Avis juridique important

|

31978K1715

Commission Recommendation No 1715/78/ECSC of 20 July 1978 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on certain galvanized sheets and plates originating in Japan

Official Journal L 198 , 22/07/1978 P. 0001 - 0003

****( 1 ) OJ NO L 114 , 5 . 5 . 1977 , P . 6 .  ( 2 ) OJ NO L 352 , 31 . 12 . 1977 , P . 13 .  ( 3 ) OJ NO C 19 , 24 . 1 . 1978 , P . 7 .  ( 4 ) OJ NO L 50 , 22 . 2 . 1978 , P . 13 .  ( 5 ) OJ NO L 106 , 20 . 4 . 1978 , P . 20 .  ( 6 ) OJ NO L 94 , 8 . 4 . 1978 , P . 21 .  ( 1 ) COMMISSION COMMUNICATION OF 31 DECEMBER 1977 CONCERNING BASIC PRICES OF CERTAIN IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTS ( OJ NO L 353 , 31 . 12 . 1977 , P . 1 ), AS AMENDED BY THE COMMUNICATION OF 5 JULY 1978 ( OJ NO L 183 , 5 . 7 . 1978 , P . 3 .)      COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION NO 1715/78/ECSC   OF 20 JULY 1978   IMPOSING A DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING DUTY ON CERTAIN GALVANIZED SHEETS AND PLATES ORIGINATING IN JAPAN   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 ,   HAVING REGARD TO COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 77/329/ECSC OF 15 APRIL 1977 ON PROTECTION AGAINST DUMPING OR THE GRANTING OF BOUNTIES OR SUBSIDIES BY COUNTRIES WHICH ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY ( 1 ), AS AMENDED BY RECOMMENDATION NO 3004/77/ECSC ( 2 ), AND IN PARTICULAR ARTICLES 17 AND 19 THEREOF ,   HAVING HEARD THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED WITHIN THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE PROVIDED FOR BY RECOMMENDATION 77/329/ECSC ,   WHEREAS THE COMMISSION HAS RECEIVED A COMPLAINT , SUBMITTED IN THE NAME OF THE RELEVANT COMMUNITY INDUSTRY , SETTING OUT EVIDENCE AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF DUMPING OF CERTAIN GALVANIZED SHEETS AND PLATES , ORIGINATING IN JAPAN AND CERTAIN OTHER COUNTRIES , AND MATERIAL INJURY RESULTING THEREFROM ;   WHEREAS , SINCE THE INFORMATION RECEIVED INDICATED THAT THE COMPLAINT WAS ADMISSIBLE AND THAT DEFENSIVE MEASURES MIGHT BE NECESSARY , THE COMMISSION OFFICIALLY INFORMED THE IMPORTERS AND EXPORTERS KNOWN TO BE CONCERNED , PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES A NOTICE OF THE INITIATION OF AN INQUIRY CONCERNING THE IMPORTS IN QUESTION ( 3 ) AND COMMENCED AN EXAMINATION OF THE MATTER IN COOPERATION WITH THE MEMBER STATES ;   WHEREAS , SINCE PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF THE MATTER SHOWED THAT THERE WAS DUMPING AND SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF INJURY AND THE INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY CALLED FOR IMMEDIATE INTERVENTION , THE COMMISSION , BY RECOMMENDATION NO 359/78/ECSC ( 4 ), IMPOSED A PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING DUTY ON THE IMPORTS IN QUESTION ;   WHEREAS THE SAID PROVISIONAL DUTY HAS BEEN EXTENDED ( 5 ) AND SUSPENDED ( 6 );   WHEREAS , IN THE COURSE OF THE EXAMINATION OF THE MATTER , COMPLETED AFTER THE IMPOSITION OF THE PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING DUTY , THE COMMISSION GAVE INTERESTED PARTIES THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE KNOWN THEIR VIEWS IN WRITING AND GAVE THE PARTIES DIRECTLY CONCERNED WHO SO REQUESTED THE OPPORTUNITY ORALLY TO DEVELOP THEIR VIEWS ;   WHEREAS , HOWEVER , IN SO FAR AS INTERESTED PARTIES DID NOT AVAIL THEMSELVES OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE KNOWN THEIR VIEWS OR PRESENT THEIR ARGUMENTS , THE COMMISSION HAD TO BASE ITS FINDINGS ON THE FACTS AVAILABLE ;   WHEREAS IN VIEW OF THE PARTICULAR SITUATION PREVAILING ON NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL MARKETS FOR STEEL , IT APPEARED TO THE COMMISSION THAT SALES ON THE DOMESTIC MARKET OF JAPAN WERE NOT MADE IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF TRADE AND DID NOT PERMIT A PROPER COMPARISON FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTABLISHING DUMPING MARGINS ;   WHEREAS , FOR THESE REASONS , THE COMMISSION HAS DECIDED TO BASE ITS DUMPING CALCULATIONS ON THE COST OF PRODUCTION IN A COUNTRY CONSIDERED TO BE ONE OF THE MOST EFFICIENT PRODUCERS OF THE PRODUCT IN QUESTION , AS ESTABLISHED BY MEANS OF THE LATEST PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATA ;   WHEREAS SUCH COST OF PRODUCTION HAS BEEN CALCULATED TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION INTER ALIA THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS : RAW MATERIALS ( COVERING IRON ORE , SINTER , PELLETS , SCRAP , FERRO ALLOYS AND OTHER IRON-BEARING MATERIALS AND FLUXES ), ENERGY COSTS ( COKE , FUEL OIL , ELECTRICITY ), LABOUR COSTS INCLUDING SOCIAL COSTS OTHER OPERATING COSTS ( INCLUDING MAINTENANCE COSTS AND TRANSPORT COSTS ) AND CAPITAL COSTS , TO WHICH WAS ADDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT FOR ADMINISTRATION , SELLING AND ANY OTHER COSTS AND FOR PROFITS ;   WHEREAS THE AFOREMENTIONED CALCULATION HAS CONFIRMED THE REASONABLENESS OF THE BASIC PRICES AS PUBLISHED BY THE COMMISSION ( 1 );   WHEREAS THE PRICES OF IMPORTS INTO THE COMMUNITY OF THE PRODUCTS WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE COMPLAINT HAVE BEEN COMPARED WITH THESE BASIC PRICES ;   WHEREAS THIS PRICE COMPARISON WAS MADE ON A FREE-AT-COMMUNITY-FRONTIER DUTY-PAID BASIS ;   WHEREAS THIS EXAMINATION OF THE MATTER HAS SHOWN THAT THE PRODUCTS IN QUESTION WERE OFFERED FOR IMPORT WITHIN THE COMMUNITY AT PRICES LOWER THAN THE BASIC PRICES AND THAT DUMPING HAS TAKEN PLACE , THE MARGIN OF WHICH IS CONSTITUTED BY THIS UNDERCUTTING ;   WHEREAS , WITH REGARD TO INJURY TO THE INDUSTRY CONCERNED , THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE TO THE COMMISSION SHOWS THAT IMPORTS INTO THE COMMUNITY OF THE PRODUCTS CONCERNED INCREASED OVERALL FROM 61 000 TONNES IN 1974 TO 237 000 TONNES IN 1977 , WHILE THOSE ORIGINATING IN JAPAN ROSE FROM 31 000 TO 57 000 TONNES OVER THE SAME PERIOD , THE MARKET SHARES THUS ACHIEVED BEING 7 % FOR ALL IMPORTS AND 5 % FOR THOSE ORIGINATING IN JAPAN TOGETHER WITH THOSE FROM AUSTRIA , AUSTRALIA , CZECHOSLOVAKIA , FINLAND , THE GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC , POLAND , SOUTH AFRICA , SPAIN AND SWEDEN , WHICH ARE ALSO SUBJECT TO DEFENSIVE MEASURES IN THE COMMUNITY OR TO STEEL ARRANGEMENTS CONCLUDED WITH THE ECSC ;   WHEREAS , ON THE OTHER HAND , THE COMMUNITY STEEL INDUSTRY IS IN A STATE OF CRISIS ; WHEREAS DURING THE PERIOD 1974 TO 1977 , PRODUCTION OF THE PRODUCTS CONCERNED STAGNATED , WHILE THE NUMBER EMPLOYED FELL FROM 780 000 TO 720 000 , SHORT TIME WORKING BECAME NECESSARY AND MOST OF THE FIRMS CONCERNED SHOWED REDUCED PROFITS OR SERIOUS LOSSES ;   WHEREAS THE IMPORT PRICES INTO THE COMMUNITY OF PRODUCTS ORIGINATING IN JAPAN HAVE DEPRESSED THE ALREADY LOW PRICES OF COMMUNITY PRODUCERS ;   WHEREAS , THEREFORE , THE FACTS AS FINALLY ESTABLISHED SHOW THAT MATERIAL INJURY HAS BEEN CAUSED TO THE COMMUNITY INDUSTRY , OR THAT SUCH INJURY WOULD HAVE BEEN CAUSED IF PROVISIONAL ACTION HAD NOT BEEN TAKEN , BY IMPORTS ORIGINATING IN JAPAN TOGETHER WITH THOSE FROM AUSTRIA , AUSTRALIA , CZECHOSLOVAKIA , FINLAND , THE GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC , POLAND , SOUTH AFRICA , SPAIN AND SWEDEN , WHICH ARE ALSO SUBJECT TO DEFENSIVE MEASURES OR COVERED BY STEEL ARRANGEMENTS CONCLUDED WITH THE COMMUNITY ;   WHEREAS , IN THE SERIOUS CONDITIONS BEING EXPERIENCED BY THE COMMUNITY STEEL INDUSTRY , THE INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY REQUIRE THE IMPOSITION OF A DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING DUTY AND THE DEFINITIVE COLLECTION OF THE AMOUNT SECURED BY WAY OF PROVISIONAL DUTY ;   WHEREAS THE AMOUNT OF SUCH DEFINITIVE DUTY SHOULD CORRESPOND TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BASIC PRICE PUBLISHED BY THE COMMISSION FOR THE PRODUCTS IN QUESTION AND THEIR PRICE ON IMPORTATION INTO THE COMMUNITY , DUE CONSIDERATION BEING GIVEN TO ANY REDUCTION IN VALUE CLAIMED BY THE IMPORTERS AND ESTABLISHED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COMPETENT NATIONAL AUTHORITIES ;   WHEREAS , HOWEVER , CERTAIN ARRANGEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY AND JAPAN , WITH RESPECT TO TRADE IN STEEL PRODUCTS ;   WHEREAS THESE ARRANGEMENTS , WHICH THE COMMISSION CONSIDERS SATISFACTORY , ALLOW THE DEFINITIVE DUTY UNDER THIS RECOMMENDATION TO BE SUSPENDED AND TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS FROM THE DEFINITIVE COLLECTION OF DUTY ,   HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION :   ARTICLE 1   1 .  A DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING DUTY IS HEREBY IMPOSED ON THE FOLLOWING PRODUCTS ORIGINATING IN JAPAN :   -  ZINC-COATED ( OTHER THAN ELECTROLYTICALLY ) STEEL SHEETS AND PLATES ( GALVANIZED );   -  COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF SUBHEADING 73.13 B IV C );   -  NIMEXE CODES 73.13-68 , 72 .   2 .  THE AMOUNT OF THIS DUTY SHALL BE EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE EFFECTIVE PRICE ( BASIC PRICE PLUS EXTRA ) ESTABLISHED BY CONTRACT , FREE-AT-COMMUNITY FRONTIER DUTY-PAID , IS LOWER THAN THE EFFECTIVE PRICE ( BASIC PRICE PLUS EXTRA ) LAST PUBLISHED BY THE COMMISSION FOR THIS PRODUCT AT THE TIME OF ITS ENTRY FOR COMMUNITY CONSUMPTION .   3 .  THE AMOUNT OF THE DUTY SHALL HOWEVER BE REDUCED TO THE EXTENT THAT THE IMPORTER ESTABLISHES TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COMPETENT NATIONAL AUTHORITIES THAT THE PRICE DIFFERENTIAL REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPH 2 ABOVE IS DUE TO A REDUCTION IN VALUE RESULTING FROM THE QUALITY OF THE GOODS BEING INFERIOR TO THE LOWEST QUALITY DESCRIBED IN THE LAST PUBLICATION OF BASIC PRICES BY THE COMMISSION .   4 .  THIS DUTY SHALL BE COLLECTED ON THE SAME BASIS AS CUSTOMS DUTIES .   ARTICLE 2   THE AMOUNTS SECURED BY WAY OF PROVISIONAL DUTY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RECOMMENDATION NO 359/78/ECSC , IN RESPECT OF PRODUCTS ORIGINATING IN JAPAN , SHALL BE DEFINITIVELY COLLECTED TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY DO NOT EXCEED THE RATE OF DUTY FIXED IN THIS RECOMMENDATION .   ARTICLE 3   1 .  THE APPLICATION OF THE DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING DUTY IMPOSED UNDER ARTICLE 1 ABOVE IS HEREBY SUSPENDED .   ARTICLE 4   IN DEROGATION FROM ARTICLE 2 , THE AMOUNTS SECURED BY WAY OF PROVISIONAL DUTY SHALL NOT BE DEFINITIVELY COLLECTED BUT SHALL BE REFUNDED UPON REQUEST OF THE IMPORTER CONCERNED , AS REGARDS :  ( A ) GALVANIZED SHEETS AND PLATES OF QUALITIES OTHER THAN BS 2989 , GRADES Z1 OR Z2 , OR OF A THICKNESS OF LESS THAN 1 MM ;  ( B ) DELIVERIES MADE UNDER CONTRACTS CONCLUDED BEFORE 20 DECEMBER 1977 , WHICH CONTAIN NO PRICE REVISION CLAUSE PERMITTING AN ADAPTATION OF THE CONTRACT PRICES TO THE BASIC PRICES APPLIED IN THE COMMUNITY ;  ( C ) DELIVERIES MADE UNDER THE CONTRACTS REFERRED TO UNDER  ( B ) ABOVE AND DESTINED FOR SHIPBUILDING YARDS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY .   ARTICLE 5   THIS RECOMMENDATION SHALL BE NOTIFIED TO THE MEMBER STATES .   IT SHALL ENTER INTO FORCE FOR EACH MEMBER STATE ON THE DAY OF ITS PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES .   DONE AT BRUSSELS , 20 JULY 1978 .   FOR THE COMMISSION   WILHELM HAFERKAMP   VICE-PRESIDENT


Avis juridique important

|

31978K1835

Commission Recommendation No 1835/78/ECSC of 25 July 1978 amending the Recommendation establishing Community surveillance in respect of the importation into the Community of certain iron and steel products covered by the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community and originating in third countries

Official Journal L 210 , 01/08/1978 P. 0048 - 0048

****( 1 ) OJ NO L 73 , 15 . 3 . 1978 , P . 37 .  ( 2 ) OJ NO L 114 , 5 . 5 . 1977 , P . 15 .    COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION NO 1835/78/ECSC   OF 25 JULY 1978   AMENDING THE RECOMMENDATION ESTABLISHING COMMUNITY SURVEILLANCE IN RESPECT OF THE IMPORTATION INTO THE COMMUNITY OF CERTAIN IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTS COVERED BY THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY AND ORIGINATING IN THIRD COUNTRIES   THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN   COMMUNITIES ,   HAVING REGARD TO THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY , AND IN PARTICULAR ARTICLE 74 ( 3 ) THEREOF ,   WHEREAS , BY RECOMMENDATION 78/282/ECSC OF 9 MARCH 1978 ( 1 ) TO THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES AMENDING RECOMMENDATION 77/330/ECSC OF 15 APRIL 1977 ( 2 ) ESTABLISHING COMMUNITY SURVEILLANCE IN RESPECT OF IMPORTS INTO THE COMMUNITY OF CERTAIN IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTS COVERED BY THE ECSC TREATY ORIGINATING IN THIRD COUNTRIES , THE COMMISSION DECIDED THAT IT WOULD NO LONGER BE NECESSARY THAT THE REQUEST FROM THE IMPORTER SHOULD MENTION THE EFFECTIVE PRICE  ( BASIC PRICE PLUS EXTRAS ) ESTABLISHED ON A FREE-AT-COMMUNITY-FRONTIER DUTY PAID BASIS , IN RESPECT OF REINFORCING BARS FALLING WITHIN SUBHEADING EX 73.10 A II , ORIGINATING IN SWITZERLAND , AND IN RESPECT OF THE PRODUCTS ORIGINATING IN THIRD COUNTRIES INDICATED IN THE LIST ANNEXED TO THE SAID RECOMMENDATION ,   WHEREAS IT IS APPROPRIATE TO EXTEND THIS LIST BY THE INCLUSION THEREIN OF AUSTRALIA AND POLAND ,   HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION :   ARTICLE 1   THE LIST OF THIRD COUNTRIES IN THE ANNEX TO RECOMMENDATION 78/282/ECSC IS EXTENDED BY THE INCLUSION THEREIN OF AUSTRALIA AND POLAND .   ARTICLE 2   THIS RECOMMENDATION SHALL BE NOTIFIED TO THE MEMBER STATES AND PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES .   IT SHALL ENTER INTO FORCE FOR EACH MEMBER STATE ON 1 AUGUST 1978 .   DONE AT BRUSSELS , 25 JULY 1978 .   FOR THE COMMISSION   WILHELM HAFERKAMP   VICE-PRESIDENT


Avis juridique important

|

31982K1995

Commission Recommendation No 1995/82/ECSC of 22 July 1982 amending Recommendation No 3018/79/ECSC on protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Coal and Steel Community

Official Journal L 215 , 23/07/1982 P. 0028 - 0028

*****COMMISSION  RECOMMENDATION No 1995/82/ECSC  of 22 July 1982  amending recommendation No 3018/79/ECSC on protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Coal and Steel Community  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, by recommendation No 3018/79/ECSC (1), the Commission adopted Community rules and procedures for protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries which are not members of the European Coal and Steel Community;  Whereas Article 14 of the said recommendation provides for the possibility of a review of measures taken by the Community institutions; whereas, in order to enable parties to protect their interests, it lays down in particular that such review may be held if an interested party so requests and submits positive information substantiating the need for review;  Whereas, however, anti-dumping and countervailing measures are taken only after a formal investigation which is both costly and time-consuming and which offers full opportunities for all parties to make known their views;  Whereas, therefore, in order to avoid abuse of Community procedures and resources, it is appropriate to amend the provisions governing reviews requested by interested parties so as to lay down a minimum period which must elapse after the conclusion of a proceeding before such a review may be conducted, and to ensure that there is evidence of a change in circumstances sufficient to justify a review,  MAKES THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION:  Article 1  Article 14 (1) of recommendation No 3018/79/ECSC is hereby replaced by the following:  '1. Recommendations imposing anti-dumping or countervailing duties and decisions to accept undertakings shall be subject to review where warranted. Such review may be held either at the request of a Member State or on the initiative of the Commission. A review shall also be held where an interested party so requests and submits evidence of changed circumstances sufficient to justify the need for such review, provided that at least one year has elapsed since the conclusion of the proceeding. Such requests shall be addressed to the Commission which shall inform the Member States.'  Article 2  This recommendation shall enter into force for each Member State on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.  It shall also apply to requests for a review already introduced.  Done at Brussels, 22 July 1982.  For the Commission  Wilhem HAFERKAMP  Vice-President  (1) OJ No L 339, 31. 12. 1979, p. 15.


Important legal notice

|

52007SC0138

Recommendation for a Council opinion in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the updated stability programme of Finland, 2006-2010  /* SEC/2007/0138 final */

	[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |Brussels, 7.2.2007SEC(2007) 138 finalRecommendation for aCOUNCIL OPINIONin accordance with the third paragraph of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 On the updated stability programme of Finland, 2006-2010(presented by the Commission)EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM1. GENERAL BACKGROUNDThe Stability and Growth Pact, which entered into force on 1 July 1998, is based on the objective of sound government finances as a means of strengthening the conditions for price stability and for strong sustainable growth conducive to employment creation. The 2005 reform of the Pact acknowledged its usefulness in anchoring fiscal discipline but sought to strengthen its effectiveness and economic underpinnings as well as to safeguard the sustainability of the public finances in the long run.Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies[1], which is part of the Stability and Growth Pact, stipulates that Member States have to submit, to the Council and the Commission, stability or convergence programmes and annual updates thereof (Member States that have already adopted the single currency submit (updated) stability programmes and Member States that have not yet adopted it submit (updated) convergence programmes). The first stability programme of Finland was submitted in September 1998. In accordance with the Regulation, the Council delivered an opinion on it on 12 October 1998 on the basis of a recommendation from the Commission and after having consulted the Economic and Financial Committee. In accordance with the same procedure, updated stability and convergence programmes are assessed by the Commission and examined by the Committee mentioned above, while the Council may examine them.2. BACKGROUND FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF THE UPDATED PROGRAMMEThe Commission has examined the most recent update of the stability programme of Finland, submitted on 30 November 2006, and has adopted a recommendation for a Council opinion on it (see box for the main points covered by the assessment).In order to set the scene against which the budgetary strategy in the updated stability programme is assessed, the following paragraphs summarise:1.  the economic and budgetary performance over the last ten years2.  the most recent assessment of the country’s position under the preventive arm of the Stability and Growth Pact (summary of the Council opinion on the previous update of the stability programme) and3.  the Commission’s assessment of the October 2006 national reform programme.2.1. Recent economic and budgetary performanceOver the past decade, the performance of the Finnish economy has been outstanding. The cyclical recovery from the recession of the early 1990s was reinforced by the restructuring of the economy and the emergence of the ICT sector, which largely accounts for the remarkable advances in productivity. Average economic growth rates have been well above the euro area average while inflation has remained low. The strong expansion of the economy was accompanied by determined fiscal consolidation, restoring a significant surplus to general government finances. In the run-up to EMU, Finland successfully shifted to a low-inflation environment with stability-oriented macroeconomic policies safeguarding competitiveness, which have continued to underpin its good economic performance.2.2. The assessment in the Council opinion on the previous programmeOn 24 January 2006, the Council adopted its opinion on the previous update of the stability programme, covering the period 2005-2009. The Council was of the opinion that "overall, the budgetary position is sound and the budgetary strategy provides a good example of fiscal policies conducted in compliance with the Pact".2.3. The Commission assessment of the October 2006 national reform programmeThe Implementation Report of the National Reform Programme of Finland, provided in the context of the renewed Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs, was submitted on 12 October 2006. Finland's national reform programme identifies as key challenges/priorities: the sustainability of public finances, improving competitiveness and productivity; and improving the functioning of the labour market. The Commission’s assessment of this programme (adopted as part of its December 2006 Annual Progress Report[2]) showed that Finland is making very good progress in the implementation of its National Reform Programme.Against the background of progress made, Finland was encouraged to focus on the areas of: competition and productivity in services; recruitment procedures for businesses; local wage bargaining systems; and bottlenecks in the labour market.Box: Main points covered by the assessment As required by Article 5(1) (for stability programmes) and Article 9(1) (for convergence programmes) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97, the assessment covers the following points: whether the economic assumptions on which the programme is based are plausible; the medium-term budgetary objective (MTO) presented by the Member State and whether the adjustment path towards it is appropriate; whether measures being taken and/or proposed to respect that adjustment path are sufficient to achieve the MTO over the cycle; when assessing the adjustment path towards the MTO, whether a higher adjustment effort is made in economic good times, whereas the effort may be more limited in economic bad times, and, for euro-area and ERM II Member States, whether the Member State pursues an annual improvement of the cyclically-adjusted balance, net of one-off and other temporary measures, of 0.5% of GDP as a benchmark to meet its MTO; when defining the adjustment path to the MTO (for Member States that have not yet reached it) or allowing a temporary deviation from the MTO (for Member States that have), the implementation of major structural reforms which have direct long-term cost-saving effects (including by raising potential growth) and therefore a verifiable impact on the long-term sustainability of public finances (subject to the condition that an appropriate safety margin with respect to the 3% of GDP reference value is preserved and that the budgetary position is expected to return to the MTO within the programme period), with special attention for pension reforms introducing a multi-pillar system that includes a mandatory, fully-funded pillar; whether the economic policies of the Member State are consistent with the broad economic policy guidelines. The plausibility of the programme’s macroeconomic assumptions is assessed by reference to the Commission services’ autumn 2006 forecast, using also the commonly agreed methodology for the estimation of potential output and cyclically-adjusted balances. The assessment of consistency with the broad economic policy guidelines is made against the broad economic policy guidelines in the area of public finances as included in the integrated guidelines for the period 2005-2008. The assessment also examines: the evolution of the debt ratio and the outlook for the long-term sustainability of the public finances, which should be given “sufficient attention in the surveillance of budgetary positions” according to the Council report of 20 March 2005 on “Improving the implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact”. A Commission Communication of 12 October 2006 sets out the approach to the assessment of long-term sustainability[3]; the degree of integration with the national reform programme, submitted by Member States in the context of the Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs. In its cover note of 7 June 2005 to the European Council on the broad economic policy guidelines for the period 2005-2008, the ECOFIN Council stated that the national reform programmes should be consistent with the stability and convergence programmes; compliance with the code of conduct[4], which inter alia prescribes a common structure and set of data tables for the stability and convergence programmes. |-  Recommendation for aCOUNCIL OPINIONin accordance with the third paragraph of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 On the updated stability programme of Finland, 2006-2010THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,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[5], and in particular Article 5(3) thereof,Having regard to the recommendation of the Commission,After consulting the Economic and Financial Committee,HAS DELIVERED THIS OPINION:4.  On [27 February 2007] the Council examined the updated stability programme of Finland, which covers the period 2006 to 2010.5.  The macroeconomic scenario underlying the programme envisages that real GDP growth will decelerate from a cyclical peak of 4½% in 2006 to 2½% on average over the rest of the programme period. Assessed against currently available information, this scenario appears to be based on plausible growth assumptions, with those for 2006 and 2010 appearing cautious. The programme’s projections for inflation appear realistic.6.  For 2006, the general government surplus is estimated at 2.9% of GDP in both the Commission services’ autumn 2006 forecast and in the current programme update, against a target of 1.6% of GDP set in the previous update of the stability programme. This is due to the carry-over from the better-than-expected outcome in 2005 and the positive growth surprise in 2006 boosting government revenue, while expenditure has remained contained.7.  The main goal of the medium-term budgetary strategy in the programme is securing sustainability in general government finances and balanced central government finances under normal conditions of economic growth. The general government headline and primary surpluses are projected to follow a slight downward trend, both declining by ½% of GDP until 2010. The decline in the revenue ratio, reflecting the gradual phasing in of the tax cuts package up to 2007, is less than fully compensated by the cut in the expenditure ratio owing to the government's budgetary spending ceilings and public sector reform initiatives. While the budgetary strategy has not changed compared with the previous update, the budgetary targets have been revised up by about 1% of GDP in each year, as a result of the carry-over from the better-than-expected outcome in 2005 and higher growth prospects.8.  The structural balance (i.e. the cyclically-adjusted balance net of one-off and other temporary measures) calculated according to the commonly agreed methodology is planned to remain stable at a surplus of close to 3% of GDP throughout the programme period. The medium-term objective (MTO) for the budgetary position presented in the programme is a structural surplus of 2% of GDP, which it plans to maintain throughout the programme period. The previous programme update did not explicitly define an MTO, but the MTO was inferred in the Council opinion from the structural surplus projections in the previous programme to be a surplus of 1½% of GDP. As the MTO is more demanding than the minimum benchmark (estimated at a deficit of around 1¼% of GDP), achieving it should fulfil the aim of providing a safety margin against the occurrence of an excessive deficit. The MTO lies within the range indicated for euro-area and ERM II Member States in the Stability and Growth Pact and the code of conduct and is significantly more demanding than implied by the debt ratio and average potential output growth in the long term. Having an MTO well above the minimum required level is motivated in the programme by the goal of ensuring the long-term sustainability of public finances and the fact that in Finland the impact of an ageing population kicks in at an early stage.9.  The risks to the budgetary projections in the programme appear broadly balanced. The programme’s macroeconomic assumptions as well as the tax revenue projections appear plausible. The risks to the latter emanating from the composition of growth are counterbalanced by conservative tax elasticity assumptions. While expenditure restraint is supported by ceilings for central government, there are some risks related to developments in local government expenditure.10.  In view of this risk assessment, the budgetary stance in the programme seems sufficient to meet the MTO by a considerable margin throughout the programme period, as envisaged in the programme. In addition, it provides a sufficient safety margin against breaching the 3% of GDP deficit threshold with normal macroeconomic fluctuations over the programme period. The fiscal policy stance implied by the programme is fully in line with the Stability and Growth Pact.11.  Government gross debt is estimated to have declined to 39% of GDP in 2006, well below the 60% of GDP Treaty reference value. The programme projects the debt ratio to decline by 5½ percentage points over the programme period.12.  The long-term budgetary impact of ageing in Finland is higher than on average in the EU, although enacted pension reform measures have helped to contain the increase in pension expenditure to close to the EU average as a share of GDP over the coming decades. The initial budgetary position, with a large structural surplus, contributes significantly to easing the long-term budgetary impact of ageing. Moreover, the large assets accumulated in the public pension fund will finance part of the increase in pension expenditure. However, maintaining high primary surpluses over the medium term would contribute towards containing risks to the sustainability of public finances. Overall, Finland appears to be at low risk with regard to the sustainability of public finances.13.  The stability programme contains a qualitative assessment of the overall impact of the October 2006 implementation report of the national reform programme within the medium-term fiscal strategy. In addition, it provides systematic information on the direct budgetary costs or savings of the main reforms envisaged in the national reform programme and its budgetary projections explicitly take into account the public finance implications of the actions outlined in the national reform programme. The measures in the area of public finances envisaged in the stability programme seem consistent with those foreseen in the national reform programme. In particular, both programmes envisage the implementation of measures to improve the productivity of both central and local governments and confirm the intention to continue applying central government budgetary spending limits beyond the current legislative period.14.  The budgetary strategy in the programme is broadly consistent with the broad economic policy guidelines included in the integrated guidelines for the period 2005-2008.15.  As regards the data requirements specified in the code of conduct for stability and convergence programmes, the programme has some gaps in the required and optional data[6].The overall conclusion is that the medium-term budgetary position is sound and the budgetary strategy provides a good example of fiscal policies conducted in compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact.Comparison of key macroeconomic and budgetary projections2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 |Real GDP | SP Nov 2006 | 2.9 | 4.5 | 3.0 | 2.9 | 2.6 | 2.1 |(% change) | COM Nov 2006 | 2.9 | 4.9 | 3.0 | 2.6 | n.a. | n.a. |SP Nov 2005 | 2.1 | 3.2 | 2.6 | 2.3 | 2.1 | n.a. |HICP inflation | SP Nov 2006 | 0.9 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 1.7 |(%) | COM Nov 2006 | 0.8 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 1.6 | n.a. | n.a. |SP Nov 2005 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 1.8 | 1.8 | n.a. |Output gap | SP Nov 20061 | -1.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | -0.2 | -0.8 |(% of potential GDP) | COM Nov 20065 | -1.5 | 0.1 | 0.2 | -0.2 | n.a. | n.a. |SP Nov 20051 | -0.7 | -0.2 | -0.2 | -0.5 | -0.9 | n.a. |General government | SP Nov 2006 | 2.7 | 2.9 | 2.8 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 2.4 |balance | COM Nov 2006 | 2.7 | 2.9 | 2.9 | 2.9 | n.a. | n.a. |(% of GDP) | SP Nov 2005 | 1.8 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.5 | 1.5 | n.a. |Primary balance | SP Nov 2006 | 3.9 | 4.5 | 4.3 | 4.2 | 4.1 | 3.7 |(% of GDP) | COM Nov 2006 | 4.1 | 4.3 | 4.2 | 4.1 | n.a. | n.a. |SP Nov 2005 | 3.4 | 3.1 | 2.9 | 2.8 | 2.8 | n.a. |Cyclically-adjusted balance | SP Nov 20061 | 3.3 | 2.9 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 2.8 | 2.8 |(% of GDP) | COM Nov 2006 | 3.4 | 2.9 | 2.8 | 2.9 | n.a. | n.a. |SP Nov 20051 | 2.1 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 2.0 | n.a. |Structural balance2 | SP Nov 20063 | 3.3 | 2.9 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 2.8 | 2.8 |(% of GDP) | COM Nov 20064 | 3.4 | 2.9 | 2.8 | 2.9 | n.a. | n.a. |SP Nov 2005 | 2.1 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 2.0 | n.a. |Government gross debt | SP Nov 2006 | 41.3 | 39.1 | 37.7 | 36.2 | 35.0 | 33.7 |(% of GDP) | COM Nov 2006 | 41.3 | 38.8 | 37.3 | 35.8 | n.a. | n.a. |SP Nov 2005 | 42.7 | 41.7 | 41.1 | 40.6 | 40.1 | n.a. |Notes: |1 Commission services calculations on the basis of the information in the programme. |2 Cyclically-adjusted balance (as in the previous rows) excluding one-off and other temporary measures. |3 There are no one-off and other temporary measures in the programme. |4 There are no one-off and other temporary measures in the Commission services’ autumn 2006 forecast. |5 Based on estimated potential growth of 3.2%, 3.1%, 3.0% and 2.9% respectively in the period 2005-2008. |Source: |Stability programme (SP); Commission services’ autumn 2006 economic forecasts (COM); Commission services’ calculations |[1] OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1055/2005 (OJ L 174, 7.7.2005, p. 1). All the documents referred to in this text can be found at the following website:http://europa.eu.int/comm/economy_finance/about/activities/sgp/main_en.htm[2] Communication from the Commission to the Spring European Council, “Implementing the renewed Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs - A year of delivery” - COM(2006) 816, 12.12.2006.[3] Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, “The long-term sustainability of public finances in the EU” - COM(2006) 574, 12.10.2006 - and European Commission, Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs (2006), “The long-term sustainability of public finances in the European Union”, European Economy No 4/2006.[4] “Specifications on the implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact and guidelines on the format and content of stability and convergence programmes”, endorsed by the ECOFIN Council of 11 October 2005.[5] OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1055/2005 (OJ L 174, 7.7.2005, p. 1). The documents referred to in this text can be found at the following website:http://europa.eu.int/comm/economy_finance/about/activities/sgp/main_en.htm[6] In particular, the data on external assumptions for the years 2008-2010 are missing.


Avis juridique important

|

31976H0494

76/494/EEC: Council recommendation of 4 May 1976 on the rational use, through better driving habits, of energy consumed by road vehicles

Official Journal L 140 , 28/05/1976 P. 0014 - 0015 Greek special edition: Chapter 12 Volume 1 P. 0132  Spanish special edition: Chapter 12 Volume 2 P. 0117  Portuguese special edition Chapter 12 Volume 2 P. 0117

COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION  of 4 May 1976  on the rational use, through better driving habits, of energy consumed by road vehicles  (76/494/EEC)  THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,  Having regard to the draft from the Commission,  Whereas, in its resolution of 17 September 1974 concerning a new energy policy strategy for the Community (1), the Council accepted as an objective the "reduction of the rate of growth of internal consumption by measures for using energy rationally and economically without jeopardizing social and economic growth objectives";  Whereas, in its resolution of 17 December 1974 on a Community action programme on the rational utilization of energy (2), the Council noted that, in its communication to the Council entitled "Rational utilization of energy", the Commission had drawn up a Community action programme in this field;  Whereas tangible results must be obtained as soon as possible in the rational use of energy consumed by road vehicles ; whereas a keener awareness among drivers of economical driving, the choice of a more economical vehicle and proper maintenance will enable these objectives to be rapidly attained;  Whereas measures to reduce the amount of fuel consumed by road vehicles must be made attractive and financially acceptable to users;  Whereas the measures recommended are likely to produce sufficiently large savings in energy to make the required investment economically worthwhile,  HEREBY RECOMMENDS TO THE MEMBER STATES:       1. that motor-vehicle manufacturers be asked to include more practical information on fuel-saving in drivers' handbooks and to present this information in a way that will catch the attention of vehicle owners and arouse their interest;       2. that encouragement be given to the fitting of private vehicles with equipment informing drivers of the most economical way to drive. Two methods are suggested:      - indicating on the speedometer or revolution counter the most economical speed range for each gear,           - fitting a monitoring device, such as a vacuum gauge on the intake, to inform the driver of his performance (good, average, poor);                  3. that road vehicle users be requested to ensure that ignition timings and carburettor settings are correct;       4. that, with this aim in view, motor-vehicle manufacturers be requested to include in drivers' handbooks clear recommendations to owners to have their vehicles overhauled and adjusted regularly;       5. that every type of vehicle on the market undergo a standard fuel consumption test over a range of speeds, the procedure for which must be defined at Community level, and that the results of this test be included in the maintenance  (1)OJ No C 153, 9.7.1975, p. 1. (2)OJ No C 153, 9.7.1975, p. 5.   instruction manual and brought to the attention of prospective buyers;       6. that the fitting of radial-ply tyres on all vehicles, including heavy goods vehicles, be encouraged.           Done at Brussels, 4 May 1976.  For the Council  The President  G. THORN


title: 2012/129/EU: Council Recommendation of 21 February 2012 concerning the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Development Fund (10th EDF) for the financial year 2010

text:
               29.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 55/34

         COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
   of 21 February 2012
   concerning the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Development Fund (10th EDF) for the financial year 2010
   (2012/129/EU)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (1) and amended by the Agreement signed in Luxembourg on 25 June 2005 (2),
   Having regard to the Internal Agreement between the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on the financing of Community aid under the multiannual financial framework for the period 2008 to 2013 in accordance with the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement and on the allocation of financial assistance for the Overseas Countries and Territories to which Part Four of the EC Treaty applies (3) (the ‘Internal Agreement’) setting up, amongst others, the 10th European Development Fund (10th EDF), and in particular Article 11(8) thereof,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 215/2008 of 18 February 2008 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the 10th European Development Fund (4), and in particular Articles 142 to 144 thereof,
   Having examined the revenue and expenditure account and the balance sheet relating to the operations of the 10th EDF as at 31 December 2010 and the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors on the activities funded by the 8th, 9th and 10th European Development Funds (EDFs) (5), concerning the financial year 2010, together with the Commission’s replies contained in that Annual Report,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Pursuant to Article 11(8) of the Internal Agreement, the discharge for the financial management of the 10th EDF is to be given to the Commission by the European Parliament on the recommendation of the Council.

               (2)

               The overall implementation by the Commission of the operations of the 10th EDF during the financial year 2010 has been satisfactory,

         HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the European Parliament give the Commission a discharge in respect of the implementation of the operations of the 10th EDF for the financial year 2010.

      Done at Brussels, 21 February 2012.

            For the Council

            The President

         M. VESTAGER

      (1)  OJ L 317, 15.12.2000, p. 3.

      (2)  OJ L 287, 28.10.2005, p. 4.

      (3)  OJ L 247, 9.9.2006, p. 32.

      (4)  OJ L 78, 19.3.2008, p. 1.

      (5)  OJ C 326, 10.11.2011, p. 251.


Avis juridique important

|

31979K0158

Commission Recommendation No 158/79/ECSC of 29 January 1979 amending recommendations 77/329/ECSC on protection against dumping or the granting of bounties or subsidies by countries which are not members of the European Coal and Steel Community

Official Journal L 021 , 30/01/1979 P. 0014 - 0015

****( 1 ) OJ NO L 114 , 5 . 5 . 1977 , P . 6 .  ( 2 ) OJ NO L 352 , 31 . 12 . 1977 , P . 13 .    COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION NO 158/79/ECSC   OF 29 JANUARY 1979   AMENDING RECOMMENDATIONS 77/329/ECSC ON PROTECTION AGAINST DUMPING OR THE GRANTING OF BOUNTIES OR SUBSIDIES BY COUNTRIES WHICH ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY   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 COMMUNITY HAS ADOPTED COMMON RULES ON PROTECTION AGAINST DUMPING OR THE GRANTING OF BOUNTIES OR SUBSIDIES BY COUNTRIES WHICH ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY AND WHEREAS , FOR PRODUCTS TO WHICH THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY RELATES , THESE RULES ARE CONTAINED IN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 77/329/ECSC ( 1 ) AS AMENDED BY RECOMMENDATION NO 3004/77/ECSC  ( 2 );   WHEREAS THESE COMMUNITY RULES ARE , IN LARGE MEASURE , TRANSPOSED FROM THE AGREEMENT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE VI OF THE GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE , KNOWN AS THE ANTI-DUMPING CODE ;   WHEREAS THE EXPERIENCE ACQUIRED IN THE APPLICATION OF CERTAIN OF THESE RULES DEMONSTRATES THAT IT IS EXPEDIENT TO CLARIFY CERTAIN CONCEPTS WHICH ARE CONTAINED IN THE SAID RULES , TAKING ACCOUNT INTER ALIA OF THE ESTABLISHED PRACTICE OF THE COMMUNITY ' S MAJOR TRADING PARTNERS ;   WHEREAS , IN PARTICULAR , IT IS NECESSARY TO DEFINE MORE PRECISELY THE METHOD OF CALCULATION OF CONSTRUCTED VALUE TO BE USED IN SITUATIONS WHEN , BECAUSE OF THE PARTICULAR MARKET SITUATION , THE PRICE OF THE LIKE PRODUCT ON THE DOMESTIC MARKET DOES NOT PERMIT A PROPER COMPARISON ;   WHEREAS IT IS NECESSARY TO CLARIFY THAT , IN THE CASE OF IMPORTS FROM STATE-TRADING COUNTRIES , NORMAL VALUE IS DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF PRICES OR COSTS OF A LIKE PRODUCT IN A MARKET ECONOMY COUNTRY OR , IF NECESSARY , FROM SUCH PRICES OR COSTS IN THE COMMUNITY ;   WHEREAS , WITH REGARD TO INJURY , IT IS NECESSARY TO CLARIFY THE RULES REGARDING THE DETERMINATION OF INJURY AND IN PARTICULAR TO ENSURE THAT INJURIES CAUSED BY OTHER FACTORS MAY NOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO DUMPING BUT MUST BE ISOLATED THEREFROM ;   WHEREAS IT IS NECESSARY FOR PRACTICAL REASONS TO MODIFY CERTAIN OF THE RULES GOVERNING THE EXTENSION OF PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ,   FORMULATES THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION :   ARTICLE 1   RECOMMENDATION 77/329/ECSC IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS :   1 . THE SECOND INDENT OF ARTICLE 3 ( 2 ) SHALL READ AS FOLLOWS :   '  -  THE CONSTRUCTED VALUE , THAT IS TO SAY THE COST OF PRODUCTION IN THE COUNTRY OF ORIGIN PLUS A REASONABLE AMOUNT FOR GENERAL EXPENSES AND FOR PROFITS ; AS A GENERAL RULE THE ADDITION FOR PROFIT SHALL NOT EXCEED THE PROFIT NORMALLY REALIZED ON SALES OF PRODUCTS OF THE SAME GENERAL CATEGORY IN THE DOMESTIC MARKET OF THE COUNTRY OF ORIGIN . IF NO SUCH PROFIT IS REALIZED THE COMMISSION SHALL DETERMINE THE ADDITION ON ANY REASONABLE BASIS USING THE BEST EVIDENCE AVAILABLE . '   2 . ARTICLE 3 ( 6 ) SHALL READ AS FOLLOWS :   ' 6 .  IN THE CASE OF IMPORTS FROM COUNTRIES WHERE TRADE IS ON A BASIS OF NEAR OR TOTAL MONOPOLY AND WHERE DOMESTIC PRICES ARE FIXED BY THE STATE , ACCOUNT MAY BE TAKEN OF THE FACT THAT AN EXACT COMPARISON BETWEEN THE EXPORT PRICE OF A PRODUCT TO THE COMMUNITY AND THE DOMESTIC PRICE IN THAT COUNTRY IS NOT NORMALLY APPROPRIATE . IN SUCH CASES NORMAL VALUE SHALL BE DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF EITHER :  ( A ) THE PRICES AT WHICH A LIKE PRODUCT OF A MARKET-ECONOMY COUNTRY OR COUNTRIES IS SOLD EITHER ( I ) FOR CONSUMPTION IN THE DOMESTIC MARKET OF THAT COUNTRY OR COUNTRIES OR ( II ) TO OTHER COUNTRIES , INCLUDING THE COMMUNITY ; OR  ( B ) THE CONSTRUCTED VALUE OF A LIKE PRODUCT IN A MARKET-ECONOMY COUNTRY OR COUNTRIES .   IF NEITHER PRICES NOR CONSTRUCTED VALUE AS ESTABLISHED UNDER ( A ) OR ( B ) ABOVE PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE BASIS FOR DETERMINATION OF NORMAL VALUE , THEN THE PRICES OR CONSTRUCTED VALUE AS DETERMINED FROM THE SALES OR PRODUCTION COSTS IN THE COMMUNITY SHALL BE USED . '   3 . PARAGRAPHS 1 , 2 AND 3 OF ARTICLE 4 SHALL READ AS FOLLOWS :   ' 1 .  THE EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE DUMPED IMPORTS ON THE INDUSTRY IN QUESTION SHALL BE BASED ON EXAMINATION OF ALL FACTORS HAVING A BEARING ON THE STATE OF THE INDUSTRY IN QUESTION , SUCH AS DEVELOPMENTS AND PROSPECTS WITH REGARD TO TURNOVER , MARKET SHARE , PROFITS , PRICES ( INCLUDING THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE DELIVERED , DUTY-PAID PRICE IS LOWER OR HIGHER THAN THE MOST REPRESENTATIVE COMPARABLE PRICE OF THE LIKE PRODUCT PREVAILING IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF TRADE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY ), EMPLOYMENT , VOLUME OF DUMPED AND OTHER IMPORTS , UTILIZATION OF CAPACITY OF COMMUNITY INDUSTRY , PRODUCTIVITY , AND RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES . NO ONE OR MORE OF THESE FACTORS CAN NECESSARILY GIVE DECISIVE GUIDANCE .   2 .  IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH WHETHER DUMPED IMPORTS ARE CAUSING INJURY , ALL OTHER FACTORS WHICH INDIVIDUALLY OR IN COMBINATION MAY BE ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE COMMUNITY INDUSTRY SHALL BE EXAMINED . THE FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED ARE , AMONG OTHERS , THE VOLUME AND PRICES OF UNDUMPED IMPORTS OF THE PRODUCT IN QUESTION , COMPETITION BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY PRODUCERS THEMSELVES , CONTRACTION IN DEMAND DUE TO SUBSTITUTION OF OTHER PRODUCTS OR TO CHANGES IN CONSUMER TASTES AND EXPORT PERFORMANCE .   3 . ( A ) NO INJURY CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO DUMPING UNLESS THE DUMPED IMPORTS ARE DEMONSTRABLY THE PRINCIPAL CAUSE OF SUCH INJURY . FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUCH DEMONSTRATION THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE DUMPING POSITIVELY FOUND TO BE SUCH SHALL BE WEIGHED AGAINST EACH OF THE OTHER KNOWN FACTORS WHICH AT THE SAME TIME MAY BE INJURING THE INDUSTRY . THE INJURIES CAUSED BY SUCH OTHER FACTORS MUST NOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE DUMPED IMPORTS .  ( B ) A DETERMINATION OF INJURY SHALL IN ALL CASES BE BASED ON POSITIVE FINDINGS AND NOT MERELY ON ALLEGATION , CONJECTURE OR REMOTE POSSIBILITY . IN THE CASE OF THREAT OF INJURY THE CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WOULD CREATE A SITUATION IN WHICH DUMPING WOULD CAUSE INJURY MUST BE CLEARLY FORESEEN AND IMMINENT . '   4 . ARTICLE 16 ( 1 ) SHALL READ AS FOLLOWS :   ' 1 .  WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 18 , PROVISIONAL MEASURES SHALL CONTINUE TO OPERATE FOR A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS . BEFORE THIS PERIOD EXPIRES , THE COMMISSION SHALL EITHER DECIDE ON COMMUNITY INTERVENTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 17 OR , IF EXPORTERS AND IMPORTERS REPRESENTING A SIGNIFICANT PROPORTION OF THE TRADE INVOLVED SO REQUEST OR DO NOT OBJECT AND IF THE EXAMINATION IS STILL NOT TERMINATED , DECIDE ON THE EXTENSION OF THE PROVISIONAL MEASURES FOR A MAXIMUM OF THREE MONTHS . '   ARTICLE 2   THIS RECOMMENDATION SHALL BE NOTIFIED TO THE MEMBER STATES AND PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES .   IT SHALL ENTER INTO FORCE ON 30 JANUARY 1979 .   DONE AT BRUSSELS , 29 JANUARY 1979 .   FOR THE COMMISSION   WILHELM HAFERKAMP   VICE-PRESIDENT


title: Commission recommendation No 789/78/ECSC of 19 April 1978 extending the provisional anti-dumping measures established in relation to imports of steel products originating in Japan

text:
No L 106/20                               Official Journal of the European Communities                              20 . 4. 78
                                COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION No 789/78 / ECSC
                                                         of 19 April 1978
              extending the provisional anti-dumping measures established in relation to
                                      imports of steel products originating in Japan
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN                                      HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION :
COMMUNITIES,
                                                                                Article 1
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Coal and Steel Community, and in particular Article                 The provisional anti-dumping measures established by
74, thereof,                                                        recommendations No 121 / 78 / ECSC, No 161 /78 /
                                                                    ECSC, No 245/78/ECSC, No 263/78 / ECSC and
Having regard to Commission recommendation                          359/78/ ECSC in relation to imports of steel products
77/329/ECSC on protection against dumping or the                    originating in Japan are hereby extended for a period
granting of bounties or subsidies by countries which                not exceeding three months from the dates of their
are not members of the European Coal and Steel                      expiration notwithstanding their suspension in respect
Community ('), as amended by recommendation No                      of future imports by recommendation No 714/78/
3004/77/ ECSC (2), and in particular Articles 16 and 19             ECSC .
thereof,
                                                                                Article 2
Having heard the opinions expressed within the Advi
sory Committee provided for by recommendation                       Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 1 above,
77/329/ ECSC,                                                       the amount secured by way of provisional anti
Whereas the Commission has established by recom
                                                                    dumping duties shall be released to the extent that the
                                                                    importer establishes to the satisfaction of the compe
mendations No 121 /78/ECSC (3), No 161 /78/                         tent national authorities that it is due to a diminution
ECSC (4), No 245/78/ ECSC (5), No 263/78/ECSC (6)                   in value resulting from the quality of the goods being
and No 359/78/ECSC (7) provisional anti-dumping
                                                                    inferior to the lowest quality described in the last
duties in relation to imports of steel products origi              publication of basic prices by the Commission .
nating in Japan ;
Whereas the examination of this matter has not yet                                          Article 3
been completed and exporters and importers known                    This recommendation is addressed to the Member
to be concerned have requested that the duty be                     States. It shall enter into force in respect of each
extended for a period not exceeding three months ;                  Member State from the date of its publication in the
Whereas, therefore, it is appropriate to extend the                  Official Journal of the European Communities.
provisional measures notwithstanding their suspension
as provided for by recommendation No 714/78/                         Done at Brussels, 19 April 1978 .
 ECSC (8) ;
                                                                                For the Commission
Whereas, however, due consideration should be given
to any diminution of value of the products imported,                                           fctienne DAVIGNON
claimed by the importers and established to the satis
 faction of the competent national authorities ;                                          Member of the Commission
(') OJ  No  L 114, 5. 5. 1977, p. 6 .
(2) OJ  No  L 352, 31 . 12. 1977, p. 13 .
 }) OJ  No  L 19, 24. 1 . 1978 , p. 9 .
 4) OJ  No  L 23, 28 . 1 . 1978 , p. 35 .
 5) OJ  No  L 37, 7. 2 . 1978 , p. 13 .
 o) OJ  No  L 39 , 9 . 2. 1978 , p. 15 .
 7) OJ  No  L 50, 22. 2. 1978 , p. 13 .
 s) OJ  No  L 94, 8 . 4. 1978 , p. 21 .


Avis juridique important

|

32000H0408

2000/408/EC: Commission Recommendation of 23 June 2000 concerning disclosure of information on financial instruments and other items complementing the disclosure required according to Council Directive 86/635/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of banks and other financial institutions (notified under document number C(2000) 1372)

Official Journal L 154 , 27/06/2000 P. 0036 - 0041

Commission Recommendationof 23 June 2000concerning disclosure of information on financial instruments and other items complementing the disclosure required according to Council Directive 86/635/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of banks and other financial institutions(notified under document number C(2000) 1372)(2000/408/EC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 211 thereof,Whereas:(1) On the wider international level, banks and other undertakings are increasingly called upon to provide enhanced disclosure of their activities in financial instruments and other similar instruments.(2) This international development towards enhanced disclosure was echoed in the European Parliament's Resolution A4-0207/95 of 22 September 1995 on financial derivative instruments(1).(3) Due to banks' and other financial institutions' pivotal role in financial markets and in the overall monetary and economic system, enhanced disclosure of information on activities relating to financial instruments and other similar instruments appears to be particularly desirable for these institutions.(4) Due to the enormous increase in these institutions' activities relating to such instruments, regarding notably derivative instruments, since the time of the adoption of Council Directive 86/635/EEC(2), disclosure of additional information complementing the limited disclosure required under that Directive is considered necessary.(5) Disclosure of such information allows investors and market participants to take well-informed decisions, thus fostering market transparency and market discipline as a most valuable complement to prudential supervision.(6) To this effect, meaningful and comparable qualitative and quantitative information on institutions' activities relating to financial instruments and information on the objectives and methods of risk measurement and management systems is necessary.(7) Notwithstanding the obligation to disclose all material information, the potential usefulness of particular disclosures should be balanced against the need not to overburden financial statements with excessive disclosure and the likely cost of providing such information. The obligation to disclose information does not impose an obligation to disclose confidential or proprietary information.(8) Given the ongoing international discussions on the methods for disclosing such information a formal amendment of Directive 86/635/EEC introducing mandatory disclosure requirements appears to be premature.(9) It is necessary for the smoth functioning of the internal market that the accounting information published by banks and other financial institutions remains sufficiently comparable. The Commission will therefore closely follow the effect of this recommendation on current practice in the Member States and will later, if necessary, propose further actions to ensure sufficient harmonisation in this field,HEREBY RECOMMENDS:1. For accounting periods commencing within 12 months from the date of this Recommendation and for all future accounting periods, information in accordance with the Annex should be disclosed by banks and financial institutions in the notes on the annual and consolidated accounts and/or in the annual report, as appropriate.2. The Member States should take the appropriate measures to promote the application of this Recommendation, having due regard to the nature and size of particular institutions and the consequent usefulness to the market of the information provided in their accounts.3. The Member States should notify the Commission of measures taken in compliance with this Recommendation.Done at Brussels, 23 June 2000.For the CommissionFrederik BolkesteinMember of the Commission(1) OJ C 269, 16.10.1995, p. 217.(2) OJ L 372, 31.12.1986, p. 1.ANNEX1. Scope and definitions1.1. Information on financial instruments, commodities and commodity-related derivative instruments (hereinafter: "instruments") according to this recommendation should be disclosed by banks and financial institutions (hereinafter: "institutions") which are subject ot Council Directive 86/635/EEC in the notes on the annual and consolidated accounts and/or in the annual report, as appropriate.The Appendices to this Annex set out illustrative examples of how this information might be disclosed to meet the objectives of this recommendation. These illustrative examples are not exhaustive. Other forms of disclosure, such as those based on in-house models, may also be used provided information on the basis of the models, including the reliability of information that stems from those models and whether they are recognised by the competent authorities for the purpose of calculating prudential capital requirements, is also disclosed.1.2. A financial instrument is any contract that gives rise to both a financial asset of one party and a financial liability or equity instrument of another party. Financial instruments include both- primary financial instruments such as receivables, payables and equity securities and- derivative financial instruments such as options, futures, forwards, interest rate swaps and currency swaps, the value of which is derived from the price of an underlying financial instrument or a rate or an index or the price of an underlying other item.1.3. A financial asset is any asset that is:(a) cash;(b) a contractual right to receive cash or another financial asset from another party;(c) a contractual right to exchange instruments with another party under conditions that are potentially favourable; or(d) an equity instrument of another party.1.4. A financial liability is any liability that is a contractual obligation:(a) to deliver cash or another financial asset to another party; or(b) to exchange instruments with another party under conditions that are potentially unfavourable.1.5. An equity instrument is any contract that evidences a residual interest in the assets of a party after deducting all of its liabilities.1.6. Trading is the buying and selling of instruments with a view:- to take advantage from variations or short term changes in market rates, indices or prices,- to facilitate customer transactions,- to hedge related trading positions.Other activities are non-trading.1.7. Fair value is the amount at which an asset could be exchanged or a liability settled in a current transaction entered into under normal terms and conditions between independent, informed and willing parties, other than in a forced or liquidation sale.1.8. Information according to this recommendation need not concern:(a) interests in subsidiaries;(b) interests in associates;(c) interests in joint ventures;(d) employers' plans and obligations for post-employment benefits of all types, including retirement benefits;(e) employers' obligations under employee stock option and stock purchase plans;(f) obligations arising under insurance contracts;(g) operating leases; take or pay contracts;(h) own equity, own warrants and options on own shares.2. Materiality principleThe recommendation's provisions need not be applied to immaterial items. In deciding whether instruments (either individually or in aggregate) are material, both the amount and the nature of the instruments should be taken into account.Notwithstanding the obligation to disclose all material information, the potential usefulness of particular disclosures should be balanced against the need not to overburden financial statements with excessive disclosure and the likely cost of providing such information.The level of detail to be disclosed should reflect the relative significance of activities, results and/or risks within the institution's overall business.3. Qualitative disclosure3.1. Qualitative information necessary for understanding the annual and consolidated accounts should be included in the notes to the accounts; other qualitative information should be included in either the notes to the accounts or elsewhere in the annual report.3.2. Information should be disclosed in the annual report on the institution's risk management objectives and strategies reflecting its use of instruments within the context of its overall business objectives.3.3. Information should be disclosed in the annual report on the policies and practice of managing the risks associated with trading and non-trading activities addressing the specific nature of the institution's exposure to, and its management of, credit risk, market risk (i.e. foreign exchange risk, interest rate risk, other price risks), liquidity risk and other risks of significance.3.4. Information should be disclosed in the notes to the annual and consolidated accounts on all significant accounting policies relating to instruments.4. Quantitative disclosure - principles and general information4.1. Quantitative information necessary for the understanding of annual and consolidated accounts should be disclosed in institutions' notes to the annual and consolidated accounts. Other quantitative information should be included elsewhere in the annual report. Furthermore, the fair values of instruments held for trading, both on and off the balance sheet, should be disclosed where they differ materially from the amounts at which they are included in the accounts.4.2. Where disclosure of quantitative information draws on institutions' internal risk management systems and the methods used within those systems (e.g. sensitivity analysis, VAR models) it is not necessary for the disclosure to be such as to disseminate information relating to those systems and methods that could be seriously prejudicial to the institution.4.3. Appropriate analysis should be provided of trading and non-trading instruments, including information on the level of activity in the institution with respect to those instruments. The analysis should reflect in particular significant terms and conditions that may affect the amount, timing and certainty of future cash flows.5. Quantitative disclosure - information on credit risk5.1. Information on credit risk should be disclosed on the basis of the amount that best represents the maximum credit risk exposure at the balance sheet date (net of any netting agreements that are legally enforceable by the institution) without taking account of any collateral. Information on the maximum credit risk exposure should be complemented by information on the potential credit risk exposure taking into account collateral and other netting agreements.If the carrying amount of an instrument represents the maximum credit risk exposure, disclosure of additional information, for the purposes of this paragraph, is not necessary.5.2. Information should be disclosed on significant concentrations of credit risk from on- and off-balance-sheet exposures by economic sector and geographic location, for example, by different industry sectors, individual countries or groups of countries.6. Quantitative disclosure - information on market risk6.1. Information on market risk should be disclosed on the basis of value-at-risk, sensitivity analysis or other market price risk measure.6.2. The different methods should be used alternatively or in combination in such a way as to provide a comprehensive picture of the institution's exposure to market risks inherent in its positions in trading and non-trading instruments. Where practicable, separate disclosures should be provided for each type of market risk.Appendix 1(This Appendix is purely illustrative and does not form part of the recommendation)Information in relation to qualitative disclosure(a) The basic features of management of risks including in particular the assessment and measurement of risk; if applicable, the internal limit system and the avoidance of undue concentrations of risk.(b) The activities in instruments used for trading purposes.(c) The activities in instruments used for non-trading purposes, reflecting in particular hedging policies.(d) The activities in high-risk instruments or complex instruments such as leveraged derivative instruments.(e) The use of collateral.(f) The use of netting agreements.Appendix 2(This Appendix is purely illustrative and does not form part of the recommendation)Disclosure of information in relation to accounting principles adopted(a) Information on the method of applying these principles to:- trading and non-trading instruments and their eventual reclassification,- specific relationships between different instruments (e.g. synthetic instruments, hedging, termination of hedges, hedging by internal transactions, hedging of anticipated transactions),- specific types of instruments or related transactions (e.g. disclosure may be necessary in particular for securitisations; repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements; in-substance defeasance), and- primary instruments with embedded financial derivatives.(b) The information disclosed might also include:(i) the criteria applied for recognition and derecognition of instruments in the balance sheet;(ii) the basis for valuation of the different types or classes of instruments at inception and subsequently;(iii) the methods used for determining fair value of instruments (e.g. on the basis of quoted market prices, use of bid/ask/mid prices, discounted cash flow analysis, estimation techniques or some other appropriate method) including the significant assumptions made in applying these methods;(iv) in cases where determination of fair value is based on quoted market prices the nature of the adjustments made to these prices, if any;(v) the methods used for including in the profit and loss account gains and losses, interest and other items of income and expense associated with trading and non-trading instruments addressing in particular the recognition of income;(vi) policies adopted in cases of hedging and terminaition of hedging relationships.Appendix 3(This Appendix is purely illustrative and does not form part of the recommendation)Disclosure of complementary information to aid better understanding of quantitative informationProvision of complementary information on the terminology and the presentation forms used, on risk measurement methods, related assumptions and, as appropriate, other parameters can assist readers of financial statements better to understand the quantitative information supplied.Where average values are disclosed the intervals used to arrive at those averages can also assist readers of financial statements better to understand the information supplied. If the year end figure is not representative of average values, average values can further assist understanding.Appendix 4(This Appendix is purely illustrative and does not form part of the recommendation)Disclosure of quantitative information1. Quantitative information may be disclosed in tabular form including in particular:A. As an indication, inter alia, of the level of activity, with respect to primary instruments on the carrying amount:(i) broken down on the vertical axis into the different classes of instruments distinguishing between assets and liabilities, and(ii) broken down on the horizontal axis into residual maturities,with additional indication of fair value of trading totals.B. As an indication, inter alia, of the level of activity with respect to derivative instruments, on the notional amount:(i) broken down on the vertical axis into the different classes of derivative instruments (e.g. interest rate, foreign exchange and gold, equities, precious metals except gold, other commodities, other), further subdivided into:- OTC derivative instruments (with subcategories e.g. forwards, swaps, options purchased/written), and- exchange traded derivative instruments (with as sub-categories e.g. futures long/short, options purchased/written); and(ii) broken down on the horizontal axis into residual maturitieswith additional indication of fair value of trading totals.C. Time bands that are relevant for the information disclosed may be used, for example:(i) not more than three months;(ii) more than three but not more than six months;(iii) more than six months but not more than one year;(iv) more than one year but not more than five years;(v) more than five years.Subject to materiality, the time bands specified may be further broken down (e.g. <= one month;  > one <= three months) or merged to larger time bands (e.g. <= one year;  > one and <= five years;  > five years) as appropriate.D. As an indication, inter alia, of the level of activity in terms of fair value as opposed to the carrying amount, information may be disclosed in tabular form distinguishing between assets and liabilities- on carrying amounts and fair values of classes of trading instruments, and- for trading instruments, on average-of-period fair values, and:if the determination of fair value is not possible, practicable or reliable, additional information on the principal characteristics of the instrument that may affect its fair value.2. The above information could also be disclosed in tabular form combining the tabular formats set out above.Appendix 5(This Appendix is purely illustrative and does not form part of the recommendation)Credit risk disclosureWith respect to the credit risk exposure from OTC derivative instruments, information may be disclosed in tabular form:- broken down on the vertical axis into different degrees of credit worthiness of counterparties assessed on the basis of internal or external ratings; and- broken down on the horizontal axis into- gross replacement costs,- net replacement costs if enforceable netting agreements exist,- potential future credit exposure.Undertakings that calculate the credit risk of OTC derivative instruments on the basis of the original risk method may disclose only the information that is obtained by applying the said method.Information on the potential future credit exposures may be complemented by a discussion of the related estimation techniques.Appendix 6(This Appendix is purely illustrative and does not form part of the recommendation)Market risk disclosureInformation on market risk arising on instruments may be given on any of the following basis.A. Value at risk information.B. The potential effect on future earnings of selected hypothetical changes in market prices and rates. The hypothetical changes used should be reasonably possible during the 12 months following the date on which the annual or consolidated accounts are approved. One of these hypothetical changes might usefully include an adverse change of at least 10 % in the year-end market prices or rates (unless such a change may be demonstrated not to be reasonably possible).C. A market price measure, other than those covered by A and B provided that:(i) the institution's management uses the model from which the measure has been derived for the purpose of managing the market price risk arising from the use of trading instruments; and(ii) the model has been recognised for the purpose of providing capital adequacy returns to the prudential regulator.D. An analysis of the aggregate fair values by major categories of financial assets and financial liabilities arising from trading instruments and, within those categories, by time bands according to the earlier of the period to the next interest rate repricing or the maturity date.Time bands that are relevant for the information disclosed may be used, for example:(i) not more than three months;(ii) more than three but not more than six months;(iii) more than six months but not more than one year;(iv) more than one year but not more than five years;(v) more than five years.If the value at risk, sensitivity analysis or other market price risk measure figures disclosed are not typical of the figures during the financial year, then additional figures provided to put the figures at the balance sheet date in context can assist readers of financial statements to better understand the information supplied. These additional figures might be either the average values or the highest and lowest.


title: 2005/57/EC: Commission Recommendation of 21 January 2005 on the provision of leased lines in the European Union (Part 1 — Major supply conditions for wholesale leased lines) (notified under document number C(2005) 103)

text:
               27.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 24/39

      COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION

   of 21 January 2005
   on the provision of leased lines in the European Union (Part 1 — Major supply conditions for wholesale leased lines)
   (notified under document number C(2005) 103)
   (2005/57/EC)
   THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
   Having regard to Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (1), and in particular Article 19(1) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Users in the Community require the competitive provision of leased lines, and access to high-speed transmission data services so that in particular Europe’s small and medium-sized enterprises can benefit from the opportunities offered by the rapid development of the Internet and electronic commerce.

               (2)

               Competitive provision of leased lines has begun to emerge since liberalisation of telecommunications infrastructure on 1 January 1996, but has been largely confined to long distance high capacity routes; leased line markets will be reviewed as explained below.

               (3)

               Certain organisations operating leased lines services had the obligation to provide these services under the principles of non-discrimination in accordance with Directive 97/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 on interconnection in Telecommunications with regard to ensuring universal service and interoperability through application of the principles of Open Network Provision (ONP) (2) and Council Directive 92/44/EEC of 5 June 1992 on the application of Open Network Provision to leased lines (3); these Directives were repealed by Article 26 of the Framework Directive with effect on 24 July 2003.

               (4)

               However, the obligations will remain in place according to Article 27 of the Framework Directive and Article 16 of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (4). In accordance with Article 16(1) of the Universal Service Directive and Article 7 of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive) (5), the former obligations are maintained until such time as the relevant markets have been reviewed in accordance with Article 16 of the Framework Directive and Article 16(3) of the Universal Service Directive.

               (5)

               In accordance with Article 16(4) of the Framework Directive, where a national regulatory authority (NRA) determines that a relevant market is not effectively competitive, it shall identify undertakings with significant market power and shall on such undertakings impose appropriate specific regulatory obligations or maintain or amend such obligations where they already exist. In accordance with Article 18(1) of the Universal Service Directive, where an NRA determines that the market for the minimum set of leased lines is not effectively competitive, it shall identify undertakings with significant market power and impose obligations regarding the provision of the minimum set and the conditions for such provision. In accordance with Article 5(1) of the Access Directive, NRAs shall encourage and where appropriate ensure adequate access and interconnection and shall be able to impose obligations to that effect.

               (6)

               On 11 February 2003 the Commission adopted Recommendation 2003/311/EC (6) on relevant product and service markets, defining the relevant markets within the electronic communications sector that NRAs should analyse. The list includes wholesale terminating segments of leased lines and wholesale trunk segments of leased lines. The supply of the services addressed in this recommendation, namely the supply of wholesale leased lines and leased line part circuits, is included in these markets.

               (7)

               The supply of wholesale leased lines and leased line part circuits is included in the market of wholesale terminating segments of leased lines and for sufficient line lengths also in the market for wholesale trunk segments of leased lines referred to in Recommendation 2003/311/EC; the NRA will decide what constitutes a terminating segment depending on the network topology specific to their national market.

               (8)

               The supply of 64 kbit/s, 2 Mbit/s unstructured and 2 Mbit/s structured leased lines is included in the minimum set of leased lines services referred to in the Recommendation on relevant markets. The minimum set of leased lines is defined in Commission Decision 2003/548/EC of 24 July 2003 on the minimum set of leased lines with harmonised characteristics and associated standards referred to in Article 18 of the Universal Service Directive (7).

               (9)

               Information provided by Member States reveals problems with the length and the variation of delivery times for retail and wholesale leased lines and leased line part circuits. This is without prejudice to the review by NRAs of relevant markets in accordance with Article 16 of the Framework Directive and Article 16(3) of the Universal Service Directive.

               (10)

               Where, in accordance with Article 10 of the Access Directive and Article 18 of and Annex VII to the Universal Service Directive, NRAs impose obligations of non-discrimination for the provision of certain leased line services, the principle of non-discrimination applies to all relevant aspects of the services provided such as ordering, migration, delivery, quality, repair time, reporting and penalties; in leased line contracts it is most appropriate to cover these aspects by a service level agreement; instead of penalties, compensation for failure to meet contractual requirements could be included into the agreement where this would be more appropriate with regard to the legal context in a Member State.

               (11)

               In particular, contractual delivery times should be included in the service level agreement so as to ensure that delivery times for wholesale leased lines by such operators are the same as those provided for their own services and thus sufficiently below delivery times observed on retail markets.

               (12)

               The publication of best current practice figures for overall delivery times of leased lines will help NRAs to ensure that contractual delivery times applied to wholesale leased lines and leased line part circuits in particular provided by operators with an obligation for non-discrimination do not prevent other operators competing in leased lines retail markets from providing similar delivery time figures to their customers. Contractual delivery times for wholesale leased lines should therefore at least permit competing operators in retail markets to meet best current practice delivery times of designated operators providing leased lines in these retail markets. Retail delivery times longer than best current practice delivery times could result in obstacles to the development of the internal market for electronic communication networks and services; in accordance with Article 8(3)(a) of the Framework Directive, it is an objective for NRAs to remove such obstacles. Best current practice delivery times of designated operators in retail markets include the retail delivery processes of designated operators; thus corresponding wholesale delivery times would be shorter.

               (13)

               According to Article 18 of and Annex VII to the Universal Service Directive, NRAs are to ensure that the typical delivery period for the minimum set of leased lines provided by identified undertakings is published; in order to review this Recommendation the Commission may need to have also available data on leased lines not covered by the minimum set.

               (14)

               The Commission will review this Recommendation no later than 31 December 2005 in order to take account of changing technologies and of markets.

               (15)

               The Communications Committee has delivered its opinion in accordance with Article 22(2) of the Framework Directive,

         HEREBY RECOMMENDS:

               1.

               When imposing or maintaining an obligation for non-discrimination under Article 10 of the Access Directive or Article 18 of and Annex VII to Directive 2002/22/EC (the Universal Service Directive) with regard to operators providing leased line services (hereinafter referred to as designated operators), national regulatory authorities should:

                           (a)

                           ensure that contracts include enforceable agreements (hereinafter referred to as service level agreements) which cover all relevant aspects of the wholesale leased line services provided such as ordering, migration, delivery, quality, repair time, reporting and dissuasive financial penalties;

                           (b)

                           ensure that the contractual delivery times for wholesale leased lines in these service level agreements are as short as possible for each category of lines. Contractual delivery times at the wholesale level should be in any case shorter than best current practice delivery times of designated operators in retail markets. Best current practice delivery times of designated operators in the retail markets for 64 kbit/s, 2 Mbit/s unstructured, 2 Mbit/s structured and 34 Mbit/s unstructured are given in the Annex.
                           The methodology used to calculate the best current practice figures given in the Annex is considered to be appropriate to cover recognised differences of network structures and delivery procedures between different designated operators in different Member States;

                           (c)

                           ensure in particular that financial penalties included into the contracts as referred to in paragraph (a) apply in cases of delayed delivery of lines and consist of a specified amount for each day of delay for each line ordered; the contract shall provide also that the amount shall not be due where and insofar as the designated operator provides proof that the reason for the delay does not lie on him;

                           (d)

                           ensure that the information necessary to prepare any review of this Recommendation is provided in accordance with Article 5(1) of Directive 2002/21/EC (the Framework Directive) and report this information to the Commission in accordance with Article 5(2) of the Framework Directive.

               2.

               This Recommendation is addressed to the Member States.

      Done at Brussels, 21 January 2005.

            For the Commission

         Viviane REDING

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 33.

      (2)  OJ L 199, 26.7.1997, p. 32. Directive as last amended by Directive 98/61/EC (OJ L 268, 3.10.1998, p. 37).

      (3)  OJ L 165, 19.6.1992, p. 27. Directive as last amended by Commission Decision 98/80/EC (OJ L 14, 20.1.1998), p. 27).

      (4)  OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 51.

      (5)  OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 7.

      (6)  OJ L 114, 8.5.2003, p. 45.

      (7)  OJ L 186, 25.7.2003, p. 43.

      ANNEX
      METHODOLOGY AND DATA FOR LEASED LINES IN MEMBER STATES
      Methodology
      The methodology for recommended ceilings for contractual delivery times is based on the third lowest value observed in the Member States in order to accommodate justified differences in network structures and delivery procedures in the different Member States. Based on this methodology and the data given below, the following best current practice delivery time figures have been derived for leased lines provided by designated operators:

                  1.

                  for 64 kbit/s leased lines: 18 calendar days

                  2.

                  for 2 Mbit/s leased lines unstructured: 30 calendar days

                  3.

                  for 2 Mbit/s leased lines structured: 33 calendar days

                  4.

                  for 34 Mbit/s leased lines unstructured: 52 calendar days

            Delivery time data for leased lines in Member States
      The Commission has obtained data from Member States on delivery times for leased lines of operators notified by the NRA as having significant market power according to Article 11(1)(a) of Directive 92/44/EEC in response to the questionnaire for the Leased Lines Report 2002 (1). The data was received by September 2003. Delivery times reported are defined as the periods, counted from the date when the user has made a firm request for a leased line, in which 95 % of all leased lines of the same type have been put through to the customers (2)
          (3).
      64 kbit/s Leased Lines

      2 Mbit/s Unstructured Leased Lines

      2 Mbit/s Structured Leased Lines

      34 Mbit/s Unstructured Leased Lines

         (1)  2001 Report available at: http://europa.eu.int/information_society/topics/telecoms/implementation/leasedlines/doc/COCOM02-10%20final.pdf

         (2)  See Article 2(3) of Directive 97/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 295, 29.10.1997, p. 23).

         (3)  Luxembourg provided only half year figures for 2002. Here the figures for both half year periods are displayed. In relevant cases the higher of the two half year figures has been taken into account as an upper bound for full year figures in order to derive best current practice figures.
      Data given for Austria: data concern retail and wholesale lines; statistics correspond to the Directive (95 % of delivery times), data include also orders in locations where infrastructure has to be built; for 2 Mbit/s no distinction between structured and unstructured lines; for 34 Mbit/s and 155 Mbit/s the sample is too small for reliable statistics; specific customer delay, customer-requested changes on the target-delivery date (no ‘best effort deliveries’) and on project orders are excluded; delivery times are calculated from time of acceptance of a signed contract, if no other date (see customers’ delays) is agreed.