Дахно І.І. Право Європейського Союзу: Англо-Українсько-Російський Глосарій
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
171
p
owers as an essential
means of ensurin
g
the
continued coherence an
d
effectiveness of an en-
larged body of Commis-
sioners. This means tha
t
the President will decide
on the Commission’s
internal organisation, the
allocation of
p
ortfolios
and an
y
reshufflin
g
of
p
ortfolios durin
g
the
Commission’s term of
office. He will also,
sub
j
ect to the collective
approval of the Commis-
sion, appoint Vice-
Presidents, the number of
which is not s
p
ecified in
the Treaty. He may fur-
ther, a
g
ain sub
j
ect to the
a
pp
roval of the Colle
g
e,
re
q
uire a Member of the
Commission to resign.
The European Conven-
tion, brou
g
ht into bein
g
by the Laeken Declara-
tion in December 2001,
is looking at the issues of
institutional reform an
d
the future of the Com-
mission President: sho-
uld the method of ap-
pointing the President be
changed again? (a gre-
ater say for the Parlia-
ment, direct election
)
,
should his role be re-
placed by a «President of
Euro
p
e» attached to the
Council and/or the
Commission and selected
from among the heads of
state?
5-
. + , ;-
-
5-
%, *,
*
-
5%
. '
,
5%, -
-, )-
)
&
. ' ,
5%,
5%
.
0$) 5-
, |-
)
2001 , -
-
$%
*
$ ; -
%: -
-
; (-
) ;-
,
)
,
$ )
«; 0-
»,
’
B / 5% -
-
?
-
-
>$
J*-
* -
5-
. G ,
; )
$ -
5, -
*
$,
-
*
$
> 5
. 4
, -
5-
, ) -
-, -
> &-
. 4 -
, -
5, -
) 5-
.
K$ 5-
, |-
$
$
2001 , -
>
)$ -
*> ;-
: -
)
;-
(
)
;, > >-
>
)
,
) ) «;-
K>», -
#
/
5 -
-
?
Programme of Com-
munity aid to the coun-
tries of Central and
Eastern Europe (Phare)
The Phare
p
ro
g
ramme
was launched in 1989
>
" -
[
"( ! (Phare)
;
Phare
1989
>
)
")
[ *-
3/ (Phare)
;
Phare >
1989
172
following the collapse of
the communist re
g
imes
in Central and Eastern
Euro
p
e. It was intende
d
to hel
p
these countries
rebuild their economies.
Ori
g
inall
y
, it concerne
d
only Poland and Hun-
g
ar
y
but it has
g
raduall
y
b
een extended to cove
r
ten Central and Eastern
European countries today
(Bulgaria, the Czech Re-
public, Estonia, Hun-
g
ar
y
, Latvia, Lithuania,
Poland, Romania, Slova-
kia and Slovenia).
At the same time, Phare
is the main financial in-
strument for the pre-
accession strategy for the
ten Central and Eastern
Euro
p
ean Countries
(CEECs) which have ap-
p
lied for membershi
p
of
the Euro
p
ean Union.
Since 1994, Phare’s tasks
have been ada
p
ted to the
p
riorities and needs of
each CEEC.
The revam
p
ed Phare
p
ro
g
ramme with a
b
ud
g
et of over EUR 10
b
illion for the
p
erio
d
2000—2006 now has
two s
p
ecific
p
riorities,
namely:
x institution building;
x investment financing.
Followin
g
the
p
ro
p
osals
p
ut forward b
y
the
Commission in its
Agenda 2000 communi-
cation in Jul
y
1997, new
forms of
p
re-accession
aid have been added to
that alread
y
p
rovided b
y
Phare. These are:
x structural measures to
bring the level of envi-
ronmental
p
rotection an
d
-
+-
)$ #$ 0-
. ' -
-
%
% -
. # -
;)
/, -
)
)- -
$) % ({-
, `) B-
, K, /
,
|, |, ;),
B, #
#).
Phare -
* -
-
% % -
)- -
$)
%
(CEEC5),
0$-
) #. ! 1994 -
Phare -
, -
% CEEC5.
6* -
Phare ,
10 .
2000—
2006
,
* -
:
— $ -
;
— $ *-
.
! , -
5 %% -
«; -
$-2000» 1997 -
, *-
% -
,
Phare.
-
+-
)$ '$
K. 4 -
) -
J
$
J. '
) )
;) '
,
> -
4>-
> ) -
)- -
$ ({-
, ` B-
, G, '-
, |, |,
;), B>, #-
#).
Phare -
>
*> -
-
)$
)-
$
(CEEC5), -
> ) -
K
$
#. # 1994 -
Phare )
, > -
)
$
CEEC5.
6*
Phare , -
> 10
.
2000—
2006 , > -
*
:
— )
);
— *-
.
; , >-
5$
«;-
-2000»
173
of transport infrastruc-
ture develo
p
ment in the
applicant countries closer
to that of the Euro
p
ean
Union (Ispa);
x aid to agriculture (Sa-
pard). Phare’s budget for
2002 was EUR 1.664
billion.
:
—
,
)
-
%
*
%- -
) ,
0
$)
#
(Ispa);—
)) -
(
Sa
p
ard
)
. {
Phare 2002 -
1,664 . .
1997 , > -
> >
*
>
)$
, >
)
Phare.
@ :
—
>
>
, > -
) >
$
>
$
*> -
-
,
K
$ #
(Ispa);
—
) )
$ (Sapard). {-
Phare 2002
1,664
.
.
Public health
Public health is covere
d
by
Article 152 of the EC
Treat
y
(
former Article
129), which was intro-
duced b
y
the Treat
y
of
Maastricht. This article
states that Communit
y
action is to focus on the
p
revention of illnesses,
including drug addiction,
by
p
romotin
g
research
into their causes an
d
their transmission, as
well as health informa-
tion and education. The
Treat
y
of Amsterda
m
reinforces these objec-
tives b
y
re
q
uirin
g
tha
t
the definition and im-
p
lementation of all
Communit
y
p
olicies an
d
activities ensures a hi
g
h
level of human health
protection.
Under Article 152 action
towards these ends ma
y
involve Community
<
$ (
’
& -
’ ) -
152 &
0$) #-
(
129
)
,
6) -
. + -
, #-
*-
, -
, -
%
,
*
%
*
’.
1)$ -
,
, -
% )-
# -
$ -
) )
.
(
8 -
>-
)$ 152 &-
K$ #-
(> -
) 129
)
,
>
6-
. G
)
>,
$ #
*
-
$,
, -
-
, -
* -
*
).
1$ -
J ,
, > -
$ -
)) #
>$
174
measures, complement-
ing action by the Mem-
b
er States. But the main
a
pp
roach should be to
encoura
g
e coo
p
eration
b
etween the Membe
r
States, in line with the
subsidiarity principle.
The institutional ar-
ran
g
ements are that the
Council ado
p
ts incentive
actions on the basis of
the codecision proce-
dure, while recommen-
dations are ado
p
ted b
y
q
ualified ma
j
orit
y
on a
Commission
p
ro
p
osal.
The Treaty of Amster-
dam extends the scope of
actions covered b
y
the
codecision
p
rocedure to
include measures settin
g
hi
g
h standards of
q
ualit
y
and safet
y
of or
g
ans an
d
substances of human ori-
g
in, as well as measures
in the veterinar
y
an
d
phytosanitary fields.
'
152 , -
, -
#-
, -
) -.
1 $
-
-
-
, -
.
"$ -
) -
, B
$
% -
)-
$ ),
$ -
% $) -
* )
5%.
1)$
%,
)
$
), -
, )
-
) -
, -
* -
% *%.
) > -
$ .
'
)$ 152 $,
J -
, >-
) > #,
$
-.
>$ -
) -
-
-
-, -
-
.
@)>
$
, # -
$
> -
$,
-
-
*> )-
-
5. 1-
$
W
$$, >
$ -
-
$,
,
> > -
, -
) -
$ * -
*-
.
175
Qualified majority
A
q
ualified ma
j
orit
y
is
the number of votes re-
q
uired in the Council fo
r
a decision to be ado
p
te
d
when issues are bein
g
debated on the basis of
Article 205
(
2
)
of the EC
Treat
y
(
former Article
148(2)). Until 1 Novem-
b
er 2004, the date of the
entr
y
into force of the
p
rovisions in the Nice
Treaty on Council deci-
sion-making, the thresh-
old for the qualified ma-
j
orit
y
is set at 62 votes
out of 87
(
71%
)
, an
d
Member States’ votes are
wei
g
hted on the basis of
their population and cor-
rected in favour of less-
p
o
p
ulated countries as
follows: France, Ger-
man
y
, Ital
y
and Unite
d
Kin
g
dom 10 votes each;
S
p
ain 8 votes; Bel
g
ium,
Greece, the Netherlands
and Portu
g
al 5 votes
each; Austria and Swe-
den 4 votes each; Den-
mark, Ireland and Fin-
land 3 votes each;
Luxembourg 2 votes.
Following the 2000 IGC
; -
+
5* )-
)) -
, B-
,
$ , -
-
)
205
(
2
)
&
0$) #-
(
148 (2)). & 1 -
2004
, —
-
)
$-
) B, -
*
%
)
62 87 (71%)
-
)
% -
)
%
)
-
: , -
, " 4’-
5 — 10
; "-
— 8 ; {)-
, 8
,
; — 5 -
; 1
;
+
5*>
)
,
# , >
) ,
-
) 205
(2) & K-
$ #
(> ) 148 (2)).
& 1 2004 -
, — > $
$ -
-
$ #-
, -
*
) -
62 87
(71%) -
- -
-
)
) -
: , 8-
, @ 4W-
5-
— 10 -
; @ — 8 -
; {), 8
,
Q
q
176
and the Nice Treat
y
, the
number of votes allo-
cated to each Membe
r
State has been
rewei
g
hted, in
p
articula
r
for those States with
lar
g
er
p
o
p
ulations, so
that the legitimacy of the
Council’s decisions can
b
e safe
g
uarded in terms
of their demo
g
ra
p
hic
representativeness.
The Nice Treat
y
also
amended the
q
ualifie
d
ma
j
orit
y
decision-makin
g
system. A qualified ma-
j
orit
y
is deemed to have
b
een reached when two
conditions are fulfilled:
the decision receives a
set number of votes
(
which will chan
g
e as
new countries
j
oin
)
an
d
is a
g
reed b
y
a ma
j
orit
y
of Member States.
Moreover, a Membe
r
State ma
y
re
q
uest that i
t
be verified that the quali-
fied ma
j
orit
y
re
p
resents
at least 62% of the total
p
o
p
ulation of the Union.
If this is not the case, the
decision is not adopted.
As the various institu-
tional reforms have taken
effect, qualified majority
votin
g
has re
p
lace
d
unanimous voting, which
is less effective for de-
velo
p
in
g
an o
p
erational
Communit
y
p
olic
y
(
veto
risk).
The results of the las
t
IGC are in line with this,
as 27 new
p
rovisions are
p
assin
g
in whole or in
p
art from unanimit
y
to a
qualified majority, in-
cluding areas such as ju-
dicial coo
p
eration in
civil matters, commercial
— 4
; &, "
— 3 -
; |-
— 2 .
; % -
*
% 2000
) , )-
) ,
$ %-, -
, -
)-
) -
,
) ) B
-
% *-
.
)$ -
$ -
)
*
). 5*-
)) -
) , -
,
: -
)-
)
(
, -
) %)
))
-. {)
, -
-
, -
) * -
)) $
62% )% )-
#.
( ) ,
$).
/ ’ -
-
$ *, -
* )-
-
$ ,
*
$% -
> ;-
— 5
; 1
— 4
; &, @-
—
3 ; |-
— 2 .
; )-
$
*
2000
,
, -
> $ -
, > -
,
)
, > -
)
$ #
>
-
* -
).
$
-
$ *-
> ).
5*
)
>, >-
>
:
-
-
(
,
>
>) -
> ) -
-. {
,
-
) -
,
*-
)-
, )$ ,
62%
#. K
J ,
.
177
contracts on services o
r
intellectual property, co-
hesion policy (from 2007
onwards
)
, industrial
policy, measures to fa-
cilitate the free move-
ment of citizens, eco-
nomic, financial an
d
technical coo
p
eration
with third countries, an
d
the a
pp
ointment of
members of certain in-
stitutions. The move to
qualified majority voting
was not accepted for so-
cial and tax policy.
Moreover, most of the
legislative measures that,
under the Nice Treat
y
,
require a qualified ma-
j
orit
y
will be decided b
y
the codecision proce-
dure. However, the IGC
did not extend the code-
cision procedure to leg-
islative measures that al-
read
y
toda
y
come unde
r
the
q
ualified ma
j
orit
y
system (such as agricul-
ture or commercial pol-
ic
y)
. The link between a
q
ualified ma
j
orit
y
an
d
the codecision procedure
does therefore not neces-
sarily exist for all legis-
lative decisions.
#
( ).
B
) )%
6% *-
% ) )-
, ) 27
)
)
$ -
*
% ),
*
-
) ,
$
-
)% , -
( 2007 -
), -
, -
) -
,
,
* -
% -
$. B -
*
% )
$$ -
)% %
.
{) , ))
,
, -
) -
) *% -
), -
)
) $ -
). ' , 6-
*
-
) $ -
)
, -
) -
*
% )
( )) -
$
).
!’ *-
)
'
> -
)> *, -
*-
> )-
-
, -
J
**
>
-
$ #-
( ).
B
)> $
6)-
$ * -
J, -
) 27 > -
$ )
-
* )-
,
*> -
-
, -
>
-
)$ -
,
( 2007 ), >-
,
>
$ -
-
, J
,
* -
-
)
>
.
& *-
)-
-
)$ $
.
{ , )-
)> ,
>, -
-
*-
)-
, )
178
) $-
), ,
’
-
).
-
-
$. ' , 6-
) *-
-
-
-
$ )-
> >, > >-
-
*-
) (-
) -
$ -
).
#) *-
> )-
$ -
-
$,
,
) -
-
)> $.
179
R&D
agreement
A
g
reement between
firms to jointly undertake
research and develop-
ment (R&D) activities, in
order to
p
ool know-how
and to share the costs
and risks of inventin
g
new
p
roducts. An R&D
agreement normally cov-
ers the ac
q
uisition of
know-how relatin
g
to
p
roducts or
p
rocesses
and the carr
y
in
g
out of
theoretical analysis, sys-
tematic study or experi-
mentation, including ex-
p
erimental
p
roduction,
technical testing of prod-
ucts or processes, estab-
lishment of the necessary
facilities and obtainin
g
intellectual
p
ro
p
ert
y
ri
g
hts for the results.
Such a
g
reements ma
y
allow products or serv-
ices to be introduced on
the market more quickly,
at better quality and/or at
lower cost, thus promot-
ing technical progress for
the benefit of consumers.
The Commission needs
$
/ * -
)-
)
-
-
-
.
/ )
$ -
-
,
)
-
, -
,
-
) ,
-
,
-
$ -
)
)%
. <
) -
’
, -
/ -
"+
# *-
-
) ))
)
-
-
> .
# -
-
> -
-
, -
> -
, -
-
J-
, ,
-
, -
> $
)-
> -
)$ .
< -
) -
>-
) >-
R
r
180
to take these positive ef-
fects into account when
analysing possible re-
strictions on com
p
etition
arising from such agree-
ments, es
p
eciall
y
when
concluded between com-
petitors.
,
) -
. 5% -
, -
-
%,
)
, -
.
,
/
, -
$ -
)
.
5
>) J -
)> ,
>
-
, >
$, -
> -
.
Relevant market
The definition of a rele-
vant market is a tool to
identif
y
and define the
boundaries of competi-
tion between firms. I
t
allows to establish the
framework within which
competition policy prin-
ci
p
les are a
pp
lied b
y
the
Commission. The main
purpose of market defi-
nition is to identif
y
in a
systematic way competi-
tive constraints that the
undertakin
g
s involve
d
face. Market definition
makes it
p
ossible, inte
r
alia, to calculate marke
t
shares that conve
y
meanin
g
ful information
re
g
ardin
g
market
p
owe
r
for the purposes of as-
sessin
g
dominance
(dominant position(s)). A
relevant market is defi-
ned accordin
g
to both
p
roduct and
g
eo
g
ra
p
hic
factors. In general terms,
a relevant product mar-
ket com
p
rises all those
p
roducts and/or services
which are re
g
arded as
interchangeable or sub-
stitutable (substitutability)
^$
'
*% -
-
% *. +
-
, % 5-
)
$-
% . 8
*%
-
, -
) .
' -
) ,
, -
, -
) *-
,
)
%
-
(
&
)
. $
)
,
* -
. ! ) -
, $ -
$ -
/
, -
^$) /
4 -
>
-
*
*
. G
)
, -
$ 5$ -
> -
$ .
8 ) -
>
* -
-
> -
$, -
. 4
> -
>,
,
> >> -
$, -
*, -
>$
)
-
(&
). -
$ > -
)
>,
* *-
. ; -
, $ -