title: Council Recommendation of 9 July 2013 on the National Reform Programme 2013 of France and delivering a Council opinion on the Stability Programme of France, 2012-2017

text:
               30.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/27

      COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION

   of 9 July 2013
   on the National Reform Programme 2013 of France and delivering a Council opinion on the Stability Programme of France, 2012-2017
   2013/C 217/08
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 121(2) and 148(4) thereof,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies (1), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,
   Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 on the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances (2), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,
   Having regard to the recommendation of the European Commission,
   Having regard to the conclusions of the European Council,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Employment Committee,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Financial Committee,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Social Protection Committee,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Economic Policy Committee,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 26 March 2010, the European Council agreed to the Commission’s proposal to launch a new strategy for jobs and growth, Europe 2020, based on enhanced coordination of economic policies, which focuses on the key areas where action is needed to boost Europe’s potential for sustainable growth and competitiveness.

               (2)

               On 13 July 2010, the Council adopted a recommendation on the broad guidelines for the economic policies of the Member States and the Union (2010 to 2014) and, on 21 October 2010, it adopted a decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States (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 29 June 2012, the Member States’ Heads of State or Government decided on a Compact for Growth and Jobs, providing a coherent framework for action at national, EU and euro area levels using all possible levers, instruments and policies. They decided on action to be taken at the level of the Member States, in particular expressing full commitment to achieving the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy and to implementing the country-specific recommendations.

               (4)

               On 10 July 2012, the Council adopted a Recommendation (4) (‘the 2012 Recommendation’) on France’s National Reform Programme for 2012 and delivered its opinion on France’s Stability Programme for 2012-2016.

               (5)

               On 28 November 2012, the Commission adopted the Annual Growth Survey, marking the start of the 2013 European Semester for economic policy coordination. Also on 28 November 2012, the Commission, on the basis of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011, adopted the Alert Mechanism Report, in which it identified France as one of the Member States for which an in-depth review would be carried out.

               (6)

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

               (7)

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

               (8)

               On 10 April 2013, the Commission published the results of its in-depth review for France, under Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011. The Commission’s analysis leads it to conclude that France is experiencing macroeconomic imbalances, which require monitoring and decisive policy action. In particular, developments related to a deterioration in the trade balance and competitiveness, driven both by cost and non-cost factors, also in the context of a deteriorating external position and high public debt deserves continued attention so as to reduce the risk of adverse effects on the functioning of the French economy and of the Economic and Monetary Union, in particular given the size of the French economy.

               (9)

               On 30 April 2013, France submitted its 2013 National Reform Programme and its Stability Programme for the period 2012-2017. In order to take account of their interlinkages, the two Programmes have been assessed at the same time.

               (10)

               Based on the assessment of the Stability Programme pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1466/97, the Council is of the opinion that despite considerable consolidation efforts that brought the headline deficit down from 7,5 % of GDP in 2009 to 4,8 % in 2012, France is not expected to correct its excessive deficit by 2013 as recommended by the Council on 2 December 2009. This is linked in particular to a worse economic environment than expected at the time the Council Recommendation of 2 December 2009 was adopted which was only partly compensated by windfall revenues, while the effort was somewhat backloaded. The macroeconomic scenario underpinning the budgetary projections in the Stability Programme is plausible for 2013 but overly optimistic for 2014. In particular, the authorities anticipate that after a standstill in 2012 (0 %) and in 2013 (+0,1 %), GDP will grow by 1,2 % in 2014 while assuming that fiscal measures are taken to bring the general government deficit to 2,9 % of GDP in 2014. By comparison, the Commission forecasts that GDP will grow by 1,1 % in 2014 based on a no-policy-change assumption, a scenario which only takes into account measures that have been adopted or sufficiently specified and hence forecasts a deficit of 4,2 % of GDP in 2014. The main objective of the budgetary strategy outlined in the Stability Programme is to achieve the medium-term objective (MTO), which is a balanced budget in structural terms, as in Stability Programme for 2012-2016. This is more ambitious than required by the Stability and Growth Pact. The target year for reaching the MTO is 2016, compared with 2015 in the Stability Programme for 2012-2016.
               The planned headline deficit set by the Stability Programme is consistent with a correction of the excessive deficit by 2014, one year after the revised deadline set by the Council under the excessive deficit procedure (EDP) on 2 December 2009. Given the overly optimistic growth forecast in the Stability Programme for 2014, unless additional measures are taken to substantially reinforce the effort for that year, the Council considers that the fiscal effort envisaged by the authorities is not compatible with an actual correction of the excessive deficit by 2014. Planned savings and additional revenue also lack specifics. In these circumstances, measures need to be specified for both 2014 and 2015 to credibly ensure that the excessive deficit is corrected by 2015 at the latest as recommended by the Council. In 2016, the structural balance, as recalculated by the Commission, is expected to be -0,4 % of GDP (-0,3 % in 2017) and thus the MTO would not be reached by the end of the programme horizon. Progress towards the MTO in 2016 is expected to represent 0,3 % of GDP, which is below the 0,5 % of GDP benchmark. The general government debt has increased substantially since the beginning of the crisis. Starting from 64,2 % in 2007, the ratio of debt-to-GDP reached 90,2 % in 2012 and is projected to increase further to 96,2 % by 2014 according to the Commission services 2013 spring forecast. The authorities expect the debt ratio to peak at 94,3 % of GDP in 2014 and then to drop to 88,2 % in 2017. France will be in a transitional period from 2016 regarding compliance with the debt criterion.

               (11)

               Given the high and still increasing debt and the fact that the deadline to correct the excessive deficit is postponed again, to 2015, it is all the more important that the 2013 budget is strictly implemented and substantial consolidation efforts are firmly pursued in subsequent years. In particular, it is crucial that France’s public spending grows significantly less rapidly than potential GDP as improvements in the structural deficit have so far been mainly revenue based. In this respect, the on-going public spending review (‘Modernisation de l’action publique’), whose scope includes local governments and social security administrations in addition to central government, should provide indications to further improve the efficiency of public expenditure. There is also room for further streamlining of the different administrative layers and competences in order to achieve further synergies, efficiency gains and savings. The planned new Decentralisation Law should address this issue. In view of the expected increase over the medium and long term in public healthcare expenditure, future public expenditure on healthcare requires greater scrutiny and efficiency, in particular in pharmaceutical spending. The most recent projections by the Pensions Advisory Council (‘Conseil d’orientation des retraites’) point to persistent deficits of the pensions system by 2018, contrary to the 2010 reform objective to achieve a balanced system by that time. In addition, the partial rollback of the 2010 reform goes against the 2012 Recommendation. Hence, the pension system will still face large deficits by 2020 and new policy measures are urgently needed to remedy this situation while preserving the adequacy of the system.
               Such measures could include further increasing both the minimum and the full-pension retirement ages as well as the contribution period to obtain a full pension, adapting the indexation rules and reviewing the currently numerous exemptions to the general scheme for specific categories of workers. The French Government has decided to fully associate the social partners to design the reform and enhance its ownership. Given its negative impact on the cost of labour, an increase in the level of social security contributions should be avoided. In light of the public finance challenge faced by France, it is of critical importance that fiscal measures are complemented by increased efforts to pursue structural reforms in order to support and increase the long-term growth potential of the French economy.

               (12)

               As shown by the 2013 in-depth review, competitiveness of France remains a significant challenge, as the strong erosion of its export markets shares in recent years shows. The Government proposed in November 2012 several policy measures in the context of the ‘Competitiveness Pact’. The introduction of a corporate income tax credit (crédit d’impôt pour la compétitivité et l’emploi — CICE), with a planned full-year impact of EUR 20 billion, is a significant step which should contribute to lowering labour costs. There is room for further action as the new tax credit does no more than halve the gap between the French tax wedge and the OECD average at the level of the median wage. In addition, the fiscal measures affecting companies, including reductions in tax expenditures, adopted since 2010 result in an overall increase in business taxation, even when corrected for CICE. The increase in the minimum wage decided in July 2012, while limited, may have a negative impact on job creation and competitiveness, as stressed by the 2012 Recommendation. Between 2002 and 2012, the hourly minimum wage increased by 38% (16% in real terms). The high level of the minimum wage, which represents 60% of the median wage, is compensated for employers by a number of social security contribution exemptions for employers. The related cost for public finances has increased rapidly between 1992 and 2002 and stabilised since then at close to 1 % of GDP. In addition, alternative instruments such as income support schemes (the ‘Prime pour l’emploi’ and the ‘Revenu de solidarité active’) are more efficient instruments than the minimum wage to address in-work poverty.

               (13)

               As regards non-price competitiveness, while the Government has recently renewed its export strategy, supporting the development of export-oriented networks and partnerships would promote the internationalisation of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). More generally, measures could be taken to ensure that the business environment is conducive to SMEs’ growth. Despite considerable efforts deployed by firms in research and development-intensive sectors and sizeable government support (namely, the research tax credit), high and medium-high-tech sectors represent only a modest and declining share of the French economy. Hence, there is a need to further foster the creation and growth of SMEs and mid-tier companies (ETI) in these sectors by improving the framework conditions that encourage innovation and entrepreneurship. The cluster policy that has been developed to link public research and private companies might also be further geared towards commercial exploitation of research, development and innovation (R&D&I), positive externalities between private companies located closely to one another and internationalisation of SMEs. In addition, PhD studies and research experience should be made sufficiently attractive to further foster linkages between private companies and research institutions.

               (14)

               With regard to services, only limited progress was seen in the course of 2012. In particular, no horizontal reform was initiated to remove unjustified restrictions in regulated sectors and professions. Many professional service providers still face restrictions as regards their legal form and shareholding structure (such as restrictions on capital ownership for veterinarians and lawyers). Other significant barriers to entry or practice (such as commercial communications, quotas or territorial restrictions) remain in a number of sectors (such as taxis, certain health professions, notaries and other legal professions). The retail sector is still subject to a number of regulations, such as cumbersome and time-consuming authorisation procedures for the establishment of retail outlets. In addition, the existing ban on selling below costs induces a number of distortions while the objective of supporting producers and small distribution outlets could be effectively achieved through less distortionary measures. These excessive restrictions in regulated sectors and professions weigh on competition and tend to raise their prices. As the in-depth review shows, higher prices in intermediary services, which account for close to a quarter of production costs in the manufacturing sector, ultimately impact on the external competitiveness of French firms. Limited progress was achieved in 2012 on network industries. The French electricity market remains one of the most concentrated in the Union. Regulated prices in electricity and gas distort competition and continue to act as a barrier for new entrants. Regulated tariffs for non-household customers should be removed according to the timetable agreed with the French authorities. More interconnection capacity with neighbouring countries and the launch of the tenders for hydro-concessions would also contribute to fostering competition in the electricity market.
               In the railway sector, the rail-freight market has been in decline for several years (such as volume in tones/km contracted by 17 % between 2006 and 2011), while rail passenger transport is not open to competition, except for international services. The forthcoming reform should ensure that any new ‘unified infrastructure manager’ remains independent of the incumbent operator to guarantee new entrants fair and non-discriminatory access.

               (15)

               The French tax system remains complex and lacks efficiency due to the wide range of exemptions, special allowances, but also frequent changes in legislation. Despite efforts to reduce and streamline tax expenditures, the amount of foregone revenue from these remains high. The choice of a broad base-low rate approach for corporate and personal income taxation would be more conducive to growth and social welfare. The intermediate value added tax (VAT) rate is set to increase from 7 % to 10 % from January 2014. This is a move in the right direction but additional efforts are necessary. Overall, the cost of tax and social-security exemptions remains very high up to 10 % of GDP. Despite the demonstrated ineffectiveness of some reduced VAT rates, such as those for restaurant services, no sufficiently differentiated policy measures have been taken. The introduction of the CICE tax credit, financed partly through the above-mentioned increase in the intermediate but also standard VAT rates, shifts the tax burden away from labour. Further scope for action is however needed, in particular to rebalance the share of environmental taxes. Last year, France adopted some measures to address tax incentives to indebtedness in corporate taxation. Interest deduction is limited above EUR 3 million and 15 % of the interest above that limit will be disallowed for tax deductibility in 2013, a share which will be brought to 25% in 2014. However, there is scope for further improvement.

               (16)

               The unemployment rate increased from 9,7 % in 2010 to 10,2 % in 2012. The Commission forecasts that the unemployment rate will increase to 10,6 % in 2013 and 10,9 % in 2014 due to persistently weak economic growth. Against this background, the segmentation of the French labour market continues to be a source of concern. The likelihood of moving from a temporary to a permanent job was only 10,6 % in 2010, as against 25,9 % on average in the EU. As a result, low-skilled workers in precarious forms of employment tend to bear the brunt of any adjustment process in the labour market. A law was adopted in May 2013, based on the inter-professional agreement (ANI) on securing jobs concluded between the social partners in January 2013. It foresees increased rights for workers, addresses the legal uncertainty of dismissals and provides greater flexibility for employers. The law is a positive step towards a more fluid labour market. On some specific issues the actual implementation of this reform, as well as its impact, is linked to the adoption of further branch/enterprises agreements which will be needed before the agreement can fully enter into force.

               (17)

               A sixth of young people in France leave education and training without a qualification. This is particularly worrying as the unemployment rate of young people was of 25,4 % at the end of 2012 and as the risk of being unemployed was almost two times higher for the least qualified young people. Schemes to promote apprenticeships should reach in particular the least qualified young people. The alignment of national schemes to the Youth Guarantee established by the Council Recommendation of 22 April 2013 (5) should play a structuring role in responding to these challenges. Despite reforms initiated in 2009, the French participation rate of adults in lifelong learning (5,7 % in 2012, for low-skilled adults: 2,5 %) is below the EU average. The planned transfer of competences to the regional Councils might provide an opportunity to address the weaknesses of the current system. Despite its significant rising trend, the employment rate for workers aged 55-64 is still low, at the median of the EU Member States (45,7 % in the fourth quarter of 2012), and it has closed by only half the gap with EU average since 2008 (from 7,4 points in 2008 to 3,8 points in 2012). Unemployment is rising among older people, at the same rate as overall unemployment. Although a step in the right direction, it is not clear to what extent the ‘generation contracts’ will contribute to the employment of older workers and facilitate a return to work by older jobseekers. French public spending on unemployment benefits rose by 5,3 % in 2012 and are expected to further increase by 6,1 % in 2013 according to the Stability Programme. The cumulated deficit of the unemployment regime, which would be close to 1 % of GDP by 2013, calls for a reform of the unemployment benefit system.
               In particular, some elements, such as the eligibility conditions, the degressivity of benefits over time or the replacement rates for workers with the highest wages should be adapted to ensure that incentives to work are adequate. The new tripartite convention of the public employment service (Pôle emploi) foresees a differentiated follow-up of jobseekers. The job counsellor’s portfolio has however further increased due to the rising unemployment level and the reorientation of the Pôle emploi strategy is hampered by the weak economic situation. All in all, there is a need to take further action in view of the negative economic prospects and the expected further increase in unemployment in France.

               (18)

               In the context of the European Semester, the Commission has carried out a comprehensive analysis of France’s economic policy. It has assessed the National Reform Programme and the Stability Programme, and has presented an in-depth review. It has taken into account not only their relevance for sustainable fiscal and socioeconomic policy in France but also their compliance with EU rules and guidance, given the need to reinforce the overall economic governance of the Union by providing EU-level input into future national decisions. Its recommendations under the European Semester are reflected in recommendations (1) to (6) below.

               (19)

               In the light of this assessment, the Council has examined the Stability Programme, and its opinion (6) is reflected in particular in recommendation (1) below.

               (20)

               In the light of the Commission’s in-depth review and this assessment, the Council has examined the National Reform Programme and the Stability Programme. Its recommendations under Article 6 of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 are reflected in recommendations (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) below.

               (21)

               In the context of the European Semester the Commission has also carried out an analysis of the economic policy of the euro area as a whole. On this basis the Council has issued specific recommendations addressed to the Member States whose currency is the euro (7). As a country whose currency is the euro, France should also ensure the full and timely implementation of those recommendations,

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

               1.

               Reinforce and pursue the budgetary strategy in 2013. Enhance the credibility of the adjustment by specifying, by autumn 2013, and implementing the necessary measures for the year 2014 and beyond to ensure a correction of the excessive deficit in a sustainable manner by 2015 at the latest and the achievement of the structural adjustment effort specified in the Council recommendations under the EDP. Use all windfall gains for deficit reduction. A durable correction of the fiscal imbalances requires a credible implementation of ambitious structural reforms to increase the adjustment capacity and boost growth and employment. Maintain a growth-friendly fiscal consolidation course and further increase the efficiency of public expenditure, in particular by proceeding as planned with a review of spending categories across all sub-sectors of general government. Take action through the forthcoming Decentralisation Law to achieve better synergies and savings between central and local government levels. After the correction of the excessive deficit, pursue the structural adjustment effort at an adequate pace so as to reach the MTO by 2016. Take measures by the end of 2013 to bring the pension system into balance in a sustainable manner no later than 2020, for example by adapting indexation rules, by increasing the full-pension contribution period, by further increasing the effective retirement age, by aligning the retirement age or pension benefits to changes in life expectancy and by reviewing special schemes, while avoiding an increase in employers’ social contributions, and increase the cost-effectiveness of healthcare expenditure, including in the areas of pharmaceutical spending.

               2.

               Ensure that the reduction in the labour cost resulting from the ‘credit d’impôt pour la compétitivité et l’emploi yields the planned amount and that no other measure will offset its effect. Take further action to lower the cost of labour, in particular through further measures to reduce employers’ social-security contributions, in association with social partners. Ensure that developments in the minimum wage are supportive of competitiveness and job creation, taking into account the existence of wage support schemes and social contribution exemptions.

               3.

               Take further measures to improve the business environment and develop the innovation and export capacity of firms, in particular SMEs and enterprises of intermediate size. In particular, launch the announced simplification initiative of the regulatory framework, and improve the framework conditions for innovation, by enhancing technology transfer and the commercial exploitation of research, including through a reorientation of the competitiveness poles.

               4.

               Take action to enhance competition in services; remove unjustified restrictions in the access to and exercise of professional services, notably regarding legal form, shareholding structure, quotas and territorial restrictions; take action to simplify authorisation for the opening of trade outlets and to remove the ban of sales at a loss; remove regulated gas and electricity tariffs for non-household customers and strengthen interconnection capacity with neighbouring countries; in the railway sector, open domestic passenger transport to competition.

               5.

               Pursue efforts to simplify the tax system and improve its efficiency, while ensuring continuity of tax rules over time. Take additional measures to remove the debt bias in corporate taxation. Step up efforts to reduce and streamline personal and corporate income tax expenditures while reducing statutory rates; bring reduced VAT rates closer to the standard rate and remove inefficient reduced rates. Take further measures shifting the tax burden from labour to environmental taxation or consumption.

               6.

               Implement fully, without delay and in consultation with the social partners the inter-professional agreement of January 2013. Take further action to combat labour-market segmentation, in particular to address the situation of interim agency workers. Launch urgently a reform of the unemployment benefit system in association with the social partners and in accordance with national practices to ensure sustainability of the system while ensuring that it provides adequate incentives to return to work. Enhance the employment rate of older workers and stimulate their participation in the labour market. Take specific action to improve the employment perspective of older unemployed people in particular through specific counselling and training. Increase adult participation in lifelong learning, especially of the least qualified and of the unemployed. Ensure that public employment services effectively deliver individualised support to the unemployed and that active labour market policies effectively target the most disadvantaged. Take further measures to improve the transition from school to work through, for example, a Youth Guarantee (8) and promotion of apprenticeship.

      Done at Brussels, 9 July 2013.

            For the Council

            The President

         R. ŠADŽIUS

      (1)  OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 1.

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

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

      (4)  OJ C 219, 24.7.2012, p. 31.

      (5)  OJ C 120, 26.4.2013, p. 1.

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

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

      (8)  Established by Council Recommendation of 22 April 2013 (OJ C 120, 26.4.2013, p. 1.).


Avis juridique important

|

31992H0579

92/579/EEC: Commission Recommendation of 27 November 1992 calling upon Member States to set up the infrastructures needed to identify dangerous products at the external frontiers

Official Journal L 374 , 22/12/1992 P. 0066 - 0069

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION  of 27 November 1992  calling upon Member States to set up the infrastructures needed to identify dangerous products at the external frontiers  (92/579/EEC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 155, second indent thereof,  Whereas the Member States must, by 29 June 1994, the scheduled implementation date of Council Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992 on general product safety (1), have adopted the laws, regulations and administrative provisions to comply with the  abovementioned Directive; whereas one of the main elements of the Directive is a coherent set of procedures at both national and Community level to ensure compliance with the general safety obligation, i.e. the obligation on producers to place only safe  products on the market;  Whereas the definition of 'producer' in point (d) of Article 2 of Directive 92/59/EEC also covers the importer of the product; whereas the obligation on producers to place only safe products on the market applies equally to the activities of importers  seeking the release for free circulation of consumer products from non-member countries;  Whereas this Directive makes provision for the adoption at Community level of emergency measures as a last resort where Member States differ on the emergency measures to be taken, and if the existing Community procedures prove inadequate to deal with  emergency situations created by dangerous products;  Whereas this procedure provides for a Community decision laying down temporary measures in respect of a specific product; whereas Member States are then responsible for taking the appropriate measures nationally to ensure its implementation in their own  territory; whereas national measures of this nature are also required if the emergency situation can be dealt with the Member States themselves without formal involvement by the Community, provided that all equivalent measures are taken to eliminate the  risk and protect the health and safety of consumers and the smooth functioning of the single market;  Whereas, where the abovementioned national provisons involve banning certain products from the market and in view of the applicability of Directive 92/59/EEC in the case of release for free circulation, compliance with these provisions will be ensured  by the national authorities responsible for supervising the market, including the customs authority responsible for authorizing the release for free circulation of products of non-Community origin;  Whereas, in the period prior to implementation of Directive 92/59/EEC, in order to ensure a high level of consumer protection, not only within their own territory but also at the external frontiers, it is appropriate to invite the Member States to  provide, as of now, for administrative infrastructures enabling products deemed dangerous to be identified;  Whereas Council Decision 89/45/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a Community system for the rapid exchange of information on dangers arising from the use of consumer products (2), as amended by Decision 90/352/EEC (3), provides for an effective and coherent  infrastructure to allow exchange of information between the Member States and the Commission; whereas the procedure is initiated where a Member State decides to take urgent steps to prevent, restrict or attach particular conditions to the marketing or  use on its territory of a product because of the serious and immediate risk which that product presents for the health or safety of consumers;  Whereas this information procedure has been designed to alert other Member States to the serious and immediate risk presented by certain consumer products on the market which have been identified by a specific Member State, to enable them to take the  appropriate steps to ensure consumer protection in their own territory;  Whereas this system of market supervision can also be used by Member States in order to identify the products deemed to present a serious and immediate risk, notably during the import formalities for release for free circulation of such products of  non-Community origin; whereas in these conditions the decision by a Member State to ban or restrict the marketing of a specific product may equally apply to products identical to the notified dangerous products of non-Community origin which have been  declared for release for free circulation;  Whereas the procedures advocated in this recommendation are not such as to prejudice the practical verification and analysis methods used by the national authorities to establish whether a product is genuinely dangerous;  Whereas, pursuant to Decision 89/45/EEC, the Member States have the infrastructures needed to check the extent to which a notified product presents a serious and immediate risk; whereas, for the system to be effective, the Member States are invited to  inform their customs authorities of the results of such checks in order to allow identification of the product concerned on the basis of the customs declaration presented as part of the formalities for release for free circulation;  Whereas in so far as such products are identified by the customs authority, it is recommended that clearence for their release onto the market be suspended in order to enable the competent authorities to carry out the checks needed;  Whereas, even if the notified product is not available on the national market, it is suggested that Member States give the competent authorities the opportunity to take the measures referred to above with regard to the product on the basis of  information notified in the context of the rapid exchange system and, where appropriate, on the basis of examination of a sample supplied to the competent authority; whereas, in the event of measures being taken in respect of a dangerous product, it is  desirable that the customs authorities have this information at their disposal in order to ensure proper surveillance of external frontiers; whereas, in these conditions, supplementary checks as described above may be undertaken where the notified  product has been declared for release for free circulation;  Whereas if, as a result of such checks, the product concerned is found to present a genuine serious and immediate risk for consumer health or safety, Member States are invited to prohibit its release for free circulation on the basis of the  abovementioned national measure;  Whereas, pending implementation of Directive 92/59/EEC, Member States are invited to implement this recommendation to ensure a high level of consumer protection, through effective surveillance of the external frontiers to protect against products  presenting a serious and immediate risk;  Whereas, to assess the effectiveness of the procedures advocated in this recommendation, in so far as the Member States have acted upon it, it is desirable that the Commission should, after consultation with the Member States, notify the European  Parliament and Council;  Whereas this recommendation by its very nature is without prejudice to the application of the equivalent Community notification procedures,  HEREBY FORMULATES THIS RECOMMENDATION:  I  For the purposes of this recommendation:  1. 'rapid information exchange system' means the Community system for the rapid exchange of information on dangers arising from the use of consumer products established by Decision 89/45/EEC;  2. 'contact point' means the competent national authority designated by each Member State to communicate or receive:   - notification in respect of a decision by a Member State to take urgent steps to prevent, restrict or attach particular conditions to the marketing or use on its territory of a product or a product batch, because of the serious and immediate risk  which that product or product batch presents for the health or safety of consumers when used in normal and foreseeable conditions,  - information received by the Commission and subsequently communicated to the Member States,  - particulars of market checks carried out and, where relevant, steps taken following receipt of initial notification;  3. 'products' means all products intended for consumers as defined in Article 3 of Decision 89/45/EEC,  4. 'customs authorities' means the authorities empowered, inter alia, to apply the customs regulations.  II  1. Any Member State which decides to take urgent steps to prevent, restrict or attach particular conditions to the marketing or use on its territory of a product because of the serious and immediate risk which that product presents for the health or  safety of consumers is invited to inform both its own national customs authorities and the Commission thereof, in accordance with Article 1 of Decision 89/45/EEC.  2. In the case of application of paragraph 1, and to facilitate identification of the product concerned, it is desirable that the information should include, by way of guidance, along with the elements specified in Article 1 (2) of Decision 89/45/EEC, a  reference to the combined nomenclature code.  III  Member States are invited to make provision for the possibility that:  1. on receipt of notification through the rapid information exchange system, the contact point, where appropriate through the intermediary of an authority competent in the domain, may take the steps necessary to check whether the products concerned  present a serious and immediate risk;  2. where a sample of the product is needed for this assessment, the contact point may transmit an appropriate application to the Commission, which shall then inform the contract point of the Member State issuing the notification. In so far as this  contact point decides to approve the application, a sample of the product in question may be provided to the requesting contact point. If an application to this effect is made by the contact point issuing the notification, the sample should be returned.   IV  1. Member States are invited to make provision for the possibility of the contact point informing the customs authorities of its country and the Commission, in accordance with Article 3 of Decision 89/45/EEC, where the contact point deems the product  notified by another Member State to present a genuine serious and immediate risk to consumer health or safety and, consequently, the Member State concerned decides to take urgent steps to prevent, restrict or attach particular conditions to the possible  marketing or use on its territory of this product. In this case, paragraph 2 of point II shall apply.  2. Paragraph 1 may also apply where the notified product has been assessed, following verification, as dangerous within the meaning of paragraph 1, but has not been found on the national territory in the Member State concerned.  V  Member States are invited to make provision for the possibility that:  1. immediately upon receipt of the information issued in accordance with points II and IV, the customs authorities may take the appropriate steps to ensure that the product concerned can be identified if application is made for its release for free  circulation;  2. where a product identical to the product notified is declared for release for free circulation, the customs authorities may directly inform the contact point and suspend, where appropriate, their decision to clear the product;  3. the contact point, where appropriate through the intermediary of an authority competent in the domain, may take appropriate steps to check the characteristics of the product declared for release for free circulation, paid particular attention to  safety, to establish whether it is identical to the product in respect of which notification has been received and the national measures referred to in point IV have been taken;  4. where the checks referred to in 3 confirm that the product concerned presents a serious and immediate risk for consumer health or safety, the contact point may inform the customs authority which may decide to withhold authorization. In such cases  those authorities are invited to attach one of the following markings to the commercial invoice accompanying the product:  - « Producto peligroso - No autorizado su despacho a libre práctica  Recomendación 92/579/CEE »  - »Farligt produkt - Ikke godkendt til fri omsaetning  Henstilling 92/579/EOEF«  -  "Gefaehrliches Produkt - Abfertigung zum freien Verkehr nicht gestattet  Empfehlung 92/579/EWG"  - «AAðéêssíaeõíï ðñïúueí - AEaaí aaðéôñÝðaaôáé ç èÝóç óaa aaëaaýèaañç êõêëïoeñssá  Óýóôáóç 92/579/AAÏÊ »  - 'Dangerous product - Release for free circulation not authorized  Recommendation 92/579/EEC'  - « Produit dangereux - Mise en libre pratique non autorisée  Recommandation 92/579/CEE »  - « Prodotto pericoloso - Immissione in libera pratica non autorizzata  Raccomandazione 92/579/CEE »  -  "Gevaarlijk produkt - het in het vrije verkeer brengen ervan niet toegestaan  Aanbeveling 92/579/EEG"  - « Produto perigoso - Colocaçao em livre prática nao autorizada  Recomendaçao 92/579/CEE »;  5. if the product concerned is subsequently declared for entry other than for free circulation, the marking specified in 4 may also be attached to the document relating to the customs procedure in question or the one used in free zones or free  warehouses.  VI  Member States are invited to make provision for the possibility of the contact point notifying the Commission of cases of application of point V, quoting, where appropriate, the reference number of the initial notification. The Commission shall inform  the other Member States.  VII  If the Member States decide to act on one or several of the provisions in this recommendation, they are invited to inform the Commission accordingly.  VIII  1. Within one year of publication of this recommendation, the Commission shall proceed to consult with the Member States to evaluate any action which the Member States have taken on the basis of the Recommendation.  2. Following consultation, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council in respect of the application of this recommendation.  IX  This recommendation is addressed to the Member States.  Done at Brussels, 27 November 1992. For the Commission  Karel VAN MIERT  Member of the Commission   (1) OJ No L 228, 11. 8. 1992, p. 24. (2) OJ No L 17, 21. 1. 1989, p. 51. (3) OJ No L 173, 6. 7. 1990, p. 49.


title: Recommendation of the European Central Bank of 9 December 2011 to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of De Nederlandsche Bank (ECB/2011/22)

text:
               16.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/1

         RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK
   of 9 December 2011
   to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of De Nederlandsche Bank
   (ECB/2011/22)
   2011/C 367/01
   THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,
   Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Article 27.1 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

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

               (2)

               The mandate of De Nederlandsche Bank’s external auditors will end following the audit for the financial year 2011. It is therefore necessary to appoint external auditors from the financial year 2012.

               (3)

               De Nederlandsche Bank has selected Deloitte Accountants BV as its external auditors for the financial years 2012 to 2018,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:
   It is recommended that Deloitte Accountants BV should be appointed as the external auditors of De Nederlandsche Bank for the financial years 2012 to 2018.

      Done at Frankfurt am Main, 9 December 2011.

            The President of the ECB

         Mario DRAGHI


				|

		52012PC0655

			Recommendation for a COUNCIL DECISION Authorising the European Commission to participate, on behalf of the EU, in the negotiations for an international convention of the Council of Europe to combat the manipulation of sports results /* COM/2012/0655 final */

			   	EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
1.           Background and political
context
Match-fixing is
unanimously considered to be one of the major threats facing contemporary
sport. Match-fixing undermines the values of sport such as integrity, fair play
and respect for others. It risks alienating fans and supporters from organised
sport, a sector that represents almost 2% of EU Gross Value Added. Moreover,
match-fixing often involves organised criminal networks active on a global
scale. It is a problem that has now become a priority for public authorities,
the sport movement and law enforcement agencies worldwide.
The 2011
Commission Communication on Developing the European Dimension in Sport
explicitly recognises match-fixing as a threat which violates the ethics and
integrity of sport. The issue of match-fixing was further addressed in 2011 in
the Commission's Green Paper on Online Gambling, in the Commission
Communication on Fighting Corruption in the EU and in the Commission
Communication Towards a comprehensive European framework for online gambling.
The European
Parliament adopted in June 2011 a Written Declaration on combating corruption
in European sport and, in February 2012, a Resolution on Developing the
European Dimension in Sport calling for increased international cooperation to
tackle match-fixing. On 29 November 2011, the EU Council adopted Conclusions on
combating match-fixing which invite the Commission, Member States and non-governmental stakeholders to cooperate and take action at different levels to
improve the way match-fixing is addressed in the EU.
The International
Olympic Committee (IOC) launched in March 2011 a Working Group composed of
high-level representatives of the sport movement, public authorities,
international organisations and betting operators to propose ways of fighting
against irregular and illegal sports betting, with a roadmap for follow-up
action adopted in Lausanne on 2 February 2012.
On 28 September
2011, the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers adopted a Recommendation
on the promotion of integrity of sport against manipulation of results notably
match-fixing. The Recommendation invites the Enlarged Partial Agreement on
Sport (EPAS) to carry out a feasibility study on a possible international legal
instrument for the prevention and repression of match-fixing. On 15 March 2012,
the Council of Europe's Conference of Ministers Responsible for Sport, meeting
in Belgrade, took note of the study's conclusions and invited EPAS to launch
the negotiations, in coordination with the EU, on a possible international
legal instrument (Convention) against the manipulation of sports results,
notably match-fixing. On 13 June 2012, the Council of Europe's Committee of
Ministers endorsed this invitation. In the course of the summer of 2012, EPAS
sent invitations to the countries that are parties to the European Cultural
Convention to invite them to express their interest in participating in the
negotiations for a draft Convention of the Council of Europe against the
manipulation of sports results.
2.           A possible Council of Europe Convention against match-fixing: possible content and timetable
On the basis of the feasibility study
carried out by EPAS, the possible content of the future Council of Europe (CoE) Convention may be structured as follows:
1.           Prevention
(a)
Domestic co-ordination
(b)
Promotion and support of measures to be taken by
the sports movement
(c)
Setting up a framework for the betting market
(d)
Promotion of measures to be taken by betting
operators
2.           International co-operation
(e)
Public authorities – sport
(f)
Public authorities (betting regulators) –
betting operators
(g)
International co-operation between judicial or
law enforcement authorities
(h)
Tripartite consultations
3.           Sanctions
(i)
Combination of disciplinary, administrative and
criminal sanctions
(j)
Disciplinary
(k)
Administrative
(l)
Criminal law
(m)
Jurisdiction
4.           Law enforcement
(n)
Investigation
(o)
Cybercrime
5.           Follow-up
(p)
Monitoring
(q)
Convention committee
One of the major issues in the fight
against match-fixing at EU or international level is the need to ensure
coordination of the different stakeholders involved in the field, in
particular public authorities, law enforcement agencies, gambling regulators,
the sport movement in all its components, and betting operators (lotteries and
private operators). The main added value of a CoE Convention against
match-fixing would consist in setting up a platform for cross-border and
cross-sector cooperation involving all the relevant actors. A significant
advantage of a CoE Convention would consist in its monitoring and follow-up
structures, based on the model of existing standing committees for CoE
Conventions in the field of sport (anti-doping, spectator violence). These
structures should be open to all relevant stakeholders and they should become
the forum where discussions are held on the implementation of the Convention
and on progress in the fight against match-fixing in Europe.
Another important advantage of the future
Convention would consist in its openness to non-European countries: all
countries will be able to sign and ratify the Convention (by way of example, Canada and Australia are currently parties to the CoE Anti-Doping Convention). This aspect is
crucial since world-wide cooperation, notably with countries where sports
betting is widespread such as South-East Asian countries, is considered an
essential element in effectively fighting trans-national organised crime
networks involved in match-fixing and operating in different continents.
The proposed Convention would not be an
instrument to achieve harmonisation of the national legislations of the
signatory parties. Although the issue of establishing an agreed definition of
match-fixing and of adopting a set of effective, dissuasive and proportionate
sanctions would be mentioned in the Convention, the wording of the relevant
provisions would be phrased in such a way as to leave a degree of flexibility
for the signatory parties to implement these provisions.
The precise content, structure and scope of
the text of the Convention are at present rather theoretical as they will be
the subject of the forthcoming negotiations.
A drafting group, composed of
representatives of the member states involved in the negotiations, will be in
charge of preparing the text of the Convention. Documents circulated by the
Council of Europe explicitly foresee that it will be open to a representative
of the EU. The drafting group met for the first time for exploratory talks in Strasbourg on 9-11 October 2012. The Commission attended this first exploratory meeting as
an ad-hoc observer. EPAS will perform the role of a secretariat. EPAS foresees
a series of seven three-day meetings of the drafting group between October 2012
and December 2013, with the objective of presenting the Convention to the
Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers for signature in 2014.
3.           The role of the EU in the
fight against match-fixing
The topic of match-fixing is relatively new
on the EU agenda for sport; the initiatives related to it are therefore very
recent. At the level of the Commission, the involvement in the fight
against match-fixing can be examined under three different angles,
corresponding to the three main aspects of this problem:
Sporting
aspect: As laid down in Article 165 of the Treaty,
one of the objectives of EU action in the field of sport is to develop the
European dimension in sport by promoting fairness in sporting competitions and
by protecting the moral integrity of sportspeople. The Commission has taken a
first concrete initiative in this field by including in the Call for Proposals
implementing the 2012 Preparatory Action 'European Partnership on Sports' a
priority line for projects focusing on the prevention of match-fixing episodes
through the education and information of relevant stakeholders, notably
athletes, referees, match officials and sports administrators. The objective of
the financial support to be given through this call is to strengthen the
preventive side of the fight against match-fixing by exchanging good practices.
Combating match-fixing is also mentioned as one of the objectives of the Sport
Chapter of the proposed 'Erasmus for All' programme, which should allow
supporting similar actions in a structured way after 2014. In addition to
providing financial assistance, the Commission is cooperating closely with
external stakeholders (notably the IOC and the Council of Europe) in
identifying ways to tackle match-fixing at European and international level.
The Commission also acts as secretariat to the EU Expert Group on Good
Governance in Sport, established on the basis of the Council Resolution on an
EU Work Plan for Sport of May 2011. The Expert Group produced recommendations
for further consideration by the Council Working Party on Sport in June 2012.
Gambling and betting
aspect: Match-fixing is not necessarily linked to
sports betting. Nonetheless, the combination of unregulated sports betting and
match-fixing is an existing threat to sport events, largely due to individuals
or criminal networks that use sports betting to generate revenue and/or for
money laundering purposes. Issues related to the integrity of sport were part
of the Green Paper on Online Gambling, a public consultation that the
Commission carried out in 2011. Around 250 responses were received from various
stakeholders including sport bodies. The consultation was complemented by five
thematic work-shops in the course of 2011, one of which, held on 10 May 2011,
focused particularly on on-line gambling and sport integrity (with a focus on
match-fixing). As a follow-up to the Green Paper, the Commission adopted the 23 October 2012 the Communication “Towards a
comprehensive European framework for online gambling” (COM(2012)
596 final). The protection of the integrity of sport
against match-fixing is one of the priorities presented in the Communication with
a proposed Action Plan, which includes the participation
of the Commission in the work of the Council of Europe on a possible Convention
against manipulation of sports results,.
Corruption
aspect: match-fixing is a form of corruption and as
such is sanctioned by national criminal laws. The Commission is implementing
the anti-corruption package adopted in 2011 which is centred on improving
monitoring and evaluation of anti-corruption efforts, notably by establishing
an EU Anti-Corruption Report through which the Commission will assess on a
regular basis various outstanding aspects related to corruption and capacity to
control corruption in the EU Member States. The Report could potentially cover
any outstanding issues related to corruption, including match-fixing in sport.
The EU Anti-Corruption Report, accompanied by country analyses for each Member State, including tailor-made recommendations, will be published by the Commission
every two years starting in 2013. In parallel, the Commission is currently
considering the modalities of possible participation of the EU in the Council
of Europe's Group of States against Corruption (GRECO), which is supposed to
bring added value to the EU fight against corruption.
The European Parliament touched upon
the issue of match-fixing, especially betting related match-fixing, in its 2009
report on the integrity of online gambling (A6-0064/2009). The Parliament also
dealt in more detail with the issue in its 2011 report on online gambling in
the Internal Market (A7-0342/2011), in which it mentioned issues related to
cross-border police and judicial cooperation, cooperation between organisers of
sports competitions and gambling operators, establishment of national networks
and contact points to deal with cases of match-fixing and the creation of a
definition of match-fixing at EU level. Finally, the issue of match-fixing was
also addressed in the European Parliament’s 2012 report on the European
Dimension in Sport (A7-0385/2011), in which the Parliament calls on sport
federations to work closely with Member States in order to protect the
integrity of sport.
The Council dealt for the
first time with the fight against match-fixing in the EU Work Plan for Sport
2011-2014, adopted in May 2011, in which the integrity of sport, in particular
the fight against match-fixing, was set out as a priority theme for the period
2011-2014. In addition, Council adopted in November 2011 conclusions on
combating match-fixing, in which Member States and stakeholders were invited to
encourage the development of educational programmes and ensure close
cooperation between all interested parties. The Council Working Party on Sport
is currently discussing the text of draft conclusions on establishing a
strategy to combat the manipulation of sports results, to be adopted in
November 2012.
The two EU agencies in charge of
cross-border judicial and police cooperation, EUROPOL and EUROJUST,
are also actively involved in the fight against match-fixing. Whereas cooperation of law enforcement agencies at EU level in the
field of sport was traditionally focused on the issue of spectator violence,
match-fixing has emerged as a new area for cross-border cooperation in the last
two years. At present, two cases are open; a Joint Investigation Team (JIT)
involving four EU countries (HU, DE, FI, AT) is in place to deal with these
cases. The reason given by EUROPOL and EUROJUST for their involvement in cases
of match-fixing is that match-fixing often implies serious organised crime.
All these elements point in a single
direction: the fight against match-fixing has acquired the status of a priority
in different policy areas (sport policy, supervision of gambling markets, fight
against corruption) at EU level, and public attention is likely to increase
following the recent episodes of corruption at various levels in the world of
sport.
Since the envisaged Convention does not aim
at harmonising criminal law provisions in the signatory countries nor at
achieving harmonisation in other fields such as gambling and betting laws, and
since, based on article 6 TFEU, the EU only has a competence to carry out
action to support, coordinate or supplement actions of the Member States in the
field of sport, it is proposed that the EU participates in the forthcoming
negotiations alongside its Member States. The proposed participation in
the negotiations has no impact on the EU budget.
The Commission therefore recommends to
the Council:
–
To adopt the attached decision authorising the
participation of the European Commission, on behalf of the EU, in the
negotiations for an international convention of the
Council of Europe to combat the manipulation of sports results;
–
To issue the negotiating directives attached to
that decision;
–
To designate a special committee in consultation
with which the negotiations will be conducted.
Recommendation for a
COUNCIL DECISION
Authorising the European Commission to
participate, on behalf of the EU, in the negotiations for an international
convention of the Council of Europe to combat the manipulation of sports
results
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard
to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular
Article 218(3) and (4) thereof,
Having regard
to the recommendation from the European Commission,
Whereas:
Negotiations
should be opened on the preparation of an international convention of the
Council of Europe to combat the manipulation of sports results,
The Union should participate in these negotiations.
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The Commission
is hereby authorised to negotiate, on behalf of the European Union, an
international convention of the Council of Europe to combat the manipulation of
sports results.
Article 2
The negotiating
directives are set out in the Annex.
Article 3
The
negotiations shall be conducted in consultation with [name of the special
committee to be inserted by the Council].
Article 4
This Decision is addressed to the Commission.
Done at Brussels,
                                                                       For
the Council
                                                                       The
President
ANNEX
Directives for the negotiation
of an international convention of the Council of Europe to combat
the manipulation of sports results
The future
convention will aim at creating an international legal framework for the
prevention of and fight against manipulation of sports results, notably
match-fixing; the objective of the convention should be to enhance
international cooperation in this context and to set up a monitoring mechanism
to ensure that the provisions laid down in the convention are followed-up in an
effective way.
The European
Union will participate in these meetings with a view to ensuring the
consistency of the proposed convention with the EU acquis, notably in
terms of Internal Market freedoms (freedom to provide services and freedom of
establishment) and judicial cooperation in criminal matters.
The European
Union will also participate in the negotiations with the objective of ensuring
that the provisions of the future Convention are aligned with EU policies in
the areas of sport, online gambling and fight against corruption. The reference
documents for these policies are, inter alia, as follows:
·
The Commission Communication on Developing the
European Dimension in Sport (COM(2011)12 final);
·
The Green Paper on Online Gambling (COM(2011)128
final);
·
The Commission Communication on Fighting
Corruption in the EU (COM(2011)308 final);
·
The Commission Communication Towards a
comprehensive European framework for online gambling (COM(2012)
596 final)
·
The Council conclusions on combating
match-fixing (16819/11).


				|

		52014PC0651

			Recommendation for a COUNCIL DECISION on authorising the opening of negotiations on the amendment of the Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents /* COM/2014/0651 final */

			   	EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
1.           CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL
The European Union and most of its Member
States are Parties to the UNECE Convention on the Transboundary Effects of
Industrial Accidents (hereinafter referred to as "Convention"). The
Convention applies to the prevention of, preparedness for and response to
industrial accidents at sites where hazardous activities take place capable of
causing transboundary effects.
The Seveso II Directive is the legal
instrument to fulfil the obligations of the European Union arising out of the
Convention. Annex I to the Convention and Annex I to the Seveso II Directive
contain categories of and individual hazardous substances for the purpose of
defining hazardous activities. In June 2015 the Seveso II Directive will be replaced
by the Seveso III Directive, which amongst others, modifies Annex I.
2.           RESULTS OF CONSULTATIONS
WITH THE INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
At its 7th meeting in 2012, the Conference
of the Parties (CoP) to the UNECE Convention on the Transboundary Effects of
Industrial Accidents mandated the Working Group on the Development of the
Convention (WGD) to evaluate a list of possible amendments in areas suggested
by the CoP. The WGD has concluded after its fourth meeting in April 2014 that
four areas would benefit from an amendment:
(1)        Revised and additional
definitions (art.1): The WGD recommended amending certain definitions to ensure
alignment with other ECE Conventions (Aarhus Convention and Convention on
Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Espoo Convention)), adjustment of
the definitions to internationally accepted developments, improved clarity and
legal certainty and to enhance the internal consistency within the Convention.
(2)        Strengthened public
participation (art. 9): The WGD recommended amending Article 9 to achieve
consistency with other ECE conventions.
(3)        Frequency of meetings (art. 18):
The Convention envisages an annual conference of the Parties. However, practice
is to meet only every two years. The WGD proposed to amend Article 18 to align
it with current practice.
(4)        Application of amendments to new
Parties (art. 29): The WGD recommended inserting a new paragraph in Article 29
implying that States acceding to the Convention once an amendment has entered
into force would also automatically accede to the amendment. This would improve
clarity and ensure legal certainty for new Parties.
None of these areas to be opened for
possible amendment would lead to modifications of the Convention causing
environmental or socio-economic impacts in the EU. Some of the amendments would
rather have a positive impact as they would result in higher standards in non-EU
Parties to the Convention, hereby enhancing the level playing field between EU
and non-EU establishments, and reducing risks of accidents with potential
transboundary effects in the EU.
For all other technical areas suggested by
the COP it was found that providing guidance would be sufficient and that no
amendment would be required.
A separate issue under consideration concerns
the potential accession to the Convention by Member States of the United
Nations which are not Member States of UNECE. This should take account of the
related discussion taking place separately, scheduled for the 71st Session of
the UN General Assembly in September 2016.
3.           LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE
PROPOSAL
None of the potential areas for amendments
are likely to have any impact on existing legislation in the European Union,
since they are either already covered by the more stringent EU acquis or refer
to the internal organisation of the Convention.
4.           BUDGETARY IMPLICATION
Out of the potential areas for amendments
only the issue of accession by non-UNECE countries is likely to have budgetary
implications. Likely candidates for accession would constitute beneficiary
countries thus putting pressure on the budget of the Convention. However, the
Financial Mechanism under the Convention is based on voluntary contributions.
Therefore, the parties are free in defining their level of contribution. At the
same time a globally open Convention could explore additional funding sources
such as the Global Environment Facility. Although overall budgetary
implications are likely to be very limited, they are likely to be a decisive
factor during the negotiations.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to
authorise the opening of negotiations on the amendment of the Convention on the
Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents.
Recommendation for a
COUNCIL DECISION
on authorising the opening of negotiations
on the amendment of the Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial
Accidents
(Text with EEA relevance)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 218(3) and (4)
thereof,
Having regard to the recommendation from
the European Commission,
Whereas:
(1)        The Union is a Party to the Convention on the
Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents  (hereinafter referred to as
"the Convention").
(2)        At their 7th Conference of the Parties in 2012 the
Parties requested the Working Group on Development to evaluate the need for
amendments in certain areas.
(3)        At its 4th meeting in April 2014 the Working Group on
Development concluded that most issues could be solved by providing guidance
but also identified four areas in which an amendment would improve the
Convention. These concern definitions, public participation, frequency of
meetings and the application of amendments to new parties.
(4)        The Working Group on Development concluded that further
information and discussion was required for evaluating the issue of potential
accession to the Convention by Member States of the United Nations which are
not Member States of UNECE.
(5)        The negotiations are not expected to have an impact on existing
legislation in the European Union in view of the more stringent provisions in
Directive 2012/18/EC in the areas under consideration.
(6)        The Union should participate in the negotiations on a
potential amendment on the Convention,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The Commission is hereby authorised to
negotiate, on behalf of the Union as regards matters falling within the Union's competence, potential amendments to the Convention on the Transboundary Effects of
Industrial Accidents.
Article 2
The negotiating directives are set out in
the Annex.
Done at Brussels,
                                                                       For
the Council
                                                                       The
President
ANNEX
Attachment
to the Proposal for a
Council Decision
on authorising the opening of
negotiations on the amendment of the Convention on the Transboundary Effects of
Industrial Accidents
Directives
for the negotiation of amendments to the Convention on the Transboundary
Effects of Industrial Accidents
(1)
Any agreed amendment shall be consistent with
the measures in Directive 2012/18/EU or other relevant legislation.
(2)
All amendments agreed in the areas under
consideration shall be part of a single package.
(3)
The Commission shall ensure that the agreement
contains appropriate provisions allowing the Union to become a Party thereto.
(4)
The Commission shall ensure only to agree to
amendments if they are proposed for adoption at the same time.
(5)
The Commission reports to the consultative
committee designated by the Council on the outcome of the negotiations and,
where appropriate, on any problem that may arise during the negotiations.