Дахно І.І. Право Європейського Союзу: Англо-Українсько-Російський Глосарій
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
201
Commission and ap-
proved by it before being
im
p
lemented. However,
the prior notification re-
q
uirement is relaxed b
y
the Regulation on hori-
zontal state aid, which
authorises the Commis-
sion to exempt by way of
regulation certain catego-
ries of aid includin
g
training aid, employment
aid, aid for small an
d
medium-sized enter-
p
rises and aid of mino
r
importance.
By drafting new Com-
munit
y
g
uidelines an
d
frameworks, the Com-
mission has clarified the
conditions under which
other forms of state ai
d
pursuing horizontal ob-
j
ectives such as re
g
ional
development aid, envi-
ronmental aid and re-
search aid ma
y
be
granted.
88 (-
93) &-
, $ B-
,
)- ,
)- -
-
5% -
. '
, -
) B-
-
) -
, $
5 -
-
,
*$-
, -
$, -
-
. #
)
-
#, -
,
*
% ,
)
) ,
-
) , -
-
, ) -
.
>
2 3 ) 87
$ -
, $ -
$
> ,
>)
$ -
> .
) 88
(> ) 93) &-
, ;
>$
-
$ -
,
)
) 5
) -
, -
. ' ,
) -
B -
)$ -
$ , -
>$
5 -
) -
> -
>
, -
) *-
)$ ,
) ,
) -
) )
.
# > -
>
#, 5
,
>
*
>
$ -
, $
)> ,
)
) -
, ) -
202
2$ -
)
).
Structural Funds and
Cohesion Fund
The Structural Funds and
the Cohesion Fund are
p
art of the Communit
y
’s
structural
p
olic
y
, which
is intended to narrow the
g
a
p
s in develo
p
men
t
amon
g
the re
g
ions an
d
Member States of the
Euro
p
ean Union. The
Funds
p
artici
p
ate full
y
,
therefore, in pursuing the
goal of economic and so-
cial cohesion.
The bud
g
et allocated to
the Community’s re-
gional policy for the pe-
riod 2000—06 is
EUR 213 billion, com-
p
risin
g
EUR 195 billion
for the Structural Funds
and EUR 18 billion fo
r
the Cohesion Fund. I
t
re
p
resents 35% of the
Communit
y
bud
g
et, an
d
is therefore the secon
d
largest budget item.
There are four Structural
Funds:
x The European Re-
g
ional Develo
p
men
t
Fund
(
ERDF
)
, set u
p
in
1975, is the lar
g
est of
these. It provides support
for the creation of infra-
structure, productive job-
creatin
g
investment,
mainl
y
for businesses,
and local develo
p
men
t
projects.
The Euro
p
ean Social
Fund
(
ESF
)
, set u
p
in
1958, contributes to the
inte
g
ration into workin
g
life of the unem
p
lo
y
e
d
and disadvantaged
"
`
#
*
-
% -
#,
-
-
0
$) #
.
)
) -
% -
)% .
{, $ -
)$
# -
2000—2003
,
213
,
195
— -
. + ) 35%
#-
-
-
.
" #-
*:
— 0$)-
) -
(ERDF), -
1975 , $-
) .
'
,
-
, -
*, -
).
0$)$ )-
$ * (ESF), -
1958 , $-
-
-
"
/
/
`
#
>
*
>
-
-
$ #-
,
-
> -
-
-
K
$ #.
>
-
J-
-
) .
{, >>$
)$
#
2000—2003 , -
213 . -
, 195
.
G
35%
#
$ -
$ -
$.
# > -
> *:
—
K
$
) -
(
ERDF
)
,
1975
,
> > .
4 -
) >
-
-
*
,
-
)-
> .
K$$ )-
>$ * (ESF), -
1958 ,
203
sections of the popula-
tion, mainl
y
b
y
fundin
g
training measures.
x The European Agri-
cultural Guidance an
d
Guarantee Fund (EAGGF),
also set u
p
in 1958 as a
financin
g
tool for the
common agricultural po-
lic
y
, has two sections: a
«Guidance» section pro-
vidin
g
su
pp
ort for rural
develo
p
ment and aid fo
r
farmers established in
areas la
gg
in
g
behind in
their develo
p
ment and a
«Guarantee» section fi-
nancin
g
common marke
t
or
g
anisations alon
g
with
rural development meas-
ures in other
p
arts of the
Community;
x The Financial Instru-
ment for Fisheries Guid-
ance
(
FIFG
)
was create
d
in 1993. It seeks to adjust
and modernise equip-
ment and material in the
sector and to diversif
y
the economies of areas
dependent on fishing.
In order to im
p
rove the
effectiveness of Com-
munit
y
action durin
g
the
p
eriod 2000-06, the
Commission communi-
cation «A
g
enda 2000»
p
ro
p
osed an extensive
reform of the structural
p
olic
y
whose financial
implications were estab-
lished at the Berlin
Council meeting in 1999.
This reform increase
d
the concentration of as-
sistance and sim
p
lifie
d
the procedures for its al-
location and manage-
ment b
y
reducin
g
the
number of
p
riorit
y
ob
jectives to three:
-
,
*
.
— 0$)-
)))-
-
(
EAGGF
)
,
1958
* -
)% ))-
)% -
, %:
«
»,
))
*
,
) $,
)
, «-
», *-
)
% -
-
#.
— $ -
) (FIFG), -
1993
.
#) -
-
-
)
*
$,
) ).
!
* )-
# -
2000—
2006 , -
5% «;
$ — 2000» -
-
* % -
, * -
%
)
B 1999 . + -
* -
4
-
) -
> >
,
> , *-
.
—
K
$
)$
-
(
EAGGF
)
,
1958
*-
-
$ )$-
$ ,
: «-
» -
) )-
) *, $-
$,
> -
, ,
«», -
-
>> -
-
-
#.
— >$ -
> (FIFG), >
1993 . -
-
-
J
* J-
$, -
>.
# ) >
J** -
) #
2000—2006 , -
5
«; — 2000»
204
x
Objective 1 contrib-
utes to the develo
p
men
t
and structural adjustment
of the regions whose de-
velopment is lagging be-
hind and which have a
p
er ca
p
ita GNP of less
than 75% of the Com-
munity average;
x Ob
j
ective 2 su
pp
orts
the economic and social
conversion of areas with
structural difficulties
such as those undergoing
economic change, de-
clinin
g
rural areas an
d
areas dependent on fish-
ing, problem urban areas,
and
g
eo
g
ra
p
hical areas
with serious natural o
r
demographic handicaps;
x Ob
j
ective 3 su
pp
orts
the adjustment and mod-
ernisation of policies and
s
y
stems of education,
training and employment
for re
g
ions outside the
regions eligible for Ob-
jective 1.
In the same
p
eriod, there
are also four Community
initiatives designed to try
out new forms of devel-
opment to deal with spe-
cific difficulties. The
y
will receive 5.35% of the
allocation for the Struc-
tural Funds:
x Interre
g
III has the
goal of stimulating cross-
border, transnational and
inter-regional coopera-
tion;
x Leader + seeks to
promote the socio-
economic develo
p
men
t
of rural areas;
x E
q
ual
p
rovides for the
develo
p
ment of new
p
ractices to fi
g
ht a
g
ains
t
discrimination and ine
%%
-
, )-
) -
$ ):
— 1 $ -
-
,
) -
';
, -
, 75% )-
#;
—
2
)
$
-
, — , -
)
,
)) $, -
$, -
,
) $ -
* $ -
$
* -
;
—
3
-
-
,
$ ,
)
, -
) 1.
& -
) -
#, -
-
* -
,
* -
. ' -
) 5,35% , -
% #
*:
«"
— """»
-
*
$
,
*
>
>
$ >
> -
$
$ #
1999 . G *
> -
,
> $
:
— ) 1
-
, -
> ,
> -
) ';
, -
), 75%
#-
;
— ) 2 -
J
)
$ >-
, — -
,
J -
, > )-
$ $-
, >
>, -
> $
* $-
)>
> -
* W;
— ) 3 -
-
-
, -
, -
) 1.
&
> -
> #,
>
205
qualities of every kind in
access to the labour mar-
ket;
x Urban II encoura
g
es
economic and social re-
g
eneration of de
p
resse
d
cities and suburbs.
A Cohesion Fund was set
u
p
in 1993 to furthe
r
stren
g
then the structural
p
olic
y
. It is intended fo
r
countries with a per cap-
ita GNP of less than 90%
of the Community aver-
a
g
e, that is to sa
y
,
Greece, S
p
ain, Irelan
d
and Portugal. The pur-
p
ose of the Cohesion
Fund is to grant financ-
in
g
to environment an
d
trans
p
ort infrastructure
projects.
, -
) )-
) -
;
— «| » -
)
)-
)) $;
— «B$» -
-
) -
)-
-
;
— «/ ""»
)
).
1993
)
% .
'
)
%
'; -
,
90%,
)
#
,
8
%, "%, "
%
;%. 6 *-
*
% *-
.
> > *
, > -
) *-
. 4
5,35% -
>,
$
#
>
*
-
:
—
«@
— """»
) -
-
, )-
-
) -
;
— «| » -
$
)-J-
)-
$;
— «B>$» -
-
>
)>
$ -
-
>
.
— «/ — ""» -
J
) -
> -
.
> -
1993
)$
$ .
4
'; -
,
$ ),
90%
#, )
8, @, @-
;
.
+)
-
*
> -
$ -
$ *-
.
206
Subsidiarity
The subsidiarity princi-
p
le is intended to ensure
that decisions are taken
as closel
y
as
p
ossible to
the citizen and that con-
stant checks are made as
to whether action a
t
Community level is justi-
fied in the li
g
ht of the
p
ossibilities available a
t
national, regional or lo-
cal level. S
p
ecificall
y
, i
t
is the
p
rinci
p
le whereb
y
the Union does not take
action (except in the ar-
eas which fall within its
exclusive com
p
etence
)
unless it is more effec-
tive than action taken a
t
national, regional or lo-
cal level. It is closel
y
bound up with the prin-
ci
p
les of
p
ro
p
ortionalit
y
and necessity, which re-
q
uire that an
y
action b
y
the Union should not
g
o
beyond what is necessary
to achieve the ob
j
ectives
of the Treaty.
The Edinburgh European
Council of Decembe
r
1992 defined the basic
p
rinci
p
les underl
y
in
g
subsidiarit
y
and lai
d
down guidelines for in-
terpreting Article 5 (for-
mer Article 3b
)
, which
enshrines subsidiarit
y
in
the EU Treaty. Its con-
clusions were set out in a
declaration that still
serves as the cornerstone
of the subsidiarity prin-
ciple.
The Treaty of Amster-
dam has taken u
p
the
overall a
pp
roach tha
t
follows from this decla-
ration in a Protocol on
the application of the
"
; -
$ -
,
, $-
), -
) )-
, -
, $
))
# -
-
$,
), -
) -
) . 4
, —
, #
(
*
, )
$
),
*
, -
)
)
.
' ’$
$-
,
)-
#,
, -
-
$ &.
K) 0$-
) B 1992
, )
-
5 (-
3 «
b
»
)
,
-
)
&
0
$)$ #.
*-
>
%,
$ -
-
.
"
; -
, -
> > -
> -
) -
, J ) -
, > -
)
))
# -
$ -
$, -
)-
, )
) . 4-
-
), — J
,
#
$ ( -
*, >
)$
)
,
J*-
*>, $-
,
), -
)
. 4 -
-
) -
,
> $
# >
> , -
>
$ &-
.
G$ K-
$$ # -
1992
>
>,
-
>
) 5 (> -
) 3 «b»), -
)
& K$-
207
principles of subsidiarity
and proportionality an-
nexed to the EC Treat
y
.
Two of the thin
g
s this
Protocol introduces are
the s
y
stematic anal
y
sis
of the impact of legisla-
tive
p
ro
p
osals on the
p
rinci
p
le of subsidiarit
y
and the use, where pos-
sible, of less bindin
g
Community measures.
Each
y
ear the Euro
p
ean
Commission
p
roduces a
report («Better lawmak-
in
g
»
)
for the Euro
p
ean
Council and the Euro-
p
ean Parliament, which
is devoted mainl
y
to the
application of the sub-
sidiarity principle.
The Convention on in-
stitutional reform estab-
lished b
y
the Laeken
Declaration in December
2001 is
p
re
p
arin
g
,
throu
g
h its Workin
g
Group on «Subsidiarity»,
p
ro
p
osals with a view to
takin
g
more account of
this
p
rinci
p
le withou
t
detractin
g
from the aim
of legislative simplifica-
tion. It is su
gg
estin
g
the
settin
g
u
p
of a
p
olitical
monitorin
g
s
y
stem
(
via
an earl
y
warnin
g
s
y
ste
m
for national
p
arliaments
allowin
g
them to delive
r
a reasoned o
p
inion on a
Commission proposal) or
a
j
udicial control s
y
ste
m
(creation of a subsidiar-
it
y
chamber within the
Court of Justice in orde
r
to stren
g
then ex
p
os
t
monitoring). The possi-
b
ilit
y
of abolishin
g
the
Protocol on subsidiarit
y
and re
p
lacin
g
it b
y
a
number of articles in the
1)$ -
)-
$ , $ -
% -
%, ; -
% -
$, $
& 0$-
) #
.
&
, $
; ,
$
$
-
, -
, ’-
) #-
.
5 0-
$) 5 -
)
(
«5
»
)
0
$)% B
0$) -
,
) -
.
«5 -
)%
*
»,
|)
2001
,
B
«#» -
% )-
)
-
. ' -
-
( -
) -
)
, -
) %
-
$ 5-
#. K >>
>
*
>
,
)-
>
.
1$ -
$
, >$ >-
J$ ,
; -
-
-
), -
>$ &
K$ #-
. &
,
> J &
, -
>$
)-
>
$
-
),
J , -
>
#.
5>$ K$-
5 >-
(
«|
»
)
K
$ #
K$ -
, >$ -
-
-
.
«5 -
)$ *-
», |-
$
$
2001 , -
$ B$
$ «#-
»
) ) -
J-
-
) -
. 4
208
new treat
y
has also been
raised.
%) % -
)%
( -
%
#
# -
-
-
). 6) -
;
$
$
.
> -
-
( -
> -
)>
,
-
) > -
-
5
)
$ )$
>
(
$ >
# #
) -
$ -
)
. ')
;
-
$
).
Subsidiary powers
Article 308 of the EC
Treat
y
(
former Article
235) reflects the realisa-
tion by those who drafted
the Treat
y
of Rome tha
t
the
p
owers s
p
ecificall
y
allocated to the Commu-
nit
y
(
executive
p
owers
)
mi
g
ht not be ade
q
uate
for the purpose of at-
tainin
g
the ob
j
ectives
ex
p
ressl
y
set b
y
the
Treaties themselves (com-
petence ratione mate-
riae).
This article can be use
d
to brid
g
e that
g
a
p
, since
it lays down that «If ac-
tion b
y
the Communit
y
should
p
rove necessar
y
to attain... one of the ob-
jectives of the Commu-
nit
y
and this Treat
y
has
not provided the neces-
sar
y
p
owers, the Council
shall, acting unani-
mously on a proposal
"
# 308 &
0$) #-
(
235
)
,
&
B
,
)
#
( ), -
$,
-
& (-
)
)
. +
-
,
) -
, : «(
# -
)
... %
$ #,
$ &
,
B, $
5%
"
#) 308 &
K$ #-
(
> )
235) -
>, -
&
B,
) ) -
#-
(
)
)
)
, >)
$ -
$,
> -
& (-
)
)
.
G ) >)
) -
-
>, ) -
, : «K
$ #
>
… -
$ $ #-
, J &
-
),
209
from the Commission
and after consultin
g
the
European Parliament, take
the appropriate meas-
ures.»
Since this
p
rovision
gives the European Par-
liament a purely consul-
tative role which does
not take into accoun
t
Parliament’s curren
t
le
g
islative
p
owers, its
improper use could upset
the institutional balance.
To avoid this, use of Ar-
ticle 308 as a le
g
al basis
is often accom
p
anied b
y
other Treat
y
articles
which accord Parliamen
t
a greater legislative role.
)%
0$) -
, -
». 4-
)
) 0$)-
-
)$
),
-
;-
, $
-
$-
. )
, -
308, -
)% , -
)
&
,
) ;
) ).
#, $ -
-
) K-
$
,
>». ;)
J
-
K$ -
)
) ),
>-
)
) ;
,
-
) -
) -
) . `-
> ) J, -
) ) 308,
)$
>, -
-
) &, -
> ;-
) -
) ).
Substitutability
Measure of the extent to
which
p
roducts ma
y
be
seen as interchan
g
eable
from the view
p
oint of
p
roducers or consumers.
A firm’s
p
ricin
g
p
olic
y
for a s
p
ecific
p
roduct is
disci
p
lined if consumers
have the
p
ossibilit
y
to
b
u
y
another
p
roduct,
which they judge as be-
ing equivalent by its na-
ture, use and/or
p
rice
(demand-side substitu-
tion). Additional com-
p
etitive constraint on the
firm may stem from pro-
ducers of other
p
roducts
ca
p
able of switchin
g
their
p
roduction withou
t
delay
:
'
,
-
,
-
. ;
* -
-
)
)
$
, $
) -
$ $ -
,
/
(
)
). &-
-
* -
)
:
@
W,
> -
) -
-
> -
$ -
$. ; -
*
>
) -
$
-
) -
)
$
,
>$
J-
, )-
/
() -
). &-
)> >
210
towards the
p
roduct in
q
uestion at ne
g
li
g
ible
cost and willin
g
to ente
r
into com
p
etition on the
market segment con-
cerned (supply-side sub-
stitution). Product sub-
stitutabilit
y
is an
important element in de-
fining the relevant prod-
uct market
(
relevan
t
market).
,
-
, -
),
)
-
(-
) -
%). ; -
) -
-
($ -
).
-
*
>
>) -
$ -
, > -
)
>$ -
)>-
-
)
-
> ()
)
.
; -
) >
J -
>-
(-
$ >).