Exemplos de uso de Helsinki agreement em Inglês e suas traduções para o Português
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
-
Medicine
-
Financial
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Computer
-
Official/political
The Helsinki Agreement.
QUIETLY POTUS's European visit, the Helsinki agreement.
The Helsinki Agreement runs totally counter to the Package Deal Agreement, which governs the use of Eurocheques abroad.
That is a serious revision of the 1975 Helsinki Agreement.
From 1975 it used the Helsinki Agreement to put pressure on the USSR and the satellite regimes and to call on the Council to conduct a firmer policy.
However, on 16 July 1990,the Groupement formally notified the Commission of the Helsinki Agreement.
It is therefore perfectly clear from the wording of the Helsinki agreement itself that it lays down the obligation to charge a commission.
Numerous resolutions asked the Council what it intended to do about the Soviet Union's repeated violations of the Helsinki Agreement.
The annual gain for French banks in terms of commissions generated by the Helsinki Agreement can be estimated approximately on the basis of three elements.
Quite clearly the European Union andits Member States must respect the resolutions approved under the Rio Declaration and the Helsinki Agreement.
In the last analysis,the aim of the Helsinki agreement is to align the price of payment by Eurocheque for French traders on the price of payment by card.
Council Decision 94/156/EC of 21 February1994 on the conclusion, on behalf of the Community, of the Convention on the protection of the Baltic Sea area(Helsinki Agreement) OJ L 73, 16.3.1994, p. 1.
An agreement like the Helsinki Agreement clearly has an effect on intraCommunity trade as it concerns cheques drawn in a Member State by nationals of another Member State.
In the case in point, the Groupement'CB' had argued that the PackageDeal Agreementdid not permit the acceptance of foreign Eurocheques by French traders, and that this hadbeen made possible only thanks to the Helsinki Agreement.
The wording of the Helsinki Agreement is, however, unequivocal in this respect, stipulating that'members of the Groupement Carte bleue and of Eurocard shall charge their affiliated traders a commission.
However, this question was none the less discussed in the Statements of Objections, andthe conclusion reached was that, even if the Helsinki Agreement had been notified, it could not have been exempted.
The Helsinki Agreement had first and foremost, as its object- and has had as its effect- the prevention in France of the development of the competition that might other wise have taken place between Eurocheques and bank cards.
The examination as to the applicability of Article 85(3) does not, by definition,concern the application of the Helsinki agreement between 1 December 1983 and 16 July 1990 as, throughout that period, the agreement had not been notified.
In its view,even supposing that the Helsinki Agreement wasnecessary in order to oblige the traders affiliated to the Groupement to accept foreign Eurocheques made out in French francs, it was not indispensable to require the membersof the Groupement to charge to their trader customers a commission in respect of payments by foreign Eurocheques.
For Europe it has been a fundamental experience to discover how important the work of human rights groups was in the former Warsaw Pact area and how crucial Part 3 of the Helsinki Agreement was for the end of Communist dictatorship in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.
The Statements of Objections of 31 July 1990 concerning the Helsinki Agreement concentrated on the applicability of Article 85(1), since, at the time when they were drawn up, the Helsinki Agreement had not been notified and therefore the question of the applicability of Article 85(3) did not arise.
In its reply of 12 July 1991 to the supplementary Statement of Objections of 19 June 1991 the Grou pement asserts that'the Helsinki agreement[…] is not an agreement between French banks and the Eurocheque community.
This being so, the Helsinki Agreement is without doubt an agreement within the meaning of Article 85(1), the parties to which were, until it was abolished in May 1991, the Groupement and Euro cheque International sc, the Groupement itself having indicated as such on Form A/B of the noti fication of the said Agreement. .
In its judgment in the foreign Eurocheques in France cases' the Court of FirstInstance reduced the fine imposed on the Groupement des Cartes Bancaires CB on theground that the Commission had not established that the Helsinki Agreement had eliminated all competition between the members of the Groupement.
Lastly, it should be noted in particular that, in assessing the exemptability of the Helsinki Agreement, the Court had regard to only one of the four conditions laid down in Article 85(3) of the Treaty, namely that of the indispensable nature of the restriction, a crucial issue when it comes to examining all the commission agreements in the banking sector.
On the other hand,the Court accepted as well founded the applicants' plea based on theabsence of a pricefixing agreement in so far as the Decision stated that the Helsinki Agreement was an agreement on the amount of commission charged.
Compared with the Eurocheque system as exempted by the Commission in 1984, the Helsinki Agreement appears to be truly at variance with that system, which was based, inter alia, on the principle- which, as Eurocheque acknowledges, has contributed to its success- that the payee of a Eurocheque receives the amount thereof in full.
In view of the fact that the number of Eurocheques made out each year to French traders must have been slightly smaller, before 1988, than the figure of 1 million for that year,it can be estimated that the Helsinki Agreement must have earned the French banking sector approximately ECU 5 million in commissions from traders.
Both the use which was made of the initial package deal Agreement following Decision 85/77/EEC and the changes which were made to the text of the agreement following the exemption prompted the Commission, on 31 July 1990, to send Eurocheque International a Statement of Objections,which also included the Helsinki Agreement.
Besides the Commission could be criticized, as the parties have in fact done, for not having, at the end of 1984,sought to investigate more vigorously the scope and import of the Helsinki Agreement, the existence of which was mentioned by the French banks in a reply to a request for information, albeit in vague and inaccurate terms- the Agreement was presented as having been concluded on an'experimental basis.