Category: Archive – 2011

Malta Today continues with its damaging campaign against GRTU and Green MT in spite of all the denials. The issue now goes to Court. But GRTU & Green MT continue to deny the main story. First of all GRTU does not apply and does not receive any Eco-Tax refunds or exemptions. Nor does Green MT. Those who benefit from exemptions are the members of Green MT.

 

So really the issue Media Today and the Labour Party media keep pushing forward is absolutely false. Green MT did not have to sign any contracts with any Local Council for the period July 2009 to December 2009 as four Labour Mayors, Malta Today, l-Orizzont and the other Labour media keep reporting. The collection of grey bags weekly for 26 weeks in 22 Localities over this period was done by the contractors appointed by each Local Council and each contractor invoiced Green MT for the service rendered and each contractor was in turn paid by Green MT. All invoices and receipts of payments were made available to the Approving Authorities.

Green MT was at that time the only Authorized Scheme ready and willing to take over all this payment when Government stopped paying the contractors directly and the Local Councils had no funds allocated for this additional service. All documents show most clearly that Green MT acted on instructions of the relevant competent authorities. There is also enough evidence to prove that the Association of Local Council was party to this agreement. It is inconceivable that any Mayor or Local Council Administration did not know of the arrangement. All Local Councils were obliged to enter into an agreement with any of the schemes by March 2010. Green MT discussed its offer with the individual Local Councils and by March 2010, 16 Labour majority Local Councils and 26 Nationalist Majority Local Councils signed a contract with Green MT. No Local Council was forced into signing with Green MT however Labour Majority Local Councils were instigated personally by Dr Toni Abela, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, not to contract with the not-for-profit Green MT scheme and to contract with the other Scheme, which was then a 100% privately owned company with family shareholding.

All Councils know that payments for the separated waste collection were different over three different periods. From the initiation of the grey bag in early 2008 till end June 2009 payments were made directly by the Local Government Department or by the Local Council to the contractor but with the Local Council receiving reimbursement from the Department of Local Government. Only a few opted for the second alternative. There was a tri-partite agreement between the Department of Local Government, GRTU in representation of waste carriers and the Association of Local Councils in representation of Local Councils. Payments for the period from July 2009 to December 2009 in 22 Localities were made directly to the contractors by Green MT. The remaining contractors operating in all other Local Councils continued to be paid by the Department of Local Government according to the first agreement. As from March 2010 onwards payments were affected either by Green MT or the other scheme directly to the contractor to whom Local Councils contracted for the said service.

The question remains: who is instigating all this anti-GRTU and anti-Green MT campaign? GRTU and Green MT are seeking Legal re-dress. The culprits of all this damage will pay.

Information session on this year’s ICT calls under the FP7

 

Got an ICT project in mind? Looking for funds?  Then you’ve come to the right place. The Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) offers funding opportunities to researchers interested in taking up projects within ICT, and other scientific and technological areas.

 

 

26^th of August- 09.00 to 12.00, Villa Bighi, Malta

 

SME workshop

 

The Malta Council of Science and Technology, in collaboration with the University of Ulster invite you to discuss “Funding Options for Research, Technology Development and Innovation (RTDI) – Providing a Voice for SMEs”.This workshop will provide a forum for discussion where SMEs and RTDI programme managers can add their voice to influence the design of future RTDI programmes in Europe. The workshop will provide information on the RTDI programme landscape in Malta and Europe; outline the barriers and motivations of SMEs participating in RTDI programmes; and present SME experiences of participation in RTDI Programmes. The workshop will finish with a series of roundtable discussions on the challenges faced by SMEs in programme participation and will identify measures to enhance RTDI programmes for the benefit of SMEs.

 

1^st of September – Villa Bighi, Malta – 9:30-13:00

 

To register, please visit MCST’s website: www.mcst.gov.mt or contact Ms. Marie Claire Tonna ()

 

Directive 2009/32/EC applies to extraction solvents used or intended for use in the production of foodstuffs or food ingredients. That Directive does not apply to extraction solvents used in the production of food additives, vitamins and other nutritional additives, unless such food additives, vitamins or nutritional additives are listed in its Annex I. The European Food Safety Authority (the Authority) evaluated the safety of dimethyl ether as an extraction solvent to remove fat from animal protein raw materials and expressed its opinion of 29 January 2009. The Authority concluded that there is no safety concern provided that the maximum residual limit of dimethyl ether is 9 μg/kg of extracted animal proteins.

 

Therefore the use of dimethyl ether as an extraction solvent to remove fat from animal protein raw materials should be authorised under the condition of a maximum residual limit of dimethyl ether of 9 μg/kg in the defatted protein product.

 

Part III of Annex I to Directive 2009/32/EC does not establish specific residue limits in foodstuffs for methanol and propan-2-ol resulting from the preparation of flavourings. Member States and the Commission pointed out that the general residue limit of 10 mg/kg for methanol and propane-2-ol, as set out in Part II of Annex I to Directive 2009/32/EC, is too strict if applied directly to flavourings.

 

Therefore specific limits should be set in foodstuffs for methanol and propan-2-ol resulting from their use for the preparation of flavourings from natural flavouring materials. Those limits should be lower than the limit of 10 mg/kg assessed as safe by the Scientific Committee for Food, in order to be considered as safe.

 

Comments are to reach the Technical Regulations Division within the Regulatory Affairs Directorate, in writing or via email by Thursday 25th August 2011.Tel: 2395 2000 Email:

 

The European Commission’s latest car price report shows that car prices fell by 2.5% in real terms in 2010 in the European Union as a whole. List prices for new cars also converged slightly. These long-term price trends support the Commission's decision last year that specific competition rules for the sale of new cars are no longer justified.

 

 

"It is good to see that consumers in Europe are benefitting from competition in the markets for new car sales and continue to enjoy significantly falling prices in real terms. The fact that price differentials between Member States narrowed further is a positive indicator of cross-border competition. I am also delighted to see that for the first time in a decade, real EU-wide prices for repair and maintenance services stopped increasing, a sign that the sector has understood the new rules of the game" said Joaquín Almunia, Commission Vice President in charge of competition policy.

 

Overall, price differences for passenger cars between Member States decreased, as expressed in manufacturers' price lists. But the differences remain big in some cases pointing to large savings for consumers shopping across borders. Within the euro zone, the price difference indicator remained unchanged.

 

The EU price index for cars (reflecting nominal prices paid by consumers, including rebates, VAT and registration taxes) increased by only 0.3%, against a 2.8% rise in overall consumer prices, translating into a remarkable fall in real car prices by 2.5%.

 

A total of 24 EU countries recorded a fall in real car prices. Prices were stable in another two countries (+0.2% in both Italy and Malta) while they increased in Portugal (+2.6%). In the latter case, however, it should be noted that buyers benefited from a greater-then-average fall in real car prices the previous year (-6.7%).

 

The fall in real prices was particularly marked in Slovakia (-17.4%), Bulgaria (-13.5%), Slovenia (-11.6%) and the Czech Republic (-9.0%). In Poland they decreased by 5.6%. Among the large markets, real prices decreased most notably in the UK (­3.7%), while Germany, Spain and France experienced more moderate price reductions (-1.9%, -1.6% and -0.9% respectively).

 

The fall in real car prices across the EU continues a trend observed for more than a decade, which indicates that competition between car manufacturers on the market for new cars is working.

 

Real prices for repair and maintenance, which had increased over the last decade by more than the general inflation levels, did not rise in 2010.

 

The car price report

 

The car price report is part of the Commission's monitoring of the motor vehicle sector. It outlines the list prices of 89 best-selling car models representing 26 brands throughout the EU. The report enables consumers to compare car prices across Europe and take advantage of the opportunities of the EU's Single Market.

 

A memorandum containing further analysis on price developments is available at:

 

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/motor_vehicles/prices/report.html

 

Competition rules in the car sector

 

A new competition law framework for the car sector entered into force in June 2010 (see IP/10/619 and MEMO/10/217). The main objective of the reform is to ensure more and better competition in the after sales markets, i.e. repairs and maintenance which represent a significant part of the costs of owning a car over its lifetime. The new rules make it easier to deal with practices such as failures to release technical information to independent garages or the misuse of warranties. Car manufacturers can, on the other hand, organise their sales networks as they see best, as the experience shows that there is fierce inter-brand competition.

 

The EU Prize for Women Innovators will be awarded to three women entrepreneurs, who were at some point during their careers beneficiaries of funding for projects under the RTD Framework Programme (FP) or the Competitive and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP). It is time to have your accomplishments recognised and maybe win one of the first EU Prizes for Women Innovators!

 

 

The following prizes are to be won:

 

1st prize: €100 000

 

2nd prize: €50 000

 

3rd prize: €25 000

 

First step: we will ask for your personal details. Second step: you will be asked to upload a scanned version of the business register of the company you (co-) founded as well as a scanned version of any official papers demonstrating that you received or are receiving FP or CIP funding. Please make sure that you have these documents at hand before you start the submission. As a last step, we would like you to present your achievements to us.

 

The application process is designed to be as simple as possible, and may be accessed by visiting: http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/index_en.cfm?section=women-innovators. Should you need further clarification, please call the help line directly on: 0032 483 506 825 or e-mail us at: .

 

The deadline for submission of applications is 20 September 2011 at 17.00. The award ceremony will take place on 5 December 2011 at the Innovation Convention organised by the European Commission in Brussels.

 

European Citizens who travel to any other EU country as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway or Switzerland are entitled to public sector healthcare in public hospitals if they fall ill or suffer an injury while abroad, provided they have a European Health Insurance Card (EHIC)

 

 

European citizens who are covered by a public sickness insurance scheme of one of the above countries are entitled to an EHIC. However, many countries expect patients to pay towards their treatment, even with an EHIC. You may be able to seek reimbursement for this cost when you are back in Malta if you are not able to do so in the other country.

 

Did you know that…

 

• Close to 185 million EHICs are currently in circulation in the EU? This amounts to over 37% of the EU population.

 

• Last year, Malta issued just over 50,000 cards and there were almost 150,000

 

cards in circulation?

 

• In 2010, the Maltese government received over €400,000 worth of healthcare claims for expenses incurred by persons using an EHIC issued by Malta whilst on temporary stays abroad?

 

Facts you should know about the EHIC

 

· It is generally valid for 5 years and entitles the holder to receive the same treatment as the nationals of the Member State being visited.

 

· It does not cover specific visits for medical treatment abroad, including visits to seek a second opinion. However, maternity care, renal dialysis and managing the symptoms of pre-existing or chronic conditions that arise while abroad are all covered by the EHIC.

 

· It complements private insurance but is not a substitute for it. It never covers the cost of bringing you back in Malta in the event of serious illness, accident or death. Private insurance is highly recommended for these cases.

 

Applying for the card is free and easy

 

Contact the Entitlement Unit at the Ministry for Health, the Elderly and Community Care on tel. 2299 2345 or click on: https://ehealth.gov.mt/HealthPortal/default.aspx. The Unit may also be contacted via email:

 

Standards EN 60065:2002/A12:2011 and EN 60950-1:2006/A12:2011 are considered to fulfill the safety requirements laid down for personal music players by means of Decision 2009/490/EC. The references of these standards shall be published in part C of the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU).

 

 

Products which will be in compliance with these standards as from the date of publication in the OJEU will also be presumed to be in compliance with the gernal safety requirements of the GPSD (2001/95/EC).

 

Background

 

By means of Decision 2009/490/EC, the European Commission had laid out safety requirements for personal music players so as to ensure that under reasonably foreseeable conditions of use, they are inherently safe and do not cause hearing damage.

 

In particular, the safety requirements stipulate that:

 

· Exposure to sound levels shall be time limited to avoid hearing damage. At 80 dB(A) exposure time shall be limited to 40 hours/week, whereas at 89 dB(A) exposure time shall be limited to 5 hours/week. For other exposure levels a linear intra- and extrapolation applies. Account shall be taken of the dynamic range of sound and the reasonably foreseeable use of the products.

 

· Personal music players shall provide adequate warnings on the risks involved in using the device and to the ways of avoiding them and information to users in cases where exposure poses a risk of hearing damage.

 

By means of the proposed draft Decision, Standards EN 60065:2002/A12:2011 and EN 60950-1:2006/A12:2011 are considered to fulfil these safety requirements and to comply with the general safety requirement of Directive 2001/95/EC. The proposed draft decision also stipulates that the references should be published in the Official Journal of the European Union. This will mean that from the date of publication onwards, products which are in compliance with the above mentioned standard will be presumed to comply with the GPSD.

 

By the end of the transition period (i.e. 24 January 2013), industry should have started to apply this standard to their products.

 

What will be affected?

 

This draft Commission Decision applies to personal music players and mobile phones with a music playing function.

 

Dates

 

Feedback to be received by the 16^th August 2011.

 

Comments to be sent to the Regulatory Affairs Directorate, Technical Regulations Division, Malta Competition and Consumer Affairs Authority by post or by e-mail –

 

It has been brought to our attention that some local importers and distributors are offering for sale in-vitro diagnostic kits and reagents that, although being CE-marked in accordance with Legal Notice 61 of 2002, they are labelled by their own manufacturer as “Not for diagnostic use”, “For Research Purposes only” or other similar statements implying that the products cannot be used for diagnostic purposes. This includes statements given on promotional material.

 

 

Such statements coming from the manufacturers themselves must be fully complied with and thus such products cannot be offered for use for diagnostic purposes. Users are being advised not to use products bearing warnings such as the above for diagnosis. It is the legal responsibility of the economic operators, not users, to ensure that only safe and legally compliant devices are placed on the market when these are used in accordance with their intended purpose.

 

Should you require any clarifications on the subject please do not hesitate to contact us. Mr. David Pulis on or 2395 2000.

 

A small Italian cheese company supplies mozzarella to a frozen pizza maker in France. After the French company falls behind on its payments, the Italian firm stops the shipments, but it’s stuck with thousands of euros of unpaid bills. How will the Italian company recover the debt? Today there is no easy answer. Fraudsters can easily move money from one Member State to another, stashing funds in several accounts in multiple countries.

 

Citizens also suffer when goods bought online are never delivered or an absent parent fails to pay maintenance from abroad. At the moment, it’s up to national law to require a bank to pay the money from a client’s bank account to a creditor. The current situation in the 27 Member States is legally complicated, time consuming and expensive. Around 1 million small businesses face problems with cross-border debts and up to €600 million a year in debt is unnecessarily written off because businesses find it too daunting to pursue expensive, confusing lawsuits in foreign countries. The European Commission today proposes a new Europe-wide preservation order to ease the recovery of cross-border debts for both citizens and businesses.

 

“I want to make recovering cross-border debts as easy as recovering debts domestically," said EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding. "Companies lose around 2.6% of their turnover a year to bad debts. This is a weakness of our single market which we must remedy swiftly and energetically! Businesses need a simple solution – an account preservation order effective Europe-wide –so that the money stays where it is until a court has taken a decision on the repayment of the funds. In these difficult economic times, companies need quick answers. Every euro counts, especially for small businesses.”

 

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) make up 99% of businesses in the EU. Around 1 million of these face problems with cross-border debts. Procedures for recovering debts from another country's jurisdiction are complex, multiplying the costs for businesses that wish to trade across EU borders. Typical problems range from differences in national law to the costs of hiring an additional lawyer and translating documents. Individuals face similar difficulties when seeking to get their money back from a rogue trader or maintenance defaulter in another EU country.

 

Today's legislative initiative aims to facilitate these cross-border claims and gives creditors more certainty about recovering their debt, thereby increasing confidence in trading within the EU’s single market. It is part of the Commission's “justice for growth”agenda, which seeks to harness the potential of the EU's common area of justice for trade and growth.

 

Background

 

The Regulation would establish a new European Account Preservation Order that would allow creditors to preserve the amount owed in a debtor's bank account. This order can be of crucial importance in debt recovery proceedings because it would prevent debtors from removing or dissipating their assets during the time it takes to obtain and enforce a judgment on the merits. This will raise the prospects of successfully recovering cross-border debt.

 

The new European order will allow creditors to preserve funds in bank accounts under the same conditions in all Member States of the EU. Importantly, there will be no change to the national systems for preserving funds. The Commission is simply adding a European procedure that creditors can chose to use to recover claims abroad in other EU countries. The new procedure is an interim protection procedure. To actually get hold of the money, the creditor will have to obtain a final judgment on the case in accordance with national law or by using one of the simplified European procedures, such as the European Small Claims Procedure.

 

The European Account Preservation Order will be available to the creditor as an alternative to instruments existing under national law. It will be of a protective nature, meaning it will only block the debtor's account but not allow money to be paid out to the creditor. The instrument will only apply to cross-border cases. The European Account Preservation Order will be issued in an ex parte procedure. This means that it would be issued without the debtor knowing about it, thus allowing for a “surprise effect”. The instrument provides common rules relating to jurisdiction, conditions and procedure for issuing an order; a disclosure order relating to bank accounts; how it should be enforced by national courts and authorities; and remedies for the debtor and other elements of defendant protection.

 

The proposed European Account Preservation Order Regulation will now pass to the European Parliament and the Council of the EU for adoption under the ordinary legislative procedure and by qualified majority.

 

For more information

 

European Commission – Justice newsroom:

 

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom

 

European Commission – civil justice:

 

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/civil