				|

		52014DC0411

			Recommendation for a COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION on France’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on France’s 2014 stability programme /* COM/2014/0411 final  - 2014/ () */

Recommendation for a
COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
on France’s 2014 national reform programme
and delivering a Council opinion on France’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 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[2], and in particular
Article 6(1) thereof,
Having regard to the recommendation of the
European Commission[3],
Having regard to the resolutions of the
European Parliament[4],
Having regard to the conclusions of the
European Council,
Having regard to the opinion of the
Employment Committee,
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 France’s national reform programme for 2013 and delivered its
opinion on France’s updated stability programme for 2012-2017. On 15 November 2013 in line with Regulation (EU) No 473/2013[5],
the Commission presented its opinion on France’s draft
budgetary plan for 2014[6].
(5)
On 13 November 2013, the Commission adopted the
Annual Growth Survey[7],
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[8],
in which it identified France 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 5 March 2014, the Commission published the
results of its in-depth review for France[9],
under Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011. The Commission’s analysis
leads it to conclude that France continues to experience macroeconomic
imbalances, which require specific monitoring and decisive policy action. In
particular, the deterioration in the trade balance and
in competitiveness and the implications of the high level of public sector
indebtedness deserve continuous policy attention.
(8)
On 7 May 2014, France submitted its 2014
national reform programme and its 2014 stability programme. In order to take
account of their interlinkages, the two programmes have been assessed at the
same time.
(9)
The objective of the budgetary strategy outlined
in the 2014 stability programme is to correct the excessive deficit by 2015 and
reach the medium-term objective in 2017. The programme confirms the previous medium-term
objective of a balanced budget in structural terms, which is more stringent
than what the Stability and Growth Pact requires. The programme plans to bring
the deficit to 3% of GDP in 2015, above the target set in the Council
recommendation of 21 June 2013. Thereafter, the planned (recalculated) annual
progress towards the medium-term objective is lower than the minimum
requirement of 0.5% of GDP. Overall, the budgetary strategy outlined in the
programme is only partly in line with the requirements of the Stability and
Growth Pact. The programme projects that the government debt will peak at 95.6%
of GDP in 2014 and 2015 and then drop to 91.9% in 2017. The macroeconomic
scenario underpinning the budgetary projections in the programme is plausible
for 2014 and slightly optimistic for 2015, with GDP projected to grow by 1.0%
and 1.7% this year and next, against 1.0% and 1.5% according to the Commission
2014 Spring Forecast. In April 2014, the independent High Council for Public
Finances (“Haut Conseil des finances
publiques”) issued an opinion
on the macroeconomic scenario of the programme. On 5 March 2014, France was
recommended by the Commission to make further efforts to ensure the full
compliance with the Council recommendation under the EDP. The stability
programme outlines a number of additional measures for 2014, among which the
cancellation of ministerial appropriations to be adopted as part of a
supplementary budget and the first effects of the EUR 50 billion savings plan
announced by the government. On this basis, and also taking into account the
fact that the fiscal effort achieved in 2013 was higher than expected at the
time of the Commission recommendation, the programme can be considered to
broadly respond to the Commission recommendation. The level of detail of the
fiscal consolidation measures is insufficient to credibly ensure the correction
of the excessive deficit situation by 2015, as supported by the Commission
forecast of a deficit at 3.4% of GDP next year and an underlying structural
adjustment falling well short of the level recommended by the Council.
Moreover, risks to the government’s targets are tilted to the downside. In
particular, part of the additional measures for 2014 announced in the programme
remains to be adopted and the planned amount of savings for 2015 is very
ambitious. Based on the Commission Forecast, the fiscal effort over 2013-2014
falls short by 0.2 pp of GDP in terms of (corrected) change in the structural
balance and by 0.1 pp of GDP in terms of the amount of measures estimated as
necessary at the time of the Council recommendation. Based on its assessment of
the programme and the Commission forecast, pursuant to Council Regulation (EC)
No 1466/97, the Council is of the opinion that the measures underpinning the
budgetary strategy need to be specified further and that further efforts are
needed to comply with the Council recommendation and to ensure an appropriate
path towards the medium-term objective thereafter. In particular, additional
efforts should be spelled out in the forthcoming amending budget law for 2014.
(10)
Given the high and still increasing government
debt and the fact that the deadline for correcting the excessive deficit was extended
to 2015, it is all the more important that the 2014 budget is strictly
implemented and substantial consolidation efforts are firmly pursued in 2015.
In particular, public spending should grow at a much slower pace than in
previous years, as planned by the French government. Hence, there is a need to further specify the strategy on
reducing expenditure by intensifying the on-going spending review and by redefining,
where relevant, the scope of government action. Sizeable
short-term savings cannot be achieved without reducing significantly the
increase in social security spending, which accounts for nearly half of public
sector expenditure. This implies curbing healthcare and pension costs, for
example through setting more ambitious annual healthcare expenditure targets
and temporarily freezing pensions, as well as other social benefits, as
currently envisaged by the government. In addition, the planned new decentralisation law should
streamline the various administrative layers in France to eliminate
administrative overlap and achieve further synergies,
efficiency gains and savings by merging or suppressing administrative layers.
In this respect, not only the structural reforms
outlined in the stability programme will take effect only in the medium term, although the planned timetable has been brought forward since the
stability programme, but they are also subject to
significant implementation risks. The control of local government expenditure
should also be strengthened, including by capping the annual increase in local
government tax revenue while rigorously implementing the planned reduction in
grants from the central government. Beyond the need for savings in the short
run, the long-term sustainability of public finances is also an issue of
concern. While public expenditure on health has been
kept under control over the last few years, further efforts are needed to
improve the cost-effectiveness of the health system. In particular, there is a need to implement further cost-containment policies as
the health system is projected to face a significant rise in expenditure over
the medium and long term. Areas where efficiency should be enhanced include
pharmaceutical and administrative spending as well as hospital care. Lastly, a
pension reform was adopted in December 2013 with a view to ensuring the
long-term sustainability of the system. However the
pension reform will not suffice to eliminate the
system’s deficit, in particular the deficit arising from schemes for state
government officials and employees working in a number of state-controlled
companies. All in all, according to projections from the French authorities, the
new pension measures will only halve the system’s total deficit to some 0.5% of
GDP by 2020. Moreover, the size of adjustment is subject to significant risks
as the macroeconomic scenario underpinning these projections could prove overly
optimistic. The newly created pensions monitoring committee (“Comité de suivi des retraites”) should ensure that the system’s deficit
is gradually eliminated.
(11)
France is among the Member States where the cost
of labour is the highest. In particular, the high tax burden on labour reduces
firms’ profitability. In order to support cost
competitiveness, the French government has taken a number of initiatives to
reduce the tax burden on labour. A tax rebate for competitiveness and
employment (CICE), equivalent to a decrease in the cost of labour for wages
below 2.5 times the minimum wage, was adopted in December 2012. A further EUR
10 billion cut in the cost of labour was announced as part of a “responsibility and solidarity pact” in
January 2014. The two measures will account for EUR 30
billion or 1.5% of GDP, which is commensurate with the overall increase in
corporate taxation recorded in 2010-2013 and would only
bridge half of the gap between France and the euro area average in terms of
employer social security contributions. Moreover, exporting firms, which tend
to pay high wages, will benefit less from the CICE than non-exporting firms, thus reducing the impact of the measure on
competitiveness. The responsibility and solidarity pact includes a reduction in
the cost of labour for low wages and one targeting wages between 1.6 and 3.5
times the minimum wage. The latter measure, expected to enter into force from
2016, would have a more direct impact on exporting firms. Wage-setting in
France tends to result in distortions of the wage structure and limit the
ability of firms to adjust wages in economic downturns. The High Council for
the Financing of Social Protection (“Haut Conseil du financement de la
protection sociale”) has assessed the impact of various scenarios for social
security exemptions on employment, but limited emphasis has been put on the
impact on wage developments and competitiveness. However, although extensive
exemptions were granted, for workers paid the minimum wage, the cost of labour
at the minimum wage remains high. These exemptions contributed to containing
labour costs in 2013, which is a positive development, but the level of the
minimum wage in France is such that it provides one of the highest purchasing
power levels in the EU. The minimum wage should therefore continue to evolve in
a manner that is supportive of competitiveness and job creation. France has
only few exemptions from the statutory minimum wage and additional efforts
could be made to reduce the cost of labour for vulnerable groups.
(12)
France’s global ranking in a number of
international business environment surveys has deteriorated. While efforts have
been made as part of a “simplification
shock” launched in July 2013 to ease relation between firms and the
administration, there is a need for further improving the business environment.
In addition, a number of measures considered under the simplification plan
still need to be defined and implemented. In particular, specific attention
should be paid to regulations from the labour code or to accounting rules linked
to specific size thresholds that hamper the growth of French firms. These may
play a role in SMEs’ difficulties in reaching the size that would allow them to
export and to innovate. Policy initiatives to boost R&D spending and
innovation by private companies, in particular the tax credit on research and
the competitiveness poles, have yielded mixed results so far. The decreasing
weight of the industrial sector in the French private sector translates into
stagnating R&D spending by private companies despite significant efforts at
the firm level. As a consequence, a large proportion of R&D spending
remains financed by public money either directly through public research or
indirectly through subsidies. The effectiveness of the existing tools should be
further improved in order to trigger higher R&D expenditures by private
firms and innovation in the private sector. In particular, resources allocated
to the competitiveness poles could better foster scale effects and improve the
diffusion of innovation. In addition, the effectiveness of the policy could be
strengthened by enabling these poles to become real networks of firms with
positive spillovers. Lastly, the cost of the tax credit on research is expected
to reach EUR 5.8 billion in 2014 (close to 0.3% of GDP). In spite of
the cost of this measure, no ex post assessment of its effectiveness on R&D
is available.
(13)
Although barriers on legal forms, shareholding
requirements or tariffs have been removed for certain professions (e.g. veterinarians),
a majority still face significant barriers to entry or conduct today (e.g. taxis,
the health sector, notaries and legal professions more generally). The
principle of numerus clausus for the access to many professions (doctors,
pharmacists, etc.) is still hampering access to services, and could be reviewed
without putting quality and safety at risk. To date, no thorough assessment of
the need for, and proportionality of, restrictions affecting regulated
professions has taken place. In the retail sector, burdensome authorisation
requirements for the opening of trade outlets, notably resulting from urban
planning regulations, and the ban on sales at a loss still remain and have an adverse
impact on competition and on consumers. To date, no concrete measures have been
adopted in France to remove entry barriers in the retail sector. Regarding electricity and gas distribution,
regulated prices are being phased out for non-household customers. However, prices continue to be
regulated for households and for electricity, they are set below cost levels and the access by alternative suppliers is
limited. Regarding energy
interconnections, on-going projects, in particular with Spain, should be
completed to reinforce the electricity and gas interconnections with the
neighboring countries. In the railway sector, market entry barriers are still
preventing an efficient market functioning. France has not opened up its
domestic rail passenger market to competition, except for international
services, where there are few new entrants. It has launched a reform of its
railway system with a view to making it more financially sustainable. A draft
law was presented in October 2013 and is currently being discussed by
Parliament. The measures presented include the set-up of a fully-fledged
infrastructure manager within a vertically integrated structure including the
incumbent operator. This new structure may hamper access to the network by
alternative operators.
(14)
France has a high and rising overall tax burden.
In 2013, the tax-to-GDP ratio stood at 45.9%, one of the highest in the EU and
up by 3.3 pps since fiscal consolidation started in 2010. Against this
background, a special committee (“Assises de la fiscalité”) has provided input to a reform of the tax
system. Little progress has been made so far in lowering the statutory rates of
personal and corporate income tax and increasing VAT efficiency. Instead, a
temporary surcharge on large companies has been extended until 2015 and this
will result in the all-in statutory corporate income tax rate peaking at 38.1%
(the statutory rate is already one of the highest in the EU at 33.3%). The
French government has announced a gradual reduction in the statutory rate to
28% by 2020 but there is no information on the exact timing of the measure.
Limited progress has also been made over the last year in reducing and
streamlining income tax expenditures. In spite of some progress in the area of
environmental taxation (e.g. with the gradual introduction of a carbon tax or “contribution
climat énergie”), the share of environmental taxation in GDP continues to
remain low. In particular, excise duties in France are not indexed with
inflation and some important environmentally-harmful subsidies such as the
preferential rate of excise duty for diesel remain. Lastly, no
additional measures were taken in 2013 to address the debt bias in corporate
taxation with a view to preventing a further increase in private indebtedness.
(15)
Although a number of policy measures were taken
in France, the situation on the labour market continued to deteriorate in 2013
and significant challenges remain. Unemployment continued to increase to 10.3% in 2013 (against 7.5% in
2008). France’s labour market remains segmented with very low levels of
transitions from temporary to permanent contracts (the likelihood of moving
from a temporary to a permanent job was only 10.6% in 2010, as against 25.9% on
average in the EU). The inter-professional agreement on securing employment was
translated into a law adopted in July 2013. Although this reform is a positive
step, its impact remains uneven at this stage. In
particular, very few companies have made use of the
arrangements for company-level agreements created by the law to increase the
flexibility of work conditions in the event of temporary economic difficulties.
However, the rate of effective dismissals brought to court has been
significantly reduced. While negotiations took place in 2014 between social
partners to reform the unemployment benefit system, the new agreement is not
expected to substantially reduce the deficit of the system. The cumulated
deficit of the unemployment benefit system, which was close to 1% of GDP in
2013, calls for additional structural measures to ensure its sustainability. In
particular, some elements, such as the eligibility conditions, the degressivity
of benefits over time or the replacement rates for workers with the highest
wages were only marginally modified following the last agreement between social
partners in March 2014 and they should be further adapted to ensure that
incentives to work are adequate. Thanks to successive pension reforms, the
employment rate of workers between 55 and 64 years of age has seen a constant
increase in the past three years. However, the employment rate among older
workers in France (45.6% in 2012) remains well below the average in the EU
(-4.5 pps below) and only 55% of older workers in France retire directly after
employment (2008-2011). As a result, the unemployment rate for this group has
increased strongly over the last few years. Hence, there is a need to
strengthen measures to improve their employability while reviewing incentives for
them to stay in or return to work.
(16)
The 2013 Programme for International Student
Assessment survey showed that educational inequality in France is amongst the
highest in OECD countries. A sixth of young people in France leave education
and training without a qualification. This is particularly worrying as the
unemployment rate of young people was of 25.5% at the end of 2013 and as the
risk of being unemployed was almost two times higher for the least qualified
young people. Schemes to promote apprenticeships should reach in particular the
least qualified young people. Some
progress in addressing this issue was made through the launch of the reform of
compulsory education in July 2013 and the adoption of a law on vocational
education and lifelong learning in March 2014. However, it is too early to
assess whether these measures will effectively reduce inequalities in the
education system and a new plan targeting lower-secondary education schools in
disadvantaged areas announced in January 2014, still needs to be implemented. Lastly,
transition from school to work has been facilitated but the number of
apprentices decreased in 2012 and the schemes increasingly benefitted students
in higher education.
(17)
In the context of the European Semester, the
Commission has carried out a comprehensive analysis of France’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 France but also their compliance with EU
rules and guidance, given the need to reinforce the overall economic governance
of the European Union by providing EU-level input into future national
decisions. Its recommendations under the European Semester are
reflected in recommendations (1) to (7) below.
(18)
In the light of this assessment, the Council has
examined France’s stability programme, and its opinion[10] is reflected in
particular in recommendation (1) below.
(19)
In the light of the Commission’s in-depth review
and this assessment, the Council has examined the national reform programme and
the stability programme. Its recommendations under Article 6 of Regulation (EU)
No 1176/2011 are reflected in recommendations (1) to (6) below.
(20)
In the context of the European Semester the
Commission has also carried out an analysis of the economic policy of the euro
area as a whole. On the basis of this analysis, the Council has issued specific
recommendations for the Member States whose currency is the euro. France should
also ensure the full and timely implementation of these recommendations.
HEREBY RECOMMENDS that France take
action within the period 2014-2015 to:
1.
Reinforce the budgetary strategy, including by
further specifying the underlying measures, for the year 2014 and beyond to
ensure the correction of the excessive deficit in a sustainable manner by 2015 through
achieving the structural adjustment effort specified in the Council
recommendation under the Excessive Deficit Procedure. A durable correction of
the fiscal imbalances requires a credible implementation of ambitious
structural reforms to increase the adjustment capacity and boost growth and
employment. After the correction of the excessive deficit, pursue a structural adjustment
towards the medium-term objective of at least 0.5% of GDP each year, and more
in good economic conditions or if needed to ensure that the debt rule is met in
order to put the high general government debt ratio on a sustained downward
path. Step up efforts to achieve efficiency gains across all sub-sectors of
general government, including by redefining, where relevant, the scope of
government action. In particular, take steps to reduce significantly the
increase in social security spending as from 2015 as planned, by setting more
ambitious annual healthcare spending targets, containing pension costs, and
streamlining family benefits and housing allowances. Set a clear timetable for
the on-going decentralisation process and take first steps by December 2014,
with a view to eliminating administrative duplication, facilitating mergers
between local governments and clarifying the responsibilities of each layer of
local government. Introduce a ceiling on the annual increase in local
government tax revenue while reducing grants from the central government as
planned. Beyond the need for short-term savings, take steps to tackle the
increase in public expenditure on health projected over the medium and long
term, including in the area of pharmaceutical spending, and take additional
measures when and where  needed to bring the pension system into balance by
2020 in a sustainable manner, with a special focus on existing special schemes.

2.
Ensure that the labour cost reduction resulting
from the “crédit d’impôt compétitivité
emploi” is sustained. Take action to further lower employer social security
contributions in line with commitments under the responsibility and solidarity
pact, making sure that no other measures offset its effect and that the
targeting currently envisaged is maintained. Further evaluate the economic impact
of social security contribution exemptions, putting the emphasis on employment,
wage developments and competitiveness and take appropriate measures if
necessary. Further reduce the cost of labour in a budget neutral way namely at
the lower end of the wage scale notably through targeted reductions in employer
social security contributions  taking into account the various wage support
schemes.
3.
Simplify companies’
administrative, fiscal and accounting rules and take concrete measures to
implement the government’s ongoing “simplification plan” by December 2014.
Eliminate regulatory impediments to companies’ growth, in particular by
reviewing size-related criteria in regulations to avoid thresholds effects.
Take steps to simplify and improve the efficiency of innovation policy, notably
through an evaluation and if necessary an adaptation of the “crédit d’impôt recherche”.
Ensure that resources are focused on the most effective competitiveness poles
and further promote the economic impact of innovation developed in the poles.
4.
Remove unjustified restrictions on the access to
and exercise of regulated professions and reduce entry costs and promote
competition in services. Take further action to reduce regulatory burden
affecting the functioning of the retail sector, in particular by simplifying
authorisations for the opening of trade outlets and removing the ban on sales
at a loss. While maintaining affordable conditions for vulnerable groups,
ensure that regulated gas and electricity tariffs for household customers are
set at an appropriate level which does not represent an obstacle to
competition. Strengthen electricity and gas interconnection capacity with
Spain; in particular, increase the gas interconnections capacity to fully
integrate the Iberian gas market with the European market. In the railway
sector, ensure the independence of the new unified infrastructure manager from
the incumbent operator and take steps to open domestic passenger transport to
competition before 2019.
5.
Reduce the tax burden on labour and step up
efforts to simplify and increase the efficiency of the tax system. To this end,
starting in the 2015 budget, take measures to: remove inefficient personal and
corporate income tax expenditures on the basis of recent assessments and the “Assises de la fiscalité” initiative while
reducing the statutory rates; take additional measures to remove the debt bias
in corporate taxation; broaden the tax base, notably on consumption; phase out
environmentally-harmful subsidies.
6.
Take further action to combat labour-market
rigidity, in particular take measures to reform the conditions of the “accords de maintien de l’emploi” to
increase their take up by companies facing difficulties. Take additional
measures to reform the unemployment benefit system in association with social
partners, in order to guarantee its sustainability while ensuring that it
provides adequate incentives to return to work. Step up counselling and
training for older workers and re-assess the relevant specific unemployment
benefit arrangements.
7.
Pursue the modernisation of vocational education
and training, implement the reform of compulsory education and take further
actions to reduce educational inequalities in particular by strengthening
measures on early school leaving. Ensure that active labour market policies
effectively support the most vulnerable groups. Improve the transition from
school to work, notably by stepping up measures to further develop
apprenticeship with a specific emphasis on the low-skilled.
Done at Brussels,
                                                                       For
the Council
                                                                       The
President
[1]               OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 1.
[2]               OJ L 306, 23.11.2011, p. 25.
[3]               COM(2014) 411 final.
[4]               P7_TA(2014)0128 and P7_TA(2014)0129.
[5]               OJ L 140, 27.5.2013, p.11.
[6]               C(2013) 8004 final.
[7]               COM(2013) 800 final.
[8]               COM(2013) 790 final.
[9]               SWD(2014) 81 final.
[10]             Under Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No
1466/97.


title: Commission Recommendation of 28 May 2008 on risk reduction measures for the substances 2-nitrotoluene and 2,4-dinitrotoluene (notified under document number C(2008) 2233) (Text with EEA relevance)

text:
               31.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 141/20

      COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION

   of 28 May 2008
   on risk reduction measures for the substances 2-nitrotoluene and 2,4-dinitrotoluene
   (notified under document number C(2008) 2233)
   (Text with EEA relevance)
   (2008/405/EC)
   THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances (1) and in particular Article 11(2) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               In the framework of Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 the following substances have been identified as priority substances for evaluation in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 2364/2000 of 25 October 2000 concerning the fourth list of priority substances as foreseen under Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 (2):

                           —

                           2-nitrotoluene,

                           —

                           2,4-dinitrotoluene.

               (2)

               The rapporteur Member State designated pursuant to those Regulations has completed the risk evaluation activities with regard to man and the environment for those substances in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 of 28 June 1994 laying down the principles for the assessment of risks to man and the environment of existing substances in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 (3) and has suggested a strategy for limiting the risks.

               (3)

               The Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) has been consulted and has issued opinions with respect to the risk evaluations carried out by the rapporteur. The opinions have been published on the website of the Scientific Committee.

               (4)

               The results of the risk evaluation and further results of the strategies for limiting the risks are set out in the corresponding Commission Communication (4).

               (5)

               It is appropriate, on the basis of that evaluation, to recommend certain risk reduction measures for certain substances. For the substances which are not specifically listed, there are no recommendations for the addressees of this Recommendation.

               (6)

               The risk reduction measures recommended for workers should be considered within the framework of the legislation for workers protection, which is considered to provide an adequate framework to limit the risks of the relevant substances to the extent needed.

               (7)

               The risk reduction measures provided for in this recommendation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up pursuant to Article 15(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 793/93,

         HEREBY RECOMMENDS:
   SECTION 1
   2,4-DINITROTOLUENE
   (CAS No 121-14-2; Einecs No 204-450-0)
   Risk reduction measures for the environment (1, 2, 3)

               1.

               Competent authorities in the Member States concerned should lay down, in the permits issued under Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Commission (5), conditions, emission limit values or equivalent parameters or technical measures regarding 2,4-dinitrotoluene in order to operate according to the Best Available Techniques (BAT) taking into account the technical characteristic of the installations concerned, their geographical location and the local environmental conditions.

               2.

               Member States should carefully monitor the implementation of BAT regarding 2,4-dinitrotoluene and report any important developments to the Commission in the framework of the exchange of information on BAT.

               3.

               Local emissions to the aquatic environment and via air emissions of 2,4-DNT should, where necessary, be controlled by national rules to ensure that no risk for the environment is expected.

         SECTION 2
   ADDRESSEES

               4.

               This Recommendation is addressed to all sectors importing, producing, transporting, storing, formulating into a preparation or other processing, using, disposing or recovering the substances and to the Member States.

      Done at Brussels, 28 May 2008.

            For the Commission

         Stavros DIMAS

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  OJ L 84, 5.4.1993, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parlament and of the Council (OJ L 284, 31.10.2003, p. 1).

      (2)  OJ L 273, 26.10.2000, p. 5.

      (3)  OJ L 161, 29.6.1994, p. 3.

      (4)  OJ C 134, 31.5.2008, p. 4.

      (5)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2008, p. 8.


title: 2012/771/EU: Commission Recommendation of 6 December 2012 regarding measures intended to encourage third countries to apply minimum standards of good governance in tax matters

text:
               12.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 338/37

         COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
   of 6 December 2012
   regarding measures intended to encourage third countries to apply minimum standards of good governance in tax matters
   (2012/771/EU)
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 292 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               In an international context, the existence of differing tax legislation is generally accepted as a consequence of fiscal sovereignty. In this context, some, typically small, third countries with limited financial needs have opted for a low level of income tax which applies generally, both to individuals and to companies, or even no income tax at all. Such tax policies are not necessarily undesirable as such, as long as the State participates in international cooperation in order to allow other States to enforce their tax policy.

               (2)

               However, policies which entail a low level of income tax or none at all often go along with a lack of transparency or exchange of information with other States. The States concerned attract investment by offering non-residents a shelter for some types of mobile income or capital and allowing them to conceal the existence of such income or capital from the tax administration of their State of residence.

               (3)

               Various initiatives have been taken in international forums, such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development or G20, to address these concerns. Moreover, the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes (hereinafter ‘the Global Forum’) has developed standards of transparency and exchange of information for tax purposes. In 2009, the Global Forum agreed to review the implementation of those standards. It has engaged in a comprehensive peer review process and many traditional low tax jurisdictions have agreed to conclude bilateral agreements on exchange of information on tax matters.

               (4)

               Within the Union, issues of transparency and exchange of information are addressed by Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC (1). Moreover, there is a consensus in the Union, expressed in the Code of conduct for business taxation referred to in Annex 1 to Conclusions of the Ecofin Council meeting on 1 December 1997 concerning taxation policy (2), that harmful tax measures are not acceptable, which makes it difficult for Member States to maintain or introduce such measures. In addition, a number of measures potentially falling under the Code of conduct are subject to scrutiny under the rules on State aid set out in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

               (5)

               In its relations with third countries the Union has sought to convince them to subscribe to the Union principles concerning transparency and exchange of information (similar to the broadly accepted international standards for transparency and exchange of information) and the abolition of harmful tax measures as described in Commission Communication on promoting good governance in tax matters (3) and Commission Communication on tax and development cooperation with developing countries on promoting good governance in tax matters (4).

               (6)

               Member States whose tax base has been negatively affected by a lack of transparency or by harmful tax measures on the part of third countries have taken steps to remedy that situation. However, taxpayers respond to such measures by routing business or transactions through another jurisdiction with a lower level of protection. This risk is particularly relevant within the Union given the freedom of economic operators to do business anywhere in the Union. Consequently, the level of protection available within the Union against such erosion of the tax base tends to correspond to the lowest level of protection offered by any Member State.

               (7)

               The distortions that this situation brings about within the Union can lead to artificial capital flows and movements of taxpayers within the internal market and thus harm its proper functioning, as well as erode Member States’ tax bases. Such distortions should be remedied through an approach shared by all Member States.

               (8)

               Therefore, it is necessary to clearly spell out minimum standards of good governance in tax matters, both in regard to transparency and exchange of information and in regard to harmful tax measures, and a number of measures to be taken vis-à-vis third countries, with a view to encouraging those countries to comply with those standards.

               (9)

               In regard to transparency and exchange of information, an internationally recognised standard has been set out in the Terms of Reference agreed by the Global Forum in 2009. Those terms should therefore form the basis of this Recommendation. As far as harmful tax measures are concerned, the Code of conduct for business taxation has proven to be a pertinent reference within the Union. Member States have committed themselves to promoting principles of that Code in third countries. It is therefore appropriate to refer to the criteria of that Code for the purposes of this Recommendation. In this regard, it is also appropriate to refer to the work of the Code of Conduct Group (business taxation), set up within the framework of the Council to asses the tax measures that may fall within scope of the Code of conduct for business taxation (5). The cases assessed by this group can be of assistance when it comes to examine whether a given measure is to be considered as harmful.

               (10)

               This Recommendation should indicate a set of measures to be applied in relation to third countries that do not meet the minimum standards of good governance in tax matters. By applying these measures together, Member States would significantly increase the overall effectiveness of the measures taken by each of them. Losses of tax revenues could therefore be reduced, along with administrative costs for tax administrations and the compliance burden on taxpayers.

               (11)

               In order to promote the application of the minimum standards of good governance in tax matters, it is also necessary to indicate positive measures to encourage third countries that meet these standards or that are committed to meeting them but need assistance to achieve this.

               (12)

               The measures indicated in this Recommendation and applied by Member States must be compatible with Union law, in particular with the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the TFEU,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:
   1.   Subject matter
   This Recommendation provides criteria making it possible to identify third countries which do not meet minimum standards of good governance in tax matters. It also lists a series of actions that Member States may take in relation to third countries that do not meet those standards and in favour of third countries that do comply with them.
   This Recommendation concerns income taxation.
   2.   Definitions
   For the purpose of this Recommendation, the following definitions apply:

               (a)

               ‘income tax’ means any tax on income, whether levied from individuals or from legal entities and irrespective of the manner in which it is levied, imposed on behalf of a State, its political subdivisions or its local authorities;

               (b)

               ‘third country’ means any jurisdiction that is not a Member State;

               (c)

               ‘national blacklist’ means a list adopted by a Member State which identifies other jurisdictions in regard to whom the Member State applies predefined tax measures or tax policies.

         3.   Minimum standards of good governance in tax matters
   A third country only complies with minimum standards of good governance in tax matters where:

               (a)

               it has adopted legal, regulatory and administrative measures intended to comply with the standards of transparency and exchange of information set out in the Annex, and effectively applies those measures;

               (b)

               it does not operate harmful tax measures in the area of business taxation.

         Tax measures which provide for a significantly lower effective level of taxation, including zero taxation, than those levels which generally apply in the third country in question are to be regarded as potentially harmful. Such a level of taxation may operate by virtue of the nominal tax rate, the tax base or any other relevant factor.
   When assessing whether such measures are harmful, account should be taken of inter alia:

               (a)

               whether advantages are accorded only to non-residents or in respect of transactions carried out with non-residents; or

               (b)

               whether advantages are ring-fenced from the domestic market, so they do not affect the national tax base; or

               (c)

               whether advantages are granted even without any real economic activity and substantial economic presence within the third country offering such tax advantages; or

               (d)

               whether the rules for profit determination in respect of activities within a multinational group of companies departs from internationally accepted principles, notably the rules agreed upon within the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development; or

               (e)

               whether the tax measures lack transparency, including where legal provisions are relaxed at administrative level in a non-transparent way.

         When applying those criteria, Member States should take account of the conclusions reached in the Code of Conduct Group (business taxation) in regard to tax measures it has assessed as harmful.
   4.   Measures directed against third countries not complying with minimum standards set out in point 3

               4.1.

               Member States should publish blacklists of third countries not complying with minimum standards set out in point 3, with a view to the application of point 4.3. Those blacklists should make reference to this Recommendation.

               4.2.

               Member States that have adopted national blacklists should include in such lists third countries not complying with minimum standards set out in point 3.

               4.3.

               Each Member State having concluded a double taxation convention with a third country not complying with minimum standards as set out in point 3 should, as most appropriate with a view to improve compliance by that third country with these standards, either seek to renegotiate the convention, suspend or terminate the convention.

         5.   Measures in favour of third countries complying with minimum standards set out in point 3

               5.1.

               Member States should remove third countries which comply with minimum standards set out in point 3 from the blacklists referred to in point 4.1.

               5.2.

               Member States should consider removing third countries which comply with minimum standards set out in point 3 from any existing national blacklists referred to in point 4.2.

               5.3.

               Member States should consider initiating bilateral negotiations for the conclusion of double tax conventions with third countries which comply with minimum standards set out in point 3.

         6.   Measures in favour of third countries which are committed to comply with minimum standards set out in point 3.

               6.1.

               Member States should consider offering closer cooperation and assistance to third countries, especially developing ones, which are committed to complying with minimum standards set out in point 3, in order to assist those third countries in fighting effectively against tax evasion and aggressive tax planning. To this end, they could second tax experts to such countries for a limited period of time.
               When judging third countries’ commitment to complying with those minimum standards, Member States should take into account all concrete indications to this effect, in particular steps towards compliance already taken by the third country concerned.

               6.2.

               As long as a third country benefits from assistance in accordance with point 6.1 and accomplishes the expected progress towards compliance with the said minimum standards, Member States should abstain from applying the measures referred to in point 4, except for the renegotiation of double tax conventions.

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

      Done at Brussels, 6 December 2012.

            For the Commission

         Algirdas ŠEMETA

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  OJ L 64, 11.3.2011, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ C 2, 6.1.1998, p. 1.

      (3)  COM(2009) 201 final of 28 April 2009.

      (4)  COM(2010) 163 final of 21 April 2010.

      (5)  OJ C 99, 1.4.1998, p. 1.

      ANNEX

         STANDARDS OF TRANSPARENCY AND EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION

      A.   AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION

                  A.1.

                  The third country concerned ensures that ownership and identity information for all relevant entities and arrangements is available to its competent authorities.

                  A.2.

                  The third country concerned ensures that reliable accounting records are kept for all relevant entities and arrangements.

                  A.3.

                  Banking information is available for all account holders.

            B.   ACCESS TO INFORMATION

                  B.1.

                  Competent authorities of the third country concerned have the power to obtain and provide information that is the subject of a request under an agreement on exchange of information, from any person within their territorial jurisdiction who is in possession or control of such information.

                  B.2.

                  The rights and safeguards that apply to persons in the requested third country concerned are compatible with effective exchange of information.

            C.   EXCHANGING INFORMATION

                  C.1.

                  Mechanisms for the exchange of information with Member States are such that this exchange is carried out in an effective manner.

                  C.2.

                  The network of information exchange mechanisms of the third country concerned covers all Member States.

                  C.3.

                  The mechanisms for exchange of information of the third country concerned contain adequate provisions to ensure the confidentiality of information received from Member States.

                  C.4.

                  The exchange of information mechanisms of the third country concerned respect the rights and safeguards of taxpayers and third parties.

                  C.5.

                  The third country concerned provides information under its network of agreements with Member States in a timely manner.


title: Council Recommendation of 16 February 2010 on the appointment of the Vice-President of the European Central Bank

text:
               2.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/1

         COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
   of 16 February 2010
   on the appointment of the Vice-President of the European Central Bank
   2010/C 52/01
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 283(2) and 139(2)(h) thereof, and having regard to Articles 11.2 and 42.3 of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank,
   HEREBY RECOMMENDS TO THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL:
   To appoint Mr Vítor CONSTÂNCIO as Vice-President of the European Central Bank for a term of office of eight years with effect from 1 June 2010.

      Done at Brussels, 16 February 2010.

            For the Council

            The President

         E. SALGADO


title: Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of  15 February 2006  on further European cooperation in quality assurance in higher education

text:
               4.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 64/60

      RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

   of 15 February 2006
   on further European cooperation in quality assurance in higher education
   (2006/143/EC)
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Articles 149(4) and 150(4) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
   Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),
   After consulting the Committee of the Regions,
   Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty (2),
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Although the implementation of Council Recommendation 98/561/ΕC of 24 September 1998 on European cooperation in quality assurance in higher education (3) has been a marked success as demonstrated in the report of the Commission of 30 September 2004, there is still a need to improve the performance of European higher education, particularly as regards quality, in order for it to become more transparent and trustworthy for European citizens and for students and scholars from other continents.

               (2)

               Recommendation 98/561/EC called for support to and, where necessary, the establishment of transparent quality assurance systems. Almost all Member States have set up national assurance systems and have initiated or enabled the establishment of one or more quality assurance or accreditation agencies.

               (3)

               Recommendation 98/561/EC called for quality assurance systems to be based on a series of essential features, including evaluation of programmes or institutions through internal assessment, external review, and involving the participation of students, publication of results and international participation. The results of quality assurance assessments play a significant role in helping higher education institutions to improve performance.

               (4)

               The essential features referred to in recital 3 have generally been implemented in all quality assurance systems and they have been affirmed by the European Ministers of Education, in Berlin, in September 2003, in the context of the Bologna Process, working towards the realisation of a European Higher Education Area.

               (5)

               The European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) was established in 2000 and has a growing membership of quality assurance or accreditation agencies in all Member States.

               (6)

               In the context of the Bologna Process, Ministers of Education from 45 countries adopted the standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the European Higher Education Area, as proposed by ENQA, during their meeting in Bergen on 19 and 20 May 2005 and as a follow-up to the meeting in Berlin in September 2003. They also welcomed the principle of a European register of quality assurance agencies based on national review and asked that the practicalities of implementation be further developed by ENQA, in cooperation with the European University Association (EUA), the European Association for Institutions of Higher Education (EURASHE) and the National Unions of Students in Europe (ESIB), with a report back to Ministers through the Bologna Follow-up Group. They furthermore underlined the importance of cooperation between nationally recognised agencies with a view to enhancing the mutual recognition of accreditation or quality assurance decisions.

               (7)

               EU action supporting quality assurance should be developed in coherence with activities carried out in the context of the Bologna Process.

               (8)

               It is desirable to draw up a register of independent and trustworthy quality assurance agencies operating in Europe, be they regional or national, general or specialised, public or private, to support transparency in higher education and help the recognition of qualifications and periods of study abroad.

               (9)

               In the context of the Lisbon Strategy, the European Council in Barcelona, in March 2002, expressed their conclusion that European education and training systems should become a ‘world quality reference’,

         HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT MEMBER STATES:

               1.

               encourage all higher education institutions active within their territory to introduce or develop rigorous internal quality assurance systems, in accordance with the standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the European Higher Education Area adopted in Bergen in the context of the Bologna Process;

               2.

               encourage all quality assurance or accreditation agencies active within their territory to be independent in their assessments, to apply the features of quality assurance laid down in Recommendation 98/561/EC and to apply the common set of general standards and guidelines adopted in Bergen, for assessment purposes. These standards should be further developed in cooperation with representatives of the higher education sector. They should be applied in such a way as to protect and promote diversity and innovation;

               3.

               encourage representatives of national authorities, the higher education sector and quality assurance and accreditation agencies, together with social partners, to set up a ‘European Register of Quality Assurance Agencies’ (European Register) based on national review, that takes account of the principles set out in the Annex, and to define the conditions for registration and the rules for management of the register;

               4.

               enable higher education institutions active within their territory to choose among quality assurance or accreditation agencies in the European Register an agency which meets their needs and profile, provided that this is compatible with their national legislation or permitted by their national authorities;

               5.

               allow higher education institutions to work towards a complementary assessment by another agency in the European Register, for example to enhance their international reputation;

               6.

               promote cooperation between agencies in order to build up mutual trust and the recognition of quality assurance and accreditation assessments, thus contributing to the recognition of qualifications for the purpose of study or work in another country;

               7.

               ensure public access to the assessments made by the quality assurance or accreditation agencies listed in the European Register,

         INVITE THE COMMISSION:

               1.

               to continue, in close cooperation with the Member States, its support for cooperation between higher education institutions, quality assurance and accreditation agencies, competent authorities and other bodies active in the field;

               2.

               to present triennial reports to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on progress in the development of quality assurance systems in the various Member States and on cooperation activities at European level, including the progress achieved with respect to the objectives referred to above.

      Done at Strasbourg, 15 February 2006.

            For the European Parliament

            The President

         J. BORRELL FONTELLES

            For the Council

            The President

         H. WINKLER

      (1)  OJ C 255, 14.10.2005, p. 72.

      (2)  Opinion of the European Parliament of 13 October 2005 (not yet published in the Official Journal) and Council Decision of 30 January 2006.

      (3)  ΟJ L 270, 7.10.1998, p. 56.

      ANNEX
      ‘European Register of Quality Assurance Agencies’
      The Register should provide a list of reliable agencies whose assessments Member States (and public authorities within Member States) can trust. It should be founded on the following main principles.

                  1.

                  The list of agencies should be drawn up by representatives of national authorities, the higher education sector (higher education institutions, students, teachers and researchers) and quality assurance and accreditation agencies active in the Member States, together with social partners.

                  2.

                  Conditions for registration of agencies could include, inter alia:

                              (i)

                              a commitment to complete independence in reaching their judgement;

                              (ii)

                              recognition by at least the Member State within which they operate (or by public authorities within that Member State);

                              (iii)

                              operation on the basis of the common set of standards and guidelines referred to in recommendations 1 and 2 addressed to the Member State;

                              (iv)

                              regular external review by peers and other experts, including publication of the criteria, methodologies and results of such review.

                  3.

                  In the event of an initial refusal of registration, re-evaluation is possible on the basis of improvements made.


title: Recommendation of the European Central Bank of 24 February 2014 on the organisation of preparatory measures for the collection of granular credit data by the European System of Central Banks (ECB/2014/7)

text:
               8.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/1

         RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK
   of 24 February 2014
   on the organisation of preparatory measures for the collection of granular credit data by the European System of Central Banks
   (ECB/2014/7)
   (2014/C 103/01)
   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 to Article 5.1 and the third indent of Article 34.1 thereof,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2533/98 of 23 November 1998 concerning the collection of statistical information by the European Central Bank (1), and in particular Article 8(5) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Pursuant to Decision ECB/2014/6 (2), the European Central Bank (ECB) may apply specified preparatory measures with a view to establishing a long-term framework for the transmission of granular credit data within the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) for specified statistical purposes.

               (2)

               The effective application of this long-term framework will be dependent on cooperation between all participating members of the ESCB and on the application of equal standards in respect of quality by those members. National central banks (NCBs) of Member States whose currency is not the euro, and who are preparing for participation in this framework should cooperate with each other, with NCBs of Member States whose currency is the euro and with the ECB in applying the preparatory measures in accordance with Decision ECB/2014/6,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:
   I.

      Definitions

   For the purposes of this Recommendation, the term ‘granular credit data’ has the same meaning as in Decision ECB/2014/6.
   II.

      Provision of statistical information

   The addressees of this Recommendation are requested to apply the provisions addressed to the NCBs contained in Decision ECB/2014/6.
   III.

      Final provision

   This Recommendation is addressed to the NCBs of Member States whose currency is not the euro who are preparing for participation in the long-term framework for the transmission of granular credit data within the ESCB.

      Done at Frankfurt am Main, 24 February 2014.

            The President of the ECB

         Mario DRAGHI

      (1)  OJ L 318, 27.11.1998, p. 8.

      (2)  Decision ECB/2014/6 of 24 February 2014 on the organisation of preparatory measures for the collection of granular credit data by the European System of Central Banks (not yet published in the Official Journal).


				|

		52011SC0826

			Recommendation for a COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION on the National Reform Programme 2011 of Swedenand delivering a Council opinionon the updated Convergence Programme of Sweden, 2011-2014 /* SEC/2011/0826 final */

			   	Recommendation for a
COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
on the National Reform Programme 2011 of
Sweden
and delivering a Council opinion
on the updated Convergence Programme of Sweden, 2011-2014
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 121(2) and 148(4)
thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No
1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary
positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies[1],
and in particular Article 9(3) thereof,
Having regard to the recommendation of the
European Commission[2],
Having regard to the conclusions of the
European Council,
Having regard to the opinion of the
Employment Committee,
After consulting the Economic and Financial
Committee,
Whereas:
(1)
On 26 March 2010, the European Council agreed to
the European Commission's proposal to launch a new strategy for jobs and
growth, 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 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[3],
which together form the “integrated guidelines”. Member States were invited to
take the integrated guidelines into account in their national economic and
employment policies.
(3)
On 12 January 2011, the Commission adopted the
first Annual Growth Survey, marking the start of a new cycle of economic
governance in the EU and the first European semester of ex-ante and integrated
policy coordination, which is anchored in the Europe 2020 strategy.
(4)
On 25 March 2011, the European Council endorsed
the priorities for fiscal consolidation and structural reform (in line with the
Council’s conclusions of 15 February and 7 March 2011 and further to the
Commission’s Annual Growth Survey). It underscored the need to give priority to
restoring sound budgets and fiscal sustainability, reducing unemployment
through labour market reforms and making new efforts to enhance growth. It
requested Member States to translate these priorities into concrete measures to
be included in their Stability or Convergence Programmes and National Reform
Programmes.
(5)
On 29 April 2011, Sweden submitted its updated
2011 Convergence Programme covering the period 2011-2014 and its 2011 National
Reform Programme. The two programmes have been assessed
at the same time.
(6)
Before the economic crisis of 2008-2009, the
Swedish economy enjoyed more than a decade of strong growth driven by both
domestic demand and net exports. Being an export-oriented economy with a
sizeable financial sector, it was strongly affected by the slump in external
demand and the freezing of financial markets in 2008, causing GDP to contract
by 5.1% in 2009 and the unemployment rate to increase from around 6% to above
9%. Thanks to a sound starting position without large adjustment needs in the
household, banking and public sectors, as well as an adequate monetary and
fiscal policy response, the recession was rather short-lived and affected
mainly the export-oriented manufacturing sector. As world trade revived, the
Swedish economy experienced a very strong and broad-based recovery, with real
GDP rebounding by 5.5% in 2010. Due to the combined
effect of automatic stabilisers and discretionary measures, the fiscal balance
went from a surplus of 3.7% of GDP in 2007 to a deficit of 0.9% in 2009, before
returning to balance in 2010.
(7)
Based on the assessment of the updated
Convergence Programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97, the
Council is of the opinion that the macroeconomic scenario underpinning the
budgetary projections is broadly plausible, except for 2012 when it is too
favourable. The budgetary strategy, as outlined in the updated Convergence
Programme, is appropriate, as it would contribute to meeting Sweden's
medium-term objective (MTO) of 1% GDP surplus over a cycle. This would provide
some margin against breaches of the 3% of GDP reference value in any future
downturn. The programme projects the general government surplus to widen from
0.6% of GDP in 2011 to 3.7% of GDP in 2014, the last year of the programme.
This improvement would result from assumed strong economic growth, as the
programme does not envisage any consolidation efforts in these years. Risks to
the budgetary targets are broadly balanced. As the revenue forecast presented
in the programme is somewhat cautious for 2011, budgetary outcomes could turn
out slightly better this year, whereas certain downside risks to budgetary
projections from 2012 onwards are linked to favourable macroeconomic
assumptions. As the government has indicated that further expansionary fiscal
measures envisaged in the 2011 Budget Bill (including a fifth step in the in-work tax credit for wage-earners,
a further rise in the threshold for paying state income tax, lower VAT on
restaurant services, and lower taxes on pensions) could be implemented as from
2012, if there is sufficient fiscal space, there is a risk of a pro-cyclical
fiscal policy stance. Given the demographic outlook, it is important that
Sweden continues to meet its MTO.
(8)
The current situation in the housing and
mortgage markets is a source of potential instability. After a short-lived and
mild correction at the height of the financial crisis, house prices in Sweden -
in contrast to other countries - resumed the strong upward trend observed since
the second half of the 1990s and are now at a record high. The strong increase
in house prices has gone hand in hand with rising household indebtedness which
represented around 170% of disposable income by mid-2010, a historical high.
Moreover, a large share of mortgage debt is at variable rates with little
amortisation. This makes Swedish households particularly vulnerable to interest
rate hikes or set-backs in employment. A marked correction in the housing
market could have negative repercussions for macro-economic stability by making
households rein in consumption to balance their budgets and by increasing
financing costs for Swedish banks.
(9)
As regards the Swedish labour market, non-EU
nationals and youth have a relatively weak position compared with the EU
average. Further improvement of their position on the labour market is
essential to raise the overall employment rate and to improve the labour supply
in the long term so as to meet the demographic challenge of an ageing
population. The Swedish government is currently implementing several reforms in
order to improve the employment situation of both groups such as increased
funds for coaching, work-experience positions, vocational adult education,
apprenticeship training coaching, targeted wage subsidies and streamlined
Swedish language courses. The latest statistics show clear signs that the
Swedish labour market is improving across the board, except for foreign-born
women.
(10)
The Commission has assessed the Convergence
Programme and National Reform Programme[4]. It has taken into
account not only their relevance for sustainable fiscal and socio-economic
policy in Sweden but also their conformity 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. It considers that the
programmes are adequately addressing the main challenges for Sweden. However,
while the government's fiscal strategy to continue meeting the MTO is
appropriate, care needs to be taken from 2012 onwards to avoid an excessively
loose fiscal policy in times of favourable growth. The risks of macro-economic
imbalances should be assessed, notably those stemming from rising house prices and
household indebtedness. In addition, the labour market participation of
vulnerable groups needs to be monitored and improved, notably for youth and
foreign-born women.
(11)
In light of this assessment,  the Council has
examined the 2011 update of the Convergence Programme of Sweden and its opinion[5]
is reflected in particular in its recommendation under (1) set out below.
Taking into account the European Council conclusions of 25 March 2011, the
Council has examined the National Reform Programme of Sweden,
HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Sweden should
take action within the period 2011-2012 to
(1)
Keep fiscal policy on a path that ensures that
the medium-term objective continues to be met and avoid a pro-cyclical fiscal
policy stance in the current economic upturn.
(2)
Take preventive action to deal with the
macro-economic risks associated with rising house prices and household
indebtedness, including reforms to the mortgage system, rent regulation,
property taxation and construction permits.
(3)
Monitor and improve the
labour market participation of young people and other vulnerable groups.
Done at Brussels,
                                                                       For
the Council
                                                                       The
President
[1]               OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 1.
[2]               OJ C , p. .
[3]               Maintained for 2011 by Council Decision 2011/308/EU
of 19 May 2011.
[4]               SEC(2011) 735.
[5]               Foreseen in Article 9(3) of Council Regulation (EC)
No 1466/97.


Avis juridique important

|

32003H0558

Commission Recommendation of 25 July 2003 on the processing of caller location information in electronic communication networks for the purpose of location-enhanced emergency call services (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2003) 2657)

Official Journal L 189 , 29/07/2003 P. 0049 - 0051

Commission Recommendationof 25 July 2003on the processing of caller location information in electronic communication networks for the purpose of location-enhanced emergency call services(notified under document number C(2003) 2657)(Text with EEA relevance)(2003/558/EC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Directive 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications and services (the "Framework Directive")(1), and in particular Article 19 thereof,Whereas:(1) Decision 91/396/EEC on the introduction of a single European emergency call number(2) required Member States to ensure that the number 112 was introduced in public telephone networks as the single European emergency call number by 31 December 1992, with under certain conditions, a possibility for derogation until 31 December 1996.(2) Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (the "Universal Service Directive")(3), requires public telephone network operators (hereafter "operators") to make caller location information available to authorities handling emergencies, to the extent technically feasible, for all calls made to the single European emergency call number 112. Directive 2002/58/EC concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (the "Directive on privacy and electronic communications")(4) establishes that providers of public communications networks and services may override the elimination of the presentation of calling line identification and the temporary denial or absence of consent of a subscriber or user for the processing of location data, on a per-line basis for organisations dealing with emergency calls and recognised as such by a Member State, including law enforcement agencies, ambulance services and fire brigades, for the purpose of responding to such calls.(3) Although this Recommendation is concerned with location-enhanced 112, it is understood that parallel national emergency call numbers will be enhanced with the same functionality and following the same principles. Organisations operating private telecommunication installations are not affected by this Recommendation.(4) For the successful implementation of E112 services throughout the Community, implementation issues must be addressed and timescales for the introduction of new systems coordinated. The Coordination Group on Access to Location Information by Emergency Services (CGALIES) established by the Commission in May 2000 as a partnership of public service and private sector players has allowed players of different sectors to discuss and find agreement on the principles for harmonised and timely implementation.(5) Following on from the recommendation by CGALIES, providers of the public telephone network or service should use their best effort to determine and forward the most reliable caller location information available for all calls to the single European emergency call number 112.(6) During the introductory phase of E112 services, application of the best efforts principle is considered preferable to mandating specific performance characteristics for location determination. However, as public safety answering points and emergency services gain practical experiences with location information, their requirements will become more defined. Moreover, location technology will continue to evolve, both within mobile cellular networks and satellite location systems. Therefore, the best effort approach will need to be reviewed after the initial phase.(7) It is important for all Member States to develop common technical solutions and practices for the provision of E112. The elaboration of common technical solutions should be pursued through the European standardisation organisations, in order to facilitate the introduction of E112, create interoperable solutions and decrease the costs of implementation to the European Union.(8) A harmonised solution across Europe would serve interoperability for advanced safety applications, such as calls which can be originated manually or automatically by an in-vehicle telematics terminal. These calls can provide additional information, for instance on the number of passengers in a car or bus, on compass-direction, on crash-sensor indicators, on the type of load of dangerous goods or on health records of drivers and passengers. With the high volume of cross-border traffic in Europe, there is a growing need for a common data transfer protocol for passing such information to public safety answering points and emergency services in order to avoid the risk of confusion or a wrong interpretation of data passed.(9) The arrangements for forwarding location information by operators to public safety answering points should be established in a transparent and non-discriminatory way including, where appropriate, any cost aspects.(10) The effective implementation of location-enhanced emergency call services requires that the caller's location as determined by the provider of the public telephone network or service is transmitted automatically to any appropriate public safety answering point that can receive and use the location data provided.(11) Directive 2002/58/EC concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (the "Directive on privacy and electronic communications") generally requires that privacy and data protection rights of individuals should be fully respected and adequate technical and organisational security measures should be implemented for that purpose. However, it allows the use of location data by emergency services without consent of the user concerned. In particular, Member States should ensure that there are transparent procedures governing the way in which a provider of a public telecommunications network and/or service may override the temporary denial or absence of consent of a user for the processing of location data, on a per-line basis for organisations dealing with emergency calls and that are recognised as such by a Member State.(12) Actions conducted in the context of the Community action programme in the field of Civil Protection (hereinafter "Civil Protection Action Programme")(5) should aim to contribute to the integration of civil protection objectives in other Community policies and actions as well as to the consistency of the programme with other Community actions. This entitles the Commission to implement actions aiming at increasing the degree of preparedness of organisations involved in civil protection in the Member States, by enhancing their ability to respond to emergencies and improving the techniques and methods of response and immediate aftercare. This may include the handling and use of location information associated to E112 emergency calls by public safety answering points and emergency services.(13) To achieve the objectives of this Recommendation, the need for a continued dialogue between public network operators and service providers and public authorities including emergency services becomes even stronger.(14) When reporting on the situation of E112 implementation, national authorities should address any relevant technical feasibility issue that hinders the introduction of E112 for specific categories of end-users, as well as the technical requirements for handling emergency calls that may originate from SMS and telematic data services.(15) The measures set out in this Recommendation are in accordance with the advisory opinion of the Communications Committee set up by Article 22 of Directive 2002/21/EC,HEREBY RECOMMENDS THAT:1. Member States should apply the following harmonised conditions and principles to the provision of caller location information to emergency services for all calls to the single European emergency call number 112.2. For the purposes of this Recommendation, the following definitions should apply:(a) "emergency service" means a service, recognised as such by the Member State, that provides immediate and rapid assistance in situations where there is a direct risk to life or limb, individual or public health or safety, to private or public property, or the environment but not necessarily limited to these situations.(b) "location information" means in a public mobile network the data processed indicating the geographic position of a user's mobile terminal and in a public fixed network the data about the physical address of the termination point.(c) "E112" means an emergency communications service using the single European emergency call number, 112, which is enhanced with location information of the calling user.(d) "public safety answering point" means a physical location where emergency calls are received under the responsibility of a public authority.3. Member States should draw up detailed rules for public network operators, to include, inter alia, the provisions in points 4 to 9 below.4. For every emergency call made to the European emergency call number 112, public telephone network operators should, initiated by the network, forward (push) to public safety answering points the best information available as to the location of the caller, to the extent technically feasible. For the intermediate period up to the conclusion of the review as referred to in point 13 below, it is acceptable that operators make available location information on request only (pull).5. Fixed public telephone network operators should make available the installation address of the line from which the emergency call is made.6. Public telephone network operators should provide location information in a non-discriminatory way, and in particular should not discriminate between the quality of information provided concerning their own subscribers and other users. In the case of the fixed networks, other users include users of public pay phones; in the case of mobile networks or mobility applications, other users include roamers or visiting users, or, where appropriate, users of mobile terminals which can not be identified by the subscriber or user number.7. All location information provided should be accompanied by an identification of the network on which the call originates.8. Public telephone network operators should keep sources of location information, including address information, accurate and up-to-date.9. For each emergency call for which the subscriber or user number has been identified, public telephone network operators should provide the capability to public safety answering points and emergency services of renewing the location information through a call back functionality (pulling) for the purpose of handling the emergency.10. In order to facilitate data transfer between operators and public safety answering points, Member States should encourage the use of a common open interface standard, and in particular for a common data transfer protocol, adopted by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), where available. Such a standard should include the necessary flexibility to accommodate future requirements as they may arise, for instance from in-vehicle telematics terminals. Member States should ensure that the interface is best suited to the effective handling of emergencies.11. In the context of the obligation for E112 services prescribed by the Universal Service Directive, Member States should provide adequate information to their citizens about the existence, use and benefits of E112 services. Citizens should be informed that 112 connects them to emergency services all across the European Union and that their location will be forwarded. They should also be informed about the identity of the emergency services that will receive their location information and of other necessary details to guarantee fair processing of their personal data.12. In the context of the continuous evolution of concepts and technologies, Member States are encouraged to foster and support the development of services for emergency assistance, for instance to tourists and travellers and for the transport of dangerous goods by road or rail, including handling procedures for forwarding location and other emergency or accident related information to public safety answering points; to support the development and implementation of common interface specifications in ensuring Europe-wide interoperability of such services; and to encourage the use of location technologies with high precision such as third generation cellular network location technologies and Global Navigation Satellite Systems.13. Member States should require their national authorities to report to the Commission on the situation of E112 implementation by the end of 2004 so that the Commission can undertake a review taking into account the emerging requirements from public safety answering points and emergency services and the evolutions and availability of technological capabilities for location determination.14. This Recommendation is addressed to the Member States.Done at Brussels, 25 July 2003.For the CommissionErkki LiikanenMember of the Commission(1) OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 33.(2) OJ L 217, 6.8.1991, p. 31.(3) OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 31.(4) OJ L 201, 31.7.2002, p. 37.(5) OJ L 327, 21.12.1999, p. 53.