Дахно І.І. Право Європейського Союзу: Англо-Українсько-Російський Глосарій
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
21
therefore considering the
future use of the assen
t
procedure.
)
2001 ., -
-
-
$ -
# -
-
$
)
.
K$ -
, |-
$ $
2001 ., -
)
>
#-
-
)
>
.
22
Block exem
p
tion
(regulation)
Re
g
ulations, issued b
y
the Commission or b
y
the Council
p
ursuant to
Article 81
(
3
)
of the EC
Treat
y
s
p
ecif
y
in
g
the
conditions under which
certain types of agree-
ments are exempted from
the prohibition of re-
strictive a
g
reements lai
d
down in Article 81(1) EC
Treaty. When an agree-
ment fulfils the condi-
tions set out in a bloc
k
exem
p
tion re
g
ulation,
individual notification of
that a
g
reement is no
t
necessary: the agreement
is automaticall
y
vali
d
and enforceable. Bloc
k
exem
p
tion re
g
ulations
exist, for instance, fo
r
vertical a
g
reements, R&D
agreements, speciali-
sation agreements, tech-
nology transfer agree-
ments and car distribu-
tion agreements.
%
()
;
, )
5 B
. 3 . 81
& 0$-
) #,
) ,
) -
) -
, . 1 .
81 & 0-
$) #.
5
)
, -
, -
-
:
-
. B
,
,
) ,
&&5B,
,
$
’-
-
.
%
()
;
, >
5$ #
. 3 .
81 & K$-
#, -
,
> -
> $
>
)> -
,
>
. 1 . 81 & K-
$ #.
5 -
, -
> -
-
, -
> )
J -
:
$)> -
.
B -
-
, , -
)> $
@45B, $
, -
$ -
$ $
) -
> $.
B
b
23
Budget
All the Union’s revenue
and expenditure is en-
tered in the Communit
y
budget on the basis of the
annual forecasts. The op-
erational expenditure in-
volved in im
p
lementin
g
Titles V and VI of the EU
Treat
y
ma
y
, however,
constitute an exception to
this rule by being charged
to the Member States. In
1998 the Communit
y
b
ud
g
et totalled EUR 91
b
illion in commitmen
t
appropriations.
The Communit
y
bud
g
e
t
is based on several prin-
ciples, including:
x unit
y
(
all the revenue
and ex
p
enditure is
b
rou
g
ht to
g
ether in a
single document);
x annuality (budget op-
erations relate to a
g
iven
budget year);
x equilibrium (expenditure
must not exceed revenue).
The Commission is re-
s
p
onsible for submittin
g
a
p
reliminar
y
draf
t
b
ud
g
et to the Council,
which shares bud
g
etar
y
authority with the Euro-
p
ean Parliament. The
nature of the expenditure
determines which of the
two institutions has the
final sa
y
, de
p
endin
g
on
whether the ex
p
enditure
is com
p
ulsor
y
or not.
However,
q
uite a
p
ar
t
from the classification of
expenditure and the en-
suin
g
p
ower-sharin
g
, i
t
should be remembere
d
that it is the Euro
p
ean
Parliament that finall
y
ado
p
ts or re
j
ects the
budget in its entirety.
%$
' -
#
#-
-
. 4-
$ , -
-
V VI &
0$)$ #-
, ), ,
)
, -
-
. ' 1998 . -
#
91
.
’) -
.
{ #
) )
, :
— ) ( -
-
);
— ) (
% ) -
);
—
(
-
).
5 )-
B
)
-
0-
$) .
#) -
$
$ )
,
’ .
' , -
) *-
% -
%
, ’,
0
$)$
-
%$
' -
> # >
#
> -
. 4
>
>, $-
> >-
V VI
&
K#,
,
, >) -
J
,
>
-
. ' 1998 . -
# -
91
.
)> -
.
{ # -
)
, :
— ( -
>
> -
);
— ) (-
> -
-
);
— (-
> > >-
) ).
5 -
$ -
# -
)
)
K$ -
. #
J
,
)> .
' , )
* -
>
-
24
Since 1993, the budget has
been the subject of an in-
terinstitutional a
g
reemen
t
b
etween Parliament, the
Council and the Com-
mission on bud
g
etar
y
discipline and improving
the budgetary procedure.
In 1998, the Commission
presented a plan to renew
the 1993 interinstitutional
a
g
reement in the li
g
ht of
experience gained in im-
plementing it and to con-
solidate all the
j
oin
t
declarations and interin-
stitutional agreements on
the bud
g
et conclude
d
since 1982.
As part of the reforms
proposed by the Com-
mission in July 1997 in
‘Agenda 2000’, a new
financial perspective will
be adopted by the Mem-
ber States to define the
growth of the budget
between 2000 and 2006.
$
,
$ .
! 1993
.
-
$% -
, B 5-
% -
% . /
1998
. 5
-
$% 1993 .
, -
$
$ )-
$ -
$ -
, 1982 .
( *, -
5-
1997 . «;-
$ — 2000»,
* -
$
-,
-
2000 2006 .
,
),
K$-
$ -
-
-
, >$ .
# 1993 . -
-
) -
-
, # 5-
$ $
-
-
$
>. '
1998 . 5 -
-
)-
1993 .
>, -
-
> -
$ -
)> $
, -
> 1982 .
5 ) *, -
> 5$
1997 . «;
— 2000», *-
-
-, >
)
2000
2006 .
25
Carlsberg notice
Notice
p
ublished in the
Official Journal whereby
the Commission informs
third parties of a notifi-
cation and invites the
m
to submit info
r
mation
and/or comments con-
cerning the notified case.
The invitation contains a
short su
m
mar
y
of the
case and is
p
ublished in
the Official Journal with
the consent of the parties
directl
y
involved in the
matter. This
p
ossibilit
y
of
obtaining
case-related information
was first used b
y
the
Commission in the
«Carlsber
g
» case in
1992. In contrast to an
Article 19
(
3
)
notice, a
Carlsberg notice is neu-
tral and gives no indica-
tion on the orientation of
the Commission. As re-
gards mergers, the Com-
mission is obliged to pub-
lish the fact that a mer
g
e
r
has been notified, at the
same time indicatin
g
the
names of the
p
arties, the
nature of the concentra-
tion and the economic
sector involved. See: No-
tice on Prior Notification
of a Joint
; -
)
#, -
) «4
*
$
», 5
*
%
* \ -
, )
%
.
!
)
%
)
«4*$ -
»
,
-
. < -
) -
*%, )-
,
5
1992
«5». -
. 3 . 19, «#-
5» $-
) -
% -
5%.
, 5 -
’ -
* -
-
$ , -
%
-
.
; -
)
@, -
«4
*
)
»,
>
5 *-
> -
) *-
/ -
,
.
;
-
«4*) -
» -
,
>
$> -
. < )
*-
, ,
> > )-
5$
1992
«5». ' -
.
3 . 19 «
5
»
5.
`
$,
5
) -
*
,
>
,
) -
C
c
26
Venture: Case 34.281
—
Carlsberg-Tetley (OJ C 97,
16.04.1992,
p
. 21
)
, Article
4(3) of the Merger Regu-
lation.
$>$
J.
Cartel
Arran
g
ement
(
s
)
between
competing firms designed
to limit or eliminate com-
p
etition between them,
with the objective of in-
creasing prices and prof-
its of the
p
artici
p
atin
g
com
p
anies and withou
t
p
roducin
g
an
y
ob
j
ective
countervailin
g
benefits.
In practice, this is gener-
ally done by fixing prices,
limitin
g
out
p
ut, sharin
g
markets, allocating cus-
tomers or territories, bi
d
ri
gg
in
g
or a combination
of these. Cartels are
harmful to consumers and
societ
y
as a whole due to
the fact
that the
p
artici
p
atin
g
companies charge higher
p
rices
(
and earn hi
g
he
r
profits) than in a com-
petitive market.
;
/() -
,
-
-
% -
$,
) ), -
)- -
) -
. , -
$,
)
, -
, , -
$,
$
-
.
5
)-
, %
—
-
) ( -
) ),
.
;
#
(
)
*
, >
) -
) -
) -
> >-
$ $, -
,
-
>
. -
J > >-
-
, -
>,
>,
$ -
$, -
-
$
.
5 >
$ -
-
,
-
> >
( >-
>
)
,
>.
Charter of Fundamen-
tal Rights
Following the 50th an-
niversar
y
of the Universal
Declaration of Human
Rights in December 1998,
the Colo
g
ne Euro
p
ean
Council
(
3 and 4 June
1999
)
decided to be
g
in
work on draftin
g
a
charter of fundamental
ri
g
hts. The aim was tha
t
the fundamental rights
? -
(
/
1998
.,
50- !)% -
%
,
) 0$)
B
(
3 4
1999
.)
% *-
) . 6
,
*) ,
? -
/(
' 1998 ., -
50- 4$ -
$ K$-
$ #
(
3 4
1999 .
)
)
*-
)>
.
+) )
, > *-
27
applicable at Union level
should be consolidated in
a sin
g
le document to
raise awareness of them.
The Charter is based on
the Community Treaties,
international conventions
such as the 1950 Euro-
p
ean Convention on
Human Ri
g
hts and the
1989 Euro
p
ean Social
Charter, constitutional
traditions common to the
Member States and vari-
ous European Parliament
declarations.
The work was entruste
d
to a s
p
ecial bod
y
—
which decided to call it-
self the Convention
—
made u
p
of sixt
y
-two
members including rep-
resentatives of the gov-
ernments of the Membe
r
States and of the Presi-
dent of the Euro
p
ean
Commission, and mem-
bers of the European
Parliament and national
parliaments. Four repre-
sentatives of the Court of
Justice of the Euro
p
ean
Union, the Council of
Europe and the European
Court of Human Ri
g
hts
were able to
p
artici
p
ate
as observers. The com-
position, working meth-
ods and practical ar-
ran
g
ements of the
Convention were
ado
p
ted at the Tam
p
ere
European Council (15—
16 October 1999).
Work began on 17 De-
cember 1999. The Eco-
nomic and Social Com-
mittee, the Committee of
the Regions, the Om-
b
udsman, the a
pp
lican
t
countries and any other
)
, -
-
)
.
)
& #-
, -
, 0-
$)
0-
$) )
1989 , -
$ ,
)
-,
0$-
) .
B
) -
, — $
5-
, —
62 ,
%-, ;-
0$)% -
%, 0$)-
) -
. ` -
# #-
0$)-
#, B 0
0
$)
)
) -
. #,
-
5%
$ -
)$ 0$)-
$ B (15—16
1999 .).
B
17 1999 . K-
$ )$
, 5 -
, 4 )-
$ $ , -
)
)> , -
>
, -
) -
>) -
) .
> &-
#, -
> -
, K-
$
K-
$ )
1989 , -
> -
,
-,
> -
K$ -
.
B >
) -
, —
>$
>) 5-
$, — -
62 , -
$ -
) --
, ; K-
$$ 5, -
K$ -
)-
> . `-
> #-
# K-
$ #, #-
K> K-
$ -
)
-
$. #, >
>
$ 5-
>
>
K-
$ # (15—
16 1999 .).
B ) 17 -
1999 . G-
$ )>$
28
an
y
other bod
y
, social
group or expert were in-
vited to put forward their
views. The objective was
to reach a consensus.
The result of the wor
k
was presented at the Bi-
arritz Euro
p
ean Council
(
13—14 October 2000
)
.
In its seven chapters di-
vided into 54 articles, the
Charter defines funda-
mental ri
g
hts relatin
g
to
di
g
nit
y
, libert
y
, e
q
ualit
y
,
solidarit
y
, citizenshi
p
and justice. It was sol-
emnly proclaimed by the
Nice Euro
p
ean Council
(7—10 December 2000).
The Inter
g
overnmental
Conference
(
IGC
)
which
was concluded at the
same Euro
p
ean Council
was unable to reach
agreement on incorpo-
ratin
g
the Charter in
the treaties and thus
making it legally binding.
However, the Court of
Justice of the Euro
p
ean
Union stated that i
t
wished to use the Charter
as a
g
uide in makin
g
its
j
ud
g
ments. The Laeken
Euro
p
ean Council
g
ave
the European Convention
a mandate to look into
the question of incorpo-
ratin
g
the Charter into
the existing treaties.
-
% .
6 -
. B-
)
-
)$ 0$$ B
(
13—14 2000
.). / % -
,
54
,
*
)
,
) -
, ,
,
, -
.
'
)
0
$) B
(7—10 2000 .).
6 *-
(IGC), -
$ 0-
$)$ B,
-
-
% % -
, ,
%$ ’-
. '
, # #-
0
$)
#
,
-
$ % -
). |) 0-
$) B
5%
%
.
, 5 -
, 4
$
$
,
)
J > -
> )
>. +) -
-
. B
)>
> > -
> -
K$ #-
(
13—14
2000 .
)
'
, > -
> 54 ),
*-
)>
,
-
, >, -
,
,
, -
. 4 > -
-
K-
$ # (7—
10 2000 .).
6)
* (IGC), -
>
K$
#, > -
) -
-
J$
, -
,
$
) -
. ' , #
# K-
$ # ,
))
-
$. |$ K-
$$ # >
5
-
.
29
Citizenship of the Union
Citizenshi
p
of the Union
is de
p
endent on holdin
g
the nationalit
y
of one of
the Member States. In
other words, anyone who
is a national of a Mem-
ber State is considered to
be a citizen of the Union.
In addition to the ri
g
hts
and duties laid down in
the Treat
y
establishin
g
the European Commu-
nit
y
, Union citizenshi
p
confers four s
p
ecial
rights:
x freedo
m
to move an
d
take up residence any-
where in the Union;
x the ri
g
ht to vote an
d
stand in local govern-
ment and European Par-
liament elections in the
country of residence;
x diplomatic and con-
sular
p
rotection from the
authorities of any Mem-
b
er State where the
country of which a per-
son is a national is no
t
represented in a non-
Union country;
x the ri
g
ht of
p
etition
and appeal to the Euro-
pean Ombudsman.
The introduction of the
notion of Union citizen-
shi
p
does not, of course,
replace national citizen-
shi
p
: it is in addition to
it. This gives the ordi-
nary citizen a deeper and
more tan
g
ible sense of
belonging to the Union.
"
8
#
%
-. "
, — $,
-
-, )
$, -
#. -
’,
&
,
$ 0-
$) #-
, #-
-
) :
— -
)-
#;
—
-
% -
-
0-
$) -
;
—
$
)$
$
)-%
- $
%,
%,
$
-
, -
;
—
% $ % 0-
$) 4-
.
!
-
, $ ,
)
:
).
+
-
#.
$ "
8
#
>
-
. @> -
, — ,
-
-,
#. '
, -
> &, -
K
$
#, -
# -
> )-
> :
— -
#;
—
)
> > -
> K-
$$ ;
—
)
> $ -
-
)$
,
,
$ J
-
, -
);
— -
K-
$ 4-
.
'
,
, -
) -
:
.
G -
-
-
-
#.
30
Codecision procedure
The codecision proce-
dure
(
Article 251 of the
EC Treaty, formerly Ar-
ticle 189b) was intro-
duced b
y
the Treat
y
of
Maastricht. It
g
ives the
Euro
p
ean Parliament the
power to adopt instru-
ments
j
ointl
y
with the
Council. The
p
rocedure
com
p
rises one, two o
r
three readin
g
s. It has the
effect of increasing con-
tacts between the Par-
liament and the Council,
the co-le
g
islators, an
d
with the Euro
p
ean
Commission. In practice,
it has stren
g
thened the
Parliament’s le
g
islative
p
owers in the followin
g
fields: the free move-
ment of workers, right of
establishment, services,
the internal market, edu-
cation (incentive meas-
ures
)
, health
(
incentive
measures
)
, consume
r
p
olic
y
, trans-Euro
p
ean
networks
(g
uidelines
)
,
environment
(g
eneral
action programme), cul-
ture (incentive measures)
and research (framework
programme).
The Treaty of Amster-
dam has sim
p
lified the
codecision
p
rocedure,
makin
g
it
q
uicker an
d
more effective an
d
stren
g
thenin
g
the role of
the Parliament. In addi-
tion it has been extende
d
to new areas such as so-
cial exclusion,
p
ublic
health and the fi
g
h
t
a
g
ainst fraud affectin
g
the European Commu-
nity’s financial interests.
Increasing the
demo-
>
+
;
)
$ ) (-
251 &
0$) #-
,
189b) -
6)
. '
0$) -
$
B. +
-
, -
). #%
-
;-
B, — -
-
, — 0$)-
. -
-
-
*
:
) -
, -
, , -
$
,
(
)
,
’ (-
), -
, -
$) (-
), (-
)% %
)
,
)
(
)
( ).
1)$ -
) $ -
), %% -
*
) -
. -
, —
*-
, )
,
’ -
> -
+
;
(
) 251 &
K$ #-
, > )
189b
)
>
6 -
. 4
K$ -
)
> #.
G -
,
. # -
-
#, — -
> -
, — K
$$
$. -
-
) ) -
*-
: -
,
,
, $ >-
, (-
>
)
,
(-
>), -
) -
,
$
(), -
(-
$-
), ) (-
>) -
(
).
1$ -
-
-
$,
>$ J*-
$
)
. ' -
, — >