Avis juridique important

|

31992H0048

92/48/EEC: Commission Recommendation of 18 December 1991 on insurance intermediaries

Official Journal L 019 , 28/01/1992 P. 0032 - 0033

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION  of 18 December 1991  on insurance intermediaries  (92/48/EEC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 155 thereof,  Whereas insurance intermediaries are an important factor in the distribution of insurance in the Member States; whereas the creation of the internal market will entail an increasing range of products as a result of the freedom to provide services;  whereas the professional competence of insurance intermediaires is an essential element for the protection of the policyholders and those seeking insurance; whereas not all Member States require for the taking up of the activity of insurance  intermediary or specific categories of intermediary general, commercial and professional knowledge and ability; whereas such knowledge is desirable in principle for all insurance intermediaries and measures for further convergence are necessary;  Whereas Council Directive 77/92/EEC (1) sets out measures, in the absence of mutual recognition of diplomas and immediate coordination, to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services for the taking up  and pursuit of activities of insurance agent and broker; whereas these measures are of a transitional nature;  Whereas it should be left to the Member States or, in certain cases, their insurance undertakings or recognized professional organizations, in conformity with the EEC Treaty, to establish the exact level of general, commercial and professional knowledge  considered appropriate to guarantee that policyholders and persons seeking insurance will be adequately informed and assisted, taking into account the type of intermediary involved;  Whereas it is desirable that where appropriate insurance intermediaries also meet professional requirements with regard to professional indemnity insurance, fitness and properness; whereas consistency should exist with Community rules imposing capital  requirements on intermediaries holding clients' monies in assisting the administration and performance of insurance contracts;  Whereas it is appropriate to clarify the definition of independence of insurance brokers in view of the application of the relevent provisions of Council Directive 90/619/EEC (2) to insurance intermediaries;  Whereas competent insurance intermediaries should be registered in their Member States and such registration should be a condition for the taking-up and exercise of the activity of intermediating in insurance; whereas central registers should  distinguish between dependent and independent insurance intermediaries;  Whereas a recommendation, which is not binding on the Member States to which it is addressed as to the result to be achieved but solicits their cooperation on a voluntary basis, should be an effective means of enabling them to adopt where necessary the  appropriate provisions,  HEREBY RECOMMENDS: 1. that Member States ensure that insurance intermediaries established on their territory are subject to professional requirements and registration in accordance with the provisions contained in the attached Annex;  2. that Member States inform the Commission within 36 months of the notification of this recommendation of the texts of the main laws, regulations, administrative provisions which have been adopted or measures taken by professional organizations or  insurance undertakings with respect to this recommendation and inform the Commission of any further changes in this field. Done at Brussels, 18 December 1991. For the Commission  Leon BRITTAN  Vice-President   (1) OJ No L 26, 31. 1. 1977, p. 14. (2) OJ No L 330, 29. 11. 1990, p. 50.    ANNEX  PROFESSIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND REGISTRATION OF INSURANCE INTERMEDIARIES  Article 1  Definitions  For the purpose of this recommendation:  - 'insurance intermediary' is defined as a person taking up or pursuing an activity as defined in Article 2, paragraph 1 (a) to (c) of Directive 77/92/EEC in a self-employed capacity or as a paid employee.  Article 2  Scope  1. Subject to paragraphs 2 and 3, this recommendation shall apply to all insurance intermediaries as defined in Article 1.  2. The Member States need not apply this recommendation to persons providing insurance which does not require any general or specific knowledge and where such insurance covers the risk of loss or damage to goods supplied by that person, whose principal  professional activity is other than providing advice on and selling insurance.  3. The management of an undertaking taking up and exercising the activity of insurance intermediary shall include an adequate number of persons who possess the general, commercial and professional knowledge and ability required by Article 4, paragraph  2.  Member States are recommended to further that such undertakings offer relevant basic training for their employees who are involved in mediating in insurance products.  Article 3  Independence of intermediaries  The persons defined in Article 2, paragraph 1 (a) of Directive 77/92/EEC shall disclose:  - to persons seeking insurance or reinsurance of risks, any direct legal or economic ties to an insurance undertaking or any shareholdings in or by such undertakings which could affect the complete freedom of choice of insurance undertaking, and  - to a competent body, as determined by the Member State, the spread of business with different insurance undertakings over the previous year.  Article 4  Professional competence  1. The taking up and pursuit of the activity of insurance intermediary shall be subject to the professional requirements of paragraphs 2 to 5.  2. Insurance intermediaries shall possess general, commercial and professional knowledge and ability. The Member States shall require if necessary different levels of knowledge and ability for the category of intermediary mentioned in Article 3. The  level of such knowledge and ability shall be determined by the Member States.  Such levels and their practical application may also be determined and administered by professional organisations recognized by a Member State.  Subject to the supervision by Member States, such levels and their practical application may also be determined and administered by an insurance undertaking assuming responsibility and liability for the activities exercised by the category of  intermediary defined in Article 2, paragraph 1 (b) of Directive 77/92/EEC.  3. An insurance intermediary shall possess professional indemnity insurance or any other comparable guarantee against liability arising from professional negligence, unless such insurance is already provided for by an insurance undertaking or other  undertaking by which he is employed or for which he is empowered to act.  4. An insurance intermediary shall be of good repute. He shall not have previously been declared bankrupt, unless he has been rehabilited in accordance with his national law.  5. Insurance intermediaries as defined in Article 2, paragraph 1 (a) of Directive 77/92/EEC, may be required to have sufficient financial capacity. The level and form of capital required shall be determined by the Member States.  Article 5  Registration  1. Insurance intermediaries that fulfil the professional requirements of Article 4, paragraphs 2 to 5, shall be registered in their Member State. Only registered persons shall be allowed to take up and pursue the activity of insurance intermediary.  2. Each Member State shall appoint a competent body to administer the register mentioned in paragraph 1. Professional organizations recognized by a Member State may also be appointed to administer the register. In the case of Article 4, paragraph 2,  last subparagraph, such registers may also be administered by an insurance undertaking. Member States' competent authorities shall have access to the registers.  3. Where one central register exists, it should distinguish between independent and dependent insurance intermediaries.  4. Insurance intermediaries shall inform the public of the fact that they have been registered.  Article 6  Sanctions  1. Adequate sanctions and measures shall exist in the Member States which shall apply to any person pursuing the activity of insurance intermediary without being registered as such in a Member State.  2. Adequate sanctions and measures shall exist in the Member States against an insurance intermediary who ceases to fulfil the requirements of Article 4, paragraphs 3 to 5, including the possibility of removal from the register.


Avis juridique important

|

31984H0646

84/646/EEC: Council Recommendation of 19 December 1984 on strengthening the cooperation of the national railway companies of the Member States in international passenger and goods transport

Official Journal L 333 , 21/12/1984 P. 0063 - 0067 Spanish special edition: Chapter 07 Volume 3 P. 0220  Portuguese special edition Chapter 07 Volume 3 P. 0220

*****COUNCIL  RECOMMENDATION  of 19 December 1984  on strengthening the cooperation of the national railway companies of the Member States in international passenger and goods transport  (84/646/EEC)  THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 75 thereof,  Having regard to the proposals from the Commission (1),  Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (2),  Having regard to the opinions of the Economic and Social Committee (3),  Whereas the Council, in its resolution of 15 December 1981 (4), defined the broad outlines of its railway policy as part of the common transport policy and indicated its interest in better cooperation between railway companies in international traffic;  Whereas the Member States are particularly anxious that the railways should exploit the possibilities afforded them by the Community dimension;  Whereas improved cooperation in international traffic between the railway companies should enable this traffic to develop, allow rationalization of operations and improve the financial state of those companies; this cooperation therefore constitutes progress in the implementation of the common transport policy;  Whereas this improved cooperation requires initiatives from all the railway services (commercial, movement and other specialized services) participating in the provision and sale of services for the international transport of passengers and goods;  Whereas such initiatives should in the long term lead to the pooling of the resources of the companies to ensure an efficient and rational approach to the international traffic of passengers and goods;  Whereas, on the basis of Decisions 75/327/EEC (5), 82/529/EEC (6) and 83/418/EEC (7) and the implementing measures adopted by governments, railway companies have sufficient independence in the management of the international traffic of passengers and goods, which in particular enables them to pursue more ambitious common objectives;  Whereas the railway companies should operate their international traffic along commercial lines; whereas action to attain these objectives is a management responsibility which falls primarily on the railways;  Whereas, while railway companies have taken steps and introduced structures for the promotion of a more effective transport policy, these achievements need to be supplemented by increased cooperation through joint action to eliminate the obstacles to the development of international rail traffic and thus improve both the quality of service and the financial results,  HEREBY RECOMMENDS AS FOLLOWS:  Article 1  GENERAL PRINCIPLES  Railway companies of the Member States listed in the Annex, hereafter referred to as the 'companies', are invited to develop, in accordance with the management autonomy accorded to them by Decisions 75/327/EEC, 82/529/EEC and 83/418/EEC, an active policy of cooperation with a view to promoting international transport by rail.  To this end, procedures and instruments based on the common interests of the companies should be implemented, together with a strategy whereby the companies can present themselves on the international transport market as a single carrier and the profitability of the services to be offered to their customers can be assessed in relation to the aggregate costs and revenue in respect of the traffic links concerned, with their efforts being concentrated on profitable traffic.  On the basis of these general principles, the companies are invited to take the measures referred to in Articles 2, 3 and 4.  Article 2  PASSENGER AND GOODS TRANSPORT  1. Marketing  - Development of marketing strategies specifically geared to international traffic by setting up joint bilateral or multilateral inter-network teams composed of commercial or movements-services staff;  - Drawing-up and progressive implementation of medium-term and long-term business plans for each market by groups of routes on a bilateral and multilateral basis;  - Development of joint publicity and sales promotion campaigns in conjunction, if appropriate, with tourist offices and transport agents.  2. Management  - Strengthening of cooperation between commercial and movement services;  - Wider use to be made of the delegation of powers in order to enable vendors of international services to negotiate and conclude speedily special price agreements on behalf of all the companies;  - Promotion of revenue pools or any other new systems of sharing out revenue, bearing in mind the importance for the companies of international transport.  3. Exchange of information  - Development of a better exchange of information among companies concerning the priority to be given to certain types of traffic in view of their profitability and to sales follow-up and utilization of the capacity offered;  - Joint data storage using modern data-processing systems technology and establishment or harmonized procedures for the circulation of basic information.  4. Internal barriers encountered at frontiers  - Development of bilateral and multilateral agreements on:  - the elimination of duplicated technical inspections of wagons and trains at frontiers by introducing mutual trust arrangements,  - the elimination of the duplication of administrative operations within the networks.  - The speeding up of the formalities and inspections required by public authorities by increased use of telegraphic or computerized information services in collaboration with those authorities.  5. Liability arrangements  Preparation of joint proposals for improving, in the framework of international conventions in force, the liability arrangements in the event of loss, damage or delay.  6. Staff  - Attempt at specific training and intensification of the study of foreign languages with a view to greater efficiency in services dealing with international traffic;  - Taking account of existing possibilities and with a view to improving network efficiency and productivity, encouragement of inter-company staff exchanges with a view to better understanding of the languages and methods used by companies in the other Member States. Article 3  PASSENGER TRANSPORT  1. Sales and transport rates  - Introduction of an integrated European tariff independent of national tariffs, having regard to the costs and markets under consideration;  - Harmonization, where appropriate, of:  - existing special tariff conditions (age limits for children; students; families, senior citizens, groups, frequent journeys),  - supplements and other special conditions for travelling on certain trains and on certain peak days;  - Introduction of joint special offers and an attempt to find new commercial solutions, particularly in conjunction with the tourist industry, in the form of fixed all-in rates;  - Production of an international timetable of the inter-city type, for example, giving the schedules of European trains on the main lines and services.  2. Technical organization and services  - Adjustment of the schedules for international services so as to reconcile as far as possible the requirements of international traffic and national traffic (timetabling, frequency and duration of international journeys);  - Improvement of the blueprint for a European rail network so that rapid connections and regular services between the major European cities can gradually be provided;  - Development of uninterrupted subsidiary services in international traffic which best meet the needs of actual and potential customers;  - Improvement and diversification in the provision of night services and car-sleeper trains;  - Improvement of the rail services between the work places of the institutions of the European Communities with due regard to the principles of commercial management of the railways.  Article 4  TRANSPORT OF GOODS  (including combined transport)  1. Sales and transport rates  - Establishment, on a bilateral or multilateral basis, of market groups while adjusting sales structures so as gradually to cover the whole territory of the Member States;  - Development of joint services and sales offices composed of technical and commercial teams and improvement of the operation of existing offices;  - Development of management by product sector and clarification of resulting responsibilities;  - Examination of the possibility of creating, for certain categories of goods, joint branches responsible for administrative tasks and particularly for the provision of services to the companies;  - Extension of tariffs independent of national tariffs, especially by means of common scales, taking account of the costs and markets under consideration;  - Maintenance of some stability in the published tariffs so as to make these tariffs more accessible to consignors;  - Development of the logistical supply by means of a package of measures intended to offer the customer a full service between production and sale of the products transported, including intermodal handling, storage, redistribution of goods and management of stocks;  - Offering the customer guaranteed delivery dates for specialized consignments.  2. Technical organization and services  - Even more extensive application of the opportunities provided by the international Convention concerning the Carriage of Goods by Rail (CIM) with a view to concentrating consignments on the main efficient routes;  - Intensification of multilateral action designed to guide traffic towards these routes in order to speed up deliveries and concentrate flows to a greater extent;  - Encouragement of users with a view to guiding traffic towards these routes;  - Improvement of international consignments by increasing the number of trains moving between marshalling yards within the networks without being reshunted at frontiers;  - Development at technical level, depending on customer demand, of different categories of whole trains or grouped transport, programmed as far as possible. 3. Additional provisions for combined transport  Attempt to create sufficient room for commercial manoeuvre, if necessary by negotiations with the partners concerned, for subsidiaries marketing rail services in respect of combined transport, so as to improve services offered.  Article 5  1. The companies are invited to furnish the Commission and the Council simultaneously:  - by 30 June 1985 at the latest, with an action programme covering two years in response to this recommendation and a report on the measures already accomplished,  - by 31 December 1986 at the latest, with a joint report on the results obtained and the difficulties encountered in the implementation of the programme referred to in the first indent and on other matters of cooperation already under way, in particular the Basel pilot project (Trans info) and the wagon pool.  2. On the basis of the report referred to in the second indent of paragraph 1 the Commission will take the initiatives needed in order for the Council to be able to continue the action already undertaken.  Article 6  The companies are invited to consult the railway companies of the third States concerned in order to ensure the coordinated implementation of this recommendation.  Article 7  This recommendation is addressed to the companies listed in the Annex.  Done at Brussels, 19 December 1984.  For the Council  The President  J. BRUTON  (1) OJ No C 187, 13. 7. 1983, p. 7; OJ No C 191, 16. 7. 1983, p. 10; OJ No C 254, 22. 9. 1983, p. 6.  (2) OJ No C 117, 30. 4. 1984, p. 213.  (3) OJ No C 23, 30. 1. 1984, p. 3; OJ No C 35, 9. 2. 1984, p. 24; OJ No C 103, 16. 4. 1984, p. 6.  (4) OJ No C 157, 22. 6. 1982, p. 1.  (5) OJ No L 152, 12. 6. 1975, p. 3.  (6) OJ No L 234, 9. 8. 1982, p. 5.  (7) OJ No L 237, 25. 7. 1983, p. 32.


title: Commission Recommendation of 29 May 2008 on risk reduction measures for the substances: cadmium, cadmium oxide (notified under document number C(2008) 2243) (Text with EEA relevance)

text:
               14.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 156/22

      COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION

   of 29 May 2008
   on risk reduction measures for the substances: cadmium, cadmium oxide
   (notified under document number C(2008) 2243)
   (Text with EEA relevance)
   (2008/446/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 143/97 (2) of 27 January 1997 concerning the third list of priority substances as foreseen under Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93;

                           —

                           cadmium,

                           —

                           cadmium oxide.

                     The Member State designated as rapporteur pursuant to Regulations (EEC) No 793/93 and (EC) No 143/97 have 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 have suggested a strategy for limiting the risks.

               (2)

               The Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment (SCTEE) has been consulted and has issued opinions with respect to the risk evaluations carried out by the rapporteurs. The opinions have been published on the website of the Scientific Committee.

               (3)

               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).

               (4)

               It is appropriate, on the basis of that evaluation, to recommend certain risk reduction measures for certain substances.

               (5)

               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.

               (6)

               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
   CADMIUM

      (CAS No 7440-43-9; Einecs No 231-152-8)

   Risk reduction measures for workers (1) and the environment (2, 3 and 4)

               1.

               That employers using cadmium for the uses identified as a concern in the risk assessment should take note of any sector specific guidance developed at national level based on the practical non-binding guidance, as provided for in Article 12(2) of Council Directive 98/24/EC (5).

               2.

               In accordance with Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6), Competent authorities in the Member States concerned should lay down conditions, emission limit values or equivalent parameters or technical measures regarding cadmium in the permits issued under Directive 2008/1/EC in order for installations to operate according to the best available techniques (hereinafter BAT) taking into account the technical characteristic of the installations concerned, their geographical location and the local environmental conditions.

               3.

               Local emissions to the environment should, where necessary, be controlled by national rules to ensure that no risk for the environment is expected.

               4.

               All the information available including future data on soft water should be taken into account when setting Environmental Quality Standards (hereinafter EQS) within the framework of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (7).

         SECTION 2
   CADMIUM OXIDE

      (CAS No 1306-19-0; Einecs No 215-146-2)

   Risk reduction measures for workers (5) and the environment (6, 7 and 8)

               5.

               That employers using cadmium oxide for the uses identified as a concern in the risk assessment should take note of any sector specific guidance developed at national level based on the practical non-binding guidance, as provided for in Article 12(2) of Council Directive 98/24/EC.

               6.

               In accordance with Directive 2008/1/EC, competent authorities in the Member States concerned should lay down conditions, emission limit values or equivalent parameters or technical measures regarding cadmium in the permits issued under Directive 2008/1/EC in order for installations to operate according to BAT taking into account the technical characteristic of the installations concerned, their geographical location and the local environmental conditions.

               7.

               Local emissions to the environment should, where necessary, be controlled by national rules to ensure that no risk for the environment is expected.

               8.

               All the information available including future data on soft water should be taken into account when setting EQS within the framework of directive 2000/60/EC.

         SECTION 3
   ADDRESSEES

               9.

               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, 29 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 Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 284, 31.10.2003, p. 1).

      (2)  OJ L 25, 28.1.1997, p. 13.

      (3)  OJ L 161, 29.6.1994, p. 3.

      (4)  OJ C 149, 14.6.2008, p. 6.

      (5)  OJ L 131, 5.5.1998, p. 11. Directive as amended by Directive 2007/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 165, 27.6.2007, p. 21).

      (6)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2008, p. 8.

      (7)  OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1. Directive as last amended by Directive 2008/32/EC (OJ L 81, 20.3.2008, p. 60).


title: Council Recommendation of 10 February 2009 concerning the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Development Fund (Seventh EDF) for the financial year 2007

text:
               11.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 40/35

      COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION

   of 10 February 2009
   concerning the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Development Fund (Seventh EDF) for the financial year 2007
   (2009/112/EC)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
   Having regard to the Fourth ACP-EEC Convention, signed at Lomé on 15 December 1989 (1) and amended by the Agreement signed in Mauritius on 4 November 1995 (2),
   Having regard to Internal Agreement 91/401/EEC on the financing and administration of Community aid under the fourth ACP-EEC Convention (3), hereinafter referred to as the Internal Agreement, setting up, amongst others, the Seventh European Development Fund (Seventh EDF) and in particular Article 32(3) thereof,
   Having regard to the Financial Regulation 91/491/EEC of 29 July 1991 applicable to development finance cooperation under the Fourth ACP-EEC Convention (4), and in particular Articles 69 to 77 thereof,
   Having examined the revenue and expenditure account and the balance sheet relating to the operations of the Seventh EDF as at 31 December 2007 and the Court of Auditors′ report concerning the financial year 2007 together with the Commission's replies (5),
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Pursuant to Article 32(3) of the Internal Agreement, the discharge for the financial management of the Seventh 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 Seventh EDF during the financial year 2007 has been satisfactory,

         HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the European Parliament give the Commission a discharge in respect of the implementation of the operations of the Seventh EDF for the financial year 2007.

      Done at Brussels, 10 February 2009.

            For the Council

            The President

         M. KALOUSEK

      (1)  OJ L 229, 17.8.1991, p. 3.

      (2)  OJ L 156, 29.5.1998, p. 3.

      (3)  OJ L 229, 17.8.1991, p. 288.

      (4)  OJ L 266, 21.9.1991, p. 1.

      (5)  OJ C 286, 10.11.2008, p. 273.


title: Recommendation for a Council opinion in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the updated convergence programme for the United Kingdom 2000-01 to 2006-07

text: ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---


Avis juridique important

|

32003H0301

Council Recommendation of 14 April 2003 on the appointment of a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank

Official Journal L 109 , 01/05/2003 P. 0026 - 0026

Council Recommendationof 14 April 2003on the appointment of a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank(2003/301/EC)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Articles 112(2)(b) and 122(4) thereof, and to Articles 11.2 and 43.3 of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank,HEREBY RECOMMENDS:That Ms Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell be appointed member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank for a term of office of eight years with effect from 1 June 2003.This Recommendation shall be submitted for decision to the Heads of State or Government of the Member States which have adopted the euro, after consulting the European Parliament and the Governing Council of the European Central Bank.This Recommendation shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.Done at Luxembourg, 14 April 2003.For the CouncilThe PresidentA. Giannitsis


Avis juridique important

|

31979K1218

Commission Recommendation No 1218/79/ECSC of 19 June 1979 supplementing recommendations No 935/79/ECSC, No 950/79/ECSC and No 1083/79/ECSC concerning anti-dumping duties on certain steel products

Official Journal L 153 , 21/06/1979 P. 0017 - 0017

****( 1 ) OJ NO L 114 , 5 . 5 . 1977 , P . 6 .  ( 2 ) OJ NO L 352 , 31 . 12 . 1977 , P . 13 .  ( 3 ) OJ NO L 21 , 30 . 1 . 1979 , P . 14 .  ( 4 ) OJ NO L 117 , 12 . 5 . 1979 , P . 16 .  ( 5 ) OJ NO L 120 , 16 . 5 . 1979 , P . 11 .  ( 6 ) OJ NO L 135 , 1 . 6 . 1979 , P . 54 .    COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION NO 1218/79/ECSC   OF 19 JUNE 1979   SUPPLEMENTING RECOMMENDATIONS NO 935/79/ECSC , NO 950/79/ECSC AND NO 1083/79/ECSC CONCERNING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON CERTAIN STEEL PRODUCTS   THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN   COMMUNITIES ,   HAVING REGARD TO THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY , AND IN PARTICULAR ARTICLES 74 AND 86 THEREOF ,   HAVING REGARD TO COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 77/329/ECSC OF 15 APRIL 1977 ON PROTECTION AGAINST DUMPING OR THE GRANTING OF BOUNTIES OR SUBSIDIES BY COUNTRIES WHICH ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY ( 1 ), AS AMENDED BY RECOMMENDATIONS NO 3004/77/ECSC ( 2 ) AND NO 158/79/ECSC ( 3 ), AND IN PARTICULAR ARTICLES 17 AND 19 THEREOF ,   HAVING REGARD TO THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED WITHIN THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE PROVIDED FOR BY RECOMMENDATION 77/329/ECSC ,   WHEREAS , BY RECOMMENDATIONS NO 935/79/ECSC ( 4 ), NO 950/79/ECSC ( 5 ) AND NO 1083/79/ECSC ( 6 ), THE COMMISSION IMPOSED DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES WITH REGARD TO CERTAIN STEEL PRODUCTS ORIGINATING IN SPAIN AND BRAZIL AND IMPORTED FROM SOME OTHER NON-MEMBER COUNTRY ;   WHEREAS THE EXPERIENCE ACQUIRED IN THE APPLICATION OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS HAS SHOWN THAT IT IS NECESSARY , IN ORDER TO ENSURE THE PROPER FUNCTIONING OF THE ARRANGEMENTS CONCLUDED WITH THE COUNTRIES SUPPLYING STEEL PRODUCTS , TO DEFINE THE TERM ' IMPORTED FROM '  AS USED THEREIN ,   HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION :   ARTICLE 1   FOR THE PURPOSES OF RECOMMENDATIONS NO 935/79/ECSC , NO 950/79/ECSC AND NO 1083/79/ECSC , AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ANY OTHER EXISTING ARRANGEMENTS , THE COUNTRY FROM WHICH A PRODUCT IS CONSIDERED TO BE IMPORTED SHALL BE THE LAST INTERMEDIATE COUNTRY IN WHICH THE PRODUCT IN QUESTION WAS THE SUBJECT OF STOPPAGES OR LEGAL TRANSACTIONS NOT INHERENT IN ITS TRANSPORT .   ARTICLE 2   THIS RECOMMENDATION SHALL BE NOTIFIED TO THE MEMBER STATES .   IT SHALL ENTER INTO FORCE FOR EACH MEMBER STATE ON THE DATE OF ITS PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND SHALL APPLY TO PRODUCTS IMPORTED AFTER THAT DATE .   DONE AT BRUSSELS , 19 JUNE 1979 .   FOR THE COMMISSION   WILHELM HAFERKAMP   VICE-PRESIDENT


title: Recommendation No S1 of 15 March 2012 concerning financial aspects of cross-border living organ donations  Text of relevance to the EEA and to the EC/Switzerland Agreement

text:
               10.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 240/3

         RECOMMENDATION No S1
   of 15 March 2012
   concerning financial aspects of cross-border living organ donations
   (Text of relevance to the EEA and to the EC/Switzerland Agreement)
   2012/C 240/04
   THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION FOR THE COORDINATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEMS,
   Having regard to Article 72(a) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (1), under which the Administrative Commission is responsible for dealing with all administrative questions or questions of interpretation arising from the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 (2),
   Having regard to Article 168(7) TFEU,
   Having regard to Article 48 TFEU,
   Acting in accordance with the conditions laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 71(2) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Union action shall respect the responsibilities of the Member States for the definition of their health policy and for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care.

               (2)

               Union action shall not affect national provisions on the donation or medical use of organs and blood.

               (3)

               Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 does not provide a solution for the reimbursement of sickness benefits in kind to a living donor where his applicable legislation excludes or does not provide for the reimbursement of costs and the legislation of the organ recipient does not cover the donor's costs.

               (4)

               It is acknowledged that organ transplantation is a cost-effective treatment that has brought immense benefits to patients and living donations need to be performed in a manner that minimises the social risk to the individual donor.

               (5)

               The competent institution of the organ recipient should find a humanitarian ad hoc solution and reimburse the benefits in kind necessitated by cross-border living donation, if the applicable legislation of the organ donor does not provide reimbursement for living organ donors or for living organ donations in general.

               (6)

               The living donor has to be able to take an independent decision on the basis of all the relevant information and should be informed in advance about the health care coverage, reimbursement of costs relating to the cross-border organ donation and possible loss of income compensated by sickness cash benefits,

         RECOMMENDS:

               1.

               The competent authorities of an organ recipient, when they prepare or authorise the living organ donation with an organ coming from a living donor insured in another Member State, should consider the access of the living donor to the health care system for problems related to the procedure of donation;

               2.

               The competent authorities of an organ recipient shall find a humanitarian solution and reimburse the benefits in kind necessitated by cross-border living donation for the donor, if the legislation covering the donor does not provide entitlement to sickness benefits in kind for the donor;

               3.

               The competent authority of the donor shall provide sickness cash benefits in accordance with the legislation it applies, regardless of which Member State the organ donation took place in or of who was the organ recipient. Possible loss of income by the donor linked to the donation should be treated like any other incapacity for work by the donor's applicable legislation as there is no reason to treat the incapacity for work related to the organ donation differently from other incapacities based on medical grounds.

            The Chair of the Administrative Commission

         Karin MØHL LARSEN

      (1)  OJ L 166, 30.4.2004, p. 1, (as corrected in OJ L 200, 7.6.2004, p. 1).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ L 284, 30.10.2009, p. 1).


title: 2012/127/EU: Council Recommendation of 21 February 2012 concerning the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Development Fund (eighth EDF) for the financial year 2010

text:
               29.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 55/32

         COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
   of 21 February 2012
   concerning the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Development Fund (eighth EDF) for the financial year 2010
   (2012/127/EU)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to the fourth ACP-EEC Convention, signed at Lomé on 15 December 1989 (1) and amended by the Agreement signed in Mauritius on 4 November 1995 (2),
   Having regard to the Internal Agreement between the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on the financing and administration of the Community aid under the Second Financial Protocol to the fourth ACP-EC Convention (3) (the ‘Internal Agreement’) setting up, amongst others, the eighth European Development Fund (eighth EDF), and in particular Article 33(3) thereof,
   Having regard to the Financial Regulation of 16 June 1998 applicable to development finance cooperation under the fourth ACP-EC Convention (4), and in particular Articles 66 to 74 thereof,
   Having examined the revenue and expenditure account and the balance sheet relating to the operations of the eighth EDF as at 31 December 2010, 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 2010, together with the Commission’s replies contained in that Annual Report,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Pursuant to Article 33(3) of the Internal Agreement, the discharge for the financial management of the eighth 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 eighth EDF during the financial year 2010 has been satisfactory,

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

      Done at Brussels, 21 February 2012.

            For the Council

            The President

         M. VESTAGER

      (1)  OJ L 229, 17.8.1991, p. 3.

      (2)  OJ L 156, 29.5.1998, p. 3.

      (3)  OJ L 156, 29.5.1998, p. 108.

      (4)  OJ L 191, 7.7.1998, p. 53.

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


Avis juridique important

|

32003H0556

Commission Recommendation of 23 July 2003 on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming (notified under document number C(2003) 2624)

Official Journal L 189 , 29/07/2003 P. 0036 - 0047

Commission Recommendationof 23 July 2003on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming(notified under document number C(2003) 2624)(2003/556/EC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 211 thereof,Having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on "Life sciences and biotechnology - A strategy for Europe"(1), and in particular Action 17 thereof,Whereas:(1) No form of agriculture, be it conventional, organic or agriculture using genetically modified organisms (GMOs), should be excluded in the European Union.(2) The ability to maintain different agricultural production systems is a prerequisite for providing a high degree of consumer choice.(3) Coexistence refers to the ability of farmers to make a practical choice between conventional, organic and GM-crop production, in compliance with the legal obligations for labelling and/or purity standards.(4) Specific coexistence measures to protect the environment and the human health, if needed, are included in the final consent of the authorisation procedure in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(2), with a legal obligation for their implementation.(5) The issue of coexistence addressed in this Recommendation concerns the potential economic loss and impact of the admixture of GM and non-GM crops, and the most appropriate management measures that can be taken to minimise admixture.(6) Farm structures and farming systems, and the economic and natural conditions under which farmers in the European Union operate, are extremely diverse, and efficient and cost-effective measures for coexistence vary greatly between the different parts of the European Union.(7) The European Commission considers that measures for coexistence should be developed and implemented by the Member States.(8) The European Commission should support and advise Member States in this process by issuing guidelines for addressing coexistence.(9) Such guidelines should provide a list of general principles and elements for the development of national strategies and best practices for coexistence.(10) Two years after the publication of the present Recommendation in the Official Journal of the European Union, and based on information from Member States, the Commission will report to the Council and the European Parliament on the experience gained in the Member States concerning the implementation of measures to address coexistence, including, if appropriate, an evaluation and assessment of all possible and necessary steps to take,HEREBY RECOMMENDS:1. In developing national strategies and best practices for coexistence Member States should follow the guidelines provided in the Annex to this Recommendation.2. This Recommendation is addressed to the Member States.Done at Brussels, 23 July 2003.For the CommissionFranz FischlerMember of the Commission(1) COM(2002) 27 final (OJ C 55, 2.3.2002, p. 3).(2) OJ L 106, 17.4.2001, p. 1.ANNEXTABLE OF CONTENTS>TABLE>1. INTRODUCTION1.1. The concept of coexistenceThe cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the EU is likely to have implications for the organisation of agricultural production. On the one hand, the possibility of the adventitious (unintended) presence of genetically modified (GM) crops in non-GM crops, and vice versa, raises the question as to how producer choice for the different production types can be ensured. In principle, farmers should be able to cultivate the types of agricultural crops they choose, be it GM crops, conventional or organic crops. None of these forms of agriculture should be excluded in the EU.On the other hand, the issue is also linked to consumer choice. To provide European consumers with a real choice between GM food and non-GM food, there should not only be a traceability and labelling system that functions properly, but also an agricultural sector that can provide the different types of goods. The ability of the food industry to deliver a high degree of consumer choice goes hand in hand with the ability of the agricultural sector to maintain different production systems.Coexistence refers to the ability of farmers to make a practical choice between conventional, organic and GM-crop production, in compliance with the legal obligations for labelling and/or purity standards.The adventitious presence of GMOs above the tolerance threshold set out in Community legislation triggers the need for a crop that was intended to be a non-GMO crop, to be labelled as containing GMOs. This could cause a loss of income, due to a lower market price of the crop or difficulties in selling it. Moreover, additional costs might incur to farmers if they have to adopt monitoring systems and measures to minimise the admixture of GM and non-GM crops. Coexistence is, therefore, concerned with the potential economic impact of the admixture of GM and non-GM crops, the identification of workable management measures to minimise admixture and the cost of these measures.The coexistence of different production types is not a new issue in agriculture. Seed producers, for example, have a great deal of experience of implementing farm management practices to ensure seed purity standards. Other examples of segregated agricultural production lines include yellow dent field maize for animal feed, which successfully coexists in European agriculture with several types of "speciality maize" grown for human consumption, and waxy maize grown for the starch industry.1.2. Economic aspects of coexistence versus environmental and health aspectsIt is important to make a clear distinction between the economic aspects of coexistence and the environmental and health aspects dealt with under Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment.According to the procedure laid down in Directive 2001/18/EC, the authorisation to release GMOs into the environment is subject to a comprehensive health and environmental risk assessment. The outcome of the risk assessment can be one of the following:- a risk of an adverse effect to the environment or health that cannot be managed is identified, in which case authorisation is refused,- no risk of adverse effects on the environment or health is identified, in which case authorisation is granted without requiring any additional management measures other than those specifically prescribed in the legislation,- risks are identified, but they can be managed with appropriate measures (e.g. physical separation and/or monitoring); in this case the authorisation will carry the obligation to implement environmental risk management measures.If a risk to the environment or health is identified after the authorisation has been granted, a procedure for the withdrawal of the authorisation or for modifying the conditions of consent can be initiated under the safeguard clause set out in Article 23 of the Directive.Since only authorised GMOs can be cultivated in the EU(1), and the environmental and health aspects are already covered by Directive 2001/18/EC, the pending issues still to be addressed in the context of coexistence concern the economic aspects associated with the admixture of GM and non-GM crops.1.3. The Round Table on coexistenceA Round Table to examine the latest research results on the coexistence of GM and non-GM crops was hosted by the European Commission in Brussels on 24 April 2003. It focused on coexistence issues raised by the introduction of GM maize and GM oilseed rape into EU agriculture. Expert panels presented the scientific findings, which were then discussed with a range of stakeholders representing the farming sector, industry, NGOs, consumers and other players. The Round Table sought to provide a scientific and technical basis, drawing on practical farming experience, for whatever agronomic and other measures may become necessary to facilitate the sustainable coexistence of these different agricultural production types.The present guidelines draw on the results of the Round Table, a summary of which, prepared by a group of participating scientists, is available on the following Internet site: http://europa.eu.int/comm/ research/biosociety/index.1.4. SubsidiarityThe conditions under which European farmers work are extremely diverse. Farm and field sizes, production systems, crop rotations and cropping patterns, as well as natural conditions, vary enormously across Europe. This variability needs to be taken into account when devising, implementing, monitoring and coordinating coexistence measures. The measures that are applied must be specific to the farm structures, farming systems, cropping patterns and natural conditions in a region.For this reason, the Commission, at its meeting of 5 March 2003, expressed itself in favour of an approach that would leave it up to Member States to develop and implement management measures for coexistence. The role of the Commission would include gathering and coordinating relevant information based on ongoing studies at Community and national level, offering advice and issuing guidelines which should assist Member States in establishing best practices for coexistence.Strategies and best practices for coexistence need to be developed and implemented at national or regional level, with the participation of farmers and other stakeholders and taking account of national and regional factors.1.5. Purpose and scope of the guidelinesThe present guidelines, which take the form of non-binding recommendations addressed to the Member States, should be seen in this context. Their scope extends from agricultural crop production on the farm up to the first point of sale, i.e. "from the seed to the silo"(2).The document is intended to help Member States develop national strategies and approaches to address coexistence. Focusing mainly on technical and procedural aspects, the guidelines provide a list of general principles and elements to aid Member States in establishing best practices for coexistence.The document does not intend to provide a detailed set of measures that could be directly applied at Member State level. Many of the factors that are important in developing best practices for coexistence which are both efficient and cost-effective are specific to national and regional conditions.Moreover, developing stewardship schemes and best practices for coexistence is a dynamic process that should leave room for improvement over time and take into account new developments based on scientific and technological progress.2. GENERAL PRINCIPLESThis section provides a list of general principles and factors that Member States are advised to take into account in developing national strategies and best practices for coexistence.2.1. Principles for the development of coexistence strategies2.1.1. Transparency and stakeholder involvementNational strategies and best practices for coexistence should be developed in cooperation with all relevant stakeholders and in a transparent manner. Member States should ensure adequate dissemination of information about the measures on coexistence that they decide to put in place.2.1.2. Science-based decisionsManagement measures for coexistence should reflect the best available scientific evidence on the probability and sources of admixture between GM and non-GM crops. They should permit the cultivation of GM and non-GM crops, whilst ensuring that non-GM crops remain below the legal thresholds for labelling and purity standards with respect to genetically modified food and feed and seeds, as defined by Community legislation.The available scientific evidence should be continuously evaluated and updated to take account of results from monitoring studies on the experimental and commercial cultivation of GM crops, as well as the findings of new studies and models validated by field experience.2.1.3. Building on existing segregation methods/practicesManagement measures for coexistence should build on and take into account already existing segregation practices/methods and available agricultural experience about handling of identity preserved crops and seed production practices.2.1.4. ProportionalityMeasures for coexistence should be efficient, cost-effective and proportionate. They shall not go beyond what is necessary in order to ensure that adventitious traces of GMOs stay below the tolerance thresholds set out in Community legislation. They should avoid any unnecessary burden for farmers, seed producers, cooperatives and other actors associated with any production type.The choice of measures should take into account the regional and local constraints and situations, as well as the specific nature of the crop concerned.2.1.5. Appropriate scaleWhile considering all the options available, priority should be given to farm-specific management measures and to measures aimed at coordination between neighbouring farms.Measures of a regional dimension could be considered. Such measures should apply only to specific crops whose cultivation would be incompatible with ensuring coexistence, and their geographical scale should be as limited as possible. Region-wide measures should only be considered if sufficient levels of purity cannot be achieved by other means. They will need to be justified for each crop and product type (e.g. seed versus crop production) separately.2.1.6. Specificity of the measuresBest practices for coexistence should take into account the differences between crop species, crop varieties and product type (e.g. crop or seed production). Differences in regional aspects (e.g. climatic conditions, topography, cropping patterns and crop rotation systems, farm structures, crop-specific GMO share in a region) that may influence the degree of admixture between GM and non-GM crops, should also be taken into account to ensure the suitability of the measures.Member States should focus first on crops for which GM varieties are already approved, or close to authorisation and which are likely to be cultivated on a significant scale in their national territory.2.1.7. Implementation of measuresNational strategies for coexistence should ensure an equitable balance between the interests of farmers of all production types. Cooperation between farmers should be encouraged.Member States are advised to set up mechanisms to favour coordination and voluntary arrangements between neighbouring farmers, and to specify procedures and rules in cases of disagreement between farmers on the implementation of the measures in question.As a general principle, during the phase of introduction of a new production type in a region, operators (farmers) who introduce the new production type should bear the responsibility of implementing the farm management measures necessary to limit gene flow.Farmers should be able to choose the production type they prefer, without imposing the necessity to change already established production patterns in the neighbourhood.Farmers who plan to introduce GM crops for cultivation on their farms should inform the neighbouring farmers about their intention.Member States should ensure cross-border cooperation with neighbouring countries to guarantee the effective functioning of coexistence measures in border areas.2.1.8. Policy instrumentsA priori there is no particular policy instrument that can be recommended for coexistence. Member States may prefer to explore the use of different policy instruments, e.g. voluntary agreements, soft-law approaches and legislation, and choose the combination of instruments and depth of regulation that will most likely achieve effective implementation, monitoring, evaluation and control of the measures.2.1.9. Liability rulesThe type of instruments adopted may have an impact on the application of national liability rules in the event of economic damage resulting from admixture. Member States are advised to examine their civil liability laws to find out whether the existing national laws offer sufficient and equal possibilities in this regard. Farmers, seed suppliers and other operators should be fully informed about the liability criteria that apply in their country in the case of damage caused by admixture.In this context, Member States may want to explore the feasibility and usefulness of adapting existing insurance schemes, or setting up new schemes.2.1.10. Monitoring and evaluationThe management measures and instruments adopted should be subject to ongoing monitoring and evaluation to verify their effectiveness and to obtain the information necessary for improving the measures over time.Member States should establish adequate control and inspection systems to guarantee the proper functioning of coexistence measures.Best practices for coexistence should be revised periodically to take account of new developments brought about by scientific and technical progress and which could facilitate coexistence.2.1.11. Provision and exchange of information at European levelWithout prejudice to the already existing Community notification legislation and procedures, Member States should inform the Commission about their national strategies for coexistence and the individual measures adopted, as well as about the results of monitoring and evaluation exercises. The Commission will coordinate the exchange of information on measures, experiences and best practices supplied by the Member States. A timely exchange of information can create synergies and help avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts in the different Member States.2.1.12. Research and sharing of research resultsMember States should encourage and support, in partnership with stakeholders, research activities to improve their knowledge on how best to ensure coexistence. Member States should inform the Commission about ongoing and planned research activities in this area. Sharing research results between Member States should be strongly encouraged.Research studies on coexistence can also be supported under the Sixth Community Research Framework Programme. Additional studies on coexistence will be carried out by the Joint Research Centre.The Commission will facilitate the exchange of information about ongoing and planned research projects at national and Community level. The information exchange could improve the coordination of national research activities among the Member States, as well as with those carried out under the Sixth Community Research Framework Programme.2.2. Factors to considerThis section provides a non-exhaustive list of factors that should be taken into account in developing national strategies and best practices for coexistence.2.2.1. Level of coexistence to be achievedThe problem of coexistence of GM and non-GM crops may arise at different levels. For instance:- GM and non-GM crops produced simultaneously or in successive years on a single farm,- GM and non-GM crops produced on neighbouring farms in the same year,- GM and non-GM production types used in the same region, but on farms that are separated by some distance.Measures for coexistence should be specific to the level of coexistence to be achieved.2.2.2. Sources of adventitious mixtureThere are different sources of admixture between GM and non-GM crops including:- pollen transfer between neighbouring fields, whether over shorter or greater distances (depending on the species and other factors that may affect gene transfer),- mixing of crops during harvest and post-harvest operations,- transfer of seeds or other viable plant material during harvest, transport and storage, and to some extent by animals,- volunteers (seeds remaining in the soil after harvest and producing new plants in successive years). This source of admixture may be more important in some crops (e.g. in oilseed rape) than in others, depending inter alia on climatic conditions (e.g. in maize, seeds may not survive frost),- seed impurities.It is important to recognise the cumulative effect of the various sources of admixture, including cumulative effects over time that may affect the seed bank or the use of farm-saved seed.2.2.3. Labelling threshold valuesNational strategies and best practices for coexistence should refer to the legal labelling thresholds and to applicable purity standards for GM food, feed and seed.Presently, Council Regulation (EC) No 1139/98(3), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 49/2000(4), defines a labelling threshold for food of 1 %. Future labelling thresholds covering both food and feed are established in the Regulation on GM Food and Feed. These labelling thresholds would apply to conventional and organic farming alike. No legal thresholds exist for the adventitious presence of non-GMOs in GMOs. For seed of GM varieties, the general crop-specific requirements for purity standards in seed production apply.The organic farming regulation(5) establishes that no GMOs shall be used in production. Thus, materials, including seeds, which are labelled as containing GMOs cannot be used. However, seed lots containing GM seeds below the seed thresholds (which would not need to be labelled for this GMO presence) could be used. The organic farming regulation does allow for the setting of a specific threshold for the unavoidable presence of GMOs, but no threshold has been set. In the absence of such a specific threshold, the general thresholds apply.2.2.4. Specificity to crop species and crop varieties- The crop-specific degree of outcrossing: for instance, wheat, barley and soybeans are mainly self-pollinating crops, whereas maize, sugar beet and rye are cross-pollinating crops,- the crop-specific forms of cross-pollination (i.e. wind, insects),- the crop-specific potential to form volunteers, and the time seeds remain viable in the soil,- the species- and variety-specific cross-pollination potential with close relatives, be they farmed or wild ones. (this is affected, inter alia, by the degree of self- and cross-pollination, the receptivity of flowers at the time of pollen release, and the compatibility between the pollen and the style of the receiving plant),- the flowering time of the pollen source and of the receiving population: - degree of overlap of the respective flowering periods,- the duration of pollen viability, which depends on the plant species, the variety, and on environmental conditions, such as the humidity of the air,- the competition among pollen, which is influenced by the production of pollen in the receiving population and the pollen pressure generated by the pollen source. (it may depend on the crop variety. In hybrid plant production a large number of male sterile plants may be produced that do not produce pollen on their own, and this makes them more vulnerable to pollen pressure from outside),- fodder versus grain production (e.g. silage and grain maize): difference in the farming system and in the length of the cultivation process,- the degree to which genetic exchange through pollen flow influences the admixture rate in the harvested crop: for instance, there is no influence in the case of harvested potatoes or beets (in silage maize production, the harvested material is, to varying degrees, composed of cobs, which can be affected by genetic exchange, and plant material, which is not affected).2.2.5. Crop versus seed production- Labelling thresholds will differ between crop and seed production;- for seed production, specific legislation currently being prepared by the Commission will be adopted.2.2.6. Regional aspects- The crop-specific GMO share in the region,- the number and type of crop varieties (GM and non-GM) that have to coexist in a particular region,- the shape and size of the fields in a region (smaller fields are subject to a higher relative degree of pollen import than larger fields),- the fragmentation and geographical dispersion of fields belonging to individual farms,- regional farm management practices,- crop rotation systems and cropping patterns in a region, taking into account crop-specific seed longevity,- the activity, behaviour and population size of pollinators (insects, etc.),- the climatic conditions (e.g. rainfall distribution, humidity, direction and strength of the wind, air and soil temperature), which influence the activity of pollinators as well as the transport of airborne pollen, and may affect the type of crops cultivated, the starting date and length of the cultivation process, the annual number of production cycles, etc.,- the topography (e.g. valleys or water surfaces influence air currents and the strength of winds),- surrounding structures, such as hedges, forests, uncultivated areas, and the spatial arrangements of fields.2.2.7. Genetic outcrossing barriersBiological methods to reduce gene flow may diminish the risk of cross-pollination (e.g. apomixis (asexual seed production), cytoplasmatic male sterility, chloroplast transformation).3. INDICATIVE CATALOGUE OF MEASURES FOR COEXISTENCEThis section provides an open-ended catalogue of farm management and other measures for coexistence that may, to varying degrees and in various combinations, become part of national coexistence strategies and best practices.3.1. Additivity of measuresMeasures to prevent pollen flow to neighbouring fields are to some extent additive and may also have synergistic effects. For instance, the minimum isolation distances between fields with the same crop can be reduced if, at the same time, other suitable measures are taken (scheduling different flowering times, use of crop varieties with reduced pollen production, pollen traps, hedgerows, etc.).The most efficient and cost-effective set of measures will be influenced by the factors listed in Section 2.2, and may differ significantly from one crop to another and from one region to another.3.2. On-farm measures3.2.1. Preparation for sowing, planting and soil cultivation- Isolation distances between GM and non-GM fields of the same species and, if appropriate, of the same genera(6):- isolation distances should be specified as a function of the outcrossing potential of the crop. For open pollinating crops, such as oilseed rape, larger distances are required. For self-pollinating crops and plants where the harvested product is not a seed, such as beets and potatoes, shorter distances are possible. Isolation distances should minimise but not necessarily eliminate gene flow by pollen transfer. The objective is to ensure a level of adventitious presence below the tolerance threshold;- if different thresholds exist, e.g. for crop production and for seed production, isolation distances should be adapted accordingly,- buffer zones, as an alternative or complement to isolation distances (including the possibility of farmland retirement and set-aside),- pollen traps or barriers (e.g. hedgerows),- suitable crop rotation systems (e.g. lengthening the rotation by introducing a spring crop in which volunteers cannot flower, or minimum time intervals between the cultivation of GM and non-GM varieties of the same species and also between certain different species of the same genera),- planning the crop production cycle (e.g. planting arrangements for different flowering and harvesting periods),- reducing the size of the seed bank through adequate soil tillage (e.g. avoidance of mould-board ploughing after the harvest of oilseed rape),- managing populations in field borders through appropriate cultivation methods, use of selective herbicides or integrated weed control techniques,- choosing optimal sowing dates and appropriate cultivation techniques, in order to minimise bolters,- careful handling of seeds to avoid mixing, including distinctive packaging and labelling of the seeds and separate storage of seeds,- using varieties with reduced pollen production, or male sterile varieties,- cleaning of seed drills before and after use to prevent the carry-over of seed from previous operations and the unplanned dispersion of seed on the farm,- sharing seed drills only with farmers using the same production type,- preventing seed spillage when travelling to and from the field and on field boundaries,- control/destruction of volunteers, in combination with suitable sowing times for the following season to avoid the development of volunteers.3.2.2. Harvest and post-harvest field treatment- Saving seeds only from suitable fields and field areas (e.g. field centres),- minimising seed loss during the harvest (e.g. through optimisation of the harvest time to minimise seed shedding),- cleaning of harvesting machinery before and after use, to prevent any carry-over of seed from previous operations, and to avoid the unintended dispersal of seed,- sharing harvest machinery only with farmers using the same production type,- in case other measures are deemed insufficient to maintain the adventitious presence below the labelling threshold, the field margins could be harvested separately from the rest of the field. The main crop should then be segregated from that harvested on the field margins.3.2.3. Transport and storage- Ensuring the physical segregation of GM and non-GM crops after the harvest up to the first point of sale,- using adequate seed storage arrangements and practices,- avoiding spillage during transport of the harvested crop on the farm and from the farm to the first point of sale.3.2.4. Field monitoringMonitoring of seed spillage sites, fields, and field margins for volunteer development.3.3. Cooperation between farms in the neighbourhood3.3.1. Information about sowing plansNotification of farms located within the relevant perimeter of the planting plans for the next growing season. Notifications should be made before the seeds for the next growing season are ordered.3.3.2. Coordinated management measures- Voluntary clustering of fields of different farms for the cultivation of similar crop varieties (GM, conventional or organic) in a production area,- use of crop varieties with different flowering times,- arranging for differences in sowing dates in order to avoid cross-pollination during flowering,- coordinating crop rotations.3.3.3. Voluntary agreements among farmers on zones of a single production typeGroups of farmers in a neighbourhood may achieve a significant reduction in the costs related to the segregation of GM and non-GM production types if they coordinate their production on the basis of voluntary agreements.3.4. Monitoring schemes- Establishing notification systems that encourage farmers to report problems or unexpected occurrences in the implementation of coexistence measures,- using the feedback obtained from monitoring as a basis for further adjustment and refinement of national strategies and best practices for coexistence,- setting up effective control schemes/bodies targeted at critical control points to ensure the proper functioning of coexistence management measures.3.5. Land register- The register established in accordance with Article 31(3)(b) of Directive 2001/18/EC can be a useful instrument to monitor developments of GM crops and to help farmers coordinate local production patterns and monitor developments concerning the different types of crops. It could be accompanied by a global-positioning-system-based map of GM, non-GM and organic fields. The information could be made publicly available via the Internet or other communication supports,- creating an identification system for fields where GM crops are grown.3.6. Record keepingDeveloping arrangements for on-farm record keeping concerning relevant information on:- the cultivation process and the handling, storage, transport and marketing of GM crops; there will be a legal requirement for farmers to have systems in place to identify from whom they have received GMOs and to whom they have supplied GMOs, including GM crops and seeds, once the legislative proposal on traceability and labelling of GMOs has been adopted(7),- the management practices for coexistence implemented on the farm.3.7. Training courses and extension programmesMember States should encourage training courses for farmers, on a voluntary or a mandatory basis and extension programmes in order to raise awareness among farmers and other interested parties and provide technical knowledge for the implementation of coexistence measures. This may include training of specialised staff who would then provide advice to farmers on management measures for coexistence.3.8. Information provision and exchange, and advisory services- Member States should ensure that farmers are fully informed about the implications of adopting a particular production type (GM or non-GM), in particular with regard to their responsibilities for implementing coexistence measures and the liability rules that are applicable in case of economic damage resulting from admixture,- all operators concerned should be sufficiently informed about the specific coexistence measures to be implemented. One possibility for disseminating such specific information would be to require that the information be attached to the seed lots by the seed supplier,- Member States should encourage effective and regular exchange of information and networking among farmers and other stakeholders,- Member States should consider the setting up of Internet-based or telephone information services ("GMO hotlines") that would provide answers to specific requests for information and provide advice to farmers and other operators on technical, commercial and legal questions related to GMOs.3.9. Reconciliation procedures in the case of disputesMember States are advised to take measures to implement conciliation procedures in order to solve cases of disagreement between neighbouring farmers concerning the implementation of measures for coexistence.(1) In order to be cultivated in the EU, the GMO must have been authorised for cultivation in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC.(2) The guidelines address commercial seed and crop production. Experimental releases of GM-crops are not considered.(3) OJ L 159, 3.6.1998, p. 4.(4) OJ L 6, 11.1.2000, p. 13.(5) Council Regulation (EC) No 1804/1999 (OJ L 222, 24.8.1999, p. 1).(6) Genera is a taxonomic term for a group of related species.(7) Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC (COM(2001) 182 final).


Recommendation of the European Central Bank of 8 April 1999 on the accounting treatment of costs incurred in connection with the issue of banknotes (ECB/1999/NP7)


				|

		52011SC0818

			Recommendation for a COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION on the National Reform Programme 2011 of Bulgariaand delivering a Council opinionon the updated Convergence Programme of Bulgaria, 2011-2014 /* SEC/2011/0818 final */

			   	Recommendation for a
COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
on the National Reform Programme 2011 of
Bulgaria
and delivering a Council opinion
on the updated Convergence Programme of Bulgaria, 2011-2014
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 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 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 15 April 2011, Bulgaria submitted its 2011 Convergence
Programme update covering the period 2011-2014 and its 2011 National Reform
Programme. In order to take account of the interlinkages, the two programmes
have been assessed at the same time.
(7)
The economic crisis interrupted a period of
strong growth fuelled by substantial foreign direct investment inflows and
credit expansion. GDP growth returned in the second quarter of 2010, after
falling cumulatively by 7.1% from peak to trough, resulting in a broadly flat
real GDP for 2010 as a whole. A strong upturn in exports, restocking of
inventories have been the most important growth drivers. The general government
balance moved form a surplus prior to the crisis into a deficit of 4.7% of GDP
in 2009 and 3.3% of GDP in 2010. While output and employment in export-led
industries increased, subdued activity in construction, real estate and retail
has constrained the recovery over the past year. Employment bore the brunt of
the output correction with a loss of about 358.000 jobs since the peak in 2008.
As a result, unemployment increased by several percentage points to 10.2% in 2010,
and employment is not expected to return to its pre-crisis level in the
medium-term.
(8)
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
fiscal projections is based on more favourable growth projections than those of
the Commission services' forecast. After a considerable and frontloaded
budgetary adjustment of more than 2 percentage points in structural terms in
2010, the fiscal effort in 2011 is well below the recommended adjustment of at
least 0.75% of GDP. Nevertheless, the updated Convergence Programme foresees a
correction of the excessive general government deficit in 2011 in compliance
with the Council Recommendation and further reductions afterwards.. However, the
update does not provide sufficient details of the planned budgetary measures to
achieve the fiscal targets in 2012-14. The downward revised medium-term
objective (MTO) of a structural deficit of 0.6% of GDP, scheduled for 2014, is
still more ambitious than the minimum required level. It reflects the
objectives of the Stability and Growth Pact and it is foreseen to be achieved
by the end of the programme period (2014). However, the envisaged annual average
structural fiscal effort in 2012-14, after the planned correction of the
excessive deficit in 2011, is well below the minimum annual structural
improvement of 0.5% of GDP recommended. In view of the gradually improving
economic outlook, the programme should aim for a faster progress towards the
achievement of the MTO. When assessed against a prudent estimate of medium-term
potential output growth, the projected budgetary expenditure growth in 2012-13 seems
to be on the optimistic side, posing a risk to the structural fiscal position
in the medium term.
(9)
Correcting the excessive deficit as envisaged by
the end of 2011 will help regain confidence and strengthen the credibility of
government policies. Over the medium term, achieving the objective of a small structural
deficit of 0.6% of GDP is important to ensure that fiscal policy is supportive
to the monetary regime in place. However, fiscal consolidation is hindered by inefficiencies
in the public sector which may lead to considerable expenditure pressures while
budget revenues are likely to be structurally lower than in the pre-crisis boom
years. Ambitious public finance reforms are thus needed in order to carry out
the necessary fiscal adjustment and help secure funding for the implementation
of necessary structural reforms, including the co-financing needed for
EU-supported projects.
(10)
The Bulgarian fiscal performance was relatively positive
in the favourable economic environment prior to the crisis. Fiscal targets were
consistently met and sizeable fiscal buffers were accumulated. In 2009, under
the impact of the economic crisis; for the first time in many years the budget
went into deficit, and the rule to keep the budget balanced or in surplus and
public expenditure below 40% of GDP was breached. This was partly related to weaknesses
in expenditure planning and control. It further reflected the fact that the
revenue windfalls resulting from the buoyant economic activity prior to the
crisis had been used to finance relatively large increases in ad-hoc expenditure
and cuts in the social security rate. To address these problems, the
authorities undertook several initiatives to improve expenditure control and
monitoring and reporting systems, including the adoption of a comprehensive
legislative package, strengthening the fiscal rules and the medium-term
budgetary framework. It is expected to enhance fiscal discipline and the
predictability of policies, to reduce macroeconomic volatility and to ensure
less a pro-cyclical fiscal policy.
(11)
The pre-crisis boom years saw a considerable
tightening of the labour market and high wage growth, outpacing the increases
in productivity. Wage growth peaked at an annual rate close to 20% in the
fourth quarter of 2007. Following the downturn, wages have started to
decelerate, although wage growth remained relatively high at close to 10% in
2010 for employees under labour contracts (representing around 65% of the
labour force). Bringing wage growth in line with productivity growth will
facilitate the internal restructuring of the economy towards productive and
export-led sectors.
(12)
Labour market participation barriers reflect in
part the insufficient provision of properly targeted and tailored active labour
market policies (ALMP), together with ineffective and underfunded Public Employment
Services. The quality of public services in the areas of activation, job search
assistance and retraining is low as is public spending. ALMP coverage is also
limited with only 12% of jobseekers participating in activation measures.
Launching more region-based employment programmes, and European Structural
Funds large-scale training programmes, will have a positive effect in the short
term. However, weak capacity to monitor and evaluate programme results hampers
policy design. As pointed out by a recent report commissioned by the Public
Employment Service ("Evaluation of the net effect of ALMPs in
Bulgaria"), more individualised and better-quality services, as well as
better infrastructure of labour offices, would support more effectively the
unemployed in finding a job.
(13)
The economic crisis continues to impact the
labour market. The unemployment rate increased from 5.4% in 2008 to 10.2% in
2010, while for young persons (aged 15-24) it reached 23.2% in 2010. The crisis
particularly hit the low skilled (including a large part of the Roma minority)
who represent almost 70% of the unemployed. The share of long-term unemployment
(46% in 2010) is higher than the EU average (2010: 40%), and there may be a risk
of it becoming structural. The youth activity rate has consistently stayed at
less than two thirds of the EU average (2009: 29.5%; EU: 43.8%). The youth
employment rate was 24.8% in 2009 (EU: 35.2%). Bulgaria also has the highest
share of young people who are neither in education or employment (19.5% of persons
aged 15-24). One of the main barriers to youth participation in the labour
market is the shortage of opportunities to combine education and work, in
particular through internships and apprenticeships in their field of study,
which facilitate transition to the labour market.
(14)
Despite an above average educational attainment,
Bulgaria has over 40% of low achievers in literacy and numeracy. This shows
there is scope for improvements in the education system to better align it to labour
market needs. Building on the positive results of the recent school
decentralisation reform, the upcoming Law on Pre-School and School Education is
expected to provide some solutions which can be further strengthened, i.e. with
respect to financial autonomy, pre-school participation rates and external
evaluation, as well as ensuring accountability. The early school leaving rate
(14.7% in 2009) is close to the EU average, but is particularly high among the
Roma (where it was estimated at 43% in 2008). Tertiary attainment rates (27.9%
in 2009) remain below the EU average (32.2%). Bulgaria has significantly
delayed its higher education reform. The new Higher Education Law, already
tabled in 2010 but subsequently withdrawn, should provide a useful step to
address reform needs.
(15)
The pension reform decided in 2010 is not linked
to life expectancy or to the situation of the health and long-term care system.
The implementation period is from 2011 to 2026, with most of the measures
taking effect in the second half of the period which could put both the
implementation and the sustainability of the first pillar of the pension system
at risk.
(16)
Bulgarian citizens experience a greater degree
of poverty in comparison to the EU average (41.9% of the population experiences
severe material deprivation as compared to 8.1% for EU). Around 66% of the
elderly are at risk of poverty, which is considerably higher than the EU
average. There are signs of deteriorating living conditions in the last couple
of years. Given the demographic situation, achieving the NRP targets for
poverty reduction depends to a large extent on the proper design of policies
for older workers and disadvantaged people, as well as on the adequacy of
social transfers. The NRP announces the development of an operational strategy
for Roma integration (estimated at 10% of the population), to address the
multiple barriers faced in the domains of employment, education, health and
housing in a single comprehensive plan.
(17)
The low efficiency of public services remains an
obstacle to growth. Despite recent streamlining, the public administration
reform has not dealt with upgrading the quality of staff or key functions. Bulgaria
has a very low fixed broadband penetration – at 14.9% it has the second-lowest
figure of the EU, which also limits uptake of all electronically delivered services.

(18)
The public procurement irregularity rate reaches
60% of all procedures verified and is even higher for large public
infrastructure projects, where the authorities have an obligation of ex-ante
control. The capacity of the Public Financial Inspection Agency has been
reduced substantially and as a result, the agency performed ex-post controls in
only 12% of all public procurement procedures in 2009.
(19)
The energy intensity of the Bulgarian economy is
one of the highest in the EU. A salient example is household heating, with
poorly maintained multi-apartment buildings accounting for the bulk of the
problem. Recent changes in the eligibility rules create the possibility of
using EU Structural Funds to support energy efficiency investments. Few
investments have been made, whilst revenues from energy and transport taxes
have fallen relative to GDP and also relative to taxes on labour, which are
well above the EU average. Access to the energy market is hampered by reduced competition
and opaque price setting mechanisms.
(20)
Bulgaria has made a number of commitments under
the Euro Plus Pact[4]. On the fiscal side, the
commitments indicate that the sustainability of public finances will be
underpinned by pension reform measures, action to ensure performance-based pay
in the public sector by freezing pensions and wages until 2013 and
strengthening of the domestic fiscal framework through the adoption of a
Financial Stability Pact, which includes binding numerical fiscal rules. To
foster employment, measures will be taken to reduce the share of undeclared
employment and increase labour participation. Competitiveness measures focus on
reducing administrative burdens and increasing e-governance; improving access
to education and enhancing the performance of the education system.. The above
commitments refer to three out of the four areas of the Pact, leaving out the
financial sector. They represent a continuity of the broader reform agenda
outlined in the Convergence and National Reform Programmes, and step up ongoing
reform projects in the areas of fiscal governance, public administration, and
education. The Euro Plus Pact commitments have been assessed and taken into
account in the recommendations.
(21)
The Commission has assessed the Convergence
Programme and National Reform Programme, and the Euro Plus Pact commitments[5].
It has taken into account not only their relevance for sustainable fiscal and
socio-economic policy in Bulgaria but also their respect of 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 after a considerable and frontloaded budgetary adjustment in
2010, fiscal consolidation plans for 2011 should be implemented as envisaged
and the deficit should be brought below the 3% reference value in line with the
Council Recommendation. The update does not provide sufficient details for
planned budgetary measures to achieve the fiscal targets in 2012-14 and a
faster progress towards the selected medium term objective could have been
ensured. Strengthening of the domestic fiscal framework will anchor fiscal
discipline and provide for predictability and credibility of government policy
in the medium-term. Further steps should also be taken to strengthen
competitiveness, to help people into jobs, to protect the most vulnerable
groups facing multiple barriers, to enhance the capacity of public
administration and regulators, to increase resource efficiency as well as to
open up more opportunities for investment and growth.
(22)
In light of this assessment, also taking into
account the Council Recommendation under Article 126(7) Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union of 2 June 2010, the Council has examined the
2011 update of the Convergence Programme of Bulgaria and its opinion[6]
is reflected in particular in its recommendations under (1) and (2) set out
below. Taking into account the European Council conclusions of 25 March 2011,
the Council has examined the National Reform Programme of Bulgaria,
HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Bulgaria should
take action within the period 2011-2012 to:
(1)
Proceed with effective budget implementation so
as to correct the excessive deficit in 2011. Specify the measures underpinning
the budgetary strategy for 2012-2014 and take advantage of the ongoing economic
recovery to speed up fiscal adjustment towards the medium-term budgetary
objective, primarily by keeping expenditure growth in line with medium-term
potential growth, while increasing the share of growth-enhancing public
expenditure.
(2)
Take steps to improve the predictability of
budgetary planning and its implementation in particular by strengthening fiscal
governance. To this end, design and put in place binding fiscal rules and a
well-defined medium-term budgetary framework that ensures transparency at all
government levels. Introduce measures to put budget reporting on an accrual
basis.
(3)
Take steps to speed up the current reform of the
pension system and strengthen measures to help older workers to stay longer in
employment.
(4)
Promote, in consultation with the social
partners and in accordance with national practices, policies to ensure that wage
growth better reflects developments in productivity and sustain
competitiveness.
(5)
Take steps to address the
challenge of combating poverty and promoting social inclusion, especially for vulnerable groups facing multiple barriers, by : expanding the market for private job service
providers; modernising public employment services to
enhance their capacity to match skills profiles with labour market demand; and
focusing support on young people with low skills. Advance the educational
reform by adopting a Law on Pre-School and School
Education and a new Higher Education Act by mid 2012.
(6)
Step up efforts to enhance administrative
capacity in key government functions and regulatory authorities, in order to
make public services more effective in responding to the needs of citizens and
businesses; introduce measures to check public
procurement on the basis of risk assessments, strengthen the capacity of the
authorities to prevent and sanction irregularities, in order to improve quality
and value-for-money in the use of public funds.
(7)
Abolish barriers to entry, guaranteed profits
arrangements and price controls and ensure full independence of the Bulgarian
Energy Regulator, in order to open up the electricity and gas markets to
greater competition. Introduce incentives to upgrade the energy efficiency of
buildings.
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) 711.
[5]               SEC(2011) 711.
[6]               Foreseen in Article 9(3) of Council Regulation (EC)
No 1466/97.