				|

		52011SC0813

			Recommendation for a COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION on the National Reform Programme 2011 of the Netherlandsand delivering a Council opinionon the updated Stability Programme of the Netherlands 2011-2015 /* SEC/2011/0813 final */

			   	Recommendation for a
COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
on the National Reform Programme 2011 of
the Netherlands
and delivering a Council opinion
on the updated Stability Programme of the Netherlands 2011-2015
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(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 25 March 2011, the European Council also
invited the Member States participating in the Euro Plus Pact to present their
commitments in time to be included in their Stability or Convergence Programmes
and their National Reform Programmes.
(6)
On 29 April 2011, the Netherlands submitted its
2011 Stability Programme update covering the period 2011-2015 as well as its
2011 National Reform Programme. In order to take account of the interlinkages,
the two programmes have been assessed at the same time.
(7)
In spite of a previously robust performance, as
the crisis unfolded, the very open Dutch economy suffered significantly: real
GDP contracted by almost 4% in 2009. The recovery started in the second half of
2009, led by a pick-up in external demand, and gained momentum in the first
half of 2010, resulting in a GDP growth of 1.8%. The impact of the crisis on
the labour market was relatively contained. Unemployment is expected to
decrease gradually over the next two years from 4.5% in 2010 to 4% in 2012. The
crisis impacted Dutch public finances heavily, with the general government deficit rising to 5.5% of GDP in 2009
and 5.4% in 2010. Government operations to support
financial institutions and stabilise the financial markets entailed an increase
in the government debt ratio by 15 percentage points
of GDP, with the debt ratio reaching 60.8% of GDP in 2009.
(8)
Based on the assessment of the updated Stability
Programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97, the Council is of the
opinion that the macroeconomic scenario underpinning the budgetary projections
presented in the Stability Programme is plausible. The programme is based on
slightly more prudent growth projections for 2011 and 2012 than the Commission
services’ Spring 2011 Forecast. The Stability Programme plans to reduce the
general government deficit below the 3% reference value in 2012, which would be
one year ahead of the deadline set by the excessive deficit procedure. Based on
the figures in the Stability Programme, the medium-term objective (MTO), a
structural deficit of 0.5% of GDP, will be almost achieved by the end of the
programme period, as the structural balance calculated by the Commission comes
out at -0.8% of GDP in 2015. The budgetary strategy is fully underpinned by
sufficiently specified measures up to 2015, though their implementation is
subject to some risks, mainly with respect to the ability to offset health care
overruns and to monitor local government expenditure. The average annual fiscal
effort is 0.75% of GDP over the period 2011-2013, in compliance with the
Council Recommendation of 2 December 2009 under the EDP procedure. For the
years following the deadline for correcting the excessive deficit (2014 and
2015), the recalculated structural balance improves by 0.25% in 2014 and 0.5%
in 2015, thereby slightly falling short of the required 0.5% improvement in the
structural balance until the MTO is reached.
(9)
The budgetary consolidation planned and
implemented by the Dutch authorities strongly relies on largely structural
expenditure cutbacks, amounting to approximately 3% of GDP by the end of the
programme period (2015) compared to the baseline. The resulting adjustment path
envisages a reduction in the general government deficit from 3.8% of GDP in
2011 to 2.4% of GDP in 2012, falling further in annual steps of around 0.5% in
the period 2013-2015. The Netherlands is firmly committed to reaching those
targets. Safeguarding growth-enhancing policy areas such as education from
budgetary cuts would avoid hampering the future potential for economic growth,
and contribute to achieving a sustainable correction to the excessive deficit.
(10)
Besides short-term consolidation, one of the
main challenges is improving the long-term sustainability of public finances,
which is negatively affected by the strong increase in age-related expenditure.
The long-term cost of ageing is clearly above the EU average, notably in
long-term care and pensions. The expected increase in long-term care
expenditure is the highest in Europe, as shown in the Commission’s 2009 Ageing
Report. The main reason for this is the existence of an already comprehensive
system of formal long-term care (e.g. public long-term insurance covering
personal care, nursing, assistance, treatment and stay in an institution),
while informal care plays a more limited role in the Netherlands.
(11)
The Dutch labour market is characterised by
relatively high participation rates, high productivity per hour worked and low
unemployment. However, the main challenge for the labour market will be
to increase the utilisation of untapped labour potential, in particular to
compensate for the expected decrease in the working age population as a result
of ageing. The average amount of hours worked per year is the lowest in the EU,
as confirmed by the latest available data. The low number of hours worked
results from the very large share of people working part-time, particularly
women, reflecting personal preferences but also the existence of financial
disincentives for either entering the labour market or for extending the hours
worked. Currently, one of the main disincentives for second-income earners to
enter the labour market or to work more hours in the Netherlands is the high
marginal tax rate on second incomes, which can in some cases turn out to be
above 80 %, as a result of inter alia the general tax credit and
the reduction in income-dependent benefits such as childcare subsidy.
(12)
For an increasing and heterogeneous group of
partly disabled, long-term unemployed who face a growing risk of structural
unemployment, the implementation of active labour market policies has
apparently not produced positive results. Non-EU
nationals are experiencing particular difficulties, thereby amplifying the
persistent employment and unemployment gaps.
(13)
The Dutch research and innovation (R&I)
system has succeeded in maintaining its innovative capacity, but the low share
of the private sector in research and development (R&D) investment may
negatively affect future economic growth and the competitiveness of the Dutch
economy. The government aims to create an attractive climate for
R&I-intensive firms, including firms from abroad, in terms of fiscal
incentives, space for entrepreneurs and excellence of research. Due to the need for budgetary consolidation
this year, some subsidies for companies may, however, not be continued while
others will be streamlined and targeted towards ‘top economic areas’ and
shifted to more generic tax instruments.
(14)
The business environment is negatively affected
by the congestion levels in road and rail transport. These congestion levels
are among the highest in the EU. In this context, a relatively inefficient
transport infrastructure negatively affects labour mobility and thus potential
growth through productivity. Workers are faced with long commutes, unreliable
travel times and high congestion costs. The latter are expected to increase
further until 2020 in the absence of policy changes. Improvements in the
efficient use of infrastructure, for example through road pricing measures,
would contribute to increasing labour mobility and productivity and thus to
potential growth.
(15)
On 4 April 2011, the Netherlands announced a
number of commitments under the Euro Plus Pact[4]. These include
measures to foster competitiveness (introduction of a new business policy based
on more generic reductions in taxation and administrative burdens) and
employment (making social security more activating and reducing dependence on
unemployment benefits), to contribute further to the sustainability of public
finances (anchoring the stability and growth pact in national law) and to
reinforce financial stability (more power to supervisory institutions). These commitments refer to all areas of the Pact. They represent a
continuation of the broader reform agenda outlined in the Stability and
National Reform Programmes. However, there is a lack of
detail in terms of their timing and the measures that will be needed to
implement them. These commitments have been assessed and taken into account in
the recommendations.
(16)
The Commission has assessed the Stability
Programme and National Reform Programme, including the Euro Plus Pact commitments[5].
It has taken into account not only their relevance for sustainable fiscal and
socio-economic policy in the Netherlands 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 fully specified Dutch budgetary consolidation
strategy should be implemented as envisaged, while preserving expenditure in
areas most conducive to long-term growth. Further steps should be taken to
improve the long-term sustainability of public finances, notably in the areas
of pensions and long-term care, to increase labour market participation and
integration, and to address the issues arising from transport congestion.
(17)
In the light of this assessment, also taking
into account the Council Recommendation of 2 December 2009 under Article 126(7)
of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Council has
examined the 2011 update of the Stability Programme of the Netherlands and its
opinion[6] is reflected in
particular in its recommendation under (1) and (2) below. Taking into account
the European Council conclusions of 25 March 2011, the Council has examined the
National Reform Programme of the Netherlands,
HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the
Netherlands should take action within the period 2011-2012 to:
(1)
Implement the budgetary strategy for the year
2012 and beyond as envisaged. Ensure that the correction of the excessive
deficit is sustainable and growth-friendly, by protecting expenditure in areas
directly relevant for growth such as research and innovation, education and
training.
(2)
Take measures to increase the statutory
retirement age by linking it to life expectancy, and underpin these measures
with others to raise the effective retirement age and to improve the long-term
sustainability of public finances. Prepare a
blueprint for reforming long-term care in view of an ageing population.
(3)
Enhance participation in the labour market by
reducing fiscal disincentives for second-income earners to work and draw up
measures to support the most vulnerable groups and help them to re-integrate
within the labour market.
(4)
Promote innovation, private R&D investment
and closer science-business links by providing suitable incentives in the context
of the new enterprise policy (‘Naar de top’).
(5)
Continue to reduce the high congestion costs in
transport networks by shifting from fixed to variable road transport charges,
targeted expansion of the rail network and introducing road pricing.
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]               More details on the commitments made under the Euro
Plus Pact can be found in SEC(2011) 727.
[5]               SEC(2011) 727.
[6]               Foreseen in Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC)
No 1466/97.


title: Council Recommendation of 15 February 2011 concerning the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Development Fund (ninth EDF) for the financial year 2009

text:
               11.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 265/28

         COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
   of 15 February 2011
   concerning the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Development Fund (ninth EDF) for the financial year 2009
   (2011/668/EU)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to the Partnership agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (1), amended by the Agreement signed in Luxembourg on 25 June 2005 (2),
   Having regard to the Internal Agreement between Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on the Financing and Administration of Community Aid under the Financial Protocol to the Partnership Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Community and its Member States signed in Cotonou (Benin) on 23 June 2000 and the allocation of financial assistance for the Overseas Countries and Territories to which Part Four of the EC Treaty applies (3) (the ‘Internal Agreement’), setting up, amongst others, the ninth European Development Fund (ninth EDF), and in particular Article 32(3) thereof,
   Having regard to the Financial Regulation of 27 March 2003 applicable to the 9th European Development Fund (4), and in particular Articles 96 to 103 thereof,
   Having examined the revenue and expenditure account and the balance sheet relating to the operations of the ninth EDF as at 31 December 2009 and the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors on the activities funded by the eighth, ninth and tenth European Development Funds (EDFs) (5), concerning the financial year 2009, together with the Commission’s replies contained in that Annual Report,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Pursuant to Article 32(3) of the Internal Agreement, the discharge for the financial management of the ninth EDF is to be given to the Commission by the European Parliament on the recommendation of the Council.

               (2)

               The overall implementation by the Commission of the operations of the ninth EDF during the financial year 2009 has been satisfactory,

         HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the European Parliament give the Commission a discharge in respect of the implementation of the operations of the ninth EDF for the financial year 2009.

      Done at Brussels, 15 February 2011.

            For the Council

            The President

         MATOLCSY Gy.

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

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

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

      (4)  OJ L 83, 1.4.2003, p. 1.

      (5)  OJ C 303, 9.11.2010, p. 243.


title: Recommendation for a Council opinion in accordance with the third paragraph of Art. 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the updated stability programme of Luxembourg, 2005-2008

text:
Important legal notice

|

52006SC0111

Recommendation for a Council opinion in accordance with the third paragraph of Art. 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 On the updated stability programme of Luxembourg, 2005-2008  /* SEC/2006/0111 final */

	[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |Brussels, 1.2.2006SEC(2006) 111 finalRecommendation for aCOUNCIL OPINIONin accordance with the third paragraph of Art. 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 On the updated stability programme of Luxembourg, 2005-2008(presented by the Commission)EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUMBackgroundThe Stability and Growth Pact, which entered into force on 1 July 1998, is based on the objective of sound government finances as a means of strengthening the conditions for price stability and for strong sustainable growth conducive to employment creation. In 2005, the Pact was amended for the first time. The reform acknowledged the Pact’s usefulness in anchoring fiscal discipline but sought to strengthen its effectiveness and economic underpinnings as well as to safeguard the sustainability of the public finances in the long run.Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies[1], which is part of the Pact, stipulates that Member States have to submit, to the Council and the Commission, stability or convergence programmes and annual updates thereof (Member States that have already adopted the single currency submit (updated) stability programmes and Member States that have not yet adopted it submit (updated) convergence programmes). The first stability programme of Luxembourg was submitted on 16 February 1999. In accordance with the Regulation, the Council delivered an opinion on it on 15 March 1999 on the basis of a recommendation from the Commission and after having consulted the Economic and Financial Committee. In accordance with the same procedure, updated stability and convergence programmes are assessed by the Commission and examined by the Committee mentioned above, while the Council may examine them.In these programmes, Member States need to specify their medium-term objective for the budgetary position and set out the policy measures to achieve and maintain it, including the accompanying economic assumptions. Following the reform of the Pact, the medium-term objective should be differentiated for individual Member States in the light of the economic and budgetary heterogeneity in the Union, including as regards the fiscal risk to sustainability. Other elements of the reform are that a more symmetrical approach to fiscal policy over the cycle through enhanced budgetary discipline in economic good times should be achieved, while “major structural reforms” with a verifiable impact on long-term sustainability should be taken into account for a temporary deviation from the medium-term objective or the adjustment path towards it.Taking into account the Commission services’ autumn 2005 forecast, the code of conduct[2], the commonly agreed methodology for the estimation of potential output and cyclically-adjusted balances and the broad economic policy guidelines included in the integrated guidelines for the period 2005-2008, the Commission has examined the recently submitted update of the stability programme of Luxembourg and, based on its assessment below, has adopted a recommendation for a Council opinion on it.Assessment(1) The 7th update of the convergence programme of Luxembourg was submitted to the Commission on 28 November 2005. It covers the period 2005-2008. The programme broadly follows the model structure and data provision requirements for stability and convergence programmes specified in the new code of conduct.[3](2) The economic performance of Luxembourg has been remarkably bright in the last 20 years, with real GDP growing at 5½% a year on average and domestic employment by 3¼%. Growth slowed down strongly in 2001 but recovered quickly, reaching 4.4% in 2004. The financial position of the Luxembourg government has traditionally been very sound, with recurrent surpluses since the beginning of the 1990’s and a very low public debt. However, due to the very strong rise in expenditure, these surpluses rapidly declined since the beginning of this decade and turned into a deficit in 2004.(3) According to the programme’s macroeconomic scenario, real GDP growth should accelerate from an estimated 4.0% in 2005 to 4.4% in 2006 and to 4.9% in both 2007 and 2008. This growth scenario seems plausible, though slightly favourable in the outer years when compared with the Commission services’ autumn 2005 forecasts and the estimates of potential output growth implied by the same forecasts. The inflation outlook presented in the programme seems plausible. It is significantly lower than the inflation projections from the Commission services’ autumn 2005 forecasts but rests on different assumptions, especially a lower oil price. Oil products have an unusually large weight in the Luxembourg HICP due to the big purchases of car fuel by non-residents.(4) In its opinion of 18 January 2005, the Council endorsed the budgetary strategy presented in the previous update of the stability programme, covering the period 2004-2007. As regards budgetary implementation in 2005, the general government deficit is currently estimated at -2.3% of GDP in the Commission services’ autumn 2005 forecast as against a -1.0% of GDP target set in the previous update of the stability programme. While government revenues, which were projected by the previous update to increase by 1.2 percentage point of GDP, actually rose by only 0.2 percentage point of GDP, for a part due to large and unexpected VAT reimbursements, government expenditure increased by 1.4 percentage point of GDP (of which 0.8 accounted for by public investment) instead of 0.8 percentage point of GDP as planned.(5) The programme aims at reducing the general government deficit from -2.3% of GDP in 2005 to -0.2% of GDP in 2008 in order to achieve a medium-term objective (hereafter MTO) of -0.8% of GDP in the same year. The time profile and the level of the primary balance are similar to those of the total balance, with an improvement from a -2.1% of GDP primary deficit in 2005 to a balanced budget at the end of the period. The budgetary strategy has been adapted since the submission of the previous programme, which was based on less optimistic, though still strong macroeconomic assumptions and projected the general government deficit to improve from -1.4% of GDP in 2004 to -1.0% in 2005 and then to remain broadly at the same level in 2006 and 2007. Although GDP growth in 2005 was even slightly stronger than expected, the deficit, instead of improving surged from a revised level of -1.2% of GDP in 2004 to -2.3% in 2005. The budgetary strategy has thus been adapted in the current programme in order to cope with this unexpectedly deteriorated situation. The budgetary adjustment planned by the programme is expenditure-based, as total government expenditure is projected to decline by 2.5 percentage points of GDP over the period while the revenue ratio should decrease by 0.4 percentage point of GDP. The reduction in the expenditure ratio should mostly occur in current expenditure, especially in collective government consumption and in social transfers. The adjustment effort is back-loaded since the projected reduction in both the nominal and the cyclically-adjusted deficits is planned to significantly accelerate in 2007.(6) The cyclically-adjusted balance (as calculated by the Commission services using the commonly agreed methodology and based on the information provided in the programme) is projected to improve from a 1½% of GDP deficit in 2005 to a broadly balanced position in 2008. In the absence of one-off or other temporary measures, the structural balance follows the same path. The budgetary improvement takes place against the background of a negative but narrowing (from -1¾% of GDP in 2005 to -0.5% in 2008) output gap in the light of the very high potential output growth estimated for Luxembourg. The programme’s MTO is a structural (i.e. cyclically-adjusted, net of one-off and other temporary measures) deficit of -0.8% of GDP, similar to the estimated minimum benchmark aiming at providing a sufficient safety margin in order to guarantee that the 3% threshold set for the general government deficit will not be breached. Hence, its achievement should fulfil the aim of providing this safety margin. Moreover, it can be considered as appropriate under the current assessment because it lies within the range indicated for euro area and ERM II Member States in the Stability and Growth Pact and the code of conduct and adequately reflects the debt ratio and average potential output growth in the long term.(7) There is some downside risk attached to the budgetary targets of the programme: first, the macroeconomic projections presented by the programme might be slightly optimistic in the last years of the period covered. Second, the expenditure reduction measures announced for 2007 and 2008 have not yet been specified. The respect of the budgetary projections of the programme thus depends on the condition that the measures to be taken for 2007 and 2008 are specified and properly implemented.(8) Taking into account this risk assessment, the budgetary strategy outlined in the programme seems sufficient to ensure that the programme’s MTO will be reached by the end of the programme period on the condition that the measures for 2007 and 2008 are specified and properly implemented. The risk of breaching the 3% of GDP threshold for the deficit cannot be excluded in 2006 since the cyclically adjusted deficit (as calculated by the Commission services on the basis of the programme and according to the commonly agreed methodology) will still amount to 1¼ % of GDP, which is higher than the minimum benchmark. Although from 2007 onwards the planned structural deficit is lower than the minimum benchmark, the safety margin may also not be sufficient unless the expenditure-reducing measures announced for that year are specified and implemented. Finally, the adjustment path (in structural terms) towards the programme’s MTO is appropriate, except perhaps in 2006 when the reduction in the cyclically-adjusted deficit only amounts to 0.3% of GDP. This is less than the 0.5 percentage point of GDP average annual improvement in the structural balance requested by the Pact while, in spite of a negative yet closing output gap, overall economic conditions may be regarded as good.(9) The general government debt is estimated at 6.4% of GDP in 2005. It is projected in the programme to rise to 10.2% of GDP in 2008, with the main part of this increase occurring in 2006. The main factors behind this rise are the planned issue of new loans aiming at financing expenditure in road and railways infrastructure as well as some large investment projects based on a public-private partnership for which the Luxembourg government provides a financial guarantee to the promoter.(10) With regard to the sustainability of public finances, Luxembourg appears to be at medium risk on grounds of the projected budgetary costs of ageing populations. The current level of debt is certainly very low and the planned consolidation over the medium term should contribute to partly alleviate the risk to public finances sustainability. However, Luxembourg has experienced, over the last two decades, a period of exceptionally strong employment growth which will progressively translate into a similar increase in the number of pensioners and into a large increase in pension expenditure. While it contributes significantly to public finances sustainability, the current size of pension fund assets will not be sufficient and, as recognised by the programme, some changes in the pensions schemes will prove necessary at some point to contain future increase in public expenditure and reduce the risk to long-term sustainability.(11) The programme’s strategy in the area of public finances is broadly consistent with the broad economic policy guidelines included in the integrated guidelines for the period 2005-2008. It is in particular in line with the integrated guideline on securing economic stability by maintaining the medium-term budgetary objective over the economic cycle and, as long as this objective has not yet been achieved, taking all the necessary corrective measures in line with the Stability and Growth Pact. It also complies with the integrated guideline on safeguarding economic sustainability in view of the projected costs of ageing population.(12) The National Reform Programme of Luxembourg, submitted on 17 November 2005 in the context of the renewed Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs identifies securing economic stability and safeguarding economic sustainability as challenges with significant implications for public finances. It also identifies challenges in other areas that have a significant impact on public finances, especially the need to significantly increase public R&D. The budgetary implications of the actions outlined in the National Reform Programme are reflected in the budgetary projections of the stability programme and the measures in the area of public finances envisaged in the stability programme are in line with the actions foreseen in the National Reform Programme. The stability programme complements these measures with changes in the institutional features of the public finances, especially the postponement of the submission of the budget from August to October, in order to increase data availability and to improve the quality of budgetary projections. The programme also announces the introduction of a more in-depth analysis of the cost of investment projects, including the consideration of their operating costs from the first planning phase.In view of this assessment, while the global strategy of deficit reduction through expenditure restraint presented in the programme is commendable, it would be appropriate for the Luxembourg authorities:-  to strengthen the effort of budgetary adjustment in 2006 and identify and implement the necessary measures for 2007 and 2008, and-  to address the long-term budgetary implications of ageing populations.-  Recommendation for aCOUNCIL OPINIONin accordance with the third paragraph of Art. 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 On the updated stability programme of Luxembourg, 2005-2008THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies[4], and in particular Article 5(3) thereof,Having regard to the recommendation of the Commission,After consulting the Economic and Financial Committee,HAS DELIVERED THIS OPINION:1.  The economic performance of Luxembourg has been remarkably bright in the last 20 years, with real GDP growing at 5½% a year on average and domestic employment by 3¼%. Growth slowed down strongly in 2001 but recovered quickly, reaching 4.4% in 2004. The financial position of the Luxembourg government has traditionally been very sound, with recurrent surpluses since the beginning of the 1990’s and a very low public debt. However, due to the very strong rise in expenditure, these surpluses rapidly declined since the beginning of this decade and turned into a deficit in 2004.2.  In its opinion of 18 January 2005, the Council endorsed the budgetary strategy presented in the previous update of the stability programme, covering the period 2004-2007.3.  As regards budgetary implementation in 2005, the general government deficit is currently estimated at -2.3% of GDP in the Commission services’ autumn 2005 forecast as against a -1.0% of GDP target set in the previous update of the stability programme. While government revenues, which were projected by the previous update to increase by 1.2 percentage point of GDP, actually rose by only 0.2 percentage point of GDP, for a part due to large and unexpected VAT reimbursements, government expenditure increased by 1.4 percentage point of GDP (of which 0.8 accounted for by public investment) instead of 0.8 percentage point of GDP as planned.4.  On [14 February 2006] the Council examined the updated stability programme of Luxembourg, which covers the period 2005 to 2008. The programme broadly follows the model structure and data provision requirements for stability and convergence programmes specified in the new code of conduct[5].5.  According to the programme’s macroeconomic scenario, real GDP growth should accelerate from an estimated 4.0% in 2005 to 4.4% in 2006 and to 4.9% in both 2007 and 2008. Assessed against currently available information, this scenario appears to be based on broadly plausible growth assumptions, although slightly favourable in the outer years. The programme’s projections for inflation also appear realistic.6.  The programme aims at bringing the general government deficit close to balance by the end of the programme period and thereby achieving a medium-term objective of -0.8% of GDP in the same year. The time profile and the level of the primary balance are similar to those of the total balance, with an improvement from a -2.1% of GDP primary deficit in 2005 to a 0.1% primary surplus at the end of the period. The deficit reduction is expenditure-based as total government expenditure is projected to decline by 2.5 percentage points over the period while the revenues ratio should decrease by 0.4 percentage point of GDP. In order to cope with the unexpected deterioration in the government balance in 2005, the budgetary strategy has been adapted since the submission of the previous update, which was based on a less optimistic macroeconomic scenario and where the general government deficit, after improving from an estimated -1.4% of GDP in 2004 to a projected -1.0% in 2005, was planned to remain broadly at the same level in 2006 and 2007.7.  Over the programme period, the structural balance (i.e. the cyclically-adjusted balance net of one-off and other temporary measures) calculated according to the commonly agreed methodology is planned to improve on average by slightly more than 0.5% of GDP per year. The adjustment is back-loaded, significantly increasing in 2007 in both nominal and structural terms. The programme sets the medium-term objective (MTO) for the budgetary position at a structural deficit of 0.8% of GDP and aims at achieving this position by 2008. The programme’s MTO is similar to the minimum benchmark aiming at providing a sufficient safety margin in order to guarantee that the 3% threshold set for the general government deficit is not breached. Hence, its achievement should fulfil the aim of providing this safety margin. Moreover, the MTO can be considered as appropriate under the current assessment because it lies within the range indicated for euro area and ERM II Member States in the Stability and Growth Pact and the code of conduct and adequately reflects the debt ratio and average potential output growth in the long term.8.  The budgetary outcome could be worse than projected in the programme. First the macroeconomic projections presented by the programme might be slightly optimistic in the last years of the period covered. Moreover, the measures announced by the programme and aiming at continuing the adjustment effort in 2007 and 2008 are not yet specified. The achievement of the programme’s budgetary objectives is conditional on the specification and proper implementation of these measures.9.  In view of this risk assessment, the budgetary stance in the programme seems sufficient to ensure that the MTO is achieved at the latest by 2008, as envisaged in the programme, on the condition that the measures announced for 2007 and 2008 are specified and properly implemented. According to the Commission services calculations, the risk of breaching the 3% of GDP deficit threshold with normal macroeconomic fluctuations cannot be excluded in 2006. Although from 2007 onwards the planned structural deficit is lower than the minimum benchmark, the safety margin may also not be sufficient in 2007 unless the expenditure-reducing measures announced for that year are specified and implemented. The pace of the adjustment towards the MTO is broadly in line with the Stability and Growth Pact, which specifies that, for euro area and ERM II Member States, the annual improvement in the structural balance should be 0.5% of GDP as a benchmark. However, the improvement in the structural deficit planned by the programme only amounts to 0.3 percentage point of GDP in 2006, when, in spite of a negative yet closing output gap, the overall economic conditions can be regarded as good.10.  The general government debt is estimated at 6.4% of GDP in 2005. It is projected in the programme to rise to 10.2% of GDP in 2008, with the main part of this increase occurring in 2006.11.  With regard to the sustainability of public finances, Luxembourg appears to be at medium risk on grounds of the projected budgetary costs of ageing populations. The current level of debt is certainly very low and the planned consolidation over the medium term should contribute to partly alleviate the risk to public finances sustainability. However, Luxembourg has experienced, over the last two decades, a period of exceptionally strong employment growth which will progressively translate into a similar increase in the number of pensioners and into a large increase in pension expenditure. While it contributes significantly to public finances sustainability, the current size of pension fund assets will not be sufficient and, as recognised by the programme, some changes in the pensions schemes will prove necessary at some point to contain future increase in public expenditure and reduce the risk to long-term sustainability.12.  The programme’s strategy in the area of public finances is broadly consistent with the broad economic policy guidelines included in the integrated guidelines for the period 2005-2008, in particular with the integrated guideline on securing economic stability by maintaining the medium-term budgetary objective over the economic cycle and, as long as this objective has not yet been achieved, taking all the necessary corrective measures in line with the Stability and Growth Pact and the integrated guideline on safeguarding economic sustainability in view of the projected costs of ageing population.13.  The National Reform Programme of Luxembourg, submitted on 17 November 2005, identifies the following challenges with significant implications for public finances: (i) securing economic stability and (ii) safeguarding economic sustainability. It also identifies challenges in other areas that have a significant impact on public finances, especially the need to significantly increase public R&D. The budgetary implications of the actions outlined in the National Reform Programme are reflected in the budgetary projections of the stability programme and the measures in the area of public finances envisaged in the stability programme are in line with the actions foreseen in the National Reform Programme.While the global strategy of deficit reduction through expenditure restraint presented in the programme is commendable, the Council is of the opinion that the Luxembourg authorities should:-  strengthen the effort of budgetary adjustment in 2006 and identify and implement the necessary measures for 2007 and 2008, and-  address the long-term budgetary implications of ageing populations.Comparison of key macroeconomic and budgetary projections2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 |Real GDP (% change) | SP Dec 2005 | 4.4 | 4.0 | 4.4 | 4.9 | 4.9 |COM Nov 2005 | 4.5 | 4.2 | 4.4 | 4.5 | n.a. |SP Dec 2004 | 4.4 | 3.8 | 3.3 | 4.3 | n.a. |HICP inflation (%) | SP Dec 2005 | 3.2 | 3.7 | 2.6 | 2.0 | 1.8 |COM Nov 2005 | 3.2 | 4.1 | 4.4 | 2.2 | n.a. |SP Dec 2004 | 2.6 | 3.2 | 1.5 | 1.7 | n.a. |Output gap (% of potential GDP) | SP Dec 20051 | -1.7 | -1.7 | -1.3 | -0.7 | -0.6 |COM Nov 20052 | -1.8 | -1.6 | -1.3 | -1.2 | n.a. |SP Dec 20041 | -1.2 | -2.2 | -3.8 | -5.0 | n.a. |General government balance (% of GDP) | SP Dec 2005 | -1.2 | -2.3 | -1.8 | -1.0 | -0.2 |COM Nov 2005 | -1.2 | -2.3 | -2.0 | -2.2 | n.a. |SP Dec 2004 | -1.4 | -1.0 | -0.9 | -1.0 | n.a. |Primary balance (% of GDP) | SP Dec 2005 | -0.9 | -2.1 | -1.7 | -0.7 | 0.1 |COM Nov 2005 | -0.9 | -2.1 | -1.8 | -2.0 | n.a. |SP Dec 2004 | -1.2 | -0.9 | -0.8 | -0.9 | n.a. |Cyclically-adjusted balance= Structural balance3 (% of GDP) | SP Dec 20051 | -0.3 | -1.5 | -1.2 | -0.6 | 0.1 |COM Nov 2005 | -0.4 | -1.5 | -1.4 | -1.6 | n.a. |SP Dec 20041 | -0.7 | 0.3 | 1.4 | 2.0 | n.a. |Government gross debt (% of GDP) | SP Dec 2005 | 6.6 | 6.4 | 9.6 | 9.9 | 10.2 |COM Nov 2005 | 6.6 | 6.8 | 7.1 | 7.3 | n.a. |SP Dec 2004 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 4.6 | 4.5 | n.a. |Notes: 1 Commission services calculations on the basis of the information in the programme. 2 Based on estimated potential growth of 4.1% 4.0%, 4.1% and 4.3% respectively in the period 2004-2007. 3 Since there are no one-off and other temporary measures specified in the programme, the cyclically-adjusted balance and the structural balance are identical. Source: Stability programme (SP); Commission services’ autumn 2005 economic forecasts (COM); Commission services’ calculations. |[1] OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1055/2005 (OJ L 174, 7.7.2005, p. 1). All the documents referred to in this text can be found at the following website:http://europa.eu.int/comm/economy_finance/about/activities/sgp/main_en.htm[2] “Specifications on the implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact and guidelines on the format and content of stability and convergence programmes”, endorsed by the ECOFIN Council of 11 October 2005.[3] It has gaps in the compulsory and optional data prescribed by the code of conduct.[4] OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1055/2005 (OJ L 174, 7.7.2005, p. 1). The documents referred to in this text can be found at the following website:http://europa.eu.int/comm/economy_finance/about/activities/sgp/main_en.htm[5] It has gaps in the compulsory and optional data prescribed by the code.


Avis juridique important

|

32003H0203

Commission Recommendation of 20 March 2003 on the harmonisation of the provision of public R-LAN access to public electronic communications networks and services in the Community (Text with EEA relevance)

Official Journal L 078 , 25/03/2003 P. 0012 - 0013

Commission Recommendationof 20 March 2003on the harmonisation of the provision of public R-LAN access to public electronic communications networks and services in the Community(Text with EEA relevance)(2003/203/EC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive)(1), hereinafter referred to as "the Framework Directive", and in particular Article 19 thereof,Whereas:(1) The European Council on 15 and 16 March 2002 in Barcelona advocated fostering multiple broadband access platforms to the Information Society and stressed the need to complete the internal market for electronic communications services.(2) In accordance with Article 19(1) of the Framework Directive, the Communications Committee delivered its favourable opinion on 24 January 2003.(3) As the least onerous authorisation system possible should be used to allow the provision of electronic communications networks and services, pursuant to Article 3(2) of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive)(2), hereinafter referred to as "the Authorisation Directive", the provision of electronic communications networks or services may, without prejudice to specific obligations referred to in Article 6(2) or rights of use referred to in Article 5 of that Directive, only be subject to a general authorisation.(4) Pursuant to Article 5(1) of the Authorisation Directive, Member States are required, where possible, and in particular where the risk of harmful interference is negligible, not to make the use of radio frequencies subject to the grant of individual rights of use; furthermore, pursuant to Article 2(1) and Article 4 of Directive 2002/77/EC(3) of the Commission, Member States shall not adopt or maintain measures limiting the number of undertakings authorised to provide services or to use radio frequencies unless they are objective, proportional and non-discriminatory.(5) Pursuant to policy objectives and regulatory principles defined by Article 8 of the Framework Directive, the national regulatory authorities should take all reasonable measures to promote competition in the provision of electronic communications networks, electronic communications services and associated facilities and services by promoting innovation and by encouraging efficient use and ensuring the effective management of radio frequencies; national regulatory authorities should also remove obstacles to the provision of electronic communications networks, associated facilities and services and electronic communications services at European level.(6) Radio Local Area Networks (R-LAN) are an innovative means for the provision of broadband wireless access to the Internet and to corporate intranet networks not only for private uses but also for the public in general in areas such as airports, train stations and shopping malls.(7) A majority of Member States already allow R-LAN access to public electronic communications networks and services on a commercial or non-commercial basis; considering the importance of R-LAN as an alternative platform for broadband access to Information Society services, it is now desirable to promote a harmonised approach for the provision of such public R-LAN access throughout the Community; a distinction is to be drawn between the provision of services and the use of radio spectrum; the provision of R-LAN access to public electronic communications networks and services on a commercial basis should be allowed under the least onerous system, i.e. to the extent possible without any sector specific conditions.(8) R-LAN may use all or part of either the 2400,0 - 2483,5 MHz (hereinafter the 2,4 GHz band) or the 5150-5350 MHz or 5470-5725 MHz bands (hereinafter the 5 GHz bands); part of these bands may currently not be available to R-LAN in certain Member States; further harmonisation of these bands may therefore be necessary in the framework of Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community (Radio Spectrum Decision)(4).(9) The risk of interference between the various different users who may share the 2,4 GHz band and between coexisting R-LAN systems is accepted by the parties involved; as long as R-LAN users do not create harmful interference to possible protected users in the same bands, the use of the 2,4 and 5 GHz bands should not be subject to individual rights nor, to the extent possible, to general authorisation conditions other than as allowed under point 17 of the Annex to the Authorisation Directive; opening the 5 GHz band to public R-LAN access services would also reduce the pressure on the 2,4 GHz band.(10) In order to minimise the risk of harmful interference, general authorisation conditions might be imposed where justified and in a proportionate manner; such general authorisation may refer to appropriate requirements, in conformity with Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity (R& TTE Directive)(5), the harmonisation of which may be achieved pursuant to the Radio Spectrum Decision and the R& TTE Directive.(11) In line with Community competition rules, Article 8(1) of the Framework Directive lays down the principle of technologically neutral regulation, so that there should be no discrimination between the various R-LAN and other technologies giving access to communications networks and services.(12) The terms on which access may be allowed to public and private property for providers of public R-LAN access services are subject to competition rules of the Treaty, as well as, where relevant, to the Framework Directive.(13) Security and confidentiality are regulated at present by Articles 4 and 5 of Directive 97/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector(6); on the forthcoming repeal of that Directive, those provisions will be replaced by Articles 4 and 5 of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector(7) as from 1 November 2003,HEREBY RECOMMENDS:1. That, in applying the measures necessary to comply with Directives 2002/20/EC and 2002/21/EC, Member States should allow the provision of public R-LAN access to public electronic communications networks and services in the available 2,4 GHz and 5 GHz bands to the extent possible without sector specific conditions and in any case subject only to general authorisation.2. That Member States should not make the use of the available 2,4 GHz or 5 GHz bands for the operation of R-LAN systems subject to the grant of any individual right.3. That Member States should not restrict the choice of R-LAN equipment to be used by service providers where these meet the requirements laid down under Directive 1999/5/EC.4. That Member States should pay special attention to the requirements of Articles 4 and 5 of Directive 97/66/EC and the equivalent provisions in Directive 2002/58/EC, which regulate security and confidentiality of public communications networks and services.Done at Brussels, 20 March 2003.For the CommissionErkki LiikanenMember of the Commission(1) OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 33.(2) OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 21.(3) Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services (OJ L 249, 17.9.2002, p. 21).(4) OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 1.(5) OJ L 91, 7.4.1999, p. 10.(6) OJ L 24, 30.1.1998, p. 1.(7) OJ L 201, 31.7.2002, p. 37.


title: Commission Recommendation of 6 April 2005 on broadband electronic communications through powerlines (Text with EEA relevance)

text:
               12.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 93/42

      COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION

   of 6 April 2005
   on broadband electronic communications through powerlines
   (Text with EEA relevance)
   (2005/292/EC)
   THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
   Having regard to Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (the framework Directive) (1), and in particular Article 19(1) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The present Recommendation seeks to ensure transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory conditions for the deployment of powerline communications systems, and removal of any inappropriate regulatory barriers. Powerline communications systems include both equipment and networks.

               (2)

               The EU regulatory framework for electronic communications aims to create conditions for the competitive provision of electronic communications networks and services and ensure that users obtain the maximum benefit in terms of choice, price and quality. National authorities have an objective to promote competition in the provision of electronic communications networks, which include powerline communications networks. They should thus remove any unjustified regulatory obstacles, in particular on utility companies, to deploy and operate electronic communications networks over their powerlines.

               (3)

               Deployment of powerline communication systems is subject only to a general authorisation pursuant to Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (the authorisation Directive) (2). This may include, where appropriate, obligations provided for in Directive 89/336/EEC of the Council of 3 May 1989 on the approximation of laws of the Member States relating to electromagnetic compatibility (the EMC Directive) (3), Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity (the terminal Directive) (4), the Framework Directive, Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communication networks and services (the Universal Service Directive) (5) such as for emergency communications and the integrity of the network. With a view to avoiding discrimination, cross-subsidisation and distortion of competition, there may also be obligations on certain undertakings in accordance with Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC (6), to keep separate consolidated accounts for the non-electricity activities, such as powerline communications.

               (4)

               Powerline communication networks are cable networks and as such they are guided media. They do not use radio frequencies for transmission within the meaning of Annex B of the Authorisation Directive or Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community (7).

               (5)

               Powerline communications systems fall within the scope of the EMC Directive. The term ‘apparatus’ as defined in the EMC Directive means all electrical and electronic appliances together with equipment and installations containing electrical and/or electronic components. Powerline communications systems are considered as fixed installations and can only be put into service if they comply with the Directive.

               (6)

               In powerline communications systems, the cabling involved may already be in service for other uses, and networks may be subject to constant alteration. These characteristics, together with the specific nature of unwanted radiated emissions along wireline systems, means that is impractical to carry out measurements on a complete system, and an ex-post model for interference management of wireline systems with radio systems is appropriate, in accordance with the EMC Directive. Therefore, a network made up of equipment compliant with the EMC Directive and used for its intended purpose, which is installed and operated according to good engineering practices designed to meet the essential requirements of the EMC Directive, should be considered compliant with the requirements of the EMC Directive. The documented good engineering practices should include targeted in-situ measurements, demonstrating that the objectives of the EMC Directive are met in respect of unwanted radiated emissions, especially in situations where interference is more likely to occur.

               (7)

               This approach shall not prevent Member States from taking special measures for safety reasons concerning the putting into service or use of equipment to protect public telecommunication networks or receiving or transmitting stations used for safety purposes in well-defined spectrum situations, in accordance with Article 6 of the EMC Directive.

               (8)

               If the interference caused by a powerline communications system can not be resolved by the parties concerned, the competent authorities should request evidence of compliance of the system concerned and, where appropriate, initiate a further assessment. That assessment should include a verification of compliance of the system under the EMC Directive. If non-compliance is identified, the competent authorities should impose proportionate, non-discriminatory and transparent enforcement measures to bring the system into compliance.

               (9)

               If a system is deemed compliant but is nevertheless creating harmful interference, the competent authorities of the Member States should take special measures according to Article 6 of the EMC Directive, with a view to resolving such interference. Measures taken should be proportionate, non-discriminatory and transparent. In examining the proportionality of measures, Member States should take into account economic and social aspects of the services involved. Member States may also take into account the technical capability of modern powerline communications equipment to allow for a timely resolution of interference problems by reducing emissions at the specific interfering frequencies and places by so-called ‘notching’.

               (10)

               In order to achieve a consistent application of either enforcement measures or of special measures under Article 6 of the EMC Directive, the competent authorities should exchange information between themselves and the Commission.

               (11)

               This approach, combined with regular and detailed interference reporting, will allow for further test results and experiences to be gathered on the roll-out of powerline communications networks, in particular in view of the protection of the use of the radio spectrum. The frequency of reporting should be semi annually initially, but may be varied depending on the results obtained.

               (12)

               In 2001 the Commission called upon the European Standardisation Organisations (ESOs) to draft harmonised European standards for wireline networks to include digital subscriber line (DSL), coaxial cable, Ethernet and powerline communications networks (8). However, the work of the ESOs has not yet been completed. In order to facilitate the development of a harmonised European standard for wireline networks and apparatus, national authorities should monitor developments in close cooperation with market players.

               (13)

               The Communications Committee has been consulted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 22(2) of the Framework Directive,

         HEREBY RECOMMENDS:

               1.

               Member States should apply the following conditions and principles to the provision of publicly available broadband powerline communications systems.

               2.

               Without prejudice to the provisions of points 3 to 5, Member States should remove any unjustified regulatory obstacles, in particular from utility companies, on the deployment of broadband powerline communications systems and the provision of electronic communications services over such systems.

               3.

               Until standards to be used for gaining presumption of conformity for powerline communications systems have been harmonised under Directive 89/336/EEC, Member States should consider as compliant with that Directive a powerline communications system which is:

                           —

                           made up of equipment compliant with the Directive and used for its intended purpose,

                           —

                           installed and operated according to good engineering practices designed to meet the essential requirements of the Directive.

                     The documentation on good engineering practices should be held at the disposal of the relevant national authorities for inspection purposes as long as the system is in operation.

               4.

               Where it is found that a powerline communications system is causing harmful interference that can not be resolved by the parties concerned, the competent authorities of the Member State should request evidence of compliance of the system and, where appropriate, initiate an assessment.

               5.

               If the assessment leads to an identification of non-compliance of the powerline communications system, the competent authorities should impose proportionate, non-discriminatory and transparent enforcement measures to ensure compliance.

               6.

               If there is compliance of the powerline communications system but nevertheless the interference remains, the competent authorities of the Member State should consider taking special measures in accordance with Article 6 of the Directive 89/336/EEC in a proportionate, non-discriminatory and transparent manner.

               7.

               Member States should report to the Communications Committee on a regular basis on the deployment and operations of powerline communications systems in their territory. Such reports should include any relevant data about disturbance levels (including measurement data, related injected signal levels and other data useful for the drafting of a harmonised European standard), interference problems and any enforcement measures related to powerline communications systems. The first such report is due on 31 December 2005.

               8.

               This Recommendation is addressed to the Member States.

      Done at Brussels, 6 April 2005

            For the Commission

         Viviane REDING

            Member of the Commission

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

      (2)  OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 21.

      (3)  OJ L 139, 23.5.1989, p. 19. Directive as last amended by Directive 93/68/EEC (OJ L 220, 30.8.1993, p. 1).

      (4)  OJ L 91, 7.4.1999, p. 10. Directive as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 (OJ L 284, 31.10.2003, p. 1).

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

      (6)  OJ L 176, 15.7.2003, p. 37. Directive as amended by Council Directive 2004/85/EC (OJ L 236, 7.7.2004, p. 10).

      (7)  OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 1.

      (8)  Standardisation mandate addressed to CEN, CENELEC and ETSI concerning electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) on EMC harmonised standards for telecommunications networks, Mandate M/313, 7 August 2001.


title: Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on the protection of minors and human dignity and on the right of reply in relation to the competitiveness of the European audiovisual and on-line information services industry

text:
               27.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 378/72

      RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

   of 20 December 2006
   on the protection of minors and human dignity and on the right of reply in relation to the competitiveness of the European audiovisual and on-line information services industry
   (2006/952/EC)
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 157 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 referred to in Article 251 of the Treaty (2),
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (3) (‘the Charter’) declares in Article 1 the inviolability of human dignity, providing that it must be respected and protected. Article 24 of the Charter provides that children have the right to such protection and care as is necessary for their well-being and that in all actions relating to children, whether taken by public authorities or private institutions, the child's best interests must be a primary consideration.

               (2)

               The European Union should gear its political action to preventing any form of violation of the principle of respect for human dignity.

               (3)

               Legislative measures need to be enacted at Union level on the protection of the physical, mental and moral development of minors in relation to the content of all audiovisual and information services and the protection of minors from access to inappropriate adult programmes or services.

               (4)

               The constant development of new information and communication technologies makes it urgent for the Community to ensure full and adequate protection for citizens' interests in this field on the one hand, by guaranteeing the free delivery and free provision of information services and, on the other hand, by ensuring that their content is legal, respects the principle of human dignity and does not impair the overall development of minors.

               (5)

               The Community has already intervened in the field of audiovisual and information services in order to create the necessary conditions to ensure the free movement of television broadcasts and other information services, in compliance with the principles of free competition and freedom of expression and information, but it should act with greater determination in this area with the aim of adopting measures to protect consumers from incitement to discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation and of combating any such discrimination. Such action should strike a balance between the protection of individual rights on the one hand and freedom of expression on the other, in particular with respect to Member States' responsibility for defining the notion of incitement to hatred or discrimination in accordance with their national legislation and moral values.

               (6)

               Council Recommendation 98/560/EC 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 (4) is the first legal instrument at Community level which in its recital (5) addresses issues of the protection of minors and of human dignity in relation to audiovisual and information services made available to the public, whatever the means of conveyance. Article 22 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 (5) (‘Television without Frontiers Directive’) has already specifically addressed the question of the protection of minors and human dignity in television broadcasting activities.

               (7)

               It is suggested that the Council and the Commission should pay special attention to the implementation of this Recommendation when revising, negotiating or concluding new partnership agreements or new cooperation programmes with third countries, bearing in mind the global character of producers, distributors or providers of audiovisual content and Internet access.

               (8)

               By Decision No 276/1999/EC (6), the European Parliament and the Council adopted a multiannual Community Action plan on promoting safer use of the Internet by combating illegal and harmful content on global networks (the ‘Safer Internet Action Plan’).

               (9)

               Decision No 1151/2003/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (7) extended the Safer Internet Action Plan for two years and amended its scope to include measures to encourage exchange of information and coordination with the relevant actors at national level as well as special provisions for the accession countries.

               (10)

               Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (8) clarifies some legal concepts and harmonises certain aspects in order to enable information society services to fully benefit from the internal market principles. A number of the provisions of Directive 2000/31/EC are also relevant to the protection of minors and human dignity, in particular Article 16(1)(e), according to which Member States and the Commission are to encourage the drawing up of codes of conduct regarding the protection of minors and human dignity.

               (11)

               The changing media landscape, resulting from new technologies and media innovation, makes it necessary to teach children, and also parents, teachers and trainers to use audiovisual and on-line information services effectively.

               (12)

               On the whole, self-regulation of the audiovisual sector is proving an effective additional measure, but it is not sufficient to protect minors from messages with harmful content. The development of a European audiovisual area based on freedom of expression and respect for citizens' rights should be based on continuous dialogue between national and European legislators, regulatory authorities, industries, associations, citizens and civil society.

               (13)

               In the public consultation concerning 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 (9), it was suggested that the need to adopt measures in relation to media literacy be included among the subjects covered by Recommendation 98/560/EC.

               (14)

               The Commission encourages cooperation and the sharing of experience and best practices between existing self- and co-regulatory bodies, which deal with the rating or classification of audiovisual content, regardless of the means by which it is delivered, with a view to enabling all users, but especially parents, teachers and trainers, to report illegal content and assess the content of audiovisual and on-line information services, as well as any legal content which could harm the physical, mental or moral development of minors.

               (15)

               As suggested during the public consultation concerning Directive 97/36/EC, it is appropriate for the right of reply or equivalent remedies to apply to on-line media, and to take into account the specific features of the medium and service concerned.

               (16)

               The Council Resolution of 5 October 1995 on the image of women and men portrayed in advertising and the media (10) invites the Member States and the Commission to take adequate measures to promote a diversified and realistic picture of the skills and potential of women and men in society.

               (17)

               When tabling its proposal for a Council Directive implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services, the Commission noted that the portrayal of the sexes in the media and in advertising raises important questions about the protection of the dignity of men and women, but concluded that, in the light of other fundamental rights, including the freedom and pluralism of the media, it would not be appropriate to address these questions in that proposal but that it should take stock of these questions.

               (18)

               The audiovisual and on-line information services industry should be encouraged at Member State level to avoid and to combat any type of discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation in such media and all advertising, including new advertising techniques, without infringing freedom of expression or of the press.

               (19)

               This Recommendation covers new technological developments and complements Recommendation 98/560/EC. Its scope, on account of technological advances, includes audiovisual and on-line information services made available to the public via fixed or mobile electronic networks.

               (20)

               Nothing in this Recommendation prevents Member States from applying their constitutional provisions and other legislation and legal practices regarding freedom of expression,

         HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT:
   I.   The Member States, in the interests of promoting the development of the audiovisual and on-line information services industry, take the necessary measures to ensure the protection of minors and human dignity in all audiovisual and on-line information services by:

               1.

               considering the introduction of measures into their domestic law or practice regarding the right of reply or equivalent remedies in relation to on-line media, with due regard for their domestic and constitutional legislative provisions, and without prejudice to the possibility of adapting the manner in which it is exercised to take into account the particularities of each type of medium;

               2.

               promoting, in order to encourage the take-up of technological developments, in addition to and consistently with existing legal and other measures regarding broadcasting services, and in close cooperation with the parties concerned:

                           (a)

                           action to enable minors to make responsible use of audiovisual and on-line information services, notably by improving the level of awareness among parents, teachers and trainers of the potential of the new services and of the means whereby they may be made safe for minors, in particular through media literacy or media education programmes and, for instance, by continuous training within school education,

                           (b)

                           action to facilitate, where appropriate and necessary, the 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,

                           (c)

                           action to inform citizens more about the possibilities offered by the Internet;

                     examples of possible actions concerning media literacy are outlined in Annex II;

               3.

               promoting a responsible attitude on the part of professionals, intermediaries and users of new communication media such as the Internet by:

                           (a)

                           encouraging the audiovisual and on-line information services industry, without infringing freedom of expression or of the press, to avoid all discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, in all audiovisual and on-line information services, and to combat such discrimination,

                           (b)

                           encouraging vigilance and the reporting of pages considered illegal, without prejudice to Directive 2000/31/EC,

                           (c)

                           drawing up a code of conduct in cooperation with professionals and regulatory authorities at national and Community level;

               4.

               promoting measures to combat all illegal activities harmful to minors on the Internet and make the Internet a much more secure medium; consideration could be given inter alia to the following measures:

                           (a)

                           adopting a quality label for service providers, so that users can easily check whether or not a given provider subscribes to a code of conduct,

                           (b)

                           establishing appropriate means for the reporting of illegal and/or suspicious activities on the Internet.

         II.   The audiovisual and on-line information services industry and other parties concerned:

               1.

               develop positive measures for the benefit of minors, including initiatives to facilitate their wider access to audiovisual and on-line information services, while avoiding potentially harmful content, for instance by means of filtering systems. Such measures could include harmonisation through cooperation between the regulatory, self-regulatory and co-regulatory bodies of the Member States, and through the exchange of best practices concerning such issues as a system of common descriptive symbols or warning messages indicating the age category and/or which aspects of the content have led to a certain age recommendation, which would help users to assess the content of audiovisual and on-line information services. This could take place, for instance, through the actions outlined in Annex III;

               2.

               examine the possibility of creating filters which would prevent information offending against human dignity from passing through the Internet;

               3.

               develop measures to increase the use of content labelling systems for material distributed over the Internet;

               4.

               consider effective means of avoiding and combating discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation in audiovisual and on-line information services and of promoting a diversified and realistic picture of the skills and potential of men and women in society.

         TAKE NOTE THAT THE COMMISSION:

               1.

               Intends to promote, in connection with the 2005-2008 multiannual Community programme on promoting safer use of the Internet and new on-line technologies, information actions aimed at citizens Europe-wide using all communications media, to inform the public about the benefits and possible risks of the Internet, how to use it responsibly and safely, how to make complaints and how to activate parental control. Specific campaigns could be aimed at target groups such as schools, parents' associations and users;

               2.

               intends to explore the possibility of introducing a European freephone number or of extending an existing service to assist Internet users by directing them to available complaint mechanisms and information resources and providing information for parents about the effectiveness of filtering software;

               3.

               intends to explore the possibility of supporting the establishment of a generic second level domain name reserved for monitored sites committed to respecting minors and their rights, such as .KID.eu;

               4.

               continues to maintain a constructive and ongoing dialogue with content providers' organisations, consumer organisations and all parties concerned;

               5.

               intends to facilitate and support the formation of networks by self-regulatory bodies and the exchanging of experience among them, so as to assess the effectiveness of codes of conduct and approaches based on self-regulation in order to ensure the highest possible standards of protection for minors;

               6.

               intends to submit to the European Parliament and the Council, on the basis of information supplied by the Member States, a report on the implementation and effectiveness of the measures specified in this Recommendation, and to review this Recommendation if and when the need arises.

      Done at Brussels, on 20 December 2006

            For the European Parliament

            The President

         J. BORRELL FONTELLES

            For the Council

            The President

         J. KORKEAOJA

      (1)  OJ C 221, 8.9.2005, p. 87.

      (2)  Opinion of the European Parliament of 7 September 2005 (OJ C 193 E, 17.8.2006, p. 217), Council Common Position of 21 September 2006 (not yet published in the Official Journal) and Position of the European Parliament of 12 December 2006 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

      (3)  OJ C 364, 18.12.2000, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ L 270, 7.10.1998, p. 48.

      (5)  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).

      (6)  Decision No 276/1999/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 January 1999 adopting a multiannual Community action plan on promoting safer use of the Internet by combating illegal and harmful content on global networks (OJ L 33, 6.2.1999, p. 1). Decision as last amended by Decision No 787/2004/EC (OJ L 138, 30.4.2004, p. 12).

      (7)  Decision No 1151/2003/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 2003 amending Decision No 276/1999/EC adopting a multiannual Community action plan on promoting safer use of the Internet by combating illegal and harmful content on global networks (OJ L 162, 1.7.2003, p. 1).

      (8)  OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1.

      (9)  OJ L 202, 30.7.1997, p. 60.

      (10)  OJ C 296, 10.11.1995, p. 15.

      ANNEX I
      INDICATIVE GUIDELINES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION, AT NATIONAL LEVEL, OF MEASURES IN DOMESTIC LAW OR PRACTICE SO AS TO ENSURE THE RIGHT OF REPLY OR EQUIVALENT REMEDIES IN RELATION TO ON-LINE MEDIA
      Objective: introducing measures in the domestic law or practice of the Member States in order to ensure the right of reply or equivalent remedies in relation to on-line media, with due regard for their domestic and constitutional provisions and without prejudice to the possibility of adjusting its exercise to the particularities of each type of medium.
      The term ‘medium’ refers to any means of communication for dissemination to the public of edited information on-line such as newspapers, periodicals, radio, television and Internet-based news services.
      Without prejudice to other provisions adopted by the Member States under civil, administrative or criminal law, any natural or legal person, regardless of nationality, whose legitimate interests, in particular, but not limited to, reputation and good name, have been affected by an assertion of facts in a publication or transmission should have the right of reply or equivalent remedies. Member States should ensure that the actual exercise of the right of reply or equivalent remedies is not hindered by the imposition of unreasonable terms or conditions.
      The right of reply or equivalent remedies should exist in relation to on-line media under the jurisdiction of a Member State.
      Member States should adopt the measures needed to establish the right of reply or equivalent remedies and should determine the procedure to be followed for the exercise thereof. In particular, they should ensure that a sufficient time span is allowed and that the procedures are such that the right of reply or equivalent remedies can be exercised appropriately by natural or legal persons resident or established in other Member States.
      The right of reply can be ensured not only through legislation, but also through co-regulatory or self-regulatory measures.
      The right of reply is a particularly appropriate remedy in the on-line environment because it allows for an instant response to contested information and it is technically easy to attach the replies from the persons affected. However, the reply should be within a reasonable time after the request has been substantiated and at a time and in a manner appropriate to the publication or transmission to which the request refers.
      Provision should be made for procedures whereby disputes as to the exercise of the right of reply or the equivalent remedies could be subject to review by the courts or similar independent bodies.
      An application for exercise of right of reply or the equivalent remedies may be rejected if the claimant does not have a legitimate interest in the publication of such a reply, or if the reply would involve a punishable act, would render the content provider liable to civil law proceedings or would transgress standards of public decency.
      The right of reply is without prejudice to other remedies available to persons whose right to dignity, honour, reputation or privacy have been breached by the media.

      ANNEX II
      Examples of possible actions concerning media literacy:

                  (a)

                  continuing education of teachers and trainers, in liaison with child protection associations, on using the Internet in the context of school education so as to maintain awareness of the possible risks of the Internet with particular regard to chatrooms and fora;

                  (b)

                  introduction of specific Internet training aimed at children from a very early age, including sessions open to parents;

                  (c)

                  an integrated educational approach forming part of school curricula and media literacy programmes, so as to provide information on using the Internet responsibly;

                  (d)

                  organisation of national campaigns aimed at citizens, involving all communications media, to provide information on using the Internet responsibly;

                  (e)

                  distribution of information packs on possible risks of the Internet (‘how to surf the Internet safely’, ‘how to filter unwanted messages’) and the setting up of hotlines to which reports or complaints concerning harmful or illegal content could be addressed;

                  (f)

                  adequate measures to establish or improve the performance of telephone hotlines, so as to make it easier to lodge complaints and to make it possible to report harmful or illegal content.

      ANNEX III
      Examples of possible actions by the industries and the parties concerned for the benefit of minors:

                  (a)

                  systematically providing users with an effective, updatable and easy-to-use filtering system when they subscribe to an access provider;

                  (b)

                  offering access to services specifically intended for children which are equipped with automatic filtering systems operated by access providers and mobile telephone operators;

                  (c)

                  introducing incentives to provide a regularly updated description of the sites available, making it easier to classify sites and assess their content;

                  (d)

                  posting banners on search engines drawing attention to the availability both of information about responsible use of the Internet and of telephone hotlines.