Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) amending Regulation (EEC) No 1789/81 laying down general rules concerning the system of minimum stocks in the sugar sector
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 03. 03. 1997 COM(97) 90 final Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EO amending Regulation (EEC) No 1789/81 laying down general rules concerning the system of minimum stocks in the sugar sector (presented by the Commission) EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM The minimum stock arrangements in the sugar sector are intended to maintain normal supplies for each of the regions of the Community in the event of shortages. To that end, sugar manufacturers and refineries have a standing obligation to maintain stocks of a certain quantity of sugar which they may not dispose of without Community authorization, without which they are liable to pay an amount representing the economic advantage they draw from such operations and the cost of transporting the sugar from areas with a surplus to areas with a deficit. As a result of the abolition of the threshold price for white sugar since 1 July 1995 following the Marrakesh agreement which served as the basis for calculating that amount, the Commission thinks it appropriate to propose to the Council to amend its Regulation (EEC) No 1789/81. A flat-rate amount will be set, calculated on the basis of the same elements and the same method in force during the last marketing year (1994/95) to which that threshold price applied. It also proposes to the Council to provide for the possibility of reducing that amount by the Management Committee procedure, to take account of any future reductions in the intervention price for white sugar, which was also a reference factor in establishing the amount in question. Henceforth the amount will be a flat-rate amount calculated as follows: Amounts based on former Article 6 (in force until 30 June 1995) of Regulation (EEC) No 1789/81 Amounts in the proposal (ECU/100 kg of white sugar) 1. Flat-rate amount representing the advantage of release from the aforementioned obligation 0. 193 0. 193 2. Difference: 2. 1. Target price 66. 50 2. 2. Transport costs from surplus area to deficit area6. 77 2. 3. Storage levy 2JÛ 2. 4. (2. 1 + 2. 2 + 2. 3) Threshold price 75. 77 (imaginary threshold price) 2. 5. Intervention price 2. 6. Storage levy 63. 19 2J5jQ 2. 7. 2. 8. (2. 5 + 2. 6) Intervention price + storage levy 65. 69 (2. 4 - 2. 7) Difference referred to in (b) second subparagraph of Article 6 of Regulation 1789/81 10. 08 3. Flat-rate amount 2. 415 2. 415 TOTAL 12. 688 12. 688 - rounded up to 12. 70 JL Proposal COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No of amending Regulation (EEC) No 1789/81 laying down general rules concerning the system of minimum stocks in the sugar sector THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the common organization of the markets in the sugar sector1, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1599/962, and in particular Article 12(2) thereof, Having regard to the proposal from the Commission, Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 1789/81 of 30 June 1981 laying down general rules concerning the system of minimum stocks in the sugar sector3, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 260/964, defines the factors for determining the amount to be levied in the event of disposal by sugar manufacturers of quantities of sugar forming part of the minimum stock under conditions other than those laid down; whereas one of those factors is the threshold price which was abolished with effect from 1 July 1995; Whereas the aforementioned amount should henceforth be set as a flat-rate amount fixed at the overall level resulting from application of the same method as that applicable during the last marketing year of application of the threshold price for white sugar 1994/95; whereas, however, provision should also be made for it to be possible to reduce that flat-rate amount to take account of any major reduction of the intervention price for white sugar in the future, 1 OJNoL 177, 1. 7. 1981, p. 4. 2 OJ No L 206,16. 8. 1996, p. 43. 3 OJ No L 177, 1. 7. 1981, p. 39. 4 OJ No L 34, 13. 2. 1996, p. 16. HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: The second subparagraph of Article 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 1789/81 is hereby replaced by the following: "That amount shall be ECU 12,70 per 100 kilograms. The amount may be reduced in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 41, taking account in particular of the amount of any reduction in the intervention price for white sugar. " Atii£k2 This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at For the Council 4- r FINANCIAL STATEMENT BUDGET HEADING: 1119 APPROPRIATIONS: p. m. 2. TITLE: Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 1789/81 laying down general rules concerning the system of minimum stocks in the sugar sector 3. LEGAL BASIS: Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 4. AIMS: Permitting the continuation of the application of the rule under which an amount has to be paid by the manufacturers and refiners of sugar who market without authorization their minimum stock of sugar which is held for the purpose of assuring the normal supplying of the Community market 5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 5. 0 EXPENDITURE - CHARGED TO THE EC BUDGET (REFUNDS/INTERVENTION) - NATIONAL AUTHORITIES - OTHER 5. 1. REVENUE - OWN RESOURCES OF THE EC (LEVIES/CUSTOMS DUTIES) - NATIONAL 5. 0. 1 5. 1. 1 ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE ESTIMATED REVENUE 5. 2 METHOD OF CALCULATION: PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS (ECU million) CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR (97) (ECU million) FOLLOWING FINANCIAL YEAR (98) (ECU million) 0 1999 p. m. 2000 p. m. 2001 p. m. 2002 p. m. 6. 0 6. 1 CAN THE PROJECT BE FINANCED FROM APPROPRIATIONS ENTERED IN THE RELEVANT CHAPTER OF THE CURRENT BUDGET? CAN THE PROJECT BE FINANCED BY TRANSFER BETWEEN CHAPTERS OF THE CURRENT BUDGET? WILL A SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET BE NECESSARY? WILL FUTURE BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS BE NECESSARY? 6. 2 6. 3 OBSERVATIONS: YES/NO YES/NO YES/NO YES/NO In the past there have been no quantities concerned and there is no foreseeable (negative) expenditure for the future. For 1999 = p. m. S ISSN 0254-1475 COM(97) 90 final DOCUMENTS EN 03 01 Catalogue number : CB-CO-97-078-EN-C ISBN 92-78-16362-7 Office for Official Publications of the European Communities L-2985 Luxembourg c