Avis juridique important

|

31995K0073

Commission Recommendation No 73/95/ECSC of 17 January 1995 concerning the requirement for an export licence for importation into the Community of certain iron and steel products covered by the ECSC Treaty

Official Journal L 013 , 19/01/1995 P. 0001 - 0002

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION No 73/95/ECSC of 17 January 1995 concerning the requirement for an export licence for importation into the Community of certain iron and steel products covered by the ECSC Treaty THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, and in particular Article 74 thereof,Whereas it is necessary, in accordance with Article 3 of recommendation No 3118/94/ECSC (1), whereby the Commission made imports into the Community of certain iron and steel products covered by the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community subject to Community surveillance, to list those countries and the products for which export licences shall be required in an Annex to that recommendation;Whereas pending the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Coal and Steel Community and the Russian Federation on trade in certain steel products and the Agreement between the European Coal and Steel Community and Ukraine on trade in certain steel products, on which negotiations were concluded in Brussels on 15 to 16 December 1994 and 19 to 22 December 1994 respectively, an export licence issued by the Russian authorities and by the Ukrainian authorities together with a certificate of origin will be required for the import into the Community of the steel products covered by these Agreements with effect from 23 January 1995,MAKES THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION:Article 1 The attached Annex, which contains a list of the countries and products in respect of which export licences shall be required, shall be added as Annex IV to Commission recommendation No 3118/94/ECSC.Article 2 This recommendation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.It shall apply from 23 January 1995.Done at Strasbourg, 17 January 1995.For the CommissionLeon BRITTANMember of the Commission(1) OJ No L 330, 21. 12. 1994, p. 6.ANNEX 'ANNEX IVPRODUCTS ORIGINATING IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION AND UKRAINE REQUIRING EXPORT LICENCESA. Flat-rolled products1. Coils7208 11 007208 12 107208 12 917208 12 957208 12 987208 13 107208 13 917208 13 957208 13 987208 14 107208 14 917208 14 997208 21 107208 21 907208 22 107208 22 917208 22 957208 22 987208 23 107208 23 917208 23 957208 23 987208 24 107208 24 917208 24 997211 12 107211 19 107211 22 107211 29 107219 11 107219 11 907219 12 107219 12 907219 13 107219 13 907219 14 107219 14 907225 10 107225 20 207225 30 002. Heavy plates7208 31 007208 32 107208 32 307208 32 517208 32 597208 32 917208 32 997208 33 107208 33 917208 33 997208 41 007208 42 107208 42 307208 42 517208 42 597208 42 917208 42 997208 43 107208 43 917208 43 997211 11 007211 21 003. Other flat-rolled products7208 34 107208 34 907208 35 107208 35 907208 44 107208 44 907208 45 107208 45 907208 90 107209 11 007209 12 107209 12 907209 13 107209 13 907209 14 107209 14 907209 21 007209 22 107209 22 907209 23 107209 23 907209 24 107209 24 917209 24 997209 31 007209 32 107209 32 907209 33 107209 33 907209 34 107209 34 907209 41 007209 42 107209 42 907209 43 107209 43 907209 44 107209 44 907209 90 107210 11 107210 12 117210 12 197210 20 107210 31 107210 39 107210 41 107210 49 107210 50 107210 60 117210 60 197210 70 317210 70 397210 90 317210 90 337210 90 357210 90 397211 19 917211 19 997211 22 907211 29 917211 29 997211 30 107211 41 107211 41 917211 49 107211 90 117212 10 107212 10 917212 21 117212 29 117212 30 117212 40 107212 40 917212 50 317212 50 517212 60 117212 60 917219 21 117219 21 197219 21 907219 22 107219 22 907219 23 107219 23 907219 24 107219 24 907219 31 107219 31 907219 32 107219 32 907219 33 107219 33 907219 34 107219 34 907219 35 107219 35 907225 40 707225 40 90B. Longs1. Beams7207 19 317207 20 717216 31 117216 31 197216 31 917216 31 997216 32 117216 32 197216 32 917216 32 997216 33 107216 33 902. Wire rod7213 10 007213 20 007213 31 207213 31 817213 31 897213 39 107213 39 907213 41 007213 49 007213 50 207213 50 817213 50 897221 00 107221 00 907227 10 007227 20 007227 90 107227 90 307227 90 507227 90 703. Other longs7207 19 117207 19 147207 19 167207 20 517207 20 557207 20 577214 20 007214 30 007214 40 107214 40 207214 40 517214 40 597214 40 807214 50 107214 50 317214 50 397214 50 907214 60 007215 90 107216 10 007216 21 007216 22 007216 40 107216 40 907216 50 107216 50 917216 50 997216 90 107218 90 507222 10 117222 10 197222 10 217222 10 297222 10 317222 10 397222 10 817222 10 897222 30 107222 40 117222 40 197222 40 307224 90 317224 90 397228 10 107228 10 307228 20 117228 20 197228 20 307228 30 207228 30 417228 30 497228 30 617228 30 697228 30 707228 30 897228 60 107228 70 107228 70 317228 80 107228 80 907301 10 00`


Avis juridique important

|

31995H0144

95/144/EC: Council Recommendation of 7 April 1995 on common information technology security evaluation criteria

Official Journal L 093 , 26/04/1995 P. 0027 - 0028

COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION of 7 April 1995 on common information  technology security evaluation criteria (95/144/EC)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN  UNION, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 235  thereof, Having regard to the proposal from the Commission, Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament  (1), Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee  (2), Whereas the Community has as its task, by establishing a common market and progressively  approximating the economic policies of the Member States, to promote throughout the Community the  harmonious development of economic activity, continued and balanced expansion, increased stability,  accelerated raising of the standard of living, and closer relations amongst the Member States; Whereas information stores, processed and transmitted electronically plays an increasingly  important role in the social and economic activities; Whereas efficient global communications and the pervasive use of electronic information handling  emphasize the need for adequate protection; Whereas the European Parliament has repeatedly stressed in its deliberations and resolutions the  importance of the security of information systems; Whereas the Economic and Social Committee has emphasized the need to take issues related to the  security of information systems in Community actions, particularly in view of the impact of the  completion of the internal market; Whereas the Commission has proposed actions in the field of data protection and the security of  information systems  (3); Whereas the complexity of the security of information systems calls for the development of  strategies to enable the free movement of information in the single market while ensuring the  security of such systems throughout the Community; Whereas this Recommendation does not affect the provisions of the Member States with regard to  national security and public order; Whereas the responsibilities of the Member States in this domain imply a concerted approach based  on close collaboration with senior officials from the Member States; Whereas common information security evaluation criteria play a fundamental role in providing a  basis for the international mutual recognition of certificates; Whereas actions at national, international and Community levels provide a good basis for  harmonization at Community level and for the conclusion of international agreements; Whereas the sector actors in question have been consulted; whereas the Senior Officials Group on  the security of Information Systems (SOG-IS) has recommended the use of common information  technology security evaluation criteria; Whereas such criteria are required for the development of a single market for secure information  technology products; whereas such criteria permit, furthermore, economies of scale; Whereas the use of common criteria is also a prerequisite for the building of secure trans-European  applications and services; Whereas these aims could not be met if there were different criteria in each Member State and in  each economic sector; Whereas the development of additional criteria would involve multiple bilateral actions by Member  States and would involve excessive delays and cumbersome procedures, including a large number of  individual negotiations, which could be avoided by a coordinated action at Community level, HEREBY RECOMMENDS: 1.  the application of the Information Technology Security Evaluation Criteria  (ITSEC)  (1) within evaluation and certification schemes for an initial period of two years, to  meet immediate evaluation and certification needs in connection with the trade and use of  information technology products, systems and services; 2.  advancing, under the auspices of the Senior Officials Group on the Security of Information  Systems (SOG-IS), international harmonization and standarization of information technology security  evaluation criteria; 3.  the negotiation by the Member States or by bodies which they designate, during the said initial  period, or, if necessary, until international harmonization and standardization is agreed, of  bilateral and preferably European or international mutual recognition of security evaluation  certificates; 4.  reviewing developments after the said initial period and proposing appropriate actions, on the  advice of the SOG-IS, in the light of experience and the results of the international  harmonization. Done at Luxembourg, 7 April 1995. For the Council The President J. ROSSI


Avis juridique important

|

31998H0257

98/257/EC: Commission Recommendation of 30 March 1998 on the principles applicable to the bodies responsible for out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes (Text with EEA relevance)

Official Journal L 115 , 17/04/1998 P. 0031 - 0034

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION of 30 March 1998 on the principles applicable to the bodies responsible for out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes (*) (Text with EEA relevance) (98/257/EC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community and in particular Article 155 thereof,Whereas the Council, in its conclusions approved by the Consumer Affairs Council of 25 November 1996, emphasised the need to boost consumer confidence in the functioning of the internal market and consumers' scope for taking full advantage of the possibilities offered by the internal market, including the possibility for consumers to settle disputes in an efficient and appropriate manner through out-of-court or other comparable procedures;Whereas the European Parliament, in its resolution of 14 November 1996 (1), stressed the need for such procedures to meet minimum criteria guaranteeing the impartiality of the body, the efficiency of the procedure and the publicising and transparency of proceedings and called on the Commission to draft proposals on this matter;Whereas most consumer disputes, by their nature, are characterised by a disproportion between the economic value at stake and the cost of its judicial settlement; whereas the difficulties that court procedures may involve may, notably in the case of cross-border conflicts, discourage consumers from exercising their rights in practice;Whereas the 'Green Paper on the access of consumers to justice and the settlement of consumer disputes in the single market` (2) was the subject of wide-ranging consultations whose results have confirmed the urgent need for Community action with a view to improving the current situation;Whereas the experience gained by several Member States shows that alternative mechanisms for the out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes - provided certain essential principles are respected - have had good results, both for consumers and firms, by reducing the cost of settling consumer disputes and the duration of the procedure;Whereas the adoption of such principles at European level would facilitate the implementation of out-of-court procedures for settling consumer disputes; whereas, in the case of cross-border conflicts, this would enhance mutual confidence between existing out-of-court bodies in the different Member States and strengthen consumer confidence in the existing national procedures; whereas these criteria will make it easier for parties providing out-of-court settlement services established in one Member State to offer their services in other Member States;Whereas one of the conclusions of the Green Paper concerned the adoption of a Commission recommendation with a view to improving the functioning of the ombudsman systems responsible for handling consumer disputes;Whereas the need for such a recommendation was stressed during the consultations on the Green Paper and was confirmed during the consultation on the 'Action Plan` communication (3) by a very large majority of the parties concerned;Whereas this recommendation must be limited to procedures which, no matter what they are called, lead to the settling of a dispute through the active intervention of a third party, who proposes or imposes a solution; whereas, therefore, it does not concern procedures that merely involve an attempt to bring the parties together to convince them to find a solution by common consent;Whereas the decisions taken by out-of-court bodies may be binding on the parties, may be mere recommendations or may constitute settlement proposals which have to be accepted by the parties; whereas for the purposes of this recommendation these various cases are covered by the term 'decision`;Whereas the decision-making body's impartiality and objectivity are essential for safeguarding the protection of consumer rights and for strengthening consumer confidence in alternative mechanisms for resolving consumer disputes;Whereas a body can only be impartial if, in exercising its functions, it is not subject to pressures that might sway its decision; whereas, therefore, its independence must be guaranteed without this implying the need for guarantees that are as strict as those designed to ensure the independence of judges in the judicial system;Whereas, when the decision is taken by an individual, the decision-maker's impartiality can only be assured if he can demonstrate that he possesses the necessary independence and qualifications and works in an environment which allows him to decide on an autonomous basis; whereas this requires the person to be granted a mandate of sufficient duration, in the course of which he cannot be relieved of his duties without just cause;Whereas, when the decision is taken by a group, equal participation of representatives of consumers and professionals is an appropriate way of ensuring this independence;Whereas, in order to ensure that the persons concerned receive the information they need, the transparency of the procedure and of the activities of the bodies responsible for resolving the disputes must be guaranteed; whereas the absence of transparency may adversely affect the rights of the parties and cause misgivings as to out-of-court procedures for resolving consumer disputes;Whereas certain interests of the parties can only be safeguarded if the procedure allows them to express their viewpoints before the competent body and to acquaint themselves with the facts presented by the opposing party and, where applicable, the experts' statements; whereas this does not necessarily necessitate oral hearings of the parties;Whereas out-of-court procedures are designed to facilitate consumer access to justice; whereas, therefore, if they are to be effective, they must remedy certain problems associated with court procedures, such as high fees, long delays and cumbersome procedures;Whereas, in order to enhance the effectiveness and equity of the procedure, the competent body must play an active role which allows it to take into consideration any element useful in resolving the dispute; whereas this active role is all the more important when, in the framework of out-of-court procedures, the parties in many cases do not have the benefit of legal advice;Whereas the out-of-court bodies may decide not only on the basis of legal rules but also in equity and on the basis of codes of conduct; whereas, however, this flexibility as regards the grounds for their decisions should not lead to a reduction in the level of consumer protection by comparison with the protection consumers would enjoy, under Community law, through the application of the law by the courts;Whereas the parties are entitled to be informed of the decisions handed down and of grounds for these decisions; whereas the grounds for decisions are a prerequisite for transparency and the parties' confidence in the operation of out-of-court procedures;Whereas in accordance with Article 6 of the European Human Rights Convention, access to the courts is a fundamental right that knows no exceptions; whereas since Community law guarantees free movement of goods and services in the common market, it is a corollary of those freedoms that operators, including consumers, must be able, in order to resolve any disputes arising from their economic activities, to bring actions in the courts of a Member State in the same way as nationals of that State; whereas out-of-court procedures cannot be designed to replace court procedures; whereas, therefore, use of the out-of-court alternative may not deprive consumers of their right to bring the matter before the courts unless they expressly agree to do so, in full awareness of the facts and only after the dispute has materialised;Whereas in some cases, and independently of the subject and value of the dispute, the parties and in particular the consumer, as the party who is regarded as economically weaker and less experienced in legal matters than the other party to the contract, may require the legal advice of a third party to defend and protect their rights more effectively;Whereas, in order to ensure a level of transparency and dissemination of information on out-of-court procedures in line with the principles set out in the recommendation and to facilitate networking, the Commission intends to create a database of the out-of-court bodies responsible for resolving consumer disputes that offer these safeguards; whereas the database will contain particulars communicated to the Commission by the Member States that wish to participate in this initiative; whereas, to ensure standardised information and to simplify the transmission of these data, a standard information form will be made available to the Member States;Whereas, finally, the establishment of minimum principles governing the creation and operation of out-of-court procedures for resolving consumer disputes seems, in these circumstances, necessary at Community level to support and supplement, in an essential area, the initiatives taken by the Member States in order to realise, in accordance with Article 129a of the Treaty, a high level of consumer protection; whereas it does not go beyond what is necessary to ensure the smooth operation of out-of-court procedures; whereas it is therefore consistent with the principle of subsidiarity,RECOMMENDS that all existing bodies and bodies to be created with responsibility for the out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes respect the following principles:I Principle of independence The independence of the decision-making body is ensured in order to guarantee the impartiality of its actions.When the decision is taken by an individual, this independence is in particular guaranteed by the following measures:- the person appointed possesses the abilities, experience and competence, particularly in the field of law, required to carry out his function,- the person appointed is granted a period of office of sufficient duration to ensure the independence of his action and shall not be liable to be relieved of his duties without just cause,- if the person concerned is appointed or remunerated by a professional association or an enterprise, he must not, during the three years prior to assuming his present function, have worked for this professional association or for one of its members or for the enterprise concerned.When the decision is taken by a collegiate body, the independence of the body responsible for taking the decision must be ensured by giving equal representation to consumers and professionals or by complying with the criteria set out above.II Principle of transparency Appropriate measures are taken to ensure the transparency of the procedure. These include:1. provision of the following information, in writing or any other suitable form, to any persons requesting it:- a precise description of the types of dispute which may be referred to the body concerned, as well as any existing restrictions in regard to territorial coverage and the value of the dispute,- the rules governing the referral of the matter to the body, including any preliminary requirements that the consumer may have to meet, as well as other procedural rules, notably those concerning the written or oral nature of the procedure, attendance in person and the languages of the procedure,- the possible cost of the procedure for the parties, including rules on the award of costs at the end of the procedure,- the type of rules serving as the basis for the body's decisions (legal provisions, considerations of equity, codes of conduct, etc.),- the decision-making arrangements within the body,- the legal force of the decision taken, whereby it shall be stated clearly whether it is binding on the professional or on both parties. If the decision is binding, the penalties to be imposed in the event of non-compliance shall be stated, as shall the means of obtaining redress available to the losing party.2. Publication by the competent body of an annual report setting out the decisions taken, enabling the results obtained to be assessed and the nature of the disputes referred to it to be identified.III Adversarial principle The procedure to be followed allows all the parties concerned to present their viewpoint before the competent body and to hear the arguments and facts put forward by the other party, and any experts' statements.IV Principle of effectiveness The effectiveness of the procedure is ensured through measures guaranteeing:- that the consumer has access to the procedure without being obliged to use a legal representative,- that the procedure is free of charges or of moderate costs,- that only short periods elapse between the referral of a matter and the decision,- that the competent body is given an active role, thus enabling it to take into consideration any factors conducive to a settlement of the dispute.V Principle of legality The decision taken by the body may not result in the consumer being deprived of the protection afforded by the mandatory provisions of the law of the State in whose territory the body is established. In the case of cross-border disputes, the decision taken by the body may not result in the consumer being deprived of the protection afforded by the mandatory provisions applying under the law of the Member State in which he is normally resident in the instances provided for under Article 5 of the Rome Convention of 19 June 1980 on the law applicable to contractual obligations.All decisions are communicated to the parties concerned as soon as possible, in writing or any other suitable form, stating the grounds on which they are based.VI Principle of liberty The decision taken by the body concerned may be binding on the parties only if they were informed of its binding nature in advance and specifically accepted this.The consumer's recourse to the out-of-court procedure may not be the result of a commitment prior to the materialisation of the dispute, where such commitment has the effect of depriving the consumer of his right to bring an action before the courts for the settlement of the dispute.VII Principle of representation The procedure does not deprive the parties of the right to be represented or assisted by a third party at all stages of the procedure.THIS RECOMMENDATION is addressed to the bodies responsible for the out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes, to any natural or legal person responsible for the creation or operation of such bodies, as well as to the Member States, to the extent that they are involved.Done at Brussels, 30 March 1998.For the CommissionEmma BONINOMember of the Commission(*) A communication on the out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes was adopted by the Commission on 30 March 1998. This communication, which includes this recommendation and the European consumer complaint form, is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg24).(1) European Parliament resolution on the Commission communication 'Action plan on consumer access to justice and the settlement of consumer disputes in the internal market` of 14 November 1996 (OJ C 362, 2. 12. 1996, p. 275).(2) COM(93) 576 final of 16 November 1993.(3) Action Plan on consumer access to justice and the settlement of consumer disputes in the internal market, COM(96) 13 final of 14 February 1996.


title: Council Recommendation of 9 July 2013 on the National Reform Programme 2013 of Slovakia and delivering a Council opinion on the Stability Programme of Slovakia, 2012-2016

text:
               30.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/71

      COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION

   of 9 July 2013
   on the National Reform Programme 2013 of Slovakia and delivering a Council opinion on the Stability Programme of Slovakia, 2012-2016
   2013/C 217/18
   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 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 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, it 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 29 June 2012, the Member States’ Heads of State or Government decided on a Compact for Growth and Jobs, providing a coherent framework for action at national, EU and euro area levels using all possible levers, instruments and policies. They decided on action to be taken at the level of the Member States, in particular expressing full commitment to achieving the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy and to implementing the country-specific recommendations.

               (4)

               On 10 July 2012, the Council adopted a Recommendation (3) on Slovakia’s National Reform Programme for 2012 and delivered its opinion on Slovakia’s Stability Programme for 2012-2015.

               (5)

               On 28 November 2012, the Commission adopted the Annual Growth Survey, marking the start of the 2013 European Semester for economic policy coordination. Also on 28 November 2012, the Commission, on the basis of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 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 Slovakia was not identified as one of the Member States for which an in-depth review would be carried out.

               (6)

               The European Parliament has been duly involved in the European Semester, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1466/97, and, on 7 February 2013, adopted a resolution on employment and social aspects in the Annual Growth Survey 2013 and a resolution on the contribution to the Annual Growth Survey 2013.

               (7)

               On 14 March 2013, the European Council endorsed the priorities for ensuring financial stability, fiscal consolidation and action to foster growth. It underscored the need to pursue differentiated, growth-friendly fiscal consolidation, to restore normal lending conditions to the economy, to promote growth and competitiveness, to tackle unemployment and the social consequences of the crisis, and to modernise public administration.

               (8)

               On 24 April 2013, Slovakia submitted its 2013 National Reform Programme and, on 30 April 2013, its Stability Programme for the period 2012-2016. 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 Stability Programme pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1466/97, the Council is of the opinion that Slovakia has reduced the general government deficit from 7,7 % of GDP in 2010 to 4,3 % of GDP in 2012 due to a substantial consolidation effort and, based on current expectations, is on track to correct the excessive deficit. The macroeconomic scenario underpinning the budgetary projections in the Stability Programme is plausible. Compared to the Commission forecasts, the authorities assume similar growth rates of GDP with a slightly different composition. The objective of the budgetary strategy outlined in the Stability Programme is to achieve a fiscal position that ensures long-term sustainability of public finances. To achieve this, the Government confirms the objective of reducing the headline deficit below the 3 % of GDP reference value in 2013, in line with the Council recommendation under the excessive deficit procedure (EDP). The adjusted average annual fiscal effort in 2010-2013 amounts to 1,4 % of GDP, well above the required effort of 1 % of GDP recommended by the Council. A large part of the expenditure savings in 2013 is expected from the local governments and other general government units over which the central government does not have a direct influence. Achieving the target may therefore be at risk, also in light of expenditure overruns recorded in the past.
               The Stability Programme confirms the previous medium-term objective (MTO) of – 0,5 % to be achieved by 2018. The MTO is in line with the requirements of the Stability and Growth Pact. For the years following the expected date of correction of the excessive deficit the projected improvement in the (recalculated) structural budget balance is appropriate in 2014 and 2015 (0,6 percentage points and 0,7 percentage points of GDP respectively) but it would be insufficient in 2016 (0,3 percentage points of GDP). Slovakia is expected to comply with the expenditure benchmark of the Stability and Growth Pact. According to the Stability Programme, the government debt is expected to remain below the 60 % of GDP reference value until 2016. The Commission services 2013 spring forecast projects an increase in the debt ratio to 54,6 % of GDP in 2013 and 56,7 % of GDP in 2014.
               In order to ensure the sizeable reduction in the headline deficit since 2011, the authorities have also relied on reductions in investment financed from the general government budget, which may not be sustainable or desirable in a medium to long-run perspective, as well as on one-off measures. Looking ahead, the on-going consolidation and convergence process will need to safeguard expenditure on growth-enhancing categories, such as education, innovation and transport infrastructure.

               (10)

               Slovakia has scope to raise additional resources by broadening the tax base, limiting the scope for tax non-compliance and evasion and by increasing recourse to taxes that are less detrimental to growth, such as property taxation and environmental taxation. An action plan to fight tax fraud, with a particular focus on VAT was adopted in 2012. For the strategy to be successful, further measures are needed, in particular to improve the IT infrastructure, broaden the competences and audit capacity of the authorities and ensure judicial follow-up.

               (11)

               Slovakia adopted a pension reform in 2012 to enhance the long-term sustainability of its public finances. This has reduced the estimated long-term sustainability gap by 2 % of GDP; however, at of 4,9 % of GDP, the gap remains well above the EU average of 3 % of GDP. It largely reflects the impact of population ageing with pension expenditure contributing 1,5 percentage points of GDP and healthcare spending 2 percentage points of GDP. Given that Slovakia’s healthcare expenditure is projected to increase significantly in the long term, the progress achieved in improving pension sustainability will need to be allied with healthcare reform in order to place public finances on a sustainable footing. The introduction of effective incentive structures and control mechanisms would help to improve cost effectiveness of the healthcare system.

               (12)

               The persistence of high unemployment, in particular in the context of a slow pace of post-crisis recovery, remains one of the main challenges for the Slovak economy. In recent months, Slovakia has taken steps to reform active labour market policies. However, the success of the reform will largely depend on the capacity of public employment services to implement it effectively. Additional, more targeted measures for the most disadvantaged jobseekers are needed. The provision of social assistance should be better linked to activation, and there is a need to remove disincentives in the tax-benefit system for those taking up a low-paid job. Increasing labour-market participation of women and older people would help to increase the overall employment rate and reach the 2020 national employment target of 72 %. However, the lack of adequate childcare facilities, in particular for children under three, makes it more difficult for mothers to return to the labour market.

               (13)

               Slovakia has one of the highest youth unemployment rates in the Union. In spite of reform steps in 2012 to improve the quality and labour-market relevance of education, school-to-job transition remains difficult and the education system does not respond readily to labour-market needs. Per capita funding of education favours quantity over quality and the share of funding allocated to teaching activities (teachers, material, and equipment) is low. Improving the quality of higher education and the cooperation between businesses and education institutions would also help developing a well-functioning knowledge triangle, greater effectiveness and attractiveness of investment in R&D, and enhancing the innovation capacity of the Slovak economy.

               (14)

               Under-utilised labour potential also concerns marginalised communities that face significant barriers when seeking to enter the labour market and the education system. After adopting the Strategy of the Slovak Republic for Integration of Roma up to 2020, no effective action was taken in 2012 and the living conditions of marginalised communities, including Roma, remain difficult. It is important to accelerate efforts to improve educational outcomes of marginalised groups, as well as to ensure provision of targeted activation measures for adults.

               (15)

               Despite notable progress, Slovakia ranks fifth amongst the most energy-intensive Member States, partially explained by having the greatest share of industry in its economy (25,9 % of GDP). At the same time, electricity prices are relatively high, in particular for small and medium-sized industrial customers. Slovakia has made efforts in recent years to partially liberalise the energy market but there is still scope to improve the way the market functions; in particular through greater transparency — including in setting network tariffs — and improving the economic underpinning and predictability of the regulatory decisions. There is also scope to improve security of supply and to set more ambitious targets for energy efficiency.

               (16)

               In 2012, Slovakia launched a major reform of public administration to improve the client-orientation of public services for citizens and businesses. At this stage, with the exception of local agencies, the reform does not focus on the central government and its overall quality and effectiveness. As there has been no progress in reforming the judicial system, judicial proceedings remain lengthy, in particular in insolvency cases, and alternative dispute resolution is not sufficiently used. Slovakia recently reformed its public-procurement rules, also enhancing the independence of the Public Procurement Office, but experience in the implementation of the EU structural funds suggests that the effective application of the public-procurement rules remains a challenge.

               (17)

               In the context of the European Semester, the Commission has carried out a comprehensive analysis of Slovakia’s economic policy. It has assessed the Stability Programme and National Reform Programme. It has taken into account not only their relevance for sustainable fiscal and socioeconomic policy in Slovakia 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.

               (18)

               In the light of this assessment, the Council has examined the Stability Programme, and its opinion (5) is reflected in particular in recommendations (1) and (2) 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 this basis, the Council has issued specific recommendations addressed to the Member States whose currency is the euro (6). As a country whose currency is the euro, Slovakia should also ensure the full and timely implementation of those recommendations,

         HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Slovakia take action within the period 2013-2014 to:

               1.

               Implement as envisaged the budget for the year 2013, so as to correct the excessive deficit in a sustainable manner and achieve the fiscal effort specified in the Council recommendations under EDP. After the correction of the excessive deficit, pursue the structural adjustment effort that will enable Slovakia to reach the MTO by 2017. Avoid cuts in growth enhancing expenditure and step up efforts to improve the efficiency of public spending. Building on the pension reform already adopted, further improve the long-term sustainability of public finance by reducing the financing gap in the public pension system and increasing the cost-effectiveness of the healthcare sector.

               2.

               Speed up the implementation of the action plan to combat tax fraud and continue efforts to improve VAT collection, in particular by strengthening the analytical and audit capacity of the tax administration. Improve tax compliance. Link real-estate taxation to the market value of property.

               3.

               Take measures to enhance the capacity of public employment services to provide personalised services to jobseekers and strengthen the link between activation measures and social assistance. More effectively address long-term unemployment through activation measures and tailored training. Improve incentives for women in employment, by enhancing the provision of childcare facilities, in particular for children below three years of age. Reduce the tax wedge for low-paid workers and adapt the benefit system.

               4.

               Step up efforts to address high youth unemployment, for example through a Youth Guarantee. Take steps to attract young people to the teaching profession and raise educational outcomes. In vocational education and training, reinforce the provision of work-based learning in companies. In higher education, create more job-oriented bachelor programmes. Foster effective knowledge transfer by promoting cooperation between academia, research and the business sector. Step up efforts to improve access to high-quality and inclusive pre-school and school education for marginalised communities, including Roma.

               5.

               Step up efforts to make the energy market function better; in particular, to increase the transparency of the tariff-setting mechanism, enhance the accountability of the regulator. Strengthen interconnections with neighbouring countries. Improve energy efficiency in particular in buildings and industry.

               6.

               Take measures, including by amending the Act on Civil Service, to strengthen the independence of the public service. Improve the management of human resources in public administration. Step up efforts to strengthen analytical capacities in key ministries, also with a view to improving the absorption of EU funds. Implement measures to improve the efficiency of the judicial system. Promote alternative dispute resolution procedures and encourage their greater use.

      Done at Brussels, 9 July 2013.

            For the Council

            The President

         R. ŠADŽIUS

      (1)  OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 1.

      (2)  Maintained for 2013 by Council Decision 2013/208/EU of 22 April 2013 on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States (OJ L 118, 30.4.2013, p. 21).

      (3)  OJ C 219, 24.7.2012, p. 74.

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

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

      (6)  See page 97 of the current Official Journal.


Avis juridique important

|

31989H0350

89/350/EEC: Commission Recommendation of 10 May 1989 concerning a European over-sixties' card

Official Journal L 144 , 27/05/1989 P. 0059 - 0061

*****COMMISSION  RECOMMENDATION  of 10 May 1989  concerning a European over-sixties' card  (89/350/EEC)  THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 155 thereof,  Whereas the Community has as its mission the establishment of ever closer ties between its constituent populations, and that to this effect, it should encourage greater mutual acquaintance and understanding between the citizens of the different Member States and increase individual awareness of the Community dimension;  Whereas, in particular, the elderly should be encouraged to take greater advantage of the opportunities for cultural enrichment available in the various Member States, in this way increasing their autonomy and social integration;  Whereas, for citizens aged over 60 years who, by virtue of Articles 7, 48, 52 and 59 of the EEC Treaty, benefit, within the Member States in which they are situate, from the same advantages as persons of the same age group who are nationals of those Member States as regards public transport and cultural activities, the introduction of a European senior citizen's card would facilitate and lend greater tangibility to the exercice of this right;  Whereas the introduction of such a card was advocated by the Commission in its communication on Community action in the field of tourism submitted to the Council on 3 January 1986 (1) and was called for by the European Parliament in its resolution of 14 May 1986 on Community action to improve the situation of the elderly (2);  Whereas the introduction of such a card is consistent with the spirit of a people's Europe, the accomplishment of which is one of the priorities for action of the European Council and the Commission as expressed in the latter's communication, A People's Europe to the Parliament on 24 June 1988 (3),  HEREBY RECOMMENDS:  Article 1  Member States are hereby recommended:  - to take the measures necessary for the creation of a European over-sixties' card concerning advantages available within the fields of public transport and cultural activities, the card to be drawn up according to the type model contained in the Annex hereto, with a view to its being made available to the persons concerned according to the most appropriate arrangements,  - to take appropriate steps to inform the departments and services concerned whose task it shall be to grant special conditions and reductions to cardholders.  Article 2  Member States are hereby recommended to introduce the card by 1 January 1991 at the latest.  Article 3  Member States shall notify the Commission of the special conditions and reductions to which cardholders are entitled in their territory and of the services which are responsible for issuing the card.  On the basis of this information, the Commission shall draw up a guide for the elderly.  Article 4  Member States shall notify the Commission before 1 March 1991 of measures taken with a view to implementation.  Done at Brussels, 10 May 1989.  For the Commission  Vasso PAPANDREOU  Member of the Commission  (1) OJ No C 114, 14. 5. 1986, p. 7.  (2) OJ No C 148, 16. 6. 1986, p. 61.  (3) Doc. COM(88) 331 final.  ANNEX  MODEL FOR THE EUROPEAN CARD  FORMAT  It should be the same size as a passport or identity card  (recto)  1.2 //  //  // EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY  //  // MEMBER STATE  //  //  //  //  //  //  //  //  //  //  //  //  //  //  // Yello w stars on a   //  // blue ground  //  //  //  //  //  //  //  //  //  //  //  //  //  //  //  // //  //  //  //  //  //  // The  holder of the present card benefits from whatever advantages are available in the Member States of the European Economic Community within the fields of public transport and cultural activities for those persons aged over 60 years.   //  1.2.3 //   //   //   //   //   // 1.2 // This card is established pursuant to Commission recommendation 89/350/EEC of 10 May 1989.   // (verso) 1.2 //  //  //  //  //  //  //  //  //  //  //  //  //  // PHOTOG RAPH  // Name:   //   // Forename:   //   // Date of birth:  //   // Nationality:   //   // Address:   //  1.2 //  //  //  //  //  //  //  //  //  // - Stamp of issuing authority   //  //  //  //  //  //  //  // - Date of issue


title: 2011/516/EU: Commission Recommendation of 23 August 2011 on the reduction of the presence of dioxins, furans and PCBs in feed and food  Text with EEA relevance

text:
               24.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 218/23

         COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
   of 23 August 2011
   on the reduction of the presence of dioxins, furans and PCBs in feed and food
   (Text with EEA relevance)
   (2011/516/EU)
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 292 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Several measures have been adopted as parts of an overall strategy to reduce the presence of dioxins, furans and PCBs in environment, feed and food.

               (2)

               Maximum levels for dioxins, the sum of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs have been set for feed by Directive 2002/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 May 2002 on undesirable substances in animal feed (1) and for food by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 of 19 December 2006 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs (2).

               (3)

               Action levels for dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs in food have been set by Commission Recommendation 2006/88/EC of 6 February 2006 on the reduction of the presence of dioxins, furans and PCBs in feedingstuffs and foodstuffs (3) in order to stimulate a pro-active approach to reduce the presence of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs in food. These action levels are a tool for competent authorities and operators to highlight those cases where it is appropriate to identify a source of contamination and to take measures for its reduction or elimination. Given that the sources of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs are different, it is appropriate that separate action levels are determined for dioxins on the one hand and for dioxin-like PCBs on the other hand.

               (4)

               Action thresholds for dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs in feed have been established by Directive 2002/32/EC.

               (5)

               The World Health Organisation (WHO) held an expert workshop on 28 to 30 June 2005 concerning the re-evaluation of the values of the toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) established by WHO in 1998. A number of TEF values were changed, notably for PCBs, octachlorinated congeners and pentachlorinated furans. The data on the effect of the new TEF values and the recent occurrence are compiled in the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) scientific report ‘Results of the monitoring of dioxin levels in food and feed’ (4). Therefore, it is appropriate to review the action levels taking into account the new TEF values.

               (6)

               Experience has shown that in some foodstuffs when the action levels are exceeded, it is not necessary to perform investigations. In these cases the exceeding of the action level is not related to a specific source of contamination that can be reduced or eliminated, but to the overall environmental pollution. Therefore, it is appropriate not to set action levels for these foodstuffs.

               (7)

               In these circumstances, Recommendation 2006/88/EC should be replaced by this Recommendation,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:
   1.   Member States should perform, proportionate to their production, use and consumption of feed and food, random monitoring of the presence of dioxins, dioxin-like PCBs and non-dioxin-like PCBs in feed and food.
   2.   In cases of non-compliance with the provisions of Directive 2002/32/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006, and in cases where levels of dioxins and/or dioxin-like PCBs in excess of the action levels specified in the Annex to this Recommendation as regards food and in Annex II to Directive 2002/32/EC as regards feed are found, Member States should, in cooperation with operators,

               (a)

               initiate investigations to identify the source of contamination;

               (b)

               take measures to reduce or eliminate the source of contamination.

         3.   Member States should inform the Commission and the other Member States of their findings, the results of their investigations and the measures taken to reduce or eliminate the source of contamination.
   Recommendation 2006/88/EC is hereby repealed as from 1 January 2012.

      Done at Brussels, 23 August 2011.

            For the Commission

         John DALLI

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  OJ L 140, 30.5.2002, p. 10.

      (2)  OJ L 364, 20.12.2006, p. 5.

      (3)  OJ L 42, 14.2.2006, p. 26.

      (4)  EFSA Journal 2010; 8(3):1385, http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/1385.pdf

      ANNEX
      Dioxins (sum of polychlorinated dibenzo-para-dioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs), expressed as World Health Organisation (WHO) toxic equivalent using the WHO-toxic equivalency factors (WHO-TEFs)) and dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), expressed as WHO toxic equivalent using the WHO-TEFs. WHO-TEFs for human risk assessment based on the conclusions of the World Health Organisation (WHO) – International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) expert meeting which was held in Geneva in June 2005 (Martin van den Berg et al., The 2005 World Health Organisation Re-evaluation of Human and Mammalian Toxic Equivalency Factors for Dioxins and Dioxin-like Compounds. Toxicological Sciences 93(2), 223–241 (2006))

                  Food

                  Action level for dioxins + furans (WHO-TEQ) (1)

                  Action level for dioxin-like PCBS (WHO-TEQ) (1)

                  Meat and meat products (excluding edible offal) (2) of the following animals:

                              —

                              bovine animals and sheep,

                  1,75 pg/g fat (3)

                  1,75 pg/g fat (3)

                              —

                              poultry,

                  1,25 pg/g fat (3)

                  0,75 pg/g fat (3)

                              —

                              pigs.

                  0,75 pg/g fat (3)

                  0,5 pg/g fat (3)

                  Mixed fats

                  1,00 pg/g fat (3)

                  0,75 pg/g fat (3)

                  Muscle meat of farmed fish and farmed fishery products

                  1,5 pg/g wet weight

                  2,5 pg/g wet weight

                  Raw milk (2) and dairy products (2), including butter fat

                  1,75 pg/g fat (3)

                  2,0 pg/g fat (3)

                  Hen eggs and egg products (2)

                  1,75 pg/g fat (3)

                  1,75 pg/g fat (3)

                  Fruits, vegetables and cereals

                  0,3 pg/g product

                  0,1 pg/g product

         (1)  Upperbound concentrations: upperbound concentrations are calculated assuming that all the values of the different congeners less than the limit of quantification are equal to the limit of quantification.

         (2)  Foodstuffs listed in this category as defined in Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (OJ L 139, 30.4.2004, p. 55).

         (3)  The action levels are not applicable for food products containing < 2 % fat.


				|

		52012PC0005

			Recommendation for a COUNCIL DECISION Establishing that no effective action has been taken by Hungary in response to the Council Recommendation of 7 July 2009 /* COM/2012/05 final */

			   	Recommendation for a
COUNCIL DECISION
Establishing that no effective action has
been taken by Hungary in response to the Council Recommendation of 7 July 2009
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 126(8) thereof,
Having regard to the recommendation from
the European Commission,
Whereas:
(1)
According to Article 126 of the Treaty, Member
States are to avoid excessive government deficits.
(2)
The Stability and Growth Pact 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 Stability and Growth Pact includes Council Regulation
(EC) No 1467/97 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation
of the excessive deficit procedure[1],
which was adopted in order to further the prompt correction of excessive
general government deficits.
(3)
The Council, acting upon a recommendation by the
Commission, decided on 5 July 2004, in accordance with Article 104(6) of
the Treaty, that an excessive deficit existed in Hungary[2]. On the same day, and also on
the basis of a recommendation by the Commission, the Council adopted recommendations
under Article 104(7) asking the Hungarian authorities to take action in a
medium-term framework in order to bring the deficit below 3 % of GDP by 2008.
(4)
In January 2005, in accordance with Article
104(8) TEC, the Council considered that Hungary had not taken effective action
in response to its recommendation and issued another recommendation based on
Article 104(7) TEC in March 2005, confirming the 2008 deadline for the
correction of the excessive deficit. After a substantial deterioration of the
budgetary outlook in Hungary, the Council decided in November 2005 that Hungary
had for the second time failed to comply with recommendations under Article
104(7) TEC. Accordingly, the Council addressed a third recommendation under
Article 104(7) TEC to Hungary in October 2006, postponing the deadline for the
correction of the excessive deficit to 2009. In July 2009 it concluded that the
Hungarian authorities could be considered to have taken effective action in
response to the recommendations from October 2006. Against the background of
the severe downturn in the context of the economic and financial crisis, it
issued a revised (the third) recommendations under Article 104(7) TEC.
(5)
The Council recommendation of July 2009 called
on the Hungarian authorities to put an end to the excessive deficit situation
by 2011 at the latest. Specifically, Hungary was recommended to limit the
deterioration of the fiscal position in 2009 by ensuring a rigorous
implementation of the adopted and announced corrective measures to respect the
target of 3.9 % of GDP. Additionally, starting from 2010, it was also recommended
to rigorously implement the necessary consolidation measures to ensure a
continued reduction of the structural deficit and a renewed decline of the
headline deficit, with an increased reliance on structural measures, in view of
warranting a lasting improvement of public finances. The Council also
recommended to spell out and adopt in a timely manner the consolidation
measures necessary to achieve the correction of the excessive deficit by 2011
and ensure, at least, a cumulative 0.5% of GDP fiscal effort over 2010 and
2011. The Hungarian authorities were also recommended to ensure that the
government gross debt ratio was brought onto a firm downward trajectory.
(6)
On 27 January 2010 the Commission adopted a
Communication to the Council concluding that, based on information available at
the time, it considered that Hungary had taken effective action in response to
the Council recommendations of July 2009, in particular taking into account
consolidation measures of 1½% of GDP to meet the 2009 deficit target of 3.9% of
GDP, structural reforms in the pension and the social benefit system supporting
the achievement of the 2010 deficit target of 3.8% of GDP, and progress
regarding the implementation of the new fiscal framework but alerted about
considerable risks.
(7)
A new assessment of the action taken by Hungary
to correct the excessive deficit by 2011 in response to the Council
recommendation under Article 104(7) of the Treaty, based on, inter alia, the 9th
EDP progress report submitted to the Commission and the Council on 15 December
2011, leads to the following conclusions:
–
In 2010 the actual budget deficit exceeded the
target by 0.4% of GDP while economic growth was stronger in 2010 than foreseen
by the Commission services' 2009 Spring Forecast, which had served as the basis
for the Council recommensations of July 2009. In 2011, the general government
balance is expected (both by the government and the Commission services' Autumn
2011 Forecast) to turn into surplus, but only thanks to one-off revenues of 9
¾% of GDP linked to the transfer of the pension assets from the private pension
schemes to the state pillar and of 0.9% of GDP from sectoral levies (on telecom,
energy, retail and financial sectors).Without one-off measures the deficit
would have reached around 6% of GDP and by far surpassed the 3% of GDP reference
value in the Treaty. In their 2011 autumn EDP notification, the Hungarian
authorities projected a surplus of 3.9% of GDP. The Commission services' 2011 Autumn
Forecast projected a somewhat lower surplus (3.6% of GDP), notably since it included
the assumption of part of the debt of public transport companies' (0.2% of GDP).
Based on recent information on one-offs received after the cut-off date of the 2011
Autumn Forecast, the surplus may even be lower. As to the structural deficit,
it deteriorated by 1½% in 2010 and by 1¼% in 2011, a cumulative 2¾% of GDP,
contrary to the Council recommendation of ensuring, at least, a cumulative 0.5%
of GDP fiscal effort over these two years as needed to correct the deficit by
the 2011 deadline in a sustainable manner. This structural deterioration is a
reflection of the fact that tax cuts amounting to over 2% of GDP were not
suffiently compensated by structural measures.
–
Regarding 2012, the draft budget targets a
deficit of 2.5% of GDP in line with the 2011 update of the Convergence
Programme (CP). In order to achieve this, the budget proposal contains several
measures, altogether amounting to close to 4% of GDP according to the
authorities, while setting aside 0.7% of GDP as an extraordinary reserve buffer.
In contrast, the Commission services' 2011 Autumn Forecast projects the 2012
general government deficit to reach 2.8% of GDP. Compared to the draft budget,
this higher deficit number reflects, among other factors, a lower economic
growth projection for 2012 by 1 pp. as well as a more prudent assessment of
revenue and expenditure developments. At the same time, it assumes in line with
the relevant legislation that the extraordinary reserve is not expected to be spent.
Nevertheless, the 3% of GDP threshold is only respected on the back of a close to
0.9% of GDP one-off revenue stemming from the above-mentioned extraordinary
levies.
–
According to the Commission services' 2011
Autumn Forecast, and based on the usual no-policy-change assumption, the budget
deficit was projected to deteriorate again to 3.7% in 2013. This is chiefly due
to the fact that the phasing out of the extraordinary levies of around 0.9% of
GDP is not expected to be counterbalanced by the additional savings from the
structural reform programme for that year.
–
Based on budgetary developments since the
publication of the 2011 Autumn Forecast, the 2012 projection of 2.8% of GDP
still appears to be plausible (without taking into the recent deterioration in
the macroeconomic environment). This is explained by the fact that the
deficit-decreasing impact of the new consolidation package of 0.4% of GDP adopted
by the government on 15 December 2011 is broadly counterbalanced by the
deficit-increasing amendments adopted to the draft budget as well as by the net
budgetary costs of the agreement with the banking sector concluded on 15
December 2011 which are not yet appropriately offset by additional
consolidation measures).
–
For 2013, taking into account some further
specifications of the structural reform programme (related government and
Parliamentary decisions are detailed in the December 2011 progress report), the
positive base effect from 2012 and the net cost stemming from the agreement
with the banking sector, the 2013 deficit projection contained in the 2011 Autumn
Forcast could be lowered from 3.7% of GDP to 3¼% of GDP, which is still clearly
above the 3% deficit threshold. The difference between this updated assessment
and the official target (2.2% of GDP) notably stems from the fact that in the
absence of specific steps about half of the structural reform programme could
not be taken into account. The remainder of the difference compared to the
official target is related to a higher expenditure forecast notably in the area
of state-owned transport enterprises and the maintenance of roads and also
incorporates some difference in growth assumptions.
–
The risks to these updated medium-term projections
are tilted to the downside. There is some positive risk, notably stemming from
the continuation of better-than-expected revenue inflows into 2012 and 2013.
However, it is expected to be more than offset by negative risks. In
particular, interest rates for all maturities have increased, the exchange rate
has weakened, and the medium-term economic outlook seems to have worsened since
the 2011 Autumn Forecast was published on 10 November 2011. Overall, if these
factors were taken into account, the deficit projections in both 2012 and 2013 would
be further increased by ½% of GDP, leading to deficits of just above 3% of GDP
and 3¾% of GDP, respectively.
–
According to the 2011 Autumn Forecast, gross public debt, given both the forecast deficit numbers and the exchange
rate assumptions, is expected to increase again to nearly 77% of GDP by 2013,
following a temporary drop in 2011 due to the takeover of the private pension
assets. If the medium-term budgetary projections were updated only on the basis
of new measures adopted after the cut-off date of the forecast, the projected
2012 debt ratio would be largely unchanged and improve only slighly in 2013.
However, further possible revisions in the budgetary projections, taking into
account most notably the increased yields, the end-2011 HUF/EUR exchange rate
of 311 (which is around 12% weaker than the technical assumption used in the
Autumn Forecast), as well as the weaker macroeconomic environment would lead to
a debt ratio of around 80% in 2011, after which it would stabilise at around
78.5% in both 2012 and 2013 whereas the Council recommended that the gross debt
ratio should be brought onto a firm downward trajectory.
(8)
The overall conclusion is while Hungary formally
respects the 3% of GDP reference value by 2011 this is not based on a structural
and sustainable correction. The budget surplus in 2011 hinges upon substantial
one-off revenues of over 10% of GDP and is accompanied by a cumulative
structural deterioration in 2010 and 2011 of 2¾% of GDP compared to a recommended
cumulative fiscal improvement of 0.5% of GDP. Moreover, while the authorities
are implementing substantial structural measures in 2012; the 3% of GDP reference
value is again only respected thanks to one-off measures of close to 1% of GDP.
Finally, in 2013, the deficit (at 3¼% of GDP) is expected to surpass the reference
value in the Treaty again even after taking into account additional measures
announced since the Commission services' 2011 Autumn Forecast). The higher
deficit in 2013 is mainly linked to the fact that temporary one-off revenues
are being phased out as planned while not all planned structural reforms are
sufficiently specified. Overall, this supports the conclusion that the response
by the Hungarian authorities to the Council recommendation according to Article
104(7) of the Treaty of 7 July 2009 has been insufficient,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
Hungary has not taken effective action in
response to the Council recommendation according to Article 104(7) of the
Treaty of 7 July 2009.
Article 2
This
Decision is addressed to Hungary.
Done at Brussels,
                                                                       For
the Council
                                                                       The
President
[1]               OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 6.
[2]               OJ L 389, 30.12.2004, p. 27. All EDP-related
documents for Hungary can be found at the following website: http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/economic_governance/sgp/deficit/index_en.htm.


				|

		52014DC0407

			Recommendation for a COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION on Estonia’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Estonia’s 2014 stability programme /* COM/2014/0407 final */

Recommendation for a
COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
on Estonia’s 2014 national reform
programme
and delivering a Council opinion on Estonia’s 2014 stability programme
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[2],
Having regard to the resolutions of the
European Parliament[3],
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, which will focus on
the key areas where action is needed to boost Europe’s potential for
sustainable growth and competitiveness.
(2)
On 13 July 2010, 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 (2010 to 2014)
and, on 21 October 2010, adopted a decision on guidelines for the employment
policies of the Member States, which together form the ‘integrated guidelines’.
Member States were invited to take the integrated guidelines into account in
their national economic and employment policies.
(3)
On 29 June 2012, the Heads of State or
Government decided on a Compact for Growth and Jobs, providing a coherent
framework for action at national, EU and euro area levels using all possible
levers, instruments and policies. They decided on action to be taken at the
level of the Member States, in particular expressing full commitment to achieving
the objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy and to implementing the
country-specific recommendations.
(4)
On 9 July 2013, the Council adopted a
recommendation on Estonia’s national reform programme for 2013 and delivered
its opinion on Estonia's updated stability programme for 2012-2017. On 15 November 2013, in line with Regulation (EU) No 473/2013[4],
the Commission presented its opinion on Estonia's draft
budgetary plan for 2014[5].
(5)
On 13 November 2013, the Commission adopted the
Annual Growth Survey[6],
marking the start of the 2014 European Semester of economic policy
coordination. On the same day on the basis of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011, the
Commission adopted the Alert Mechanism Report[7],
in which it did not identify Estonia as one of the Member States for which
an in-depth review would be carried out.
(6)
On 20 December 2013, the European Council
endorsed the priorities for ensuring financial stability, fiscal consolidation
and action to foster growth. It underscored the need to pursue differentiated,
growth-friendly fiscal consolidation, to restore normal lending conditions to
the economy, to promote growth and competitiveness, to tackle unemployment and
the social consequences of the crisis, and to modernise public administration.
(7)
On 8 May 2014, Estonia submitted its 2014 national
reform programme and on 29 April 2014 its 2014 stability programme. In order to
take account of their interlinkages, the two programmes have been assessed at
the same time.
(8)
The objective of the budgetary strategy outlined
in the 2014 Stability Programme is to be at the medium-term objective and to
build sufficient fiscal buffers for difficult economic times. The programme
confirms the previous medium-term objective of a structural surplus, which is
more stringent than what the Stability and Growth Pact requires. Estonia’s
recalculated structural balance is expected to worsen by 0.1 pp. of GDP in
2014, thereby deviating from the required adjustment path, before improving by
0.4 pp. of GDP in 2015, and remaining close to balance in 2016-2017.
Furthermore, the programme points to a risk of deviation from the expenditure
benchmark in 2014 and to a risk of a significant deviation in 2015. Overall, the
planned adjustment path towards the medium-term objective presents risks with
respect to compliance with the requirements of the Stability and Growth Pact.
The macroeconomic scenario underpinning the fiscal projections in the
programme, which has not been endorsed by an independent entity, is plausible
and broadly in line with the Commission 2014 Spring Forecast. According to the
Commission Forecast, the structural deficit is projected to deteriorate by 0.1%
of GDP in 2014, leading to a 0.3% of GDP gap compared to the required
adjustment and a significant deviation when assessed over two years. In 2015
the Commission foresees another 0.2% of GDP  deterioration in the structural
balance pointing to significant deviation from the required adjustment toward
the medium-term objective. A significant deviation is expected also with
respect to the expenditure benchmark over 2014-2015. Based on the assessment of
the 2014 Stability Programme and the Commission Forecast, pursuant to
Regulation (EC) No 1466/97, the Council is of the opinion that there is a risk
of significant deviation from the medium-term objective in 2014 and 2015. The
structural balance rule to comply with the Treaty on Stability, Coordination
and Governance entered into force through Estonia's new State Budget Act on 23 March
2014, but the rule is still to be complemented by a strengthening of the
binding nature of the multiannual expenditure targets.
(9)
As regards the labour market, substantial
progress has been made in reducing youth and long-term unemployment. Particular
attention needs to be paid to measures that provide incentives to work for
low-wage earners. Further efforts are necessary to address growing work-force
shortages, including those caused by ageing and health-and disability related
exits from the labour market. The timely adoption and implementation of the
Work Capacity Reform, while ensuring the availability of enabling services, is
therefore highly relevant. The cost-effectiveness of the family policy
expenditure could be further improved, including by reallocating financing from
parental benefit to measures such as childcare services. This is expected to
foster an early return of women to the labour market and to reduce the
persistently high gender pay gap. Efforts to promote entrepreneurship and job
creation in regions outside Tallinn and Tartu need to be stepped up to prevent
economic development differentials from widening and to reduce unemployment,
especially among the low-skilled.
(10)
In the field of education and training reforms to
align education to the requirements of the labour market have recently been
adopted. Further efforts will be necessary to facilitate the transition from
education to employment. Systematic efforts will be needed, in particular
involving social partners, to increase participation in vocational education
and training, and in work-based learning, especially apprenticeships. The
implementation of the Lifelong Learning Strategy will require serious efforts
to provide the much-needed up-skilling, re-skilling and qualification levels,
especially for people in a weak position vis-à-vis the labour market. There is
a smart specialisation framework that comprises the Entrepreneurship and Growth
Strategy and the Research, Development and Innovation Strategy with a focus on
shared priorities while further specialising the thematic areas. Efforts should
continue towards the internationalisation and prioritisation of the research
and development and innovation system, given the small size of the economy.
(11)
Estonia's resource intensity continues to be
very high. There has been progress in addressing the energy efficiency of
public buildings, but efforts need to be sustained and increased, notably in the
residential and industrial sectors. Substantial progress has been made with
respect to waste management and landfilling, while the economic viability of
recycling needs to be ensured. Measures in the Transport Development Plan need
to be implemented to notably enable Estonia to contain CO2 emissions in the
non-ETS sector. The energy efficiency of freight transport can be improved by
deploying more sustainable modes of transport. The use of public transport can
be further increased through enhancing the complementarity of regional networks
and interconnections between coach and passenger rail transport. The use of
private cars increases, while the average age of the passenger car fleet is
almost double the EU average and new passenger cars are among the most
pollutant in the EU. Substantial strengthening of environmental incentives,
including taxation, is necessary. While promising steps have been taken in
cross-border energy connections, full linking up of Estonia's energy market to
the EU will require time and investment.
(12)
Widening regional differences combined with negative
demographic trends, inefficiencies and lack of cooperation among local
governments hamper Estonia's development potential. . This partly reflects the persistent mismatch between fiscal
capacity and devolved responsibilities in small
municipalities as well as limited economies of scale. A more efficient and
accessible delivery of quality public services at local level, based on service
areas and minimum service standards, especially in transport, long-term care,
early childhood education and social services, is a prerequisite for activation
and labour market measures to be effective.
(13)
In the context of the European Semester, the
Commission has carried out a comprehensive analysis of Estonia’s economic
policy. It has assessed the stability programme and the national reform
programme. It has taken into account not only their relevance for sustainable
fiscal and socio-economic policy in Estonia but also their compliance with EU
rules and guidance, given the need to reinforce the overall economic governance
of the European Union by providing EU-level input into future national
decisions. Its recommendations under the European Semester are
reflected in recommendations (1) to (5) below.
(14)
In the light of this assessment, the Council has
examined Estonia’s stability programme, and its opinion[8] is reflected in
particular in recommendation (1) below.
(15)
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 for the Member States whose currency is the euro. Estonia should
also ensure the full and timely implementation of these recommendations.
HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Estonia take
action within the period 2014-2015 to:
1.
Reinforce the budgetary measures for 2014 in the
light of the emerging gap of 0.3% of GDP based on the
Commission 2014 spring forecast, pointing to a risk of significant
deviation relative to the Stability and Growth Pact requirements. In 2015, significantly
strengthen the budgetary strategy to ensure reaching the medium-term objective and
remain at it thereafter. Complement the budget rule with more binding
multi-annual expenditure rules within the medium-term budgetary framework and
continue to enhance the efficiency of public spending.
2.
Improve incentives to work through measures
targeted at low income earners. Target activation efforts at those most distant
from the labour market, in particular by ensuring the timely adoption and
implementation of the work capacity reform. Increase the efficiency and
cost-effectiveness of family policy while improving the availability and
accessibility of childcare. Deploy coordinated measures for fostering economic
development and entrepreneurship in regions faced with high unemployment.
3.
To ensure the labour-market relevance of
education and training systems, improve skills' and qualification levels by
expanding life-long learning measures and systematically increasing
participation in vocational education and training, including in
apprenticeships. Further intensify prioritisation and specialisation in the
research and innovation systems and enhance cooperation between businesses,
higher education and research institutions to contribute to international competitiveness.

4.
Step up efforts to improve energy efficiency, in
particular in residential and industrial buildings. Substantially strengthen
environmental incentives for the transport sector to contribute to less
resource-intensive mobility. Continue the development of cross-border connections
to neighbouring Member States to diversify energy sources and promote
competition through improved integration of the Baltic energy markets.
5.
Better balance local government revenue against
devolved responsibilities. Improve the efficiency of local governments and
ensure the provision of quality public services at local level, especially social
services complementing activation measures.
Done at Brussels,
                                                                       For
the Council
                                                                       The
President
[1]               OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 1.
[2]               COM(2014) 407 final.
[3]               P7_TA(2014)0128 and P7_TA(2014)0129.
[4]               OJ L 140, 27.5.2013, p.11.
[5]               C(2013) 8002 final
[6]               COM(2013) 800 final.
[7]               COM(2013) 790 final.
[8]               Under Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No
1466/97.


title: Council Recommendation of  14 March 2006  concerning the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Development Fund (Ninth EDF) for the financial year 2004

text:
               18.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 81/12

      COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION

   of 14 March 2006
   concerning the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Development Fund (Ninth EDF) for the financial year 2004
   (2006/223/EC)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
   Having regard to the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (1),
   Having regard to the Internal Agreement on the financing and administration of Community aid under the Financial Protocol to ACP-EC Partnership Agreement (2) setting up, amongst others, the Ninth European Development Fund (Ninth EDF), and in particular Article 32(3) of that Agreement,
   Having regard to the Financial Regulation of 27 March 2003 applicable to the Ninth European Development Fund (3), and in particular Articles 96 to 103 thereof,
   Having examined the revenue and expenditure account and the balance sheet relating to the operations of the Ninth EDF as of 31 December 2004 and the Court of Auditors' report concerning the financial year 2004 together with the Commission's replies (4),
   Whereas pursuant to Article 32(3) of the said Internal Agreement, the discharge for the financial management of the Ninth EDF is to be given to the Commission by the European Parliament on the recommendation of the Council;
   Whereas the overall implementation by the Commission of the operations of the Ninth EDF during the financial year 2004 has been satisfactory,
   HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the European Parliament give the Commission a discharge in respect of the implementation of the operations of the Ninth EDF for the financial year 2004.

      Done at Brussels, 14 March 2006.

            For the Council

            The President

         K.-H. GRASSER

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

      (2)  OJ L 317, 15.12.2000, p. 355.

      (3)  OJ L 83, 1.4.2003, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ C 301, 30.11.2005, p. 249.