Evropski parlamentChoisissez la langue de votre document :
- bg - български
- es - español
- cs - čeština
- da - dansk
- de - Deutsch
- et - eesti keel
- el - ελληνικά
- en - English
- fr - français
- it - italiano
- lv - latviešu valoda
- lt - lietuvių kalba
- hu - magyar
- mt - Malti
- nl - Nederlands
- pl - polski
- pt - português
- ro - română
- sk - slovenčina
- sl - slovenščina (izbrano)
- fi - suomi
- sv - svenska
| Postopek : 2007/0097(COD) |
|
Potek postopka na zasedanju
| Potek postopka za dokument : A6-0037/2008 | ||||||
Predložena besedila : A6-0037/2008 |  | Razprave : PV 20/05/2008 - 13CRE 20/05/2008 - 13 |  | Glasovanja : PV 21/05/2008 - 5.6CRE 21/05/2008 - 5.6 PV 05/06/2008 - 6.9 CRE 05/06/2008 - 6.9 Obrazložitev glasovanja |  | Sprejeta besedila : P6_TA(2008)0249 |
| POROČILO ***I |
| |||||||||||||||
| 12. februar 2008 |
| |||||||||||||||
|
o predlogu Uredbe Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o skupnih pravilih za dostop do trga avtobusnih prevozov (prenovitev) (KOM(2007)0264 – C6-0147/2007 – 2007/0097(COD)) | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
 | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
 OSNUTEK ZAKONODAJNE RESOLUCIJE EVROPSKEGA PARLAMENTA |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
o predlogu Uredbe Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o skupnih pravilih za dostop do trga avtobusnih prevozov (prenovitev) (KOM(2007)0264 – C6-0147/2007 – 2007/0097(COD)) (Postopek soodločanja: prva obravnava) Evropski parlament, – ob upoštevanju predloga Komisije Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu (KOM(2007)0264), – ob upoštevanju člena 251(2) in člena 71 pogodbe o ES, na podlagi katerih je Komisija Parlamentu podala predlog (C6-0147/2007), – ob upoštevanju medinstitucionalnega sporazuma z dne 28. novembra 2001 o bolj sistematičnem ponovnem sprejemu pravnih aktov(1), – ob upoštevanju pisma odbora za pravne zadeve z dne 20. novembra 2007 v skladu s členom 80a, odstavek 3, svojega poslovnika, – ob upoštevanju členov 80 a in 51 svojega poslovnika, – ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za promet in turizem ter mnenja Odbora za pravne zadeve (A6-0037/2008), 1. odobri predlog Komisije, kakor je bil spremenjen in prilagojen glede na priporočila posvetovalne delovne skupine pravnih služb Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije; 2. poziva Komisijo, naj zadevo ponovno predloži Parlamentu, če namerava ta predlog bistveno spremeniti ali nadomestiti z drugim besedilom; 3. naroči svojemu predsedniku, naj stališče Parlamenta posreduje Svetu in Komisiji.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| OBRAZLOŽITEV |
| |||
|
Splošni kontekst Dostop do trga avtobusnih prevozov sedaj urejata Uredba (EGS) št. 684/92 in Uredba (ES) št. 12/98. Pri avtobusnih prevozih razlikujemo med dvema kategorijama, občasnimi in linijskimi prevozi. Trg občasnih mednarodnih prevozov je bil z omenjenima uredbama že liberaliziran. Prevozniki morajo za mednarodni linijski prevoz zahtevati dovoljenje od držav članic, prek katerih prevoz poteka. Razen tega je na mednarodnih linijskih prevozih mogoče izvajati kabotažo. Namen predloga Komisije je poenostaviti zakonodajni okvir. Sprejeta je bila uredba o obveznostih javnega cestnega in železniškega prevoza, ki jo je treba upoštevati pri postopkih za izdajo dovoljenj za linijske prevoze. Razen tega želi Komisija za poenostavitev kontrol okrepiti sodelovanje med državami članicami in uskladiti format dokumentov. Mnenje poročevalca Pozdravimo lahko poenostavitev zakonodajnega okvira, s katero sta se dve uredbi združili v eno. 1. V zvezi s področjem uporabe te uredbe je treba pojasniti, da se ne uporablja za „nacionalne“ licence, ki jih države članice izdajo podjetjem, ki opravljajo samo notranje prevoze. 2. Kar zadeva postopke za izdajo dovoljenja za mednarodne linijske prevoze, so v sektorju zelo naklonjeni poenostavitvi. Države članice lahko izdajo dovoljenja zavrnejo le v določenih primerih, denimo, če bi linijski prevoz resno vplival na obstojnost prevoza, ki se izvaja na podlagi pogodb za opravljanje javnih storitev. Če pa linijski prevoz samo prečka ozemlje določene države članice, ne da bi pri tem potniki vstopali ali izstopali, bodo organi te države članice zgolj obveščeni, da so države članice, ki jih linijski prevoz zadeva, dovoljenje izdale. Zaradi tekočega postopka bi bilo dobro, da bi se skrajšal čas, ki ga imajo organi držav članic za izdajo ali zavrnitev dovoljenja in rok, ki ga ima Komisija za sprejetje odločitve v primeru, ko je bilo dovoljenje zavrnjeno. Treba bi bilo zagotoviti možnost začasne ali izredne uporabe dodatnih vozil za linijske prevoze, čeprav bi bilo treba pri tem državo članico, na ozemlju katere je odhodni kraj, obvestiti o uporabi te možnosti ter o razlogih za začasne in izredne okoliščine. Državam članicam bi bilo treba ponuditi možnost, da iz postopka za izdajo dovoljenja izvzamejo prevoze v obmejnem območju. Uredba o obveznosti iz opravljanja javnih storitev v vsakem primeru ostaja v uporabi. 3. V uvodni izjavi 10 predlog uredbe navaja, da se za posebne linijske prevoze uporablja direktiva o napotitvi delavcev. Določbo o tem bi bilo treba vključiti v ustrezen člen. 4. V zvezi s sodelovanjem med državami članicami poročevalec predlaga enaka načela in spremembe kot za uredbo o dostopu do trga mednarodnega cestnega prevoza blaga. 5. Glede uskladitve kontrolnih dokumentov poročevalec podpira določbe iz predloga in zlasti uporabo postopka komitologije s pregledom Parlamenta. | ||||
| PRILOGA 1: PISMO Odbora za pravne zadeve |
| |||
|
COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AFFAIRS CHAIRMAN Ref.: D(2007)73874 Mr Paolo COSTA Chairman of the Committee on Transport and Tourism ASP 09G305 Brussels Subject: Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for access to the market for coach and bus services (2007/0097(COD)) (recast) Dear Sir, The Committee on Legal Affairs, which I am honoured to chair, has examined the proposal referred to above, pursuant to Rule 80a on Recasting, as introduced into the Parliament's Rules of Procedure by its Decision of 10 May 2007. Paragraph 3 of that Rule reads as follows: "If the committee responsible for legal affairs considers that the proposal does not entail any substantive changes other than those identified as such in the proposal, it shall inform the committee responsible. In such a case, over and above the conditions laid down in Rules 150 and 151, amendments shall be admissible within the committee responsible only if they concern those parts of the proposal which contain changes. However, amendments to the parts which have remained unchanged may be admitted by way of exception and on a case-by-case basis by the chairman of the above committee if he considers that this is necessary for pressing reasons relating to the internal logic of the text or because the amendments are inextricably linked to other admissible amendments. Such reasons must be stated in a written justification to the amendments". Following the opinion of the Legal Service, whose representatives participated in the meetings of the Consultative Working Party examining the recast proposal, and in keeping with the recommendations of the draftsperson, the Committee on Legal Affairs considers that the proposal in question does not include any substantive changes other than those identified as such in the proposal and that, as regards the codification of the unchanged provisions of the earlier acts with those changes, the proposal contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts, without any change in their substance. In conclusion, the Committee on Legal Affairs recommends your Committee, as the committee responsible, to proceed to examine the above proposal in accordance with Rule 80a. Yours faithfully, Giuseppe GARGANI | ||||
| PRILOGA 2: MNENJE POSVETOVALNE SKUPINE PRAVNIH SLUŽB |
| |||
|
Brussels, OPINION FOR THE ATTENTION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT THE COUNCIL THE COMMISSION Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for access to the market for coach and bus services (recast) COM(2007) 264 final of 23.5.2007 - 2007/0097 (COD) Having regard to the Inter-institutional Agreement of 28 November 2001 on a more structured use of the recasting technique for legal acts, and in particular to point 9 thereof, the Consultative Working Party, consisting of the respective legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, met on 30 May 2007 and on 11 June 2007 for the purpose of examining the aforementioned proposal submitted by the Commission. At those meetings(1), an examination of the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council recasting Council Regulation (EEC) 684/92 of 16 March 1992 on common rules for the international carriage of passengers by coach and bus and Council Regulation (EC) No 12/98 of 11 December 1997 laying down the conditions under which non-resident carriers may operate national road passenger transport services within a Member State resulted in the Consultative Working Party's establishing, by common accord, as follows: 1) An incorrect title had been erroneously indicated in the cover page of the abovementioned document having been officially transmitted on 23 May 2007, which read "Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the international carriage of passengers by coach and bus"; in that document, the correct title was that appearing at the beginning of the text of the recast proposal and reading "Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for access to the market for coach and bus services". Incidentally, it should be pointed out that on 1 June 2007 a new document bearing a reference number COM(2007) 264 final/2 has been officially transmitted to the European Parliament and to the Council; on the cover page of that new document a corrigendum appears, which reads "Annule et remplace la page de couverture du document COM(2007)264 final .du 23.5.2007 / Cette correction concerne les versions EN,FR,DE". 2) The following parts of text of the recast proposal should have been identified by using the grey-shaded type used for marking substantive changes: the entire text of the second subparagraph of point (3.4) of Article 2 of Regulation 684/92, appearing twice in the text of the recast proposal already marked with double strikethrough, once between the texts of points (c) and (d) of Article 2 and once between the fourth and fifth subparagraphs of Article 5(3); the entire text of Article 3a(5) of Regulation 684/92, having been already marked with double strikethrough and appearing immediately after Article 4(4) in the text of the recast proposal; the entire text of the second subparagraph of Article 13(3) of Regulation 684/92, having been already marked with double strikethrough and appearing in the text of Article 5(5) in the recast proposal; the entire text of Article 5(4) of Regulation 684/92, having been already marked with double strikethrough and appearing between the texts of paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 6 in the recast proposal; the entire text of Article 6(2) of Regulation 684/92, having been already marked with double strikethrough and appearing between the texts of paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 7 in the recast proposal; in Article 8(8), the word "within" (already marked with double strikethrough) and the word "after"; the entire text of Article 11(5) of Regulation 684/92, having been already marked with double strikethrough and appearing between the texts of paragraphs 6 and 7 of Article 12 in the recast proposal; the initial wording of Article 6(2), introductory words, of Regulation 12/98, appearing as a deleted text, marked with double strikethrough, before the introductory words of Article 17(2) in the recast proposal; the second sentence of Article 6(3) of Regulation 12/98, appearing as a deleted text, marked with double strikethrough, after the text of Article 17(3) in the recast proposal; the entire text of the third subparagraph of point (3) of Article 3 of Regulation 12/98, having been already marked with double strikethrough and appearing at the end of point (c) of Article 15 in the text of the recast proposal; the entire text of the fourth subparagraph of point (3) of Article 3 of Regulation 12/98, having been already marked with double strikethrough and appearing immediately after the proposed text of Article 15 in the recast proposal; in Article 16(l)(a), the word "rates"; in the title of Chapter VI, in the second subparagraph of Article 22(1), in Article 23(2) and in Article 27, the words "penalties" (already marked with double strikethrough) and "sanctions" (already marked with adaptation arrows); in Article 18(1), introductory words, the wordings "Passengers using" and "throughout their journey possess" (all having been already marked with double strikethrough), and "Carriers operating" and "issue" (all presented between adaptation arrows); in Article 22(l)(a), the word "permanent" (already marked with adaptation arrows); in Article 22(l)(b), the word "temporary" (already included in a part of text marked with adaptation arrows). 3) The deleted texts of Section IV of Regulation 684/92 appearing immediately after new Article 13 in the recast proposal and of Article 16(5) of the same regulation appearing immediately after new Article 20 should have not appeared in the recast proposal. 4) It was acknowledged that a certain inconsistency would appear to exist between the text of point 5(c) of Annex I and that of Article 22(1), in that the said point appears to quote the contents of the introductory wording and of point (a) of Article 22(1) without mentioning its point (b). 5) It was also acknowledged that the correlation table in Annex II is not accurate, and would therefore need to be completed and corrected where necessary. In consequence, examination of the proposal has enabled the Consultative Working Party to conclude, without dissent, that the proposal does not comprise any substantive amendments other than those identified as such therein or in the present opinion. The Working Party also concluded, as regards the codification of the unchanged provisions of the earlier acts with those substantive amendments, that the proposal contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts, without any change in their substance. C. PENNERA J.-C. PIRIS M. PETITE Jurisconsult Jurisconsult Director General
| ||||
| POSTOPEK |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Zadnja posodobitev: 28. februar 2008 | Pravno obvestilo |