title: Recommendation of the European Central Bank of 27 March 2015 to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of the Deutsche Bundesbank (ECB/2015/14)

text:
               6.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 149/1

         RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK
   of 27 March 2015
   to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of the Deutsche Bundesbank
   (ECB/2015/14)
   (2015/C 149/01)
   THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,
   Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Article 27.1 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

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

               (2)

               The mandate of the Deutsche Bundesbank’s current external auditors, Ernst & Young AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft Steuerberatungsgesellschaft, ended with the audit for the financial year 2014. It is therefore necessary to appoint external auditors from the financial year 2015.

               (3)

               The Deutsche Bundesbank has selected KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft as its external auditors for the financial years 2015 to 2020,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:
   It is recommended that KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft should be appointed as the external auditors of the Deutsche Bundesbank for the financial years 2015 to 2020.

      Done at Frankfurt am Main, 27 March 2015.

            The President of the ECB

         Mario DRAGHI


title: Recommendation of the European Central Bank of 5 December 2008 to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of the Central Bank of Malta (ECB/2008/19)

text:
               17.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 322/1

      RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

   of 5 December 2008
   to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of the Central Bank of Malta
   (ECB/2008/19)
   (2008/C 322/01)
   THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,
   Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Article 27.1 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and of the national central banks of the Eurosystem are audited by independent external auditors recommended by the ECB's Governing Council and approved by the Council of the European Union.

               (2)

               The mandate of the Central Bank of Malta's current external auditors will end after the audit for the financial year 2008. It is therefore necessary to appoint external auditors from the financial year 2009.

               (3)

               The Central Bank of Malta has selected KPMG as its external auditors for the financial years 2009 to 2013,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:
   It is recommended that KPMG should be appointed as the external auditors of the Central Bank of Malta for the financial years 2009 to 2013.

      Done at Frankfurt am Main, 5 December 2008.

            The President of the ECB

         Jean-Claude TRICHET


title: Commission Recommendation of 19 October 2009 on withholding tax relief procedures (Text with EEA relevance)

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 279/8

      COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION

   of 19 October 2009
   on withholding tax relief procedures
   (Text with EEA relevance)
   (2009/784/EC)
   THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular to the second indent of Article 211 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Many Member States apply withholding tax on securities income. The withholding tax is deducted either by the issuer of the securities or by a financial intermediary that is involved in the payment of the income.

               (2)

               In many cases taxing rights are shared between the source State and the State of residence and therefore non-resident investors may be entitled to a lower withholding tax rate or exemption in the source State pursuant to conventions for the avoidance of double taxation or to domestic law, but the procedures to reduce the withholding tax rates at source or to claim refunds of tax withheld are often complicated, and vary considerably among Member States.

               (3)

               Many Member States restrict withholding agent services to financial intermediaries that are established within their own jurisdictions.

               (4)

               The complexity resulting from this situation hinders the functioning of the capital markets and raises the costs of cross-border settlement. The Giovannini reports ‘Cross-border clearing and settlement arrangements in the European Union’ (1) of 2001 and ‘Second report on EU clearing and settlement’ (2) of 2003 identified this as a barrier to efficient cross-border investments in securities.

               (5)

               Two reports of the Fiscal Compliance Experts’ Group (FISCO) (3) — a ‘Fact-finding study on fiscal compliance procedures related to clearing and settlement within the EU’ of 2006 and a second report of 2007 on ‘Solutions to fiscal compliance barriers related to post-trading within the EU’ — have investigated the existing withholding tax relief procedures and suggested ways to make them work more efficiently.

               (6)

               As indicated in those reports, the granting of withholding tax relief at source rather than through a refund procedure would be a major step towards simplification of withholding tax procedures.

               (7)

               Securities income which falls within the scope of other Community legislation, namely Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (4) and Council Directive 2003/49/EC of 3 June 2003 on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States (5), should not be covered by those simplification procedures. Nor is any simplification required for the withholding tax which is levied by some Member States in lieu of information exchange during the transitional period under Article 11 of Council Directive 2003/48/EC of 3 June 2003 on taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments (6).

               (8)

               Where in exceptional cases tax relief at source is not feasible, source Member States could also improve the current situation by establishing a quick refund procedure.

               (9)

               In order to ensure neutral conditions of competition between Community financial intermediaries, it is appropriate to allow financial intermediaries located in Member States other than the source Member States that are interposed between the issuer of the securities and the beneficial owner to participate in withholding tax procedures as information agents or as withholding agents.

               (10)

               Financial intermediaries that are established in EFTA countries should be treated in the same way as financial intermediaries established in the Member States to the extent that these countries provide for a level of administrative assistance equivalent to that provided under Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation and taxation of insurance premiums (7), and Council Directive 2008/55/EC of 26 May 2008 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to certain levies, duties, taxes and other measures (8).

               (11)

               Member States have a legitimate right to protect their tax revenues and should, therefore, be allowed to require financial intermediaries to obtain prior authorisation or approval to act as an information agent or a withholding agent.

               (12)

               Allowing financial intermediaries to pass on only pooled withholding tax rate information to the next financial intermediary in a custody chain would lead to important savings for all parties concerned and would eliminate data protection and competition concerns about the transmission of client information between financial intermediaries.

               (13)

               Simplification could be furthered by allowing alternative proofs of the entitlement of investors to tax relief, besides certificates of residence, such as self-certification and the identification information held by financial intermediaries under the duties set by Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments (9).

               (14)

               In order to reduce the administrative burden, financial intermediaries should be allowed to archive documentation in electronic form.

               (15)

               Member States should avail of the possibilities of information exchange under Community legislation and bilateral tax arrangements and engage in joint or individual controls in order to verify financial intermediaries’ compliance with their obligations. They should also make use of Directive 2008/55/EC and any future equivalent instruments for the recovery of tax receipts from another Member State or from an EFTA country.

               (16)

               Member States’ representatives in the Commission’s Working Party IV on Direct Taxation and in the European Securities Committee have discussed this matter in detail. Parallel work on withholding tax relief procedures is also taking place at the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD),

         HEREBY RECOMMENDS:
   1.   Subject matter and scope

   1.1.   This recommendation concerns improvements to the procedures of the Member States for granting withholding tax relief on cross-border securities income earned by investors who are resident in the Community, pursuant to conventions for the avoidance of double taxation or to provisions of domestic law.
   1.2.   This recommendation applies to securities income sourced in a Member State and paid via one or more financial intermediaries established in the Community, or in EFTA countries that provide for a level of administrative assistance equivalent to that provided under Directive 77/799/EEC and Directive 2008/55/EC.
   1.3.   This recommendation does not apply to securities income which falls within the scope of Directive 90/435/EEC or Directive 2003/49/EC or to the withholding tax levied by some Member States during the transitional period in accordance with Article 11 of Directive 2003/48/EC.
   2.   Definitions

   For the purpose of this Recommendation the following definitions apply:

               (a)

               ‘securities income’ means the dividend, interest or other income that securities may generate and that is subject to withholding tax in the source Member State;

               (b)

               ‘source Member State’ means the Member State where the issuer of the securities generating income is resident for tax purposes;

               (c)

               ‘residence Member State’ means the Member State where the beneficial owner of the securities income is resident for tax purposes;

               (d)

               ‘financial intermediary’ means a central securities depository, credit institution or any other authorised or supervised economic entity in the custody chain between the issuer of the securities and the beneficial owner;

               (e)

               ‘beneficial owner’ means the investor who receives the securities income for his own benefit;

               (f)

               ‘information agent’ means a financial intermediary that has been authorised by the source Member State to assume responsibility for the verification of the investor’s entitlement to tax relief and communication of this information to the next financial intermediary in the custody chain so as ultimately to reach the withholding agent;

               (g)

               ‘withholding agent’ means an information agent that has also been authorised by the source Member State to assume responsibility for the deduction of tax at source at the appropriate rate and the payment of the tax deducted to the relevant tax authority of the source Member State;

               (h)

               ‘pooled withholding tax rate information’ means information provided in a format which groups securities income according to the withholding tax rate applicable without identifying the owners of the securities.

         3.   Tax relief at source

   Source Member States are invited to grant withholding tax relief at source at the time of payment of the securities income provided that all necessary information is available.
   4.   Standardised and quick refund procedures

   Where in exceptional cases tax relief at source is not feasible, source Member States are invited to set up standardised and quick refund procedures. Such procedures should comprise the following:

               (a)

               permission for information agents or withholding agents to submit refund applications to the tax authorities of the source Member State on behalf of the investors;

               (b)

               use of a single contact point for the introduction and handling of all the refund applications and publication of the relevant information on refund procedures on a website, in at least one language customary in the sphere of international finance;

               (c)

               use of common formats for refund applications which would be able to be filed electronically;

               (d)

               refunding in a reasonable period of time and normally, at least, within 6 months of receipt of the refund application by the relevant tax authority, provided that all necessary information is available.

         5.   Role of information and withholding agents

   5.1.   The information agent closest to the investor should normally be best placed to act also as withholding agent.
   5.2.   Where that is not the case, and there is a custody chain involving several information agents:

               (a)

               the information agent closest to the investor should verify whether the investor is entitled to tax relief and should store the documentation received;

               (b)

               the information agent closest to the investor should report investor-specific information to the source Member State either on an annual basis or upon request;

               (c)

               each information agent in the custody chain should pass pooled withholding tax rate information to the next information agent in the chain so as to reach the withholding agent; and

               (d)

               the withholding agent should apply withholding tax relief at source on the basis of the pooled withholding tax rate information received.

         6.   Conditions for financial intermediaries

   6.1.   Source Member States are invited to lay down proportionate and non-discriminatory conditions and obligations in order for a financial intermediary to be authorised to act as an information agent or withholding agent.
   6.2.   Source Member States are invited to withdraw the authorisation granted in a case where an information agent or a withholding agent does not comply with its conditions and obligations.
   7.   Documentation proving entitlement to tax relief

   7.1.   Source Member States are invited to allow alternative proofs of the investor’s entitlement to tax relief to certificates of residence issued by the residence Member State. Those alternative proofs could include self-certification by the beneficial owner and documentation gathered by information agents under the duties set by Directive 2004/39/EC on markets in financial instruments.
   7.2.   When establishing alternative proofs as referred to in point 7.1, source Member States may take into account the level of risk involved by, for example, setting less onerous rules in the case of claims below EUR 1 000.
   8.   Information and documentation in electronic format

   Source Member States are invited to allow information agents and withholding agents to transmit and archive information and documentation by electronic means.
   9.   Supervision

   Member States are invited to set up procedures to investigate the compliance of information agents and withholding agents with obligations created in accordance with this recommendation. This could include single or joint audits by the tax authority of the source Member State, the tax authority of the Member State where the information or withholding agent is established or by external auditors.
   10.   Follow-up

   10.1.   Member States are encouraged to adopt more flexible rules than those provided by this recommendation concerning the simplification of procedures for granting withholding tax relief on cross-border securities income.
   10.2.   Member States are invited to explore the scope offered by this recommendation for implementing new, non-burdensome, channels of information exchange aimed at providing both the source Member States and the residence Member States with investor-specific information. This could be modelled on procedures drawn up under Community legislation, particularly Directive 2003/48/EC.
   10.3.   Member States are invited to explore the possibility and the conditions for allowing withholding agents to set off tax amounts to be refunded against taxes to be remitted to the tax authorities of the source Member State.
   10.4.   Member States are invited to develop common conditions and obligations governing the approval of financial intermediaries for the purposes of this recommendation.
   10.5.   Member States are invited to continue working on possible ways to improve withholding tax relief procedures in the appropriate Commission working groups and to adopt a coordinated position in the corresponding discussions at the OECD.
   11.   Addressees

   This recommendation is addressed to the Member States.

      Done at Brussels, 19 October 2009.

            For the Commission

         Charlie McCREEVY

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/financial-markets/docs/clearing/first_giovannini_report_en.pdf

      (2)  http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/financial-markets/docs/clearing/second_giovannini_report_en.pdf

      (3)  http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/financial-markets/clearing/compliance_fr.htm#reports

      (4)  OJ L 225, 20.8.1990, p. 6.

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

      (6)  OJ L 157, 26.6.2003, p. 38.

      (7)  OJ L 336, 27.12.1977, p. 15.

      (8)  OJ L 150, 10.6.2008, p. 28.

      (9)  OJ L 145, 30.4.2004, p. 1.


Avis juridique important

|

31998H0560

98/560/EC: Council Recommendation of 24 September 1998 on the development of the competitiveness of the European audiovisual and information services industry by promoting national frameworks aimed at achieving a comparable and effective level of protection of minors and human dignity

Official Journal L 270 , 07/10/1998 P. 0048 - 0055

COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION of 24 September 1998 on the development of the competitiveness of the European audiovisual and information services industry by promoting national frameworks aimed at achieving a comparable and effective level of protection of minors and human dignity (98/560/EC)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 130 thereof,Having regard to the Commission's proposal,Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (2),(1) Whereas the Commission adopted the Green Paper on the protection of minors and human dignity in audiovisual and information services on 16 October 1996 and the Council received it favourably at its meeting on 16 December 1996;(2) Whereas the European Parliament (3), the Economic and Social Committee (4) and the Committee of the Regions (5) have all adopted opinions on the Green Paper;(3) Whereas the conclusions of the consultation process were submitted by the Commission to the Council at its meeting of 30 June 1997 and unanimously welcomed;(4) Whereas on 16 October 1996, the Commission adopted the communication on illegal and harmful content on the Internet; whereas on 17 February 1997 the Council and the representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, adopted the resolution on illegal and harmful content on the Internet (6); whereas on 24 April 1997 the European Parliament adopted an opinion on the Commission communication on illegal and harmful content on the Internet; whereas this work is continuing in a manner complementary to the present recommendation since it deals with all forms of illegal and harmful content specifically on the Internet;(5) Whereas the present recommendation addresses, in particular, issues of protection of minors and of human dignity in relation to audiovisual and information services made available to the public, whatever the means of conveyance (such as broadcasting, proprietary on-line services or services on the Internet);(6) Whereas, in order to promote the competitiveness of the audiovisual and information services industry and its adaptation to technological development and structural changes, the provision of information, the raising of awareness and the education of users are essential; whereas this is also a condition of the European citizen's full participation in the information society; whereas, therefore, in addition to measures to protect minors and to combat illegal content offensive to human dignity, legal and responsible use of information and communication services should be encouraged, through the exercise, inter alia, of parental control measures;(7) Whereas Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 amending Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (7), and in particular Articles 22, 22a and 22b of Directive 89/552/EEC, lays down a full range of measures aimed at the protection of minors with regard to television broadcasting for the purposes of ensuring the free movement of television broadcasts;(8) Whereas the development of audiovisual and information services is of vital importance for Europe in view of their significant potential in the fields of education, access to information and culture, economic development and job creation;(9) Whereas full achievement of this potential requires the existence of a successful and innovative industry in the Community; whereas it is in the first instance incumbent on businesses to ensure and improve their competitiveness with the support of public authorities where appropriate;(10) Whereas the establishment of the climate of confidence needed to achieve the potential of the audiovisual and information services industry by removing obstacles to the development and full competitiveness of the said industry is promoted by the protection of certain important general interests, in particular the protection of minors and of human dignity;(11) Whereas the general competitiveness of the European audiovisual and information services industry will improve through the development of an environment that favours cooperation between the enterprises in the sector on matters concerning the protection of minors and human dignity;(12) Whereas the existence of certain technological conditions enables a high level of protection of the abovementioned important general interests, in particular the protection of minors and human dignity, and, consequently, the acceptance by all users of these services;(13) Whereas it is important therefore to encourage enterprises to develop a national self-regulatory framework through cooperation between them and the other parties concerned; whereas self-regulation could provide enterprises with the means to adapt themselves rapidly to the quickening technical progress and to market globalisation;(14) Whereas the protection of general interests sought in this manner must be seen in the context of the fundamental principles of respect for privacy and freedom of expression, as enshrined in Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and as recognised by Article F(2) of the Treaty on European Union and by the case-law of the Court of Justice as general principles of Community law;(15) Whereas any restriction of these rights and freedoms must be non-discriminatory, necessary to achieving the desired objective and strictly proportional with regard to the limitations it imposes;(16) Whereas the global nature of communications networks necessitates an international approach to the question of the protection of minors and human dignity in audiovisual and information services; whereas, in this context, the development of a common indicative framework at European level makes it possible both to promote European values and make a decisive contribution to the international debate;(17) Whereas it is vital to distinguish between questions relating to illegal content which is offensive to human dignity and those relating to content that is legal, but liable to harm minors by impairing their physical, mental or moral development; whereas these two types of problem may require a different approach and different solutions;(18) Whereas the national laws in which Member States have laid down rules and principles on the protection of minors and human dignity reflect cultural diversity and national and local sensitivities; whereas, in this regard, particular attention must be paid to the application of the principle of subsidiarity;(19) Whereas, in view of the transnational nature of communications networks, the effectiveness of national measures would be strengthened, at Community level, by coordination of national initiatives, and of the bodies responsible for their implementation, in accordance with the respective responsibilities and functions of the parties concerned and by the development of cooperation and the sharing of good practices in relevant areas;(20) Whereas, as a supplementary measure, and with full respect for the relevant regulatory frameworks at national and Community level, greater self-regulation by operators should contribute to the rapid implementation of concrete solutions to the problems of the protection of minors and human dignity, while maintaining the flexibility needed to take account of the rapid development of audiovisual and information services;(21) Whereas the contribution of the Community, the aim of which will be to supplement Member States' measures to protect minors and human dignity in audiovisual and information services, should be based on the maximum use of existing instruments;(22) Whereas there should be close coordination of the various relevant initiatives conducted in parallel with the follow-up to the Green Paper, particularly the work on the follow-up to the communication on 'Illegal and Harmful Content on the Internet`, including the resolution adopted by the Council and the representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting within the Council on 17 February 1997, the 1997 European Parliament resolution and the two working party reports submitted to the Council on 28 November 1996 and 27 June 1997, work carried out according to the provisions of Article 22b of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (8) and the work on cooperation on justice and home affairs;(23) Whereas the implementation of this recommendation will be closely coordinated with that of any possible new measure resulting from the work on the follow-up to the Commission communication on illegal and harmful content on the Internet,I. HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the Member States foster a climate of confidence which will promote the development of the audiovisual and information services industry by:(1) promoting, as a supplement to the regulatory framework, the establishment on a voluntary basis of national frameworks for the protection of minors and human dignity in audiovisual and information services through:- the encouragement, in accordance with national traditions and practices, of the participation of relevant parties (such as users, consumers, businesses and public authorities) in the definition, implementation and evaluation of national measures in the fields covered by this recommendation,- the establishment of a national framework for self-regulation by operators of on-line services, taking into account the indicative principles and methodology described in the Annex,- cooperation at Community level in developing comparable assessment methodologies;(2) encouraging broadcasters in their jurisdiction to carry out research and to experiment, on a voluntary basis, with new means of protecting minors and informing viewers, as a supplement to the national and Community regulatory frameworks governing broadcasting;(3) taking effective measures, where appropriate and feasible, to reduce potential obstacles to the development of the on-line services industry while sustaining the fight against illegal content offensive to human dignity, through:- the handling of complaints and the transmission of the necessary information about alleged illegal content to the relevant authorities at national level,- transnational cooperation between the complaints-handling structures, in order to strengthen the effectiveness of national measures;(4) promoting, in order to encourage the take-up of technological developments and in addition to and consistent with existing legal and other measures regarding broadcasting services, and in close cooperation with the parties concerned:- action to enable minors to make responsible use of on-line audiovisual and information services, notably by improving the level of awareness among parents, educators and teachers of the potential of the new services and of the means whereby they may be made safe for minors,- action to facilitate, where appropriate and necessary, identification of, and access to, quality content and services for minors, including through the provision of means of access in educational establishments and public places.II. RECOMMENDS that the industries and parties concerned:(1) cooperate, in accordance with national traditions and practices, with the relevant authorities in setting up structures representing all the parties concerned at national level, in order inter alia to facilitate participation in coordination at European and international level in the fields covered by this recommendation;(2) cooperate in the drawing up of codes of conduct for the protection of minors and human dignity applying to the provision of on-line services, inter alia to create an environment favourable to the development of new services, taking into account the principles and the methodology described in the Annex;(3) develop and experiment, as regards broadcasting services, on a voluntary basis, with new means of protecting minors and informing viewers in order to encourage innovation while improving such protection;(4) develop positive measures for the benefit of minors, including initiatives to facilitate their wider access to audiovisual and information services, while avoiding potentially harmful content;(5) collaborate in the regular follow-up and evaluation of initiatives carried out at national level in application of this recommendation.III. INVITES the Commission to:(1) facilitate, where appropriate through existing Community financial instruments, the networking of the bodies responsible for the definition and implementation of national self-regulation frameworks and the sharing of experience and good practices, in particular in relation to innovative approaches, at Community level, between the Member States and parties concerned in the various fields covered by this recommendation;(2) encourage cooperation and the sharing of experience and good practices between the self-regulation structures and complaints-handling structures, with a view to fostering a climate of confidence by combating the circulation of illegal content offensive to human dignity in on-line audiovisual and information services;(3) promote, with the Member States, international cooperation in the various fields covered by this recommendation, particularly through the sharing of experience and good practices between operators and other concerned parties in the Community and their partners in other regions of the world;(4) develop, in cooperation with the competent national authorities, a methodology for evaluating the measures taken in pursuance of this recommendation, with particular attention to the evaluation of the added value of the cooperation process at Community level, and present, two years after the adoption of this recommendation, an evaluation report on its effect to the European Parliament and the Council.Done at Brussels, 24 September 1998.For the CouncilThe PresidentJ. FARNLEITNER(1) Opinion delivered on 13 May 1998 (not yet published in the Official Journal).(2) OJ C 214, 10. 7. 1998, p. 25.(3) OJ C 339, 10. 11. 1997, p. 420.(4) OJ C 287, 22. 9. 1997, p. 11.(5) OJ C 215, 16. 7. 1997, p. 37.(6) OJ C 70, 6. 3. 1997, p. 1.(7) OJ L 202, 30. 7. 1997, p. 60.(8) OJ L 298, 17. 10. 1989, p. 23. Directive as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 202, 30. 7. 1997, p. 60).ANNEX INDICATIVE GUIDELINES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION, AT NATIONAL LEVEL, OF A SELF-REGULATION FRAMEWORK FOR THE PROTECTION OF MINORS AND HUMAN DIGNITY IN ON-LINE AUDIOVISUAL AND INFORMATION SERVICES ObjectiveThe purpose of these guidelines is to foster a climate of confidence in the on-line audiovisual and information services industry by ensuring broad consistency, at Community level, in the development, by the businesses and other parties concerned, of national self-regulation frameworks for the protection of minors and human dignity. The services covered by these guidelines are those provided at a distance, by electronic means. They do not include broadcasting services covered by Council Directive 89/552/EEC or radio broadcasting. The contents concerned are those which are made available to the public, rather than private correspondence.This consistency will enhance the effectiveness of the self-regulation process and provide a basis for the necessary transnational cooperation between the parties concerned.While taking into account the voluntary nature of the self-regulation process (the primary purpose of which is to supplement existing legislation) and respecting the differences in approach and varying sensitivities in the Member States of the Community, these guidelines relate to four key components of a national self-regulation framework:- consultation and representativeness of the parties concerned,- code(s) of conduct,- national bodies facilitating cooperation at Community level,- national evaluation of self-regulation frameworks.1. CONSULTATION AND REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE PARTIES CONCERNED The objective is to ensure that the definition, implementation and evaluation of a national self-regulation framework benefits from the full participation of the parties concerned, such as the public authorities, the users, consumers and the businesses which are directly or indirectly involved in the audiovisual and on-line information services industries. The respective responsibilities and functions of the parties concerned, both public and private, should be set out clearly.The voluntary nature of self-regulation means that the acceptance and effectiveness of a national self-regulation framework depends on the extent to which the parties concerned actively cooperate in its definition, application and evaluation.All the parties concerned should also help with longer-term tasks such as the development of common tools or concepts (for example, on labelling of content) or the planning of ancillary measures (for example, on information, awareness and education).2. CODE(S) OF CONDUCT 2.1. General The objective is the production, within the national self-regulation framework, of basic rules which are strictly proportionate to the aims pursued; these rules should be incorporated into a code (or codes) of conduct covering at least the categories set out at 2.2, to be adopted and implemented voluntarily by the operators (i.e. primarily the businesses) concerned.In drawing up these rules, the following should be taken into account:- the diversity of services and functions performed by the various categories of operator (providers of network, access, service, content, etc.) and their respective responsibilities,- the diversity of environments and applications in on-line services (open and closed networks, applications of varying levels of interactivity).In view of the above, operators may need one or more codes of conduct.Given such diversity, the proportionality of the rules drawn up should be assessed in the light of:- the principles of freedom of expression, protection of privacy and free movement of services,- the principle of technical and economic feasibility, given that the overall objective is to develop the information society in Europe.2.2. The content of the code(s) of conduct The code (or codes) of conduct should cover the following:2.2.1. Protection of minors Objective: to enable minors to make responsible use of on-line services and to avoid them gaining access, without the consent of their parents or teachers, to legal content which may impair their physical, mental or moral development. Besides coordinated measures to educate minors and to improve their awareness, this should cover the establishment of certain standards in the following fields:(a) Information to usersObjective: within the framework of encouraging responsible use of networks, on-line service providers should inform users, where possible, of any risks from the content of certain on-line services and of such appropriate means of protection as are available.The codes of conduct should address, for example, the issue of basic rules on the nature of the information to be made available to users, its timing and the form in which it is communicated. The most appropriate occasions should be chosen to communicate the information (sale of technical equipment, conclusion of contracts with user, web sites, etc.).(b) Presentation of legal contents which may harm minorsObjective: where possible, legal content which may harm minors or affect their physical, mental or moral development should be presented in such a way as to provide users with basic information on its potentially harmful effect on minors.The codes of conduct should therefore address, for example, the issue of basic rules for the businesses providing on-line services concerned and for users and suppliers of content; the rules should set out the conditions under which the supply and distribution of content likely to harm minors should be subject, where possible, to protection measures such as:- a warning page, visual signal or sound signal,- descriptive labelling and/or classification of contents,- systems to check the age of users.Priority should be given, in this regard, to protection systems applied at the presentation stage to legal content which is clearly likely to be harmful to minors, such as pornography or violence.(c) Support for parental controlObjective: where possible, parents, teachers and others exercising control in this area should be assisted by easy-to-use and flexible tools in order to enable, without the former's educational choices being compromised, minors under their charge to have access to services, even when unsupervised.The codes of conduct should address, for example, the issue of basic rules on the conditions under which, wherever possible, additional tools or services are supplied to users to facilitate parental control, including:- filter software installed and activated by the user,- filter options activated, at the end-user's request, by service operators at a higher level (for example, limiting access to predefined sites or offering general access to services).(d) Handling of complaints ('hotlines`)Objective: to promote the effective management of complaints about content which does not comply with the rules on the protection of minors and/or violates the code of conduct.The codes of conduct should address, for example, the issue of basic rules on the management of complaints and encourage operators to provide the management tools and structures needed so that complaints can be sent and received without difficulties (telephone, e-mail, fax) and to introduce procedures for dealing with complaints (informing content providers, exchanging information between operators, responding to complaints, etc.).2.2.2. Protection of human dignity Objective: to support effective measures in the fight against illegal content offensive to human dignity.(a) Information for usersObjective: where possible, users should be clearly informed of the risks inherent in the use of on-line services as content providers so as to encourage legal and responsible use of networks.Codes of conduct should address, for example, the issue of basic rules on the nature of information to be made available, its timing and the form in which it is to be communicated.(b) Handling of complaints ('hotlines`)Objective: to promote the effective handling of complaints about illegal content offensive to human dignity circulating in audiovisual and on-line services, in accordance with the respective responsibilities and functions of the parties concerned, so as to reduce illegal content and misuse of the networks.The codes of conduct should address, for example, the issue of basic rules on the management of complaints and encourage operators to provide the management tools and structures needed so that complaints can be sent and received without difficulties (telephone, e-mail, fax) and to introduce procedures for dealing with complaints (informing content providers, exchanging information between operators, responding to complaints, etc.).(c) Cooperation of operators with judicial and police authoritiesObjective: to ensure, in accordance with the responsibilities and functions of the parties concerned effective cooperation between operators and the judicial and police authorities within Member States in combating the production and circulation of illegal content offensive to human dignity in audiovisual and on-line information services.The codes of conduct should address, for example, the issue of basic rules on cooperation procedures between operators and the competent public authorities, while respecting the principles of proportionality and freedom of expression as well as relevant national legal provisions.2.2.3. Violations of the codes of conduct Objective: to strengthen the credibility of the code (or codes) of conduct, taking account of its voluntary nature, by providing for dissuasive measures which are proportionate to the nature of the violations. In this connection, provision should be made, where appropriate, for appeal and mediation procedures.Appropriate rules to govern this area should be included in the code of conduct.3. NATIONAL BODIES FACILITATING COOPERATION AT COMMUNITY LEVEL Objective: to facilitate cooperation at Community level (sharing of experience and good practices; working together) through the networking of the appropriate structures within Member States, consistent with their national functions and responsibilities. Such structures could also allow international cooperation to be extended.Cooperation at European level means:- cooperation between the parties concerned:all the parties involved in the drawing up of the national self-regulation framework are asked to set up a representative body at national level to facilitate the sharing of experience and good practices and to work together at Community and international level,- cooperation between national complaints-handling structures:to facilitate and develop cooperation at European and international level, the parties involved in an effective complaint management system are asked to set up a national contact point to strengthen cooperation in the fight against illegal content, facilitate the sharing of experience and good practices, and improve legal and responsible use of the networks.4. EVALUATION OF SELF-REGULATION FRAMEWORKS The objective is to provide for regular evaluations of the self-regulation framework at national level, to assess its effectiveness in protecting the general interests in question, to measure its success in achieving its objectives and to adapt it gradually to changes in the market, technology and types of use.The parties concerned are asked to set up an evaluation system at national level so that they can monitor the progress made in implementing the self-regulation framework. This should take into account appropriate European-level cooperation, inter alia on the development of comparable assessment methodologies.


Avis juridique important

|

32000H0473

2000/473/Euratom: Commission recommendation of 8 June 2000 on the application of Article 36 of the Euratom Treaty concerning the monitoring of the levels of radioactivity in the environment for the purpose of assessing the exposure of the population as a whole (notified under document number C(2000) 1299)

Official Journal L 191 , 27/07/2000 P. 0037 - 0046

Commission recommendationof 8 June 2000on the application of Article 36 of the Euratom Treaty concerning the monitoring of the levels of radioactivity in the environment for the purpose of assessing the exposure of the population as a whole(notified under document number C(2000) 1299)(2000/473/Euratom)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 124 and Article 36 thereof,Having consulted the group of persons appointed in accordance with Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty by the Scientific and Technical Committee,Whereas:(1) Article 35 of the Euratom Treaty requires each Member State to establish the facilities necessary to carry out continuous monitoring of the level of radioactivity in the air, water and soil and to ensure compliance with the basic standards.(2) Article 36 of the Euratom Treaty requires the appropriate authorities periodically to communicate information on the checks referred to in Article 35 of the Euratom Treaty to the Commission so that it is kept informed of the level of radioactivity to which the public is exposed.(3) Experience has been gained in the application of Article 36 of the Euratom Treaty. It is current practice for the Commission to publish annual monitoring reports, on the basis of quality controlled data received by the Commission in application of Article 36 and Article 39 of the Euratom Treaty. The Commission should continue to publish such annual monitoring reports.(4) To ensure that the exposure of the population is kept under review it is important that the Commission be informed in a timely fashion and on a uniform basis of the levels of radioactivity to which the population as a whole is exposed in every Member State.(5) Article 14 of Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation(1) (the Basic Safety Standards) requires contribution to the exposure of the population as a whole from all practices to be regularly assessed.(6) Article 45 of the Basic Safety Standards requires the competent authorities to ensure that dose estimates for the population as a whole are made as realistic as possible.(7) Without prejudice to the requirements of Article 35 of the Euratom Treaty, it is sufficient for the review of the exposure of the population as a whole to provide a defined set of specific monitoring results.(8) To ensure compliance with the Basic Safety Standards it is important that, in addition to air, water and soil, levels of radioactivity be determined in biological samples and in particular in foodstuffs, and that, to assess external exposure, the ambient dose rates be monitored.(9) The monitoring of levels of radioactivity in soil does not allow a direct assessment of the exposure of the population. The exposure related to soil contamination is more directly assessed on the basis of ambient dose rate and foodstuff contamination. Experience has shown that the incorporation of soil data in the monitoring serves little useful purpose.(10) It is necessary to keep under review which sampling media and which radionuclide categories are relevant indicators of actual and potential levels of radioactivity in the environment and of exposure of the population.(11) There is consensus among Member States as to the adequacy of current monitoring programmes. Such monitoring may change in function of the evolution of levels of radioactivity, measurement technology, and the needs in view of emergency response. The Commission will keep under review the adequacy of monitoring programmes and will involve the group of experts established under Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty in this process.(12) In the framework of Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty, the data on discharges of radionuclides to the environment from nuclear power plants and reprocessing plants are already requested in Commission Recommendation 1999/829/Euratom of 6 December 1999 on the application of Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty(2).(13) Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption(3) provides for indicator parameters for radioactivity. This Recommendation is without prejudice to specific requirements under Annex II and Annex III to that Directive.(14) The uniformity, comparability, transparency and timeliness of data reported in accordance with Article 36 of the Euratom Treaty should be ensured.HEREBY RECOMMENDS:1. In order to discharge their obligation under Article 36 of the Euratom Treaty periodically to communicate information on the results of the monitoring of the levels of radioactivity which they are bound to perform under the terms of Article 35 of that Treaty, the Member States should forward to the Commission, in accordance with the time periods set out in point 5(c), the monitoring results listed in Annex I. In case of an elevated concentration of a radionuclide not specified in Annex I, appropriate date should also be forwarded.2. For the purposes of this Recommendation, the following definitions apply:(a) "continuous monitoring" means the existence and implementation of a continuing monitoring programme. Depending on the medium monitored, this is achieved as appropriate through:(i) continuous sampling and assessment;(ii) continuous sampling and periodic assessment;(iii) periodic sampling and periodic assessment;(iv) direct continuous measurement;(b) "facilities" means the monitoring programme, the direct measurement and sampling and analysis equipment and procedures (including quality control and the reporting and archiving of all relevant data), and the laboratories necessary to implement continuous monitoring of the levels of radioactivity;(c) "monitoring network" means the combination of each medium of the sampling and direct measurement locations, as appropriate, used for the monitoring of that specific medium;(d) "dense monitoring network" means a monitoring network comprising sampling locations distributed throughout the Member State's territory such as to allow the Commission to compute regional averages for radioactivity levels in the Community;(e) "sparse monitoring network" means a monitoring network comprising for every region and for every sampling medium at least one location representative of that region. At such locations high sensitivity measurements should be performed thus giving a transparent representation of actual levels and trends of radioactivity levels;(f) "region" means each representative area of a Member State for the assessment of the radiological exposure of the population as a whole under consideration of the radiological impact by emissions and ambient dose and the population distribution. The regions currently defined in the Commission monitoring reports are given in Annex II.3. Member States should notify to the Commission the appropriate authorities referred to in Article 36 of the Euratom Treaty.4. The following requirements should be met:(a) Monitoring networks(i) Each Member State should define representative geographical regions for its own territory.(ii) Each Member State should define for each type of medium a sparse monitoring network and a dense monitoring network.(iii) The sites comprising a network should be representative of the regional situation taking into account, where appropriate, the population distribution within the region.(b) Sampling media, types of measurements, and periodicity(i) The sampling media and types of measurements are listed in Annex I. Except where otherwise specified in this Recommendation, measurements should preferably be carried out for the sparse network on a monthly basis and for the dense network quarterly.(ii) For the sparse monitoring network, the detection limits and sensitivities of the measurement instruments should allow the actual levels to be quantified.(iii) For the dense monitoring network, the detection limits of the measurement devices should be lower than the reporting levels defined in Annex III.(iv) The Member States should inform the Commission of the detection limits and of the uncertainties taken into account.(v) The Member States should retain measurement techniques that have proven reliable and ensure quality control of the results.(vi) Member State laboratories supplying data under the terms of this Recommendation should periodically participate in intercomparison exercises, in particular those organised by the Commission, so as to ensure the intercomparability of the data reported.(c) Sampling strategies and measurements in relation to each of the required sampling media(i) Airborne particulatesMeasurements of gamma emitting radionuclides should be performed on a routine basis to detect and measure man-made radioisotopes as well as naturally occurring radionuclides. Beryllium-7 should be reported as a qualitative check of the methods used. Where gross beta activity(4) measurements are recorded these should also be reported.Sampling locations should be in the vicinity of densely populated areas; adequate geographical coverage should be ensured by the choice of at least one sampling location per geographical region.Sampling should be performed by systems operating continuously.(ii) External ambient gamma dose rates should be measured continuously. No reporting level is defined.(iii) Surface waterSamples should be taken from major inland waters of the Member States' territory and, if relevant, from coastal waters.In the case of river water, sampling should be carried out, where practicable, at locations for which flow rate measurements are available. In such cases, the average flow rate during the sampling period should be reported to improve the representativeness of the mean values calculated by the Commission.Gamma emitting radionuclides should be monitored. Where residual beta activity(5) measurements are recorded these should also be reported.(iv) Water intended for human consumptionMonitoring of levels of radioactivity in drinking water should be such as to ensure compliance with the requirements of Directive 98/83/EC.For the purposes of compliance with Article 36 of the Euratom Treaty, values should be reported for major ground or surface water supplies and for water distribution networks such as to ensure a representative coverage of the Member State.The corresponding volumes of water distributed or produced in a year should be reported to improve the representativeness of the mean values calculated by the Commission.(v) MilkMilk samples should be taken from dairies. The necessary statistical information on production rates should be reported to improve the representativeness of the mean values calculated by the Commission. The spread of dairies should be sufficient to ensure representative coverage of the Member State.Gamma emitters and strontium-90 should be monitored; potassium-40 should be reported as a qualitative check of the methods used.(vi) Mixed dietDue to the trade in foodstuffs, the mixed diet is not necessarily representative of the regional or national environmental contamination but is an indicator of public exposure.Where appropriate, foodstuffs are measured as separate ingredients; in this case the Member State should report to the Commission the results of measurements of the individual ingredients and the composition of the diet. The sampling programme should take into consideration regional variations in dietary patterns. Individual ingredients should be from market places or local distribution centres providing food products to large population groups. Appropriate account should be taken of products from natural or semi-natural ecosystems, to the extent that the fallout from the Chernobyl accident may still affect such systems.In addition, Member States should sample complete meals to give a representative figure for the average level of radioactivity in mixed diet. Actual meal samples should be taken from large consumption centres such as canteens or restaurants.Gamma emitters and strontium-90 should be monitored; the measurements should be not less frequent than quarterly. Where carbo-14 measurements are performed, these should also be reported.5. The procedure for reporting to the Commission should be as follows:(a) Treatment of dataThe Member States should forward to the Commission data which have been subject to quality control and cleared for public release. The data set should contain all details listed in Annex IV.The Member States should forward the data in the format defined by the Commission and preferably use the specialised software provided by the Commission.Tndividual non-aggregated measurement data should be transmitted for each medium and each site rather than average values. However, if the data correspond to direct continuous measurements, then the monthly averages for each site should be communicated.(b) Means of transmissionData should be forwarded in a digital form using the most appropriate electronic media.(c) PeriodicityAll available data should be forwarded to the Commission as soon as they are validated in order to allow for a prompt assessment by the Commission of the impact of environmental radioactivity on public health. All data for a calendar year should be submitted no later than 30 June of the following year.(d) Transmission of other dataIn addition to the data transmitted under point (a), Member States should transmit to the Commission their national monitoring reports to allow a fuller understanding of the significance of the data referred to in Annex I in relation to the national monitoring programmes. The Commission's annual monitoring reports will list references to those national reports.(e) Intergration of reporting practicesData regularly reported under Article 36 of the Euratom Treaty, data voluntarily reported other than national monitoring reports and large amounts of data of types potentially relevant in emergency situations should be forwarded through the same communication means and channels and in the same format in order to simplify reporting practices and to avoid duplication of efforts and to conduct regular exercises of the emergency arrangements.6. This Recommendation is addressed to the Member States.Done at Brussels, 8 June 2000.For the CommissionMargot WallströmMember of the Commission(1) OJ L 159, 29.6.1996, p. 1.(2) OJ L 324, 16.12.1999, p. 23.(3) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998, p. 32.(4) The total measured beta activity in a sample; depending on the measurement methodology tritium and in general very low energy beta emitters are normally not included and short lived radon daughters are excluded through a sufficient delay time (e.g. five days) before counting.(5) The total measured beta acitivity minus potassium-40 activity.ANNEX ISample types and measurements>TABLE>ANNEX IIDefinition of country partitions and country codes according to ISO 3166/4217>TABLE>Definition of the geographical regions>PIC FILE= "L_2000191EN.004401.EPS">ANNEX IIIReporting levels>TABLE>ANNEX IVLIST OF MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS PER DATA RECORD1. REQUIREMENTS FOR SAMPLING DATAA. Sample characteristicsSample typeSample treatment (e.g. chemical treatment, delay of five days, etc.)B. Date and timeSampling dateDate type (e.g. begin date, end date, etc.)Sampling time(1)Time system(2) (e.g. GMT)Duration of sampling (in hours)C. LocationLocality nameNUTS-CodeLatitude, longitude specified in degrees, minutes or in decimal degreesCatchment(3) (for surface waters: name of river, lake, reservoir or sea)2. REQUIREMENTS FOR MEASUREMENT DATALaboratory nameNuclide categoryApparatus typeActivity valueUncertaintyUncertainty typeValue unitValue typeReference date(4) (date for which the activity value is given)Flow rate(5) (in case of river water)Production rate(6) (for milk and drinking water)Volume produced or distributed in a year (for drinking water).(1) Only to be mentioned if appropriate.(2) Only to be mentioned if appropriate.(3) Only to be mentioned if appropriate.(4) Only to be mentioned if appropriate.(5) Only to be mentioned if appropriate.(6) Only to be mentioned if appropriate.