – footnote
Annex II – table 1 – footnote
____________________ * Production for these products shall be given in dry equivalentaverage degree of humidity which each Member State shall communicate to the European Commission
Amendment 7 #
2007/2285(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Calls, as a matter of urgency, for further research by the food industry into products to which healthy constituents such as vitamins A and D can be added in order to promote freedom of choice for consumers and not unintentionally promote consumption of certain foods with high fat contents, such as butter;
Amendment 21 #
2007/2285(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Considers that, at Community level too, the Community should take measures to promote consumption of healthy food such as vegetables, fruit and dairy products, inter alia by ensuring that they are affordable, promoting the availability of healthy food in school and works canteens and financing projects to promote healthy diets;
Amendment 23 #
2007/2285(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Backs the call for product information that is comprehensible to the average consumer, in particular by means of clear indications of the basic ingredients of a product and a uniform and readily recognisable logo indicating to what extent the product complies with healthy diet criteria;
Amendment 26 #
2007/2285(INI)
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Considers that food imported from third countries should meet the same high standards and criteria with regard to quality, animal welfare and environmental protection as are applied to food produced in the EU Member States, but that this must not lead to protectionism and that in particular Third World countries must be given a fair chance to sell their products on the European market.
Amendment 46 #
2007/2260(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Considers that vaccination should largely replace culling in the event of outbreaks of infectious animal diseases; points out that there is no difference between meat from animals which have been vaccinated against diseases and that from unvaccinated animals; acknowledges that markets inside and outside the EU are nonetheless not always willing to import vaccinated meat; stresses that livestock farmers and other market operators require guarantees that they will be able to sell their products without price reductions; regards this as a crucial issue which the European Community must resolve quickly in order to guarantee the free movement of goods;
Amendment 49 #
2007/2260(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Voices its dissatisfaction at the indications that individual measures will be financed from 'existing' funds, since those funds may prove inadequate; stresses the importance of facilitating national insurance instruments in which farmers themselves can take responsibility for the consequences of outbreaks of animal diseases;
Amendment 53 #
2007/2260(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Acknowledges borders are opening up, global demand for food and global trade are increasing, as well as global mobility of persons and animals, global warming and illegal trade, points out that these factors enlarge the animal health risks, underlines the need for an adequate emergency vaccination strategy for both existing diseases (like foot-and-mouth disease, classical swine fever, avian influenza and bluetongue) and emerging diseases (like African horse sickness, West Nile disease, African Swine Fever and Rift Valley fever);
Amendment 59 #
2007/2260(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Points to the need for risk categorisation also to cover issues relating to stocking density; points out that high stocking densities on large farms using industrial breeding methods are usually detrimental to the welfare of the animals and, furthermore, significantly increase the risk of disease and hamper disease control; takes the view that agricultural policy should encourage lower stocking densitito improve the level of biosecurity on holdings and to encourage all operators to raise standards, while acknowledging that infectious diseases cand should not provide incentives for the establishment of large holdings; stresses, furthermore, that large, intensive livestock holdings should come under special veterinary, sanitary and environmental surveillance and that their siting should not adversely affect the local population or the environment;trike on both small and large farms, on holdings where animals are kept for leisure, in zoos, in nature reserves, in slaughterhouses and during animal transport and transit.
Amendment 101 #
2007/2260(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Fully shares the view that the compensation system, for example in the form of an insurance instrument to which livestock farmers in a particular Member State themselves contribute financially, cannot be confined to the provision of compensation to owners of animals that are culled in response to the outbreak of disease, but should be combined with risk- prevention incentives, on the basis of the principle that the better the animal health and welfare standards owners maintain, the better they are compensated in the event of a disease outbreak; takes the view that that principle should also apply to Member States, as an incentive to reduce risk levels;
Amendment 111 #
2007/2260(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Endorses provision being made in the EU legal framework for support for the possibility of covering indirect losses not resulting solely from disease-eradication measures; points out that indirect losses can in some cases be more severe than direct losses, and that provision should therefore be made for compensation for such losses; expresses its support, therefore, for more research into and for facilitation by the European Community of the establishment of national insurance instruments by livestock farmers;
Amendment 133 #
2007/2260(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Believes identification and tracing to be particularly important in animal health monitoring and disease prevention; supports, in this connection, action covering the compulsory electronic identification of animals in the European Union and the introduction of a comprehensive animal movement monitoring system, but draws attention to the cost of such a system, particularly for small-scale livestock breeders;
Amendment 145 #
2007/2260(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 31
Paragraph 31
31. Takes the view that veterinary and customs controls at EU borders should be particularly rigorous with a view to preventing the illegal import of or trafficking in animals, given the major risk of spreading disease that they entail; draws attention, in this connection, to the need for organisational, training and financial assistance to be provided to veterinary services at the EU's external borders, in particular in the new Member States, in third countries which are neighbours to the EU and in developing countries;
Amendment 165 #
2007/2260(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Strongly supports action to increase the use of vaccination, which should foster more effective disease prevention and diminish the number of animals culled as part of disease-eradication operations; draws attention to the fact that the introduction of an effective vaccination system requires the provision of appropriate financial support, in order to encourage its use and guaranteed sales for farmers who resort to vaccination; considers it essential, furthermore, for EU vaccine banks to be expanded;
Amendment 47 #
2007/2194(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Considers that support measures for young farmers should also support newcomers, as they can be a renewing and valuable addition to European farming; notes therefore that support should primarily be channelled to new entrepreneurs rather than to those leaving the occupation; stresses that support measures for the taking-over of farms must not distort competition between newcomers on the one hand and farmers' sons and daughters on the other hand;
Amendment 94 #
2007/2194(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Considers that the amounts of the payments made under the policy to support young farmers must be reasonable and proportionate to the interest which they serve for society;
Amendment 104 #
2007/2194(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Considers that, in planning and implementing support measures for young farmers, specific account should be taken of the situation of young farmers in the new Member States of the European Union;
Amendment 132 #
2007/2194(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Notes that farming isand forestry are the only economic activityies which, through photosynthesis, captures carbon dioxide, thus reducing greenhouse gas levels;
Amendment 143 #
2007/2194(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Believes that thought should be given to using alternative energy sources derivedproducing energy using residues from agriculture;
Amendment 149 #
2007/2194(INI)
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Stresses the importance of shifting the focus of agricultural research in line with the CAP reform; stresses, at the same time, that it is important to make the findings of this research available to young farmers;
Amendment 31 #
2007/0297(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1
Article 1
This Regulation establishes CO2 emission performance requirements for new passenger cars in order to ensure proper functioning of the internal market and achieve the EU’s overall objective that the average new car fleet should achieve CO2 emissions of 120 g CO2/km. The Regulation sets the average CO2 emissions for new passenger cars at 1320 g CO2/km in 2012 and sets further reductions to achieve an average of 80g CO2/km in 2020 by means of improvement in vehicle motor technology as measured in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 and its implementing measures. This Regulation will be complemented by additional measures corresponding to 10 g/km as part of the Community’s integrated approach.
Amendment 33 #
2007/0297(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 a (new)
Article 1 a (new)
The average CO2 emissions for new passenger cars must not exceed 120 CO2/km in 2012, 108 g CO2/km in 2014, 98 g CO2/km in 2016, 88 g CO2/km in 2018 and 80 g CO2/km in 2020.
Amendment 34 #
2007/0297(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1
1. This Regulation shall apply to motor vehicles of category M1 as defined in Annex II to Directive 2007/46/EC with a reference mass not exceeding 2 610 kg and vehicles to which type-approval is extended in accordance with Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 (‘passenger cars’) which are registered in the Community for the first time and which have not previously been registered outside the Community (‘new passenger cars’).
Amendment 36 #
2007/0297(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 2
Article 2 – paragraph 2
2. A previous registration outside the Community less than three monthyears before registration in the Community shall not be taken into account.
Amendment 57 #
2007/0297(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3
Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. The excess emissions premium shall be: (a) in relation to excess emissions in the calendar year 2012, 20 euros; (b) in relation to excess emissions in the calendar year 2013, 35 euros; (c) in relation to excess emissions in the calendar year 2014, 60 euros; and (d) in relation to excess emissions in the calendar year 2015 and subsequent calendar years, 95 euros and subsequent calendar years, set at EUR 150.
Amendment 68 #
2007/0297(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 10 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. By 30 June 2016 and 30 June every three years thereafter, the Commission shall amend Annex I to provide for the figure M0 to be the average of the average mass of new passenger cars in the preceding three calendar years. The amendment shall take effect from 1 January in the following year. Such amendment, designed to amend non-essential elements of this Regulation, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 12(3).
Amendment 43 #
2007/0084(COD)
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) Council Regulation (EC) No 322/97 of 17 February 1997 on Community Statistics, constitutes the reference framework for the provisions of this Regulation. I in particular, it require as regards conformity to standards of impartiality, reliability, objectivity, scientific independence, cost-effectiveness and statistical confidentiality. Council Regulation (Euratom, EEC) No 1588/90 of 11 June 1990 on the transmission of data subject to statistical confidentiality to the Statistical Office of the European Communities1 constitutes a reference framework for the transmission and protection of confidential statistical data provided under this Regulation, in order to ensure that no unlawful disclosure and non statistical use occur when Community statistics are produced and disseminated. ___________ 1 OJ L 151, 15.6.1990, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (L 284, 31.10.2003, p. 1).