Avis juridique important

|

31985Y0017

Recommendation No 16 of 12 December 1984 concerning the conclusion of agreements pursuant to Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71

Official Journal C 273 , 24/10/1985 P. 0003 - 0005

RECOMMENDATION No  16of 12 December 1984concerning the conclusion of agreements pursuant to Article 17 of Council  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71(85/C 273/03)THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES ON SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS, Having regard to the opinion of the Advisory  Committee on Social Security for Migrant Workers, adopted at its 15th meeting on 11 April 1984,  Whereas Article 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 lays down that two or more Member States, the  competent authorities of those States or the bodies designated by those authorities may, by common  agreement, provide for exceptions to the provisions of the aforementioned Regulation concerning the  determination of the legislation applicable in the interests of certain categories of employed or  self-employed persons, or of certain such persons; Whereas certain employed persons, by virtue of  their special knowledge and skills or because of specific objectives set by the undertaking or  organization with which they are employed, are posted abroad to the territory of a Member State  other than the one in which they are normally employed in the interests of, in the name of, or on  behalf of that undertaking or organization for a period of more than 12 months; Whereas it is  recommended that in the interests of these employed persons, they should be allowed to choose  between being subject to the legislation of the Member State of employment or remaining subject to  the legislation of the Member State where they are normally employed for the duration of the  posting abroad, RECOMMENDS to the competent authorities of the Member States that they conclude, or  have concluded by the bodies designated by these competent authorities, agreements pursuant to  Article 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 applicable to employed persons who, by virtue of their  special knowledge and skills or because of specific objectives set by the undertaking or  organization with which they are employed are posted abroad to a Member State other than the one in  which they are normally employed in the interests of, in the name of, or on behalf of that  undertaking or organization for a period exceeding 12 months. These agreements should lay down that  these employed persons remain subject to the legislation of the sending State for the full duration  of their assignment provided that the workers concerned agree to this condition. J. DOWNEY Chairman  of the Administrative Commission   RECOMMENDATION No 17of 12 December 1984concerning the statistical data to be supplied each  year for the drawing up of the reports of the Administrative Commission(85/C 273/04)THE  ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ON SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS,  Having regard to Article 103 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72, Whereas recommendation No 13 of 24 May  1973 should be amended following the entry into force of Regulations (EEC) No 1390/81 and (EEC) No  3795/81 concerning the extension of Regulations (EEC) No 1408/71 and (EEC) No 574/72 to  self-employed persons and to members of their families and whereas this extension requires a  certain adjustment of the statistics kept by the social security institutions of the Member States;  Whereas under the provisions of Article 13 (1) of the Rules, adopted in pursuance of Article 80 (3)  of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, the Administrative Commission should periodically draw up a general  report on its activities and on the implementation of the Regulations on social security for  migrant workers; Whereas the drawing up of this report makes it necessary to collect a certain  number of statistical data each year; Whereas such data are of real interest only if they present a  certain degree of homogeneity for all the Member States and if they are supplied shortly after the  end of the period to which they relate; Whereas it is therefore appropriate to simplify the  relevant statistical tables and whereas precise instructions should for this purpose be given by  the competent authorities to the national institutions, RECOMMENDS that the competent institutions  of the Member States take the measures necessary to ensure that the following items of information  can be collected, if possible, and supplied each year: 1. The number of employed and self-employed  persons - nationals of the other Member States, refugees or stateless persons - who are working in  the territory of one of the Member States and, in addition, the number of employed and  self-employed persons who are nationals of non-member countries. This number may be either the  average over the period covered or the number on a particular date. If possible, the numbers should  be broken down according to sex. Moreover, a breakdown should be provided between employed persons  and self-employed persons. These statistics should primarily be supplied by the social security  institutions. If this proves impossible, other sources or estimates may be used. 2. For  benefits-in-kind provided under Articles 19, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 52 and 55 of Regulation (EEC)  No 1408/71: (a) for benefits-in-kind to be refunded in accordance with Article 93 of Regulation  (EEC) No 574/72, the amount of benefits provided under the aforementioned Articles and the  corresponding number of cases; (b) for benefits-in-kind to be refunded in accordance with Articles  94 and 95 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72, the information derived from the compilation of the lists  referred to in the abovementioned Articles or from other sources provided for under bilateral and  multilateral agreements. This information shall be supplied by the country which has provided the  benefits (creditor country) for each debtor country separately. A distinction should, where  appropriate, be made between schemes for employed persons and schemes for self-employed persons.  Where two Member States reciprocally waive refunds between their institutions, the above data  should be supplied in so far as they are available. As far as possible the statistics should be  related to calendar years. 3. For benefits in respect of invalidity, old age, death, accidents at  work and occupational diseases (pensions) granted and paid under Regulations (EEC) No 1408/71 and  (EEC) No 574/72 and under bilateral and multilateral agreements or under national legislation: (a)  the number of pensioners residing in the territory of each of the other Member States. This number  may be either the average or the total number of cases during the period covered or the number on a  particular date; (b) the corresponding amounts of pensions thus granted and paid in the course of  the period covered. A breakdown should be made between pensioners and their survivors and between  schemes for employed persons and schemes for self-employed persons. 4. For death grants provided  under Articles 65 and 66 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71: the number of cases and the corresponding  amounts of death grants transferred to beneficiaries residing in another Member State. A breakdown  should be provided between schemes for employed persons and schemes for self-employed persons. 5.  For unemployment benefits: - the number of wholly unemployed persons who were formerly employed or  self-employed and who have received unemployment benefits in pursuance of Article 69 (1) of  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, -the number of days of unemployment for which unemployment benefits  were paid, -the amounts paid. 6. For family allowances: (a) the amount of family allowances granted  for members of the family of workers and unemployed persons in the course of the period covered in  pursuance of: (i) Regulations (EEC) No 1408/71 and (EEC) No 574/72; (ii) bilateral agreements;  (iii) national legislation; where these members of the family reside in the territory of another  Member State; where the worker or the unemployed person is subject to French legislation the amount  to be stated is that of the family allowances refunded by France to institutions of the country of  residence; (b) the number of members of the family in respect of whom family allowances were paid,  broken down by country of residence; (c) the number of families for which the family allowances  mentioned above were paid. This number may be either the average over the period covered, the total  number over that period, or the number on a particular date. 7. These data should be sent to the  secretariat, arranged according to models adopted by the Audit Board, before 31 December of the  year following that to which they relate. 8. After they have been analyzed these statistics will be  communicated to the Administrative Commission together with comments, and will be published in the  Administrative Commission's general report. 9. This recommendation shall apply for the first time  to data for the year 1985. J. DOWNEY Chairman of the Administrative Commission


				|

		52013DC0351

			Recommendation for a COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION on Belgium’s 2013 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Belgium’s stability programme for 2012-2016 /* COM/2013/0351 final */

Recommendation for a
COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
on Belgium’s 2013 national reform
programme
and delivering a Council opinion on Belgium’s stability programme for 2012-2016

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 121(2) and 148(4)
thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No
1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary
positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies[1], and in particular Article 5(2)
thereof,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) No
1176/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November on the
prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances[2], and in particular Article 6(1)
thereof,
Having regard to the recommendation of the
European Commission[3],
Having regard to the resolutions of the
European Parliament[4],
Having regard to the conclusions of the
European Council,
Having regard to the opinion of the
Employment Committee,
After consulting the Economic and Financial
Committee,
Whereas:
(1)       On 26 March 2010, the
European Council agreed to the Commission’s proposal to launch a new strategy
for growth and jobs, Europe 2020, based on enhanced coordination of economic
policies, which will focus on the key areas where action is needed to boost Europe’s potential for sustainable growth and competitiveness.
(2)       On 13 July 2010, on the
basis of the Commission's proposals, the Council adopted a recommendation on
the broad guidelines for the economic policies of the Member States and the
Union (2010 to 2014) and, on 21 October 2010, adopted a decision on guidelines
for the employment policies of the Member States[5],
which together form the ‘integrated guidelines’. Member States were invited to
take the integrated guidelines into account in their national economic and
employment policies.
(3)       On 29 June 2012, the Heads
of State or Government decided on a Compact for Growth and Jobs, providing a
coherent framework for action at national, EU and euro area levels using all
possible levers, instruments and policies. They decided on action to be taken
at the level of the Member States, in particular expressing full commitment to
achieving the objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy and to implementing the
country-specific recommendations.
(4)       On 6 July 2012, the
Council adopted a recommendation on Belgium’s national reform programme for
2012 and delivered its opinion on Belgium’s updated stability programme for 2011-2015.
(5)       On 28 November 2012, the Commission
adopted the Annual Growth Survey[6],
marking the start of the 2013 European Semester for economic policy
coordination. Also on 28 November 2012, the Commission, on the basis of
Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011, adopted the Alert Mechanism Report[7], in which it identified Belgium as one of the Member States for which an in-depth review would be carried out.
(6)       On 14 March 2013, the
European Council endorsed the priorities for ensuring financial stability,
fiscal consolidation and action to foster growth. It underscored the need to
pursue differentiated, growth-friendly fiscal consolidation, to restore normal
lending conditions to the economy, to promote growth and competitiveness, to
tackle unemployment and the social consequences of the crisis, and to modernise
public administration.
(7)       On 10 April 2013, the
Commission published the results of its in-depth review[8] for Belgium, under Article 5 of
Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 on the prevention and correction of macroeconomic
imbalances. The Commission’s analysis leads it to conclude that Belgium is experiencing macroeconomic imbalances, which deserve
monitoring and policy action. In particular, macroeconomic
developments in the areas of external competitiveness of goods, and
indebtedness, especially concerning the implications of the high level of public debt for the real economy, continue to deserve
attention.
(8)       On 29 April 2013, Belgium submitted its 2013 stability programme covering the period 2012-2016 and its 2013
national reform programme. In order to take account of their interlinkages, the
two programmes have been assessed at the same time.
(9)       Based on the assessment of
the 2013 stability programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97,
the Council is of the opinion that the macroeconomic scenario underpinning the
budgetary projections in the programme is plausible. In comparison to the
Commission’s 2013 Spring Forecast, which projects GDP growth to be flat in 2013
and to increase to 1.2% in 2014, it is slightly more optimistic (projecting 0.2%
and 1.5%, respectively). Since 2010, Belgium has implemented consolidation
measures, especially in 2012, and, also in 2012, introduced structural reforms
in the pension system, the unemployment benefit system and product markets.
However, the fiscal effort was not sufficient to be in line with the Council
recommendation of 2 December 2009 to end the excessive deficit situation. Also
in light of the recapitalisation of the banking group Dexia, which had a
negative impact of 0.8% of GDP on the deficit outcome, and the worse than
expected economic developments in the second half of 2012, the deadline for
correction of the excessive deficit has been missed. As the correction of the
excessive deficit by 2012 has not been achieved, the deficit is now foreseen to
be brought below 3% of GDP from 2013. The objective of the budgetary strategy
outlined in the programme is to reach a balanced budget in structural terms by
2015 and to achieve the medium-term objective (MTO) the year after. The
programme has changed the MTO from a surplus of 0.5% to 0.75% of GDP. The new
MTO is in line with the requirements of the Stability and Growth Pact. The
programme is compatible with the new EDP deadline of 2013, but according to the
Spring Forecast the safety margin against breaching
the Treaty reference value is narrow, with a deficit projected at 2.9% of GDP
in 2013. The planned annual progress towards the MTO, which is projected
to be reached by 2016, is higher than 0.5% of GDP (in structural terms). No
consolidation measures have been specified beyond 2013. According to the
information provided in the programme, the growth rate of government
expenditure, net of discretionary revenue measures, over 2014-2016 is expected
to contribute to an annual structural adjustment towards the MTO by 0.5% of
GDP. According to the programme, the debt ratio will peak at 100.0% of GDP in
2013 and will decline gradually to 93.0% of GDP by 2016. From 2014 to 2016, Belgium can be expected to be in a transition period regarding compliance with the debt
criterion. According to the plans, the debt benchmark will be met at the end of
the transition period. Based on the Commission 2013 Spring Forecast, which
projects the debt ratio to reach 101.4% in 2013 and to rise further to 102.1%
of GDP in 2014 under a no-policy-change assumption, the transition towards the
debt reduction rule will not be respected in 2014, which indicates that
progress towards the MTO is not sufficient. The programme does not explain how
the planned adjustment will be shared between the different layers of
government, an issue also addressed in last year's country specific
recommendation. In addition to a rules-based multi-annual framework for general
government, it is necessary to design and agree on explicit coordination
arrangements to secure and enforce more robust, automatic commitments from the
regions, communities and local authorities, to meet budgetary targets.
(10)     Belgium faces a very
significant projected increase in age-related expenditure (+2.0 pps of GDP) already
in the 2010-2020 period, in particular in the areas of pensions and long-term
care. The initiated reform of old age social security is set to have a positive
impact on the employment of older people. Nevertheless, forecasts show Belgium will fall short of the 2020 target it set for itself in this area. Given the
magnitude of the challenge, additional efforts will be required to close the
gap between the effective and the statutory retirement age. Measures to link
the statutory retirement age to developments in life expectancy would make it
possible to safeguard the sustainability of the pension system in the long
term. The need to achieve financial sustainability will have to be balanced
against the need to maintain the adequacy of the old-age social security schemes.
In long-term care, improved cost-efficiency of public spending on long-term
care services and cost-saving measures of health prevention and rehabilitation,
and for the creation of better conditions for independent living should be
explored in the light of the relatively high cost of institutional care in Belgium.
(11)     Belgium’s long term loss of
competitiveness is caused by several factors, including the wage-setting system,
malfunctions in the markets for inputs, and non-cost factors related to the innovation
capacity of the economy. The wage norm of 1996, intended to preserve
competitiveness vis-à-vis the main trading partners, has not always fulfilled
its role. The immediate measures taken so far to bring wage evolutions more in
line with productivity levels are steps in the right direction, but are not
sufficient to ensure long-term compatibility between wage and productivity
developments. Structural improvements to the wage bargaining framework are still
needed: these include automatic corrections in case the wage norm is not
respected or where the health index increase exceeds wage increases in the main
trading partners. The wage bargaining system should ensure that wage
developments follow local level productivity dynamics. Belgium specialises in intermediate products for which international competition is severe,
making it difficult to include in the end price variations in input prices.
While the strengths of the Belgian research and innovation system have played a
mitigating role as regards cost-competitiveness issue, business R&D remains
very concentrated and broader uptake by businesses lags behind. The framework
conditions for speeding up the transition towards a more knowledge-intensive
economy should be reinforced, focusing on entrepreneurship, facilitating firm
dynamics and the formation of human capital.
(12)     Prices for electricity, gas
and many other goods and services are higher in Belgium than in other Member
States, reflecting weak competition and structural barriers. Prices in the retail
sector remain above the euro-area average, while restrictions on professional
services impede the development of innovative business models and restrain
investment. Belgium has made only limited progress on improving competition in
the network industries and the establishment of strong and independent
regulators remains incomplete. Belgium has the second-lowest rate of mobile
broadband penetration in the EU, largely due to regulatory and coordination
problems with regards to spectrum availability. While higher consumer switching
has diminished the dominance in generation of the traditional energy operator,
competition at retail level for electricity and gas and at wholesale level for
electricity remains a challenge with high distribution costs disproportionally
contributing to net price levels for industrial users when compared with
neighbouring countries. Belgium’s decision to control end user retail prices
for electricity and gas may hamper capacity investments and new market entry.
Licensing conditions in the postal sector still raise concerns. Domestic rail
passenger transport is not open to competition and port labour legislation has
not been modernised. Given the importance of all of the above-mentioned sectors
for competitiveness, these measures are urgently needed.
(13)     The Belgian taxation system
relies disproportionately on direct taxes and contains loopholes that diminish
its fairness. While Belgium has made some efforts to reduce the overall tax
burden on labour, the implicit tax rate is still among the highest in the EU
for most types of workers. Belgium continues to be one of the countries with
the lowest share of environmental taxation in total tax revenues. There is
scope for simplifying the tax system and improving its efficiency, including by
reducing and streamlining tax expenditures, as well as removing unjustified or
ineffective reduced VAT rates.
(14)     Belgium suffers from
below-average and stagnating labour-market participation and high employment
and unemployment disparities across regions and population subgroups. The
population groups with the lowest participation in the labour market include those
with a migrant background, the elderly and low-skilled youth in all regions.
These groups are also exposed to higher risks of poverty and social exclusion.
The reform of the unemployment benefits system is a move in the right direction
but does not in itself guarantee more effective matching of labour supply and
demand if it is not associated with effective job-search assistance and
training opportunities. The interaction between the targeted reductions at the
federal level and the employment support schemes implemented by the regions
generates considerable complexity. Although the measures aimed at low-skilled
youth are likely to also benefit migrants, an encompassing strategy
specifically aimed at this target group is called for. In addition, it would
seem difficult to solve certain labour mismatches without significantly
increasing interregional labour mobility. A more fundamental assessment is
needed of how to make the provision of education and training more transparent
and efficient and how to reinforce synergy between the different training
providers.
(15)     Projections for greenhouse
gas emissions up until 2020 indicate that Belgium will fail to meet its 15 %
reduction target. It remains unclear how the isolated initiatives taken by the
different authorities will ensure that the target is met, or how the burden
will be shared between the regions. The impact of the combined measures on
reducing emissions, in particular from the transport sector and buildings,
remains unclear. Congestion is placing a heavy burden on the Belgian economy,
estimated to be even as high as 2 % of GDP and one of the highest in
Europe, but the implementation of the new traffic tax system in the three
regions has been delayed until 2016.
(16)     The coordination issues
inherent in a highly regionalised structure put emphasis on an efficient
organisation of public governance, as the presence of multiple networks, layers
and actors may lead to duplication of structures with weakened governance and
higher administrative costs. These issues come to the fore with regard to taxation
and the burden sharing of budgetary efforts including for education and social
security, which requires in general more cooperation and coordination.
(17)     In the context of the
European Semester, the Commission has carried out a comprehensive analysis of Belgium’s economic policy. It has assessed the stability programme and the national reform
programme, and presented an in-depth review. It has taken into account not only
their relevance for sustainable fiscal and socio-economic policy in Belgium but
also their compliance with EU rules and guidance, given the need to reinforce
the overall economic governance of the European Union by providing EU-level
input into future national decisions. Its recommendations under the European
Semester are reflected in recommendations (1) to (7) below.
(18)     In the light of this
assessment, the Council has examined Belgium’s stability programme, and its
opinion[9]
is reflected in particular in recommendation (1) below.
(19)     In the light of the
Commission’s in-depth review and this assessment, the Council has examined Belgium’s national reform programme and the stability programme. Its recommendations under
Article 6 of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 on the prevention and correction of
macroeconomic imbalances are reflected in recommendations (1), (2), (3), (4)
and (5) below.
(20)     In the context of the
European Semester the Commission has also carried out an analysis of the
economic policy of the euro area as a whole. On this basis the Council has
issued specific recommendations addressed to the Member States whose currency
is the euro. Belgium also should ensure the full and timely implementation of
these recommendations,
HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Belgium should take action within the period 2013-2014 to:
1.           Adopt additional measures
to achieve the structural adjustment effort specified in the Council Decision
to give notice to correct the excessive deficit by 2013 and to enhance the
sustainability and credibility of the consolidation. A
durable correction of the fiscal imbalances requires the credible
implementation of ambitious structural reforms which would increase the
adjustment capacity and boost potential growth. After
the correction of the excessive deficit, pursue the structural adjustment at an
appropriate pace so as to reach the medium-term objective by 2016 and ensure
that the high debt ratio is put on a firm downward path. To this end, present
growth-friendly structural measures for 2014 by 15 October 2013 which ensure a
sustainable correction of the excessive deficit and sufficient progress towards
its medium-term objective. Ensure that the adjustment path is balanced over
time or even front-loaded. Adopt explicit coordination arrangements to ensure
that budgetary targets are binding at federal level and sub-federal levels within
a medium-term planning perspective including through the prompt adoption of a
rule on the general government budget balance/surplus that complies with the
requirements of the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the
Economic and Monetary Union and to increase the transparency of burden sharing
and accountability across government layers.
2.           Step up efforts to close
the gap between the effective and statutory retirement age, including by
quickly phasing out early-exit systems. Underpin reforms of the old-age social
security systems with employment-support measures and labour-market reforms
conducive to active ageing. Accelerate the adoption of a decision to link the
statutory retirement age to life expectancy. Continue to improve the cost-efficiency
of public spending on long term institutional care.
3.           To restore competitiveness,
pursue the on-going efforts to reform the wage setting system, including wage
indexation; in particular, by taking structural measures, in consultation with
the social partners and in accordance with national practice, to ensure that
wage setting is responsive to productivity developments, reflects local
differences in productivity and labour market conditions, and provides automatic
corrections when wage evolution undermines cost-competitiveness.
4.           Present concrete and time-specific
structural measures to improve competition in the services sector, by removing
barriers in retail and excessive restrictions in professional services and improve
the provision of mobile broadband. Continue to improve the functioning of the
energy sector by reducing distribution costs and monitoring retail costs, strengthen
the independence of the regulators in the energy, telecoms and the transport
sectors (railway, airport, ports, road transport). Remove remaining regulatory
barriers in the postal sector.
5.           Establish concrete and
time-specific proposals for shifting taxes from labour to less growth-distortive
tax bases, notably by exploring the potential of environmental taxes, for
example on diesel, heating fuels and the taxation of the private use of company
cars. Simplify the tax system by reducing tax expenditures in income taxation,
increasing VAT efficiency and improving tax compliance by closing existing
loopholes.
6.           Further reduce
disincentives to work by ensuring effective enforcement of job-search
requirements and personalised job search assistance for all unemployed. Take
measures to increase interregional labour mobility. Simplify and reinforce
coherence between employment incentives, activation policies, labour matching,
education, lifelong learning and vocational training policies for older people
and youth. Develop comprehensive social-inclusion strategies for people with a
migrant background.
7.           Take concrete measures and
agree a clear division of tasks between the federal and regional authorities to
ensure progress towards reaching the targets for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions from non-ETS activities, in particular from transport and buildings.
Done at Brussels,
                                                                       For
the Council
                                                                       The
President
[1]               OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 1.
[2]               OJ L 306, 23.11.2011, p. 25.
[3]               COM(2013) 351 final.
[4]               P7_TA(2013)0052 and P7_TA(2013)0053.
[5]               Council Decision 2013/208/EU of 22 April 2013.
[6]               COM(2012) 750 final.
[7]               COM(2012) 751 final.
[8]               SWD(2013) 113 final.
[9]               Under Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No
1466/97.


Avis juridique important

|

32002H0216

Council Recommendation of 5 March 2002 concerning the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Development Fund (1984) (sixth EDF) for the financial year 2000

Official Journal L 072 , 14/03/2002 P. 0023 - 0023

Council Recommendationof 5 March 2002concerning the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Development Fund (1984) (sixth EDF) for the financial year 2000(2002/216/EC)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to the Third ACP-EEC Convention, signed at Lomé on 8 December 1984,Having regard to Council Decision 86/283/EEC of 30 June 1986 on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Economic Community(1),Having regard to the Internal Agreement on the financing and administration of Community aid(2), signed in Brussels on 19 February 1985, as amended by Decision 86/281/EEC(3), and in particular Article 29(3) thereof,Having regard to the Financial Regulation of 11 November 1986 applicable to the sixth European Development Fund(4), and in particular Articles 66 to 73 thereof,Having examined the revenue and expenditure account and the balance sheet relating to the operations of the European Development Fund (1984) (sixth EDF) as at 31 December 2000 and the Court of Auditors' report relating to the financial year 2000 together with the Commission's replies(5),Whereas:(1) Pursuant to Article 29(3) of the Internal Agreement, the discharge for the management of the European Development Fund (1984) (sixth EDF) must be given to the Commission by the European Parliament on a recommendation from the Council.(2) The overall implementation by the Commission of the operations of the European Development Fund (1984) (sixth EDF) during the financial year 2000 has been satisfactory,HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the European Parliament give the Commission a discharge in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Development Fund (1984) (sixth EDF) for the financial year 2000.Done at Brussels, 5 March 2002.For the CouncilThe PresidentR. de Rato y Figaredo(1) OJ L 175, 1.7.1986, p. 1.(2) OJ L 86, 31.3.1986, p. 210.(3) OJ L 178, 2.7.1986, p. 13.(4) OJ L 325, 20.11.1986, p. 42.(5) OJ C 359, 15.12.2001, p. 421.


title: Recommendation of the European Central Bank of 26 April 2013 to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of Suomen Pankki (ECB/2013/12)

text:
               3.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/1

         RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK
   of 26 April 2013
   to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of Suomen Pankki
   (ECB/2013/12)
   2013/C 126/01
   THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,
   Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Article 27.1 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and national central banks of the Member States whose currency is the euro are audited by independent external auditors recommended by the ECB’s Governing Council and approved by the Council of the European Union.

               (2)

               The mandate of Suomen Pankki’s current external auditors ended following the audit for the financial year 2012. It is therefore necessary to appoint external auditors from the financial year 2013.

               (3)

               Suomen Pankki has selected PricewaterhouseCoopers Oy as its external auditors for the financial years 2013 to 2019,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:
   It is recommended that PricewaterhouseCoopers Oy should be appointed as the external auditors of Suomen Pankki for the financial years 2013 to 2019.

      Done at Frankfurt am Main, 26 April 2013.

            The President of the ECB

         Mario DRAGHI


title: 2014/661/EU: Commission Recommendation of 10 September 2014 on the monitoring of the presence of 2 and 3-monochloropropane-1,2-diol (2 and 3-MCPD), 2- and 3-MCPD fatty acid esters and glycidyl fatty acid esters in food  Text with EEA relevance

text:
               12.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 271/93

         COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
   of 10 September 2014
   on the monitoring of the presence of 2 and 3-monochloropropane-1,2-diol (2 and 3-MCPD), 2- and 3-MCPD fatty acid esters and glycidyl fatty acid esters in food
   (Text with EEA relevance)

      (2014/661/EU)

   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 292 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               3-Monochloropropane-1,2-diol (3-MCPD) is a food processing contaminant classified as a possible human carcinogen for which a tolerable daily intake (TDI) of 2 μg/kg b.w. has been established (1). A maximum level of 20 μg/kg for hydrolysed vegetable protein (HVP) and soy sauce has been established by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 (2) for liquid products containing 40 % dry matter, corresponding to a maximum of 50 μg/kg in the dry matter.

               (2)

               Esters of 2- and 3-monochloropropane-1,2-diol (MCPD) and glycidyl esters are important contaminants of processed edible oils used as foods or food ingredients. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM) agreed with the estimate of 100 % release of 3-MCPD from its esters in humans (3).

               (3)

               Glycidyl fatty acid esters (GE) are process contaminants generated during the deodorisation step of edible oil refining. The toxicological relevance of glycidyl fatty acid esters has not yet been fully elucidated. Glycidol itself is categorised as probably carcinogenic to humans. Latest scientific studies indicate an (almost) entire release of glycidol from fatty acid esters within the human digestive tract.

               (4)

               On 20 September 2013, EFSA has published a scientific report on the analysis of occurrence of 3-monochloropropane-1,2-diol (3-MCPD) in food in Europe in the years 2009-2011 and preliminary exposure assessment (4).

               (5)

               More occurrence data on the presence of the MCPD fatty acid esters and glycidyl fatty acid esters are necessary to enable a more accurate exposure assessment.

               (6)

               Therefore it is appropriate to recommend the monitoring of the presence of MCPD, MCPD-esters and glycidyl esters in vegetable oils and fats, derived foods and foods containing vegetable oils and fats.

         HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:

               1.

               Member States should, with the active involvement of feed and food business operators, perform monitoring for the presence of 2 and 3-MCPD, 2 and 3-MCPD fatty acid esters and glycidyl fatty acid esters in food, and particularly in:

                           (a)

                           vegetable oils and fats and derived products such as margarine and similar products,

                           (b)

                           foods for particular nutritional uses as defined in Directive 2009/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (5) and intended for infants and young children, including infant- and follow on formulae as defined in Commission Directive 2006/141/EC (6) and dietary foods for special medical purposes as defined in Commission Directive 1999/21/EC (7) intended for use by infants,

                           (c)

                           fine bakery wares, bread and rolls,

                           (d)

                           canned meat (smoked) and canned fish (smoked),

                           (e)

                           potato- or cereal-based snacks, other fried potato-based products,

                           (f)

                           vegetable oil containing foods and foods prepared/produced with vegetable oils.

                     It is recognised that the analysis of 2 and 3-MCPD, 2 and 3-MCPD fatty acid esters and glycidyl fatty acid esters in foods mentioned in points (b) to (f) is very challenging and no methods of analysis, which have been validated by a collaborative study, are yet available. Therefore particular attention has to be paid when analysing foods mentioned in points (b) to (f) in order to ensure that the generated data are reliable.
               Therefore, Member States which intend to analyse the presence of 2 and 3-MCPD, 2 and 3-MCPD fatty acid esters and glycidyl fatty acid esters in foods mentioned in points (b) to (f) may request, if appropriate and needed, the technical assistance of the Commission's Joint Research Centre, Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements (IRMM), Unit Standards for Food Bioscience.

               2.

               In order to ensure that the samples are representative for the sampled lot, Member States should follow the sampling procedures laid down in Part B of the Annex to the Commission Regulation (EC) No 333/2007 (8).

               3.

               In order to determine ester bound MCPD and glycidol, it is recommended to use the American Oil Chemists' Society standard methods. These methods are Gas-Chromatography Mass Spectrometry methods (GC-MS) which have been validated by a collaborative study for vegetable oils and fats and are available at www.aocs.org.
               The Limit of Quantification (LOQ) should not be higher than 100 μg/kg for the analysis of MCPD and glycidol bound to fatty acid esters in edible oils and fats. For other foods containing more than 10 % fat, the LOQ should preferably be not higher when related to the fat content of the food, i.e. the LOQ for the analysis of fatty acid esters of MCPD and glycidol in food containing 20 % fat should not be higher than 20 μg/kg on whole weight basis. For foods containing less than 10 % fat, the LOQ should be not higher than 10 μg/kg on whole weight basis.

               4.

               Laboratories should have quality control procedures in place to avoid the transformation of glycidyl esters into MCPD esters and vice versa during the analysis. Furthermore unambiguous specification of the measurand and separate reporting is necessary of the free 2- and 3- MCPD present in the analysed matrix from the 2- and 3-MCPD fatty acid esters, as both are measured as 3-MCPD. Following measurands should be reported separately:

                           —

                           2-MCPD

                           —

                           3-MCPD

                           —

                           2-MCPD esters

                           —

                           3-MCPD esters

                           —

                           glycidyl esters.

                     There is no evidence for the time being of the presence of free glycidol in foods referred to in Point (1). However in case where free glycidol would be analysed, this should be reported separately.

               5.

               Member States should ensure that the analytical results are provided on a regular basis (every six months) to EFSA in the EFSA data submission format in line with the requirements of EFSA's Guidance on Standard Sample Description (SSD) for Food and Feed (9) and the additional EFSA's specific reporting requirements.
               A simplified format, with fewer mandatory fields to be completed, will be made available to ensure maximum submission of useful available monitoring data.

               6.

               A guidance note will be elaborated to ensure uniform application of this Recommendation and to ensure comparable reporting of results.

      Done at Brussels, 10 September 2014.

            For the Commission

         Tonio BORG

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Food on 3-monochloropropane-1,2-diol (3-MCPD) updating the SCF opinion of 1994 (adopted on 30 May 2001) http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scf/out91_en.pdf

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 of 19 December 2006 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs (OJ L 364, 20.12.2006, p. 5).

      (3)  Statement of the Scientific Panel on Contaminants in the Food chain (CONTAM) on a request from the European Commission related to 3-MCPD esters http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/1048.pdf

      (4)  European Food Safety Authority, 2013 Analysis of occurrence of 3-monochloropropane-1,2-diol (3-MCPD) in food in Europe in the years 2009-2011 and preliminary exposure assessment. EFSA Journal 2013;11(9):3381, 45 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3381 Available online: www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal

      (5)  Directive 2009/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional uses (OJ L 124, 20.5.2009, p. 21).

      (6)  Commission Directive 2006/141/EC of 22 December 2006 on infant formulae and follow-on formulae and amending Directive 1999/21/EC (OJ L 401, 30.12.2006, p. 1).

      (7)  Commission Directive 1999/21/EC of 25 March 1999 on dietary foods for special medical purposes(OJ L 91, 7.4.1999, p. 29).

      (8)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 333/2007 of 28 March 2007 laying down the methods of sampling and analysis for the official control of the levels of lead, cadmium, mercury, inorganic tin, 3-MCPD and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in foodstuffs (OJ L 88, 29.3.2007, p. 29).

      (9)  http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/datex/datexsubmitdata.htm


title: Council Recommendation of 11 July 2017 on the 2017 National Reform Programme of Lithuania and delivering a Council opinion on the 2017 Stability Programme of Lithuania

text:
               9.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/62

         COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
   of 11 July 2017
   on the 2017 National Reform Programme of Lithuania and delivering a Council opinion on the 2017 Stability Programme of Lithuania
   (2017/C 261/14)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 121(2) and 148(4) thereof,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies (1), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,
   Having regard to the Recommendation of the European Commission,
   Having regard to the resolutions of the European Parliament,
   Having regard to the conclusions of the European Council,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Employment Committee,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Financial Committee,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Social Protection Committee,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Economic Policy Committee,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 16 November 2016, the Commission adopted the Annual Growth Survey, marking the start of the 2017 European Semester for economic policy coordination. The priorities of the Annual Growth Survey were endorsed by the European Council on 9-10 March 2017. On 16 November 2016, on the basis of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2), the Commission adopted the Alert Mechanism Report, in which it did not identify Lithuania as one of the Member States for which an in-depth review would be carried out. On the same date, the Commission also adopted a recommendation for a Council Recommendation on the economic policy of the euro area, which was endorsed by the European Council on 9-10 March 2017. On 21 March 2017, the Council adopted the Recommendation on the economic policy of the euro area (‘Recommendation for the euro area’) (3).

               (2)

               As a Member State whose currency is the euro and in view of the close interlinkages between the economies in the economic and monetary union, Lithuania should ensure the full and timely implementation of the Recommendation for the euro area, as reflected in recommendation (2) below.

               (3)

               The 2017 country report for Lithuania was published on 22 February 2017. It assessed Lithuania’s progress in addressing the country-specific recommendations adopted by the Council on 12 July 2016, the follow-up given to the country-specific recommendations adopted in previous years and Lithuania’s progress towards its national Europe 2020 targets.

               (4)

               Lithuania submitted its 2017 National Reform Programme on 27 April 2017 and its 2017 Stability Programme on 28 April 2017. In order to take account of their interlinkages, the two programmes have been assessed at the same time.

               (5)

               Relevant country-specific recommendations have been addressed in the programming of the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds) for the 2014-2020 period. As provided for in Article 23 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4), where it is necessary to support the implementation of relevant Council recommendations, the Commission may request a Member State to review and propose amendments to its Partnership Agreement and relevant programmes. The Commission has provided further details on how it would make use of that provision in guidelines on the application of the measures linking effectiveness of the ESI Funds to sound economic governance.

               (6)

               Lithuania is currently in the preventive arm of the Stability and Growth Pact. In its 2017 Stability Programme, the Government plans an improvement of the headline balance from a deficit of 0,4 % of GDP in 2017 to a surplus of 1,3 % of GDP in 2020. The medium-term budgetary objective — a deficit of 1 % of GDP in structural terms — is planned to be met with a margin throughout the programme period. The allowed adjustment path incorporates the systemic pension reform starting from 2016. In 2017 it reflects additional major structural labour market and pension reforms. According to the 2017 Stability Programme, the general government debt-to-GDP ratio is expected to fall from 40,2 % of GDP in 2016 to 33,8 % in 2020. The macroeconomic scenario underpinning those budgetary projections is plausible. At the same time, the measures needed to support the planned surplus targets from 2018 onwards have not been sufficiently specified.

               (7)

               In its 2017 Stability Programme, Lithuania requested to avail itself of the temporary deviation of 0,5 % of GDP under the preventive arm pursuant to the ‘Commonly Agreed Position on Flexibility within the Stability and Growth Pact’ endorsed by the ECOFIN Council in February 2016 in view of the planned implementation of major structural reforms with a positive impact on the long-term sustainability of public finances. In particular, this concerns raising the sustainability of the pension system through a reinforced indexation and a gradual increase of the pensionable service. However, the reforms stopped short of establishing an automatic link between retirement age and life expectancy. In addition, the reforms modernise labour relations by introducing new types of employment contracts, shorter periods of notice, lower severance allowances and more flexible working hours. The reforms also strengthen the coverage and adequacy of unemployment and social insurance benefits, expand the scope of active labour market policies and reduce the level of illegal and uninsured employment. The authorities estimate that the reforms are having a positive impact on the sustainability of public finances by generating an average annual pension expenditure savings of up to 3,8 % of GDP in the long run, while the labour market part of the reform may increase an average annual number of the employed by up to 10 %, which seems to be a broadly plausible assumption. Therefore, if fully and timely implemented, this reform will have a positive impact on the sustainability of public finances. On this basis, Lithuania can currently be assessed as qualifying for the requested temporary deviation in 2017, provided that it adequately implements the agreed reforms, which will be monitored under the European Semester. However, in view of the need to ensure a continued respect of the minimum benchmark (i.e. a structural deficit of 1,5 % of GDP) and taking into account the previously granted allowance under the systemic pension reform clause (0,1 % of GDP), Lithuania can currently be assessed as qualifying for an additional temporary deviation of 0,4 % of GDP in 2017, which is slightly below the requested 0,5 % of GDP.

               (8)

               On 12 July 2016, for 2017 the Council recommended Lithuania to ensure that the deviation from the medium-term budgetary objective is limited to the allowance linked to the systemic pension reform (5). Taking into account the allowances linked to the pension reform granted for 2016 and the temporary deviation linked to the implementation of structural reforms granted for 2017, the structural balance would be allowed to deteriorate by 1,3 % of GDP in 2017. Based on the Commission 2017 spring forecast Lithuania is projected to comply with this requirement in 2017. In 2018, Lithuania should achieve its medium-term objective, taking into account the allowances related to the implementation of the systemic pension reform granted for 2016 and the structural reform granted for 2017, as temporary deviations are carried forward for a period of 3 years. Based on the Commission 2017 spring forecast, this is consistent with a maximum nominal growth rate of net primary government expenditure (6) of 6,4 % in 2018, corresponding to a deterioration in the structural balance of -0,6 % of GDP. Under unchanged policies, Lithuania is projected to comply with this requirement in 2018. Overall, the Council is of the opinion that Lithuania is projected to comply with the provisions of the Stability and Growth Pact in 2017 and 2018.

               (9)

               Following the latest increase in the non-taxable minimum wage, the tax burden on low-income earners has been substantially reduced over recent years and is now close to the Union average. At the same time, compensating tax increases have been limited and consequently, tax revenue as a share of GDP remains among the lowest in the Union, limiting Lithuania’s ability to address its social challenges. The low tax revenue is due to the relatively large share of the shadow economy and relatively low revenue from environmental and capital taxation.

               (10)

               Although Lithuania has made progress in recent years to improve VAT collection, its VAT gap is among the highest in the Union. Underreporting of wages adds to the problem of low tax collection. Increasing tax compliance would raise budget revenues and improve the fairness of the tax system and the efficiency of the economy.

               (11)

               The rise in the old-age dependency ratio is set to intensify and under the existing pension rules expenditure on pensions as a share of GDP is projected to rise by some 50 % by the end of the 2030s. Linking the pension benefits with life expectancy is essential to limit the strain the pension expenditure will put on public finances.

               (12)

               Lithuania has postponed the entry into force of the new Labour Code and other legislation on the new social model. This gives it an opportunity to ensure a good balance between flexibility and security in its labour relations. The high proportion of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion, together with growing income inequality, remain major challenges for Lithuania. The ratio of the incomes of the richest 20 % of households to that of the poorest 20 % rose from 5,3 in 2012 to 7,5 in 2015 and is the second highest in the Union. This is detrimental to economic growth, macroeconomic stability and development of an inclusive society. At the moment, the social safety net does not effectively address this challenge due to low spending on social protection. Moreover, the difference in income inequality before and after taxes and social transfers is amongst the smallest in the Union. However, the Government has put the fight against poverty and social exclusion high on its agenda. The legislation on the new social model envisages increasing the adequacy and coverage of unemployment benefits, and there are some discussions on improving the adequacy of social assistance. These important decisions still have to be adopted and implemented. To tackle poverty among the elderly, in 2016 Lithuania added an indexation mechanism to its pension legislation which can be used to improve the adequacy of pensions.

               (13)

               It is important that Lithuania address its skills challenges and tackle the negative effects of its shrinking working age population. The proportion of pupils with insufficient basic skills remains high. Despite high tertiary education attainment rates, higher education is marred by poor quality standards and financial incentives that promote oversize and inefficiency rather than performance. Efforts should be pursued to ensure high quality teaching at all levels of education (including through reforming careers and working conditions). This is crucial to tackling underachievement and educational shortcomings and to ensuring quality in higher education (including by introducing performance-based funding and by consolidating higher education institutions). The persistence of low levels of participation in adult learning in Lithuania is hindering the effectiveness of labour market reforms and the development of a better-skilled workforce. Lithuania has been focusing its efforts on increasing the offer and relevance of publicly provided learning opportunities, but so far this has not yielded tangible results. To achieve higher and sustainable participation rates in adult learning, Lithuania also needs to encourage individuals to take up learning and incentivise more employers to provide learning opportunities for their employees.

               (14)

               Unemployment among low-skilled and medium-skilled individuals is still above the Union average. Persons with disabilities have a high poverty rate, partly due to their weak labour market integration. Active labour market policy measures currently play a limited role in helping people re-enter the labour market in Lithuania. Lithuania has substantial scope to make its labour market more inclusive, including by offering more support measures to persons with disabilities. This implies, for instance, scaling up supported employment and the Vocational Rehabilitation Programme, and enhancing the availability of rehabilitation budgets. The recently adopted Law on Employment has the potential to improve the provision of active labour market policy measures.

               (15)

               Lithuania has made progress in recent years in improving social dialogue. Social partners are actively involved in the discussions on the new Labour Code and the new social model, and the Government has put in place the action plan to strengthen the social dialogue. It is aimed at building the capacity of social partners, promoting collective bargaining and improving the social dialogue at all levels.

               (16)

               In Lithuania, health outcomes continue to have a significant negative impact on the potential available workforce and labour productivity. Although efforts are being made to shift patients to more cost-effective types of healthcare, the health system’s performance continues to be hampered by high reliance on inpatient care and low expenditure on prevention and public health. Out-of-pocket payments are very high, in particular for pharmaceuticals.

               (17)

               Adverse demographic developments mean that growth will increasingly depend on labour productivity. Over the period 2000-2015 Lithuania had one of the highest labour productivity growth rates among Member States, but recently growth rates have slowed down. Lithuania’s public investment suffers from poor planning and linkage to the country’s strategic goals. Public R & D intensity increased to a value slightly above the Union average in 2015, while business R & D intensity still lags behind. The ‘Lithuanian Science and Innovation Policy Reform Guidelines’ adopted in 2016 aim to address the persisting challenges in research and innovation. They do so by calling for reform of institutional R & D funding; consolidation of research and higher education institutions, science valleys and technology parks; and improved policy coordination, monitoring and evaluation. Lithuania has made some progress in supporting alternative means of finance. It has helped to establish a number of venture capital and seed capital funds. The Parliament has also recently passed a law on crowdfunding.

               (18)

               The number of bribery cases brought to courts has been on a steady rise in recent years, thus showing Lithuania’s stepped up efforts to fight corruption. However, in some important areas, like healthcare and public procurement the provisions against petty and high-level corruption are not always applied in practice. The healthcare sector suffers from the frequent practice of informal payments to doctors. There is insufficient transparency in public procurement, in particular at the municipal level. In addition, weak whistle-blower arrangements discourage tip-offs about potential irregularities in the public and private sectors. The Government has set tackling the corruption in healthcare sector as a priority in its anti-corruption programme. Also, to reduce corruption risks and conflicts of interest in low-value procurement, the Government has obliged contracting authorities to publish online information on initiated tenders, the successful bidders and the contracts awarded. However, continued monitoring is necessary to ensure implementation of these policies.

               (19)

               In the context of the 2017 European Semester, the Commission has carried out a comprehensive analysis of Lithuania’s economic policy and published it in the 2017 country report. It has also assessed the 2017 Stability Programme, the 2017 National Reform Programme and the follow-up given to the recommendations addressed to Lithuania in previous years. It has taken into account not only their relevance for sustainable fiscal and socioeconomic policy in Lithuania, but also their compliance with Union rules and guidance, given the need to strengthen the Union’s overall economic governance by providing Union-level input into future national decisions.

               (20)

               In the light of this assessment, the Council has examined the 2017 Stability Programme and its opinion (7) is reflected in particular in recommendation (1) below,

         HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Lithuania take action in 2017 and 2018 to:

               1.

               Pursue its fiscal policy in line with the requirements of the preventive arm of the Stability and Growth Pact, which entails remaining at its medium term budgetary objective in 2018, taking into account the allowances linked to the implementation of the systemic pension reform and of the structural reforms for which a temporary deviation is granted. Improve tax compliance and broaden the tax base to sources that are less detrimental to growth. Take steps to address the medium-term fiscal sustainability challenge related to pensions.

               2.

               Address skills shortages through effective active labour market policy measures and adult learning and improve educational outcomes by rewarding quality in teaching and in higher education. Improve the performance of the healthcare system by strengthening outpatient care, disease prevention and affordability. Improve the adequacy of the social safety net.

               3.

               Take measures to strengthen productivity by improving the efficiency of public investment and strengthening its linkage with the country’s strategic objectives.

      Done at Brussels, 11 July 2017.

            For the Council

            The President

         T. TÕNISTE

      (1)  OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 1.

      (2)  Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 on the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances (OJ L 306, 23.11.2011, p. 25).

      (3)  OJ C 92, 24.3.2017, p. 1.

      (4)  Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 320).

      (5)  Lithuania is allowed to deviate from its medium-term budgetary objective in 2017 and 2018 by allowance under the systemic pension reform clause granted for 2016, as temporary deviations are carried forward for a period of 3 years.

      (6)  Net government expenditure comprises total government expenditure excluding interest expenditure, expenditure on Union programmes fully matched by Union funds revenue and non-discretionary changes in unemployment benefit expenditure. Nationally financed gross fixed capital formation is smoothed over a 4-year period. Discretionary revenue measures or revenue increases mandated by law are factored in. One-off measures on both the revenue and expenditure sides are netted out.

      (7)  Under Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1466/97.


Avis juridique important

|

31977K0328

77/328/ECSC: Commission Recommendation of 15 April 1977 relating to protection against imports which constitute or threaten to constitute a serious danger to production in the common market of similar or directly competitive products

Official Journal L 114 , 05/05/1977 P. 0004 - 0005 Finnish special edition: Chapter 11 Volume 3 P. 0064  Swedish special edition: Chapter 11 Volume 3 P. 0064  Greek special edition: Chapter 11 Volume 9 P. 0026  Spanish special edition: Chapter 13 Volume 7 P. 0054  Portuguese special edition Chapter 13 Volume 7 P. 0054

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION  of 15 April 1977  relating to protection against imports which constitute or threaten to constitute a serious danger to production in the common market of similar or directly competitive products  (77/328/ECSC)   THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, and in particular Articles 74 and 86 thereof,  Whereas the Commission is empowered under Article 74 of the Treaty to take any measures which are in accordance with that Treaty and to make to the Member States, under the conditions laid down, any necessary recommendations if one of the products referred to in Article 81 of the Treaty is imported into the territory of one or more Member States in quantities increased to such an extent and under such conditions that these imports cause or threaten to cause serious injury to production within the common market of like or directly competing products;  Whereas, in view of the existence of the common market in coal and steel, the introduction of national measures could not, even in the event of mutual assistance, provide an effective and adequate defence against such imports but might, on the contrary, interfere with the functioning of the common market and jeopardize its achievements, particularly the unified customs tariff applicable to non-member countries;  Whereas, for these reasons, the Commission may avail itself of the powers conferred on it by Article 74 (3) of the Treaty;  Whereas, in order to enable the Commission to exercise its powers rapidly and effectively, certain rules of procedure should be laid down and cooperation with the Member States organized;  Whereas, in order to avoid discrepancies between the actions of the Commission and those of the Member States and to ensure that, in cases where Community interests are not affected, the Member States may take appropriate measures to protect national production, provision should be made for national measures to be taken, after consultation, in the absence of Community action,  MAKES THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION:      Article 1 1. Member States shall notify the Commission of any danger resulting from trends in imports which appear to call for safeguard measures.  2. The Commission shall inform the other Member States forthwith.   Article 2 The Commission shall organize consultations with the Member States within eight working days following receipt by the Commission of the notification provided for in Article 1.    Article 3 The consultation shall in particular cover:    (a) the terms and conditions of importation, import trends, and the various aspects of the economic and commercial situation as regards the product in question,       (b) the measures, if any, to be adopted.          Article 4 1. Where, following the consultations referred to in Article 2, the Commission considers that it must invoke Article 74 (3) of the Treaty it shall inform the Member States within 10 working days of the consultations.  2. Where, at the end of that period, the Commission has failed to provide the information referred to in paragraph 1, the Member State or States concerned may take national measures. However, the adoption of such measures must be preceded by consultation of the Commission and the other Member States. These consultations shall be organized by the Commission within five working days following receipt of the request from the Member State or States concerned and shall in particular cover the examination of the proposed measures in order to ascertain whether they comply with the objectives and provisions of the Treaty and with existing international agreements, the effect they will have on the functioning of the common market and any mutual assistance measures which may be necessary.   Article 5 This recommendation shall be notified to the Governments of the Member States and published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.  It shall enter into force in respect of each Member State with effect from the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.        Done at Brussels, 15 April 1977.  For the Commission  The President  Roy JENKINS