Important legal notice

|

52005SC1032

Recommendation from the Commission to the Council to authorise the Commission to negotiate with the United States of America an agreement renewing the co-operation programme in the field of higher education and vocational training  /* SEC/2005/1032 final */

	[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |Brussels, 29.07.2005SEC(2005) 1032 finalRECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCILto authorise the Commission to negotiate with the United States of America an agreement renewing the co-operation programme in the field of higher education and vocational training1. EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUMCONTEXT OF THE PROPOSALThe present proposal is set against the dual background of the European Union higher education agenda and EU/US relations which call, respectively, for higher education to become a world reference for relevance and excellence and for broader education cooperation.Education has become an essential component of the Lisbon strategy which calls for European Union education to become a world reference by 2010. Such an objective can only be achieved by keeping European education tuned to world developments and in particular by collaborating and testing approaches and standards against those in the world most developed countries like the United States of America (hereafter ‘the US’).The relations with the US are of strategic importance for the EU and their scope is constantly widening. Leaders at the Dromoland EU-US Summit of 2004 agreed to look for cooperative means and best practices to enhance economic growth, job creation and innovation. On 18 May 2005 the Commission adopted a communication on a stronger EU-US partnership[1] which, in line with the Lisbon strategy, identified cooperation in education and training as an important tool for stimulating knowledge and innovation dynamic and called for the renewal and reinforcement of the current agreement on Higher Education and Vocational Training. On 20 June 2005 Leaders at the Washington EU-US Summit agreed on an initiative to enhance transatlantic economic integration and growth which identified education cooperation as one of the tools “to increase synergies across the Atlantic as we become more knowledge-based economies.” and committed to work to “renew and reinforce the U.S.-EU agreement on Higher Education and Vocational Training, which includes the Fulbright/European Union program, to boost education cooperation and transatlantic exchanges between our citizens”.The current agreement was concluded in 2000 and renewed the EC/US programme for another five years ending in 2005. An external evaluation was undertaken from October 2004 to March 2005. The independent evaluation concluded that the programme is a powerful tool for establishing long lasting partnerships and synergies in higher education and vocational training over the Atlantic and that this has contributed to improving mutual understanding and the quality of human resource development. On 27 June 2005 the Commission adopted a communication on the results of this evaluation.[2]The present recommendation concerns the authorisation for the conclusion of a new agreement renewing the EC/US cooperation programme for the period 2006-2013.OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSALGeneral objectiveThe general objectives of the EU/US programme are:-  to enhance mutual understanding among the peoples of the European Union and the US,-  to better prepare citizens for the knowledge society.The EU/US programme will therefore seek to mutually enhance the quality of higher education and vocational training.Specific ObjectivesThe specific objectives are as follows:1.  to enhance collaboration between the European Union and the US in the domains of higher education and vocational training;2.  to contribute to the development of higher education and vocational training institutions;3.  to contribute to individual participants’ personal development for their personal sake and as a way to achieve the general objective of the programme.4.  to contribute to transatlantic exchanges between our citizens.Operational objectivesThe operational objectives are as follows:5.  To support collaboration between higher education and vocational training institutions with a view to promoting joint study programmes and mobility;6.  To support collaboration between public and private organisations active in the field of higher education and vocational training with a view to encouraging discussion and exchange of experience on policy issues;7.  To support transatlantic mobility of professionals with a view to improving mutual understanding of issues relevant to EU/US relations;CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER POLICIESThe EU/US programme in higher education and vocational training would be fully consistent with and complementary to those of other EU instruments in these areas giving the possibility of pursuing objectives of quality education through collaboration between the EU and the US. In addition, the programme would bring in transatlantic people-to-people cooperation which is absent in other EU education and vocational training programmes.The programme would also complement the activities of EU Centres in that it offers additional possibilities for exchanges and encourages structural cooperation between institutions and organisations on both sides of the Atlantic.CONSULTATIONS WITH STAKEHOLDERS-  2001 Study on modalities for cooperation in vocational education and vocational trainingThe study contracted by the Commission confirmed the value of EC/US cooperation in vocational training. Vocational training institutions are not necessarily well prepared for transatlantic cooperation yet there is great potential for mutual enrichment though this type of collaboration which offers new opportunities for transatlantic mobility to students, trainees and staff who otherwise would not have access to them. The study noted that for a vocational training strand to coexist with higher education, a significant budget increase was necessary.-  Interim external evaluationAn external evaluation was concluded in early 2005. The evaluation confirmed the effectiveness and relevance of the programme and that the programme is beneficial for the institutions, faculties and students involved. The programme is, however, considered too small to have had an impact on the mutual understanding between the people of the European Union and the US. While projects are largely sustainable, not all the activities are continued in the same way. The evaluators suggest in particular introducing a system of additional mobility grants for successful projects.- The 2004 Washington seminar on the future of EU/US cooperation.A round table discussion with prominent US and EU experts and government representatives was organised in conjunction with US Department of Education (FISPE) in Washington on 27 November 2004. The experts concluded that the EU-US programme was extremely valuable for the institutions, faculty and students involved and it was of strategic importance for EU-US people-to-people relations. They stressed that the programme allowed transatlantic multilateral partnerships to be developed with a positive impact on the faculty and participating exchange students. The latter, in particular, could dramatically increase their cross-cultural knowledge, increase their adaptability, improve their academic performance and enhance their chances of finding quality jobs in the international market place. It was also highlighted that more should be done to ensure that the programme has a wider and longer-term impact. This called for a larger scale programme and for measures helping the sustainability of individual projects. Finally it was suggested that the programme should be coupled with measures and policy dialogue on systems issues.OPTIONS EXAMINEDApproaches and instruments : Policy dialogue and co-ordinationPolicy dialogue between the European Union and the US can certainly contribute to a better understanding of education and training strategies, generate exchanges of best practices and ultimately lead to measures that have a direct impact on citizens.However, policy dialogue alone may not induce bottom-up, people-to-people innovative collaboration, or the enhancement of high quality mobility of young people and better access for young people and organisations to transatlantic exchange experience. A programme of specific actions is needed to encourage and support such activity.Possible alternative designs for an expenditure programmeIntegration into existing or proposed frameworksThe existing education and training programmes like “ Socrates” or “ Leonardo da Vinci” are designed for and target exclusively the public of the Member States. The decision making process, typology of actions and implementation mechanisms are not well suited for EU/US bilateral cooperation in the fields of higher education and vocational training. The same applies to the future Lifelong learning programme.“Erasmus Mundus” seeks to enhance the quality of higher education in the European Union and promote it world-wide through a scholarship scheme for third country students and scholars. Erasmus Mundus is a higher education programme which aims primarily at attracting non EU students at Masters’ level. As such it has not been designed for bilateral exchanges, international curriculum development and institutional cooperation. It does not concern vocational training and it focuses on graduate level while the proposed cooperation programme with the US focuses primarily on the activities at undergraduate level.Other external programmes are also unsuitable to achieve the objectives of the EU/US bilateral cooperation.Renewing the Agreement and continuing the programme in its present formThe proposed agreement and the programme it would set up does not represent a radical departure from the present structure of cooperation and it is in line with the Commission communication of 18 May 2005[3] which called for reinforcing the current cooperation and with the joint commitment made at the EU-US Summit in June 2005 to work to renew and reinforce the agreement to boost education co-operation and transatlantic exchanges between citizens of the EU and the US.The programme would take into account the lessons drawn from past experience and from the independent, interim evaluation by differentiating between higher education and vocational training, building on excellence and enhancing exchanges of students and trainees and staff.The evaluation found that the small budget of the present programme has limited the programme’s potential impact on higher education and prevented the development of significant cooperation in the field of vocational training. The programme to be created by the proposed agreement entails a budget increase (from 2 M€ to an average of 8 M€ per annum) to take into account the size of the EU and US higher education and vocational training systems and the potential for cooperation.Assessment of positive and negative impacts of the options consideredIn achieving its objectives, the programme would have a positive short term and long term impact on young people as well as on institutions and organisations dealing with higher education and vocational training issues. Transatlantic mobility would give participants valuable experience that will help them better integrate into today’s society and knowledge economy.Collaboration between institutions would help them to improve their curricula and teaching methods by learning from each other best practices and by jointly developing new approaches.In the long term, collaboration would help to maintain the very good level of people-to-people understanding that exists between the European Union and the US.There are no conflicts between impacts at social, economic or environmental level.Reasons for choosing the present optionThere is a widespread consensus that higher education should remain a central component of the programme. At the same time, the programme would also give access to transatlantic cooperation for vocational education and training organisations that would not otherwise engage in such co-operation.In the framework of lifelong education, and to reinforce the people-to-people dimension of the EU/US relations, the programme would be also open to young professionals, mainly outside the academic and public administration world, who want to undertake studies or training, in areas of specific relevance to the EU/US relationship, which will be identified in consultation with the US authorities.The impact of the programme would be enhanced with the introduction of policy-oriented projects in areas of common interest for the European Union and the US. That is to say, projects with a systemic impact that can have an impact beyond the institutions/organisations/individuals directly involved in their implementation. These projects would be aimed at increasing knowledge about, and exchanging best practices on issues such as quality and compatibility of education and training systems, access to lifelong learning for all, and opening up education and training systems to the world.LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSALLegal BasisThe proposal is based on articles 149, 150 and 300 of the Treaty.Subsidiarity and proportionalityThe programme would complement bilateral cooperation schemes between Member States and the US by proposing to continue a multilateral framework for cooperation. It would fully respect Member States’ competence leaving the initiative to particular institutions and organisations. The proposed renewal of the programme does not contemplate any regulatory approach, which would conflict with Member States’ exclusive competence in this area. Proportionality is ensured.DESCRIPTION OF THE INTERVENTIONThe programme would pursue its objectives through the following actions:H igher education and vocational training programme actions:Consortia projectsThe target public of this action would be higher education and vocational training institutions and organisations, their staff, students and trainees. The action will respond to two specific objectives: contributing to the development of higher education and vocational training institutions and organisations, and increasing the mobility of staff, students and trainees.This type of projects would largely consist of the continuation of the type of joint projects currently funded.Consortia projects would focus on the priority fields identified as key to EU/US cooperation in consultation with US authorities.Excellence (follow-up) mobility projectsUnder this action, consortia projects that proved to be of outstanding quality could receive further financial support at the end of the initial 3 or 4-year period exclusively to fund additional opportunities for student mobility. This measure would enhance the profile of the programme, placing the emphasis on excellence. This would increase motivation of funded projects to deliver and contribute to sustainability of good quality mobility projects.Policy-oriented measuresThe target public of this action is organisations dealing with higher education and vocational training. This action would pursue the specific objective of enhancing collaboration between the EU and the US as regards the development of higher education and vocational training, focusing on priority themes. In the longer term, this action would have an impact on policy and system development.Activities under this category could include studies, conferences, seminars, working groups, benchmarking exercises.“Schuman-Fulbright” Individual Mobility grantsThe target group of this action would be individual young professionals, mainly from outside the academia and public administration (decision makers, social partner representatives, journalists, etc.) who want to undertake studies or training, in areas of specific relevance to the EU/US relationship, which would be identified in consultation with US authorities.BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONThe proposed programme would cost a maximum of 58,1 M€ over an eight year period (2006-2013), provided that matching funds are made available by the US.The Commission will seek to introduce in the body of the agreement a mid-term revision clause allowing a reorientation of activities and the reassessment of the budget allocated to the programme within the limits of the financial perspective.The rationale for a budget increaseAs indicated under 5.2, the small budget of the present programme has limited its potential impact on higher education and prevented the development of significant cooperation in the field of vocational training.Costing - Reference amounts for calculation purposesHigher Education and Vocational Training measuresConsortia: 185.000 € resulting from 165.000 for mobility grants (1000 € per month + 1000 for travel per student for average study periods of 4 months for a total of 33 students) and 20.000€ in lump sumps for consortia partners. Where projects do not involve mobility the average grant would be 120.000 €.Excellence: 120.000 € for additional mobility opportunities (1000 € per month + 1000 for travel per student for average study periods of 4 months for a total of 24 students). Support for the Alumni association could be estimated at 15.000 € per year.Other measuresPolicy-Oriented Measures: 100.000 €“Schuman-Fulbright” Individual mobility: 32.000 (5.000 € per month + 2.000 for travel per grantee for average grant duration of 6 months)Target outputsThe programme will support some 519 projects over an eight year period (see details under point 8 of the Financial Statement). Some 17.000 EU and US people will participate in mobility activities over the duration of the programme.2. RECOMMENDATIONThe Commission therefore recommends to the Council that:-  the Commission be authorised to negotiate, on behalf of the European Community, an agreement renewing the co-operation programme in higher education and vocational training with the United States of America to cover the period 2006-2013;-  the Commission, in accordance with Article 300 (1) of the Treaty, conduct the negotiations in consultation with the special Committee appointed by the Council and within the framework of the attached Negotiating Directives.ANNEX 1Negotiating Directives1) The objective of the negotiation is to conclude an agreement between the European Community and the United States of America in the fields of higher education and vocational training. The agreement will set-up a cooperation programme in these fields;2) The programme would be jointly managed by the Commission and by the competent US authorities; they would jointly determine the implementation, monitoring and evaluation modalities;3) There would be four main actions: Consortia projects, Excellence mobility projects, Policy oriented Measures and “Schuman-Fulbright” Individual Mobility Grants;4) Consortia projects would normally involve a minimum of three higher education or training institutions from the European Union and three such from the US and would focus mainly on curriculum development and student exchanges. Projects would focus on priority fields which are key to EU/US cooperation, to be identified in consultation with US authorities;5) Excellence mobility projects would be consortia projects that proved to be of outstanding quality and would receive additional financial support to be exclusively allocated to student mobility;6) Policy-oriented measures would include studies, conferences, seminars, working groups, benchmarking exercises and address horizontal higher education and vocational training issues;7) “Schuman-Fulbright” Individual Mobility Grants would target professionals mainly from outside the academia and public administration such as decision makers, social partner representatives, journalists etc. who want to undertake studies or training, in areas of specific relevance to the EU/US relationship to be identified in consultation with US authorities;8) The actions would be implemented via calls for proposals;9) Equivalent co-funding would be provided by the parties for the projects selected;10) Each party would contribute to the programme with an overall budget of some 58 M€;11) A joint committee would be established in order to review the cooperative activities implemented under the agreement.12) The agreement would include a revision clause allowing a reorientation of activities and the reassessment of the budget allocated to the programme within the limits of the financial perspective.LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENTNAME OF THE PROPOSAL:Recommendation for a COUNCIL DECISION authorising the Commission to negotiate with the United States of America (hereafter ‘the US’) an agreement renewing the co-operation programme in the field of higher education and vocational training.2. ABM / ABB FRAMEWORKPolicy area: EDUCATION AND CULTUREObjective: "Mutually improve the quality of education through cooperation with third countries".Activity: EDUCATION3. BUDGET LINES3.1. Budget lines (operational lines and related technical and administrative assistance lines (ex- B.A lines) including headings :15.02.03 Co-operation with non-member countries on education and vocational training15.01.04.21 Co-operation with non-member countries on education and vocational training – Expenditure on administrative management3.2. Duration of the action and of the financial impact: 2006-2013The final duration of the action will be determined in the course of the negotiation and will be subject to a mid-term review clause.3.3. Budgetary characteristics ( add rows if necessary ) :Budget line | Type of expenditure | New | EFTA contribution | Contributions from applicant countries | Heading in financial perspective |15.02.03 | Non-comp | Diff | NO | NO | NO | No 4 |15.01.04.21 | Non-comp | Diff | NO | NO | NO | No 4 |4. SUMMARY OF RESOURCES4.1. Financial Resources4.1.1. Summary of commitment appropriations (CA) and payment appropriations (PA)UR million (to 3 decimal places)Annual requirements | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011-2013 on an annual basis and later |Total number of human resources | 3,5 | 3,5 | 3,5 | 3,5 | 3,5 | 3,5 |5. CHARACTERISTICS AND OBJECTIVES5.1. Need to be met in the short or long termThe bilateral cooperation agreement in the field of higher education and vocational training will seek to enhance mutual understanding among the peoples of the EU and The US, to better prepare citizens for the knowledge society and to mutually enhance the quality of higher education, training and non-formal education for young people in the EU and in The US.The bilateral cooperation agreement responds to a political desire by the parties at the highest level.5.2. Value-added of Community involvement and coherence of the proposal with other financial instruments and possible synergyThe relations with the US are of strategic importance for the EU and their scope is constantly widening. Leaders at the Dromoland EU-US Summit of 2004 agreed to look for cooperative means and best practices to enhance economic growth, job creation and innovation. On 18 May 2005 the Commission adopted a communication on a stronger EU-US partnership which, in line with the Lisbon objective, identified cooperation in education and training as an important tool for stimulating knowledge and innovation dynamic and called for renewing and reinforcing the current agreement on Higher Education and Vocational Training.The EU-US programme would provide added value at a number of levels: building institutional Transatlantic bridges, provide individuals, academic and administrative staff and students with their own transatlantic networks, develop specific subjects and disciplines. Also the renewal of EU-US cooperation programme in higher education and vocational training would preserve and develop the multilateral approach involving in each action institutions and people from different Member States. This multilateral approach has so far proved to be effective to purse the objective of the programme in terms of increasing mutual understanding and improving the quality of education and training in the EU in The US. It has also proved to bear certain economies of scope, scale and quality enhancement with respect to bilateral programmes.The objectives of the EU/US programme in higher education and vocational training would be fully consistent with those of other EU instruments in these areas. The agreement would set up a framework that would complement other programmes giving the possibility of pursuing objectives of quality education though collaboration between the EU and The US. In addition, the programme would bring in a transatlantic people-to-people cooperation which is absent in other EU education and training programmes.In particular, the bilateral cooperation programme will complement the Erasmus Mundus programme in that it will focus on undergraduate mobility and include transatlantic exchanges in the field of vocational training.The programme would also complement the activities of EU Centres supported by the European Union in that it offers additional possibilities for exchanges and encourages structural cooperation between institutions and organisations from both sides of the Atlantic.5.3. Objectives, expected results and related indicators of the proposal in the context of the ABM frameworkObjective | Non exhaustive list of indicators |General objectives |To enhance mutual understanding among the peoples of the European Union and the US; To better prepare citizens for the knowledge society; To mutually enhance the quality of education. | Quantitative data on perception among programme users and stakeholders obtained through surveys carried out during interim and ex-post evaluation |Specific objectives |to enhance collaboration between the European Union and the US in the domains of higher education and training; to contribute to the development of higher education and training institutions; to contribute to individual participants’ personal development for their personal sake and as a way to achieve the general objective of the programme. | Quantitative data on perception of officials and administrators obtained through direct interviews; Quantitative data on perception of individuals responsible for institutions and organisations involved in the programme obtained through surveys; Quantitative data on participants’ perceptions obtained through surveys. |Results can be defined as an advantage or disadvantage which direct addressees obtain at the end of their participation in a public intervention. They should therefore be identified in relation with the operational objectives of the intervention.Operational objectives | Results obtained by participants |To support collaboration between higher education and vocational training institutions with a view to promoting joint study programmes and mobility; | Institutions: improved curricula and teaching methodologies; greater transparency and understanding of respective credit system; improved preparedness for transatlantic cooperation; Students: enriching transatlantic experience; better education and cultural understanding. |To support collaboration between public and private organisations active in the field of higher education and vocational training with a view to encouraging discussion and exchange of experience on policy issues; | Organisations, institutions: better understating of policy issues; |To support transatlantic mobility of professionals with a view to improving mutual understanding of issues relevant to EU/US relations. | Individuals: better understanding of key issues in EU/US relations. |5.4. Method of Implementation (indicative)Show below the method(s)[8] chosen for the implementation of the action.X Centralised ManagementX Directly by the CommissionX Indirectly by delegation to:X Executive Agencyٱ Bodies set up by the Communities as referred to in art. 185 of the Financial Regulationٱ National public-sector bodies/bodies with public-service missionٱ Shared or decentralised managementٱ With Member statesٱ With Third countriesٱ Joint management with international organisations (please specify)The proposed programme is based on the principle of joint funding from the European Union and from the US. Call for proposals are administered by the European Commission on the basis of joint guidelines agreed beforehand with US authorities.The legal basis will include the possibility of having recourse to an Executive Agency. If the proposed financial envelope of the EU/US programme is maintained the recourse to an Executive Agency will be justified. The recourse to an Executive agency will also be justified in the case the financial envelope of the EU/US programme is reduced but a very similar agreement be concluded with Canada increasing economies of scale and providing a rationale for implementation of some actions through an Executive Agency.6. MONITORING AND EVALUATION6.1. Monitoring systemMonitoring of the joint EU/US projects will be implemented through a combination of desk monitoring (based on regular reporting from grant holders), and on site monitoring carried out by the Commission and by the appropriate structure designated by the US.6.2. Evaluation6.2.1. Ex-ante evaluationThe ex-ante evaluation is based on experience acquired implementing the current phase of the programme, direct feedback from programme users, a study on the vocational training strand within the programme, expert consultations and an interim evaluation of the current phase of the programme.The explanatory memorandum covers the main aspects of ex-ante evaluation and impact assessment.The main findings of the ex-ante evaluation as regards higher education and vocational training are the following:-  the programme is beneficial for the institutions, faculties and students involved. In particular the programme is effective in improving students and staff cross-cultural understanding.-  the programme also contributed to curriculum development and especially to consolidating transatlantic networks of universities and vocational training institutions.-  the programme is, however, considered too small to have had an impact on the mutual understanding between the people of the European Union and the US.-  sustainability of mobility projects was put into question due to lack of follow-up funding.-  for a vocational training strand to coexist with higher education, a significant budget increase is necessary;-  a specific approach was necessary for vocational education and training adapting certain implementation criteria to the specific reality of this field;-  the interim evaluation suggest some operational changes: a) increase the duration of consortia projects; b) put emphasis on identification and exchange of best practices; c) introduce a system of additional mobility grants for successful projects.6.2.2. Measures taken following an intermediate/ex-post evaluation (lessons learned from similar experiences in the past)The proposed programme will be designed taking into account the conclusions from the ex-ante evaluation, namely, it would-  maintain the well tested and proven components of the programme;-  develop a specific approach for vocational training;-  build on projects of proven excellence;-  reinforce mobility;-  increase the financial envelope of the programme.6.2.3. Terms and frequency of future evaluationIn principle, an interim evaluation will be undertaken after the first three years of implementation and an ex-post final evaluation will be launched at the end of the intervention.7. ANTI-FRAUD MEASURESFunding decisions and contracts between the Commission and the beneficiaries provide for in situ checks to be carried out on the premises of beneficiaries of a European Community grant by the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and bestow the power to require evidence of any expenditure made under such contracts, agreements and legal undertakings within five years following the end of the contractual period.Beneficiaries are subject to reporting and financial accounting obligations, and these are analysed from the point of view of content and eligibility of expenditure, bearing in mind the purpose of the European Community funding, and taking account of contractual obligations and of the principles of economy and sound financial management.Appended to the financial agreements is information of an administrative and financial nature, designed to specify the kind of expenditure which is eligible under such agreements. Where appropriate, European Community coverage of certain cost elements will be limited to items which are real, identifiable and verifiable in the beneficiary's book-keeping arrangements, so as to facilitate checking and auditing (and evaluation for selection purposes) of projects in receipt of funding. 8. DETAILS OF RESOURCES8.1. Objectives of the proposal in terms of their financial costCommitment appropriations in EUR million (to 3 decimal places)8.2.2. escription of tasks deriving from the actionA*/AD: Policy development, programme manager, relations with partner countries:B*/AST Financial assistantC*/AST Secretarial and financial support8.2.3. Sources of human resources (statutory)(When more than one source is stated, please indicate the number of posts originating from each of the sources)2,5 Posts currently allocated to the management of the programme to be replaced or extended.( Posts pre-allocated within the APS/PDB exercise for year n1 Posts to be requested in the next APS/PDB procedure( Posts to be redeployed using existing resources within the managing service (internal redeployment)( Posts required for year n although not foreseen in the APS/PDB exercise of the year in question8.2.4. Other Administrative expenditure included in reference amount (XX 01 04/05 – Expenditure on administrative management)EUR million (to 3 decimal places)Officials and temporary staff (XX 01 01) | 0,378 | 0,378 | 0,378 | 0,378 | 0,378 | 1,134 |Staff financed by Art XX 01 02 (auxiliary, END, contract staff, etc.) (specify budget line) |Total cost of Human Resources and associated costs (NOT in reference amount) | 0,378 | 0,378 | 0,378 | 0,378 | 0,378 | 1,134 |Calculation– Officials and Temporary agents:3,5 staff x 8 years x108.000 EUR = EUR 3.024.000This calculation is based on the assumption that the Executive Agency Education, Audiovisual and Culture will be involved in the implementation of the programme. If this is not the case, 2 additional Commission staff would be required.Calculation– Staff financed under art. XX 01 02N.A.8.2.6. Other administrative expenditure not included in reference amountEUR million (to 3 decimal places)2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011- 2013 | TOTAL |XX 01 02 11 01 – Missions | 0,010 | 0,010 | 0,010 | 0,010 | 0,010 | 0,030 | 0,080 |XX 01 02 11 02 – Meetings & Conferences |XX 01 02 11 03 – Committees[13] Joint EU/US committee set up by the agreement | 0,018 | 0,018 | 0,035 | 0,070 |XX 01 02 11 04 – Studies & consultations |XX 01 02 11 05 - Information systems |2 Total Other Management Expenditure (XX 01 02 11) |3 Other expenditure of an administrative nature (specify including reference to budget line) |Total Administrative expenditure, other than human resources and associated costs (NOT included in reference amount) | 0,010 | 0,028 | 0,010 | 0,028 | 0,010 | 0,065 | 0,150 |Calculation - Other administrative expenditure not included in reference amountMissions: 2 x 3000 (to the US) + 6 x 700 (to Member States) = EUR 10.200Joint Committee meeting with Member States every other year: 25 x 700 x 4 = EUR 70.000[1] COM(2005) 196[2] COM(2005) 274[3] COM(2005) 196[4] Expenditure that does not fall under Chapter xx 01 of the Title xx concerned.[5] Expenditure within article xx 01 04 of Title xx.[6] Expenditure within chapter xx 01 other than articles xx 01 04 or xx 01 05.[7] See points 19 and 24 of the Interinstitutional agreement.[8] If more than one method is indicated please provide additional details in the "Relevant comments" section of this point[9] Cost of which is NOT covered by the reference amount[10] Cost of which is NOT covered by the reference amount[11] Cost of which is included within the reference amount[12] The possibility of having recourse to the existing Executive Agency Education, Audiovisual and Culture will be examined in the context of the evaluation of the Agency. The evaluation will be carried out in 2006 in view of the implementation of the new education programmes 2007-2013.[13] Specify the type of committee and the group to which it belongs.


title: Council Recommendation of 10 July 2012 on the National Reform Programme 2012 of the Czech Republic and delivering a Council opinion on the Convergence Programme of the Czech Republic, 2012-2015

text:
               24.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 219/17

         COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
   of 10 July 2012
   on the National Reform Programme 2012 of the Czech Republic and delivering a Council opinion on the Convergence Programme of the Czech Republic, 2012-2015
   2012/C 219/05
   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 9(2) thereof,
   Having regard to the recommendation of the European Commission,
   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 jobs and growth, Europe 2020, based on enhanced coordination of economic policies, which focuses on the key areas where action is needed to boost Europe’s potential for sustainable growth and competitiveness.

               (2)

               On 13 July 2010, 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 (2), 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 12 July 2011, the Council adopted a recommendation (3) on the Czech Republic’s National Reform Programme for 2011 and delivered its opinion on the updated Czech Republic’s Convergence Programme for 2011-2014.

               (4)

               On 23 November 2011, the Commission adopted the second Annual Growth Survey, marking the start of the second European Semester of ex ante and integrated policy coordination, which is anchored in the Europe 2020 strategy. On 14 February 2012, the Commission, on the basis of 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 (4), adopted the Alert Mechanism Report, in which it did not identify the Czech Republic as one of the Member States for which an in-depth review would be carried out.

               (5)

               On 1 December 2011, the Council adopted conclusions calling the Social Protection Committee, in cooperation with the Employment and other Committees, to present its views on actions recommended within the Europe 2020 policy cycle. These views form part of the opinion of the Employment Committee.

               (6)

               The European Parliament has been duly involved in the European Semester, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1466/97, and, on 15 February 2012, adopted a resolution on employment and social aspects in the Annual Growth Survey 2012 and a resolution on the contribution to the Annual Growth Survey 2012.

               (7)

               On 2 March 2012, 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.

               (8)

               On 25 April 2012, the Czech Republic submitted its Convergence Programme covering the period 2012-2015 and, on 13 April 2012, its 2012 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 Convergence Programme pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1466/97, the Council is of the opinion that the macroeconomic scenario underpinning the budgetary projections in the Programme is plausible. According to the Convergence Programme, GDP growth is expected to reach 0,2 % and 1,3 % in 2012 and 2013 respectively, compared to 0 % and 1,5 % in 2012 and 2013 respectively in the Commission services 2012 spring forecast. The objective of the budgetary strategy outlined in the Convergence Programme is to reach a balanced budget in 2016. The general government deficit target of 2,9 % of GDP in 2013 is in line with the deadline for correcting the excessive deficit set out in the Council recommendations of 2 December 2009. The average annual fiscal effort of 0,9 % of GDP over the period 2010-2013, based on the (recalculated) structural budget balance (5), is slightly below the effort of 1 % of GDP recommended by the Council. The Convergence Programme confirms the previous medium-term budgetary objective (MTO) of a deficit of 1 % of GDP, which adequately reflects the requirements of the Stability and Growth Pact, to be reached in 2015. The progress towards the MTO is 0,8 % and 0,7 % of GDP in 2014 and 2015 respectively, based on the (recalculated) structural budget balance and the rate of growth of government expenditure complies with the expenditure benchmark of the Stability and Growth Pact.
               The budgetary projections of the Convergence Programme are subject to several risks. The law on financial compensation to churches, currently discussed in Parliament, would increase the general government deficit by 1,5 % of GDP once in the year of entry into force. More generally, the nature and extent of the envisaged consolidation measures on both the revenue and the expenditure side entails a considerable risk for the sustainability of the fiscal adjustment beyond the programme period. Budgetary adjustment has so far relied mostly on across-the-board cuts, which affect also growth-enhancing expenditure. Additional savings in public administration expenditures amounting to almost 1 % of GDP are planned for 2013-2015, but details are not sufficiently specified in the programme. Finally, most of the planned revenue measures are of a temporary nature and should expire in 2015. According to the Convergence Programme, the debt-to-GDP ratio is expected to peak at 45,1 % of GDP in 2013 and decline thereafter, mainly on account of the projected continuous improvement of the primary balance.

               (10)

               In 2011, the Czech authorities approved an increase in the reduced VAT rate and in excise duties on tobacco; they also approved a major tax reform affecting labour taxation which should enter into force in 2014. Further changes to the tax system were agreed at government level in April 2012. Some of those changes concern environmental and housing taxation, which are currently below the EU average. The proposed temporary nature of provisions in labour taxation would create additional compliance costs and reduce predictability for taxpayers. Furthermore, the low effective taxation of the self-employed compared to employees on account of an extensive recourse to lump-sums and tax deductibles would only be partly addressed by the new proposals. Finally, the government adopted measures to combat fraud in the area of VAT and fuel taxes and took first steps to introduce the single collection point. However, tax compliance still remains an issue and the current tax collection system is not based on an articulated and comprehensive tax compliance strategy.

               (11)

               The Government approved, and partly implemented, a reform of the pension system, aimed at restoring fiscal sustainability and raising retirement savings. However, due to the gradual rise in pension expenditure expected to gather pace from 2030 onwards, the projected fiscal imbalances in the pension system are still high relative to the EU average. The reform strengthens the link between the statutory retirement age and life expectancy but does not include a mechanism that would ensure a timely response to future changes. The capacity of the new funded pillar to contribute to higher average pensions in the future depends on the proportion of workers, especially of younger ones, participating in it and on the expected rate of return over the long run. However, no measures were announced to stimulate effective participation in this pillar and more guidance for potential savers would be appropriate. Moreover, the new early retirement scheme envisaged by the government in agreement with the social partners represents a considerable risk to credibility and ambition of the reforms to achieve both an effective increase in the retirement age and adequate pensions.

               (12)

               The overall unemployment rate is below the EU average but women with children and other vulnerable groups struggle to realise their potential in the labour market. An earlier return from parental leave, which would prevent the loss in skills, is contingent on greater availability of childcare, especially for children below the age of three. In this regard, the government eased the technical requirements for setting up company-based kindergartens and envisages providing tax incentives for a greater take-up of private childcare, thereby partially implementing the recommendations. However, as only 3 % of children younger than three years attend formal childcare (compared to 24 % in the EU-27, 2009), further measures are needed with a view to enhancing labour market participation of parents with young children.

               (13)

               Several measures were adopted to improve the performance of the public employment service (PES). Regional labour offices were put under the responsibility of a new central labour office and, as part of a broader social-benefits reform, the responsibility for payment of non-insurance social benefits was transferred from the municipalities to labour offices. However, the resulting increased workload will put further strain on the PES staff, whose number declined by 12 % in 2011. To improve placement services, a system for outsourcing employment services to private agencies was introduced. A large part of the fees is to be paid up-front, which will need to be re-examined in the future to ensure that the incentives are aligned with labour market outcomes. Further efforts are needed to ensure better quality and effectiveness of training, job search assistance and individualised services. The necessary means and incentives need to be provided. Efficiency assessment should be introduced to improve the targeting if interventions and funding of activation programmes are to be linked to performance.

               (14)

               There is still ample scope for improving the efficiency of public administration, despite recent improvements in some areas, such as e-government services and the reduction of the administrative burden for businesses. An anti-corruption strategy for 2011-2012 is currently in place. A new strategy for the period beyond 2012 is under preparation and will be adopted in the course of 2012. The adoption of the new Public Procurement Act, which has been in force since April 2012, has been the main achievement of the current strategy. Nevertheless, proper enforcement and implementation will be crucial for its credibility and effectiveness. The issue of anonymous share holding has not been addressed yet. The Public Servants Act is still under preparation but needs to be adopted without delay in order to provide the administration with the necessary stability. Furthermore, irregularities in public procurement and sub-optimal functioning of the management and control systems for public administration have been significant sources of problems with respect to the implementation of the EU Funds.

               (15)

               The Czech economy needs to mobilise factors facilitating the transition to growth based on innovation, higher value added and human capital because opportunities for further real convergence based on capital-intensive growth seem rather limited. A reform of tertiary education is currently being discussed. Although it includes an overhaul of the current accreditation process, it is not sufficiently precise on the key issue of quality evaluation standards and, given the absence of systematic data collection and analysis, it lacks support from the academic community. In the light of the worsening achievements of Czech pupils, the Government has undertaken steps to ensure minimal learning outcomes and embarked on a strategy of nation-wide computer-based testing. However, these measures are too narrow to effectively increase the quality and equity of compulsory education.

               (16)

               In the context of the European Semester, the Commission has carried out a comprehensive analysis of the Czech Republic’s economic policy. It has assessed the Convergence Programme and the National Reform Programme. It has taken into account not only their relevance for sustainable fiscal and socioeconomic policy in the Czech Republic but also their compliance with EU rules and guidance, given the need to reinforce the overall economic governance of the Union by providing EU-level input into future national decisions. Its recommendations under the European Semester are reflected in recommendations (1) to (6) below.

               (17)

               In the light of this assessment, the Council has examined the Convergence Programme, and its opinion (6) is reflected in particular in recommendation (1) below,

         HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the Czech Republic take action within the period 2012-2013 to:

               1.

               Ensure planned progress towards the timely correction of the excessive deficit. To this end, fully implement the 2012 budget and specify measures of a durable nature necessary for the year 2013 so as to achieve the annual average structural adjustment specified in the Council recommendation under the excessive deficit procedure. Thereafter, ensure an adequate structural adjustment effort to make sufficient progress towards the MTO, including meeting the expenditure benchmark. In this context, avoid across-the-board cuts, safeguard growth-enhancing expenditure and step up efforts to improve the efficiency of public spending. Exploit the available space for increases in taxes least detrimental to growth. Shift the high level of taxation on labour to housing and environmental taxation. Reduce the discrepancies in the tax treatment of employees and the self-employed. Take measures to improve tax collection, reduce tax evasion and improve tax compliance, including by implementing the Single Collection Point for all taxes.

               2.

               Introduce further changes to the public pension scheme to ensure its long-term sustainability. Reconsider plans to allow an earlier exit from the labour market. Promote effective participation of younger workers in the envisaged funded scheme to improve adequacy of pensions.

               3.

               Take additional measures to significantly increase the availability of affordable and quality pre-school childcare.

               4.

               Strengthen PES by increasing the quality and effectiveness of training, job search assistance and individualised services, including of outsourced services.

               5.

               Adopt and implement as a matter of urgency the Public Servants Act to promote stability and effectiveness of the public administration in avoiding irregularities. Ensure adequate implementation of the new Public Procurement Act. Address the issue of anonymous share holding. Ensure correct implementation of EU Funds and step up the fight against corruption.

               6.

               Adopt the necessary legislation to establish a transparent and clearly defined system for quality evaluation of higher education and research institutions. Ensure that the funding is sustainable and linked to the outcome of the quality assessment. Establish an improvement-oriented evaluation framework in compulsory education.

      Done at Brussels, 10 July 2012.

            For the Council

            The President

         V. SHIARLY

      (1)  OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 1.

      (2)  Maintained for 2012 by Council Decision 2012/238/EU of 26 April 2012 on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States (OJ L 119, 4.5.2012, p. 47).

      (3)  OJ C 212, 19.7.2011, p. 5.

      (4)  OJ L 306, 23.11.2011, p. 25.

      (5)  Cyclically-adjusted balance net of one-off and temporary measures, recalculated by the Commission services on the basis of the information provided in the Programme, using the commonly agreed methodology.

      (6)  Under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1466/97.


title: 2012/772/EU: Commission Recommendation of 6 December 2012 on aggressive tax planning

text:
               12.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 338/41

         COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
   of 6 December 2012
   on aggressive tax planning
   (2012/772/EU)
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 292 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Countries around the world have traditionally treated tax planning as a legitimate practice. Over time, however, the tax planning structures have become ever-more sophisticated. They develop across various jurisdictions and effectively, shift taxable profits towards States with beneficial tax regimes. A key characteristic of the practices in question is that they reduce tax liability through strictly legal arrangements which however contradict the intent of the law.

               (2)

               Aggressive tax planning consists in taking advantage of the technicalities of a tax system or of mismatches between two or more tax systems for the purpose of reducing tax liability. Aggressive tax planning can take a multitude of forms. Its consequences include double deductions (e.g. the same loss is deducted both in the State of source and residence) and double non-taxation (e.g. income which is not taxed in the source State is exempt in the State of residence).

               (3)

               Member States find it difficult to protect their national tax bases from erosion through aggressive tax planning, despite important efforts. National provisions in this area are often not fully effective, especially due to the cross-border dimension of many tax planning structures and the increased mobility of capital and persons.

               (4)

               With a view to moving to a better functioning of the internal market, it is necessary to encourage all Member States to take the same general approach towards aggressive tax planning, which would help diminishing existing distortions.

               (5)

               To this end, it is necessary to address instances in which a taxpayer derives fiscal benefits through engineering its tax affairs in such a way that income is not taxed by any of the tax jurisdictions involved (double non-taxation). The persistence of such situations can lead to artificial capital flows and movements of taxpayers within the internal market and thus harm its proper functioning as well as erode Member States’ tax bases.

               (6)

               In 2012 the Commission carried out a public consultation on double non-taxation in the internal market. Since it is not possible to address all the issues covered by that consultation through one single solution, it is appropriate, as a first step, to deal with the issue which is linked to certain frequently used tax planning structures that take advantage of mismatches between two or more tax systems and often lead to double non-taxation.

               (7)

               States often undertake, in their double taxation conventions, not to tax certain items of income. In providing for such treatment, they may not necessarily take account of whether such items are subject to tax in the other party to that convention, and thus whether there is a risk of double non-taxation. Such risk may also occur if Member States unilaterally exempt items of foreign income, irrespective of whether they are subject to tax in the source State. It is important to address both situations in this Recommendation.

               (8)

               As tax planning structures are ever more elaborate and national legislators are frequently left with insufficient time for reaction, specific anti-abuse measures often turn out to be inadequate for successfully catching up with novel aggressive tax planning structures. Such structures can be harmful to national tax revenues and to the functioning of the internal market. Therefore, it is appropriate to recommend the adoption by Member States of a common general anti-abuse rule, which should also avoid the complexity of many different ones. In this context, it is necessary to take account of the limits imposed by Union law with regard to anti-abuse rules.

               (9)

               So as to preserve the autonomous operation of existing Union acts in the area concerned, this Recommendation does not apply within the scope of Council Directive 2009/133/EC (1), of Council Directive 2011/96/EU (2) and of Council Directive 2003/49/EC (3). A revision of those Directives with a view to implement the principles underlying this Recommendation is currently considered by the Commission,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:
   1.   Subject matter and scope
   This Recommendation addresses aggressive tax planning in the area of direct taxation.
   It does not apply within the scope of Union acts whose operation could be affected by its terms.
   2.   Definitions
   For the purpose of this Recommendation, the following definitions apply:

               (a)

               ‘tax’ means income tax, corporation tax and, where applicable, capital gains tax, as well as withholding tax of a nature equivalent to any of these taxes;

               (b)

               ‘income’ means all items which are defined as such under the domestic law of the Member State which applies the term and, where applicable, the items defined as capital gains.

         3.   Limitation to the application of rules intended to avoid double taxation

               3.1.

               Where Member States, in double taxation conventions which they have concluded among themselves or with third countries, have committed not to tax a given item of income, Member States should ensure that such commitment only applies where the item is subject to tax in the other party to that convention.

               3.2.

               To give effect to point 3.1, Member States are encouraged to include an appropriate clause in their double taxation conventions. Such clause could read as follows:
               ‘Where this Convention provides that an item of income shall be taxable only in one of the contracting States or that it may be taxed in one of the contracting States, the other contracting State shall be precluded from taxing such item only if this item is subject to tax in the first contracting State’.
               In case of multilateral conventions, the reference to the ‘other contracting State’ should be replaced by a reference to the ‘other contracting States’.

               3.3.

               Where, with a view to avoid double taxation through unilateral national rules, Member States provide for a tax exemption in regard to a given item of income sourced in another jurisdiction, in which this item is not subject to tax, Member States are encouraged to ensure that the item is taxed.

               3.4.

               For the purposes of points 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 an item of income should be considered to be subject to tax where it is treated as taxable by the jurisdiction concerned and is not exempt from tax, nor benefits from a full tax credit or zero-rate taxation.

         4.   General anti-abuse rule

               4.1.

               To counteract aggressive tax planning practices which fall outside the scope of their specific anti-avoidance rules, Member States should adopt a general anti-abuse rule, adapted to domestic and cross-border situations confined to the Union and situations involving third countries.

               4.2.

               To give effect to point 4.1, Member States are encouraged to introduce the following clause in their national legislation:
               ‘An artificial arrangement or an artificial series of arrangements which has been put into place for the essential purpose of avoiding taxation and leads to a tax benefit shall be ignored. National authorities shall treat these arrangements for tax purposes by reference to their economic substance’.

               4.3.

               For the purposes of point 4.2 an arrangement means any transaction, scheme, action, operation, agreement, grant, understanding, promise, undertaking or event. An arrangement may comprise more than one step or part.

               4.4.

               For the purposes of point 4.2 an arrangement or a series of arrangements is artificial where it lacks commercial substance. In determining whether the arrangement or series of arrangements is artificial, national authorities are invited to consider whether they involve one or more of the following situations:

                           (a)

                           the legal characterisation of the individual steps which an arrangement consists of is inconsistent with the legal substance of the arrangement as a whole;

                           (b)

                           the arrangement or series of arrangements is carried out in a manner which would not ordinarily be employed in what is expected to be a reasonable business conduct;

                           (c)

                           the arrangement or series of arrangements includes elements which have the effect of offsetting or cancelling each other;

                           (d)

                           transactions concluded are circular in nature;

                           (e)

                           the arrangement or series of arrangements results in a significant tax benefit but this is not reflected in the business risks undertaken by the taxpayer or its cash flows;

                           (f)

                           the expected pre-tax profit is insignificant in comparison to the amount of the expected tax benefit.

               4.5.

               For the purposes of point 4.2, the purpose of an arrangement or series of arrangements consists in avoiding taxation where, regardless of any subjective intentions of the taxpayer, it defeats the object, spirit and purpose of the tax provisions that would otherwise apply.

               4.6.

               For the purposes of point 4.2, a given purpose is to be considered essential where any other purpose that is or could be attributed to the arrangement or series of arrangements appears at most negligible, in view of all the circumstances of the case.

               4.7.

               In determining whether an arrangement or series of arrangements has led to a tax benefit as referred to in point 4.2, national authorities are invited to compare the amount of tax due by a taxpayer, having regard to those arrangement(s), with the amount that the same taxpayer would owe under the same circumstances in the absence of the arrangement(s). In that context, it is useful to consider whether one or more of the following situations occur:

                           (a)

                           an amount is not included in the tax base;

                           (b)

                           the taxpayer benefits from a deduction;

                           (c)

                           a loss for tax purposes is incurred;

                           (d)

                           no withholding tax is due;

                           (e)

                           foreign tax is offset.

         5.   Follow-up
   Member States should inform the Commission on the measures taken in order to comply with the present Recommendation, as well as on any changes made to such measures.
   The Commission will publish a report on the application of this Recommendation within three years after its adoption.
   6.   Addressees
   This Recommendation is addressed to the Member States.

      Done at Brussels, 6 December 2012.

            For the Commission

         Algirdas ŠEMETA

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  OJ L 310, 25.11.2009, p. 34.

      (2)  OJ L 345, 29.12.2011, p. 8.

      (3)  OJ L 157, 26.6.2003, p. 49.


title: Commission Recommendation No 294/79/ECSC of 13 February 1979 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on certain hematite pig iron originating in Brazil

text:
 16 . 2 . 79                               Official Journal of the European Communities                            No L 41 / 29
                                   COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION No 294/79/ ECSC
                                                           of 13 February 1979
                  imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on certain hematite pig iron origi
                                                             nating in Brazil
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN                                         overall imports into the Community have thus
COMMUNITIES,                                                           achieved a market share of 33 % and imports origi
                                                                       nating in Brazil a market share of 1 9 % ;
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Coal and Steel Community, and in particular Articles
74 and 86 thereof,                                                     Whereas in 1978 the evolution of imports was influ
                                                                       enced by anti-dumping measures and the conclusion
Having regard to Commission recommendation                             of arrangements with respect to trade in steel products
77/ 329 / ECSC on protection against dumping or the                    between the Community and most of the supplying
granting of bounties or subsidies by countries which                   countries ; whereas, however, Brazil has been able to
are not members of the European Coal and Steel                         keep an important share of the market, namely 12 % ,
Community ('), as amended by recommendations No                        during the first nine months of 1978 ; whereas this
3004/77/ ECSC (2 ) and No 1 58 /79/ ECSC (3), and in                   market share threatens to increase again in 1979 ;
particular Articles 15 and 19 thereof,                                 whereas on the other hand the Community industry is
Having heard the opinions expressed within the Advi                   in a state of crisis characterised by a reduction in the
sory Committee provided for by recommendation                          region of 28-2 % in deliveries in the Community of
77/329 / ECSC ,                                                        the products concerned between 1974 and 1978 and
                                                                       by the number of employees affected by redundancies
Whereas the Community has published basic                              and short time working in the firms concerned which
prices (4) established on the basis of the lowest normal               has gone from about 6 000 to 4 000 between 1974 and
prices or normal costs of production in the supplying                   1978 , and finally that the industry showed reduced
country or countries where normal conditions of                        profits or serious losses in most of the firms
competition prevail and including the costs of trans                  concerned ;
port, insurance and customs duties ;
Whereas, the Community having received a                               Whereas the prices of imports into the Community of
complaint alleging that dumping exists on the part of                  products which originate in Brazil are considerably
Brazilian exporters of the products mentioned in                       lower than the prices for sales within the Community
Article 1 of this recommendation from which material                   of these products mde by the European industry ;
injury has resulted, has opened an investigation (5)                   whereas this undercutting jeopardizes the equilibrium
concerning the products in question ;                                  of the whole price system, both in so far as it
Whereas the Commission                has ascertained that the
                                                                       concerns the European producers and the producers
                                                                       in those other supplying countries which have
prices of imports into the Community of the products                   concluded arrangements with respect to tirade in steel
in question originating in Brazil are below the basic                  products ; whereas, consequently, these imports are
prices published by the Commission for these same
                                                                       causing or threaten to cause a material injury to the
products ; whereas it thus appears from a preliminary                  Community industry or to a major part thereof ;
examination that dumping exists ;
Whereas, with regard to the injury to the industry                     Whereas immediate action has been requested by a
concerned , the evidence submitted to the Commis                      Member State ;
sion shows that, on the one hand imports into the
Community of the products in question have
increased overall         from 416 000 tonnes in           1974 to     Whereas, in the serious conditions being experienced
713 000 tonnes in 1977, while imports originating in                   by the Community industry, the interests of the
Brazil have increased from approximately 0 tonnes to                   Community require immediate action ;
401 000 tonnes during the same period ; whereas
                                                                       Whereas it is for the Commission, without prejudice
(')  OJ No L 1 14, 5, 5 . 1977 , p. 6.                                 to the results of the investigation opened in accor
(2)  OJ No L 352, 31 . 12 . 1977, p . 13 .                             dance with Article 1 1 of recommendation 77/329/
(3)  OJ No L 21 , 30 . 1 . 1979 , p. 14 .                              ECSC, to decide promptly to apply provisional
(4)  See the Commission communication of 31 . 12. 1977
     concerning the basic price of certain steel products (OJ          measures consisting of the imposition of a provisional
     No L 353 , 31 . 12. 1977, p. 1 ), as amended by the commu        anti-dumping duty on imports of the products
     nications of 1.4 . 1978 (OJ No L 87 , 1 . 4 . 1978 , p. 4), 13 .  concerned originating in Brazil, the rate of which
     5 . 1978 (OJ No L 126, 13 . 5 . 1978 , p . 6), 5 . 7. 1978 (OJ
     No L 183 , 5 . 7 . 1978 , p. 3) and 30 . 12 . 1978 (OJ No L       corresponds to the difference between the basic price
     372, 30 . 12 . 1978 , p . 2).                                     published by the Commission for these products and
(5 ) OJ No C 35, 8 . 2 . 1979 , p. 3 .                                 their import price into the Community,
 ---pagebreak--- No L 41 / 30                       Official Journal of the European Communities                              16 . 2. 79
HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION :                             4.    This duty shall be collected on the same basis as
                                                             customs duties .
                        Article 1
1 . A provisional anti-dumping duty is hereby                                        Article 2
imposed on the following products originating in
Brazil :                                                     The entry of the products described in Article 1 for
                                                              consumption within the Community shall be condi
— hematite pig iron with a content of more than               tional upon the deposit of a security for the amount of
    1 % silicon and containing at least 0-1 % of              the provisional duty.
    manganese by weight,
— Common Customs Tariff subheading ex 73.01 B,
— NIMEXE codes 73.01-23 , 25 .                                                        Article 3
2. The amount of this duty shall be the amount by             This recommendation is addressed to the Member
which the effective price (basic price plus extras) esta     States .
blished by contract, free at frontier duty-paid, is lower
than the effective price (basic price plus extras) for        This recommendation will come into effect in each
these products most recently published by the                 Member State from the date of its publication in the
Commission at the time of its entry for consumption           Official Journal of the European Communities.
within the Community.
3 . The amount of this duty shall, however, be
reduced to the extent that the importer establishes to        Done at Brussels, 13 February 1979 .
the satisfaction of the competent national authorities
that the price differential referred to in paragraph 2
                                                                                For the Commission
above is due to a diminution in value resulting from
the fact that the quality of these products is inferior to                               Étienne DAVIGNON
the lowest quality described in the last publication of
basic prices by the Commission .                                                    Member of the Commission


title: Council Recommendation of 14 July 2015 on the 2015 National Reform Programme of Austria and delivering a Council opinion on the 2015 Stability Programme of Austria

text:
               18.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/87

         COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
   of 14 July 2015
   on the 2015 National Reform Programme of Austria and delivering a Council opinion on the 2015 Stability Programme of Austria
   (2015/C 272/23)
   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 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. The strategy focuses on the key areas where action is needed to boost Europe's potential for sustainable growth and competitiveness.

               (2)

               On 14 July 2015, the Council, on the basis of the Commission's proposals, adopted a Recommendation on the broad guidelines for the economic policies of the Member States and the Union and, on 21 October 2010, it adopted a decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States (2). Together these form the ‘integrated guidelines’ which Member States were invited to take into account in their national economic and employment policies.

               (3)

               On 8 July 2014, the Council adopted a Recommendation (3) on Austria's National Reform Programme for 2014 and delivered its opinion on Austria's updated Stability Programme for 2014. On 28 November 2014, in line with Regulation (EU) No 473/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4), the Commission presented its opinion on Austria's draft budgetary plan for 2015.

               (4)

               On 28 November 2014, the Commission adopted the Annual Growth Survey, marking the start of the 2015 European Semester for economic policy coordination. On the same day, on the basis of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5), the Commission adopted the Alert Mechanism Report, in which Austria was not identified as one of the Member States for which an in-depth review would be carried out.

               (5)

               On 18 December 2014, the European Council endorsed the priorities for fostering investment, intensifying structural reforms and pursuing responsible growth-friendly fiscal consolidation.

               (6)

               On 26 February 2015, the Commission published its 2015 country report for Austria. This assessed Austria's progress in addressing the country-specific recommendations adopted on 8 July 2014.

               (7)

               On 21 April 2015, Austria submitted its 2015 National Reform Programme and its 2015 Stability Programme. In order to take account of their interlinkages, the two programmes have been assessed at the same time.

               (8)

               Austria is currently in the preventive arm of the Stability and Growth Pact and subject to the transitional debt rule over 2014-2016. In its 2015 Stability Programme, the Government plans to improve the headline deficit gradually to 2,2 % of GDP in 2015 and further to 0,5 % of GDP in 2019. According to the Stability Programme, the medium-term objective — a structural deficit not higher than 0,45 % of GDP — was reached in 2014, and the Government plans to meet the medium-term objective throughout the programme period. However, the recalculated structural balance points to a departure from the medium-term objective as of 2015. The government debt-to-GDP ratio is expected to peak at 86,8 % in 2015 and to gradually decline to 79,7 % in 2019. The macroeconomic scenario underpinning the budgetary projections in the Stability Programme is plausible. However, measures to support the planned deficit targets from 2016 onwards have not been sufficiently specified. Based on the Commission's 2015 spring forecast, the structural balance is forecast to deviate by 0,4 % of GDP from the medium-term objective in 2015. The deviation is set to become significant in 2016 in view of the projected 0,6 % of GDP worsening of the structural balance compared to the 0,3 % of GDP structural adjustment required in order to reach the medium-term objective. This would imply a deviation of about 0,9 % of GDP from the requirement of the Stability and Growth Pact. Therefore, further measures will be needed. At the same time, according to the Stability Programme and the Commission's 2015 spring forecast, gross debt will remain on a downward path in line with the transitional debt rule in 2015 and 2016. Based on its assessment of the Stability Programme and taking into account the Commission's 2015 spring forecast, the Council is of the opinion that there is a risk that Austria will not comply with the provisions of the Stability and Growth Pact.

               (9)

               Relations between different levels of government remain complex and cause efficiency losses in crucial sectors of public administration. Austria remains one of the countries with the lowest level of subnational own taxes in percentage of GDP. Despite this low level of tax autonomy, subnational governments have several spending and administrative responsibilities. The high level of complexity and misalignment between revenue and spending responsibilities is not conducive to implementation of broad policy reforms.

               (10)

               The long-term fiscal sustainability of the Austrian pension system still suffers from structural weaknesses. Austria's reforms to date do not seem sufficient to ensure the system's long-term fiscal sustainability. First, the effective retirement age remains considerably below the statutory retirement age. Secondly, the statutory retirement age of women is well below that of men and will not be raised until 2024. Thirdly, the statutory retirement age is still not coupled to continuously rising life expectancy. Austria has taken some measures to increase the effective retirement age, which is now at 59,7 years (2014), but which remains below the EU average of 63,1 years (2013). Measures have been put in place to close avenues to early retirement and invalidity schemes, thereby extending working lives. Also, the penalty per year of early retirement and the period of pensionable service needed to qualify for such schemes have been increased. It remains unclear whether the expected positive budgetary effects of these measures will materialise.

               (11)

               Austrian healthcare spending ranks amongst the highest in the Union. The ongoing healthcare reform (2013-2016) is aimed at stabilising it as a proportion of GDP as of 2016. However, even if the reforms are successful, the fiscal sustainability and efficiency of the healthcare system still face structural challenges. Measures should be taken now with regard to the period after 2016. For example, more patients should be treated in multidisciplinary primary outpatient care settings and the average length of stay for inpatient treatment should be lowered further.

               (12)

               Ensuring the long-term availability of adequately qualified labour remains a challenge for Austria. At about 5,6 %, the unemployment rate is among the lowest in the Union, but the labour market potential of certain parts of the labour force is not fully tapped. Austria has taken some measures to extend working lives, better facilitate labour market participation by women and exploit more fully the potential of labour market participants of migrant background, including through improved recognition of their qualifications. However, recent reforms must be closely monitored and more measures are necessary to utilise fully the labour market potential of these groups.

               (13)

               On 13 March 2015, Austria presented a comprehensive tax reform aimed at remodulating tax brackets and rates of personal income tax, in particular by reducing the entry rate for personal income tax from 36,5 % to 25 %. The tax relief is estimated to amount to EUR 4,9 billion, while EUR 300 million of additional expenditure is envisaged to support family policy and research activities. Under the proposal, the tax shift will be financed partly by fighting tax evasion, lowering public expenditure, increasing reduced VAT rates to 13 % in some areas and raising capital income tax from 25 % to 27,5 %. These reform plans are broadly in line with the Council's 2014 recommendations. They are likely to increase incentives to work for individuals with low earnings potential and second earners, and to support disposable income. However, the reform should be implemented in a budget-neutral way.

               (14)

               The Austrian school system is characterised by a low number of early school leavers, well below the EU average. A strong and well-functioning system of vocational education and training provides a large pool of highly skilled workers. However, improving educational outcomes and hence the employability of young people with low socioeconomic status, in particular those from migrant backgrounds, remains a challenge. The evaluation of the implementation of a new secondary school system (Neue Mittelschule) has revealed weaknesses that still need to be addressed.

               (15)

               In the context of the European Semester, the Council has consistently recommended that Austria improve and promote competition in services, but the policy response has been limited so far. Legal form, shareholding and tariff requirements are still in place for several professions, creating regulatory barriers to market access and preventing professionals or professional companies from other Member States from setting up a business in Austria. In the context of the mutual evaluation exercise, Austria is reviewing its rules on access to professions and the performance of professional activities to assess whether they are proportionate and in the general interest. Compared with competition authorities in other Member States, the Federal Competition Authority is under-resourced and this impedes more effective action.

               (16)

               The Austrian banking sector has remained resilient, but still faces a number of challenges both domestically and as regards vulnerable foreign exposures. Banking sector capitalisation continued to improve in 2014, but the profitability of Austrian banks remained under pressure. Five of the six largest Austrian credit institutions passed the ECB comprehensive assessment in 2014, the exception being Österreichische Volksbanken (ÖVAG). Austria made considerable progress in restructuring ÖVAG and Hypo Group Alpe Adria (HGAA).

               (17)

               In the context of the European Semester, the Commission has carried out a comprehensive analysis of Austria's economic policy and published it in the 2015 country report. It has also assessed the Stability Programme and the National Reform Programme and the follow-up given to the recommendations addressed to Austria in previous years. It has taken into account not only their relevance for sustainable fiscal and socioeconomic policy in Austria but also their compliance with EU rules and guidance, given the need to strengthen the overall economic governance of the Union by providing EU-level input into future national decisions. The recommendations under the European Semester are reflected in recommendations 1 to 4 below.

               (18)

               In the light of this assessment, the Council has examined the Stability Programme, and its opinion (6) is reflected in particular in recommendation 1 below.

               (19)

               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 the basis of this analysis, the Council has issued specific recommendations addressed to the Member States whose currency is the euro (7). As a country whose currency is the euro, Austria should also ensure the full and timely implementation of those recommendations,

         HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Austria take action in 2015 and 2016 to:

               1.

               Avoid deviating from the medium-term budgetary objective in 2015 and 2016. Ensure the budget neutrality of the tax reform aimed at reducing the tax burden on labour. Correct the misalignment between the financing and spending responsibilities of the different levels of government. Take measures to ensure the long-term sustainability of the pension system, including by earlier harmonisation of the statutory retirement age for men and women, and link the statutory retirement age to life expectancy.

               2.

               Strengthen measures to increase the labour market participation of older workers and women, including by improving the provision of childcare and long-term care services. Take steps to improve the educational achievement of disadvantaged young people.

               3.

               Remove disproportionate barriers for service providers and impediments to setting up interdisciplinary companies.

               4.

               Address the potential vulnerabilities of the financial sector in terms of foreign exposure and insufficient asset quality.

      Done at Brussels, 14 July 2015.

            For the Council

            The President

         P. GRAMEGNA

      (1)  OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 1.

      (2)  Maintained by Council Decision 2014/322/EU of 6 May 2014 on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States for 2014 (OJ L 165, 4.6.2014, p. 49).

      (3)  Council Recommendation of 8 July 2014 on the National Reform Programme 2014 of Austria and delivering a Council opinion on the Stability Programme of Austria, 2014 (OJ C 247, 29.7.2014, p. 92).

      (4)  Regulation (EU) No 473/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on common provisions for monitoring and assessing draft budgetary plans and ensuring the correction of excessive deficit of the Member States in the euro area (OJ L 140, 27.5.2013, p. 11).

      (5)  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).

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

      (7)  OJ C 272, 18.8.2015, p. 98.