title: Commission Recommendation (EU) 2016/2125 of 30 November 2016 on guidelines for self-regulation measures concluded by industry under Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (Text with EEA relevance )

text:
               3.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 329/109

         COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION (EU) 2016/2125
   of 30 November 2016
   on guidelines for self-regulation measures concluded by industry under Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
   (Text with EEA relevance)
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 292 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Article 15(1) of Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) provides that when a product meets the criteria listed in paragraph 2, it shall be covered by an implementing measure or by a self-regulation measure.

               (2)

               Article 15(2) of Directive 2009/125/EC sets out the criteria for products to be covered by an implementing or self-regulation measure, including that the product represents a significant volume of sales within the Union (indicatively over 200 000 units annually), that it has significant environmental impact and that there is significant potential to improve that environmental impact without excessive cost, taking into account the absence of other relevant Union legislation, market failures and the wide disparity in the environmental performance of the products available on the market with equivalent functionality.

               (3)

               Article 17 of Directive 2009/125/EC provides that voluntary agreements or other self-regulation measures may be presented as an alternative to implementing measures for a product group and shall be assessed at least on the basis of Annex VIII to the Directive.

               (4)

               Products should be subject to alternative courses of action such as industry's self-regulating voluntary agreements provided for in Article 17 of Directive 2009/125/EC rather than to mandatory implementing measures, if such action is likely to deliver the policy objectives faster or in a less costly manner than the latter.

               (5)

               The Commission has prepared Guidelines on self-regulation measures concluded by industry in order to facilitate the establishment and implementation of such measures and to ensure consistency of self-regulation measures.

               (6)

               The Guidelines address in particular the list of indicative criteria in Annex VIII to Directive 2009/125/EC which may be used by the Commission to assess the admissibility of a self-regulatory initiative as an alternative to implementing measures and which refer to openness of participation, added value, representativeness, quantified and staged objectives, involvement of civil society, monitoring and reporting, cost-effectiveness of administering a self-regulatory initiative, sustainability and incentive compatibility.

               (7)

               Annex VIII to Directive 2009/125/EC provides that the list of criteria it contains is not exhaustive and Article 17 of that Directive provides that a self-regulation measure shall be assessed at least on the basis of Annex VIII. The Guidelines should in particular focus on how the operation of the self-regulation measure should be managed, who can participate, on information and monitoring, reporting and compliance.

               (8)

               The Guidelines were discussed with Member States and stakeholders at the Consultation Forum established under Article 18 of Directive 2009/125/EC.

               (9)

               As required by point 6 of Annex VIII to Directive 2009/125/EC, self-regulatory measures should contain a well-designed reporting and monitoring system. The Commission, assisted by the Consultation Forum and the Committee referred to in Article 19(1) of Directive 2009/125/EC should monitor the application of the self-regulation measures and should consider introducing mandatory implementing measures if the objectives of the self-regulation measures have not been met,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:

               1.

               Industry should follow the guidelines set out in the Annex. Following these guidelines will help to ensure that an ecodesign self-regulation measure will be considered by the Commission as a valid alternative to an implementing measure.

               2.

               The Recommendation should be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      Done at Brussels, 30 November 2016.

            For the Commission

         Miguel ARIAS CAÑETE

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products (OJ L 285, 31.10.2009, p. 10).

      ANNEX
      1.   OBJECTIVES
      Self-regulation is where business or industry sectors formulate codes of conduct or operating constraints on their own initiative which they are responsible for enforcing. Pure self-regulation is uncommon and at Union level it generally involves the Commission in instigating or facilitating the drawing up of the self-regulation measure. In the context of Better Regulation (1) the Commission considers well-designed non-regulatory approaches as alternative policy solutions.
      Directive 2009/125/EC (‘the Directive’) provides for voluntary agreements or other self-regulation measures as an alternative to implementing regulations under its framework, prioritising them where they are likely to deliver the policy objectives faster or in a less costly manner than mandatory requirements (2). The Directive provides indicative criteria for assessing self-regulation measures (3), but, based on the experience with the three voluntary agreements recognised by the Commission so far (4), the members of the Consultation Forum established by Article 18 of the Directive have pointed out the need for guidelines in relation to these criteria, in particular with regard to monitoring and reporting.
      These Guidelines aim to make it easier to set up and implement self-regulation measures under the Directive. They are designed to assist industry and to facilitate a consistent implementation of self-regulation measures. They take into account the principles for better self- and co-regulation (5).
      Following these Guidelines will help to ensure that an ecodesign self-regulation measure will be considered by the Commission as a valid alternative to an implementing measure. For existing ecodesign self-regulation measures, the Commission should receive a proposal for revision of the measure aligned with the Guidelines as far as possible, at the latest in 2018.
      2.   RECOGNITION OF ECODESIGN SELF-REGULATION MEASURES
      The Commission will give priority to self-regulation measures for product groups that are included in an ecodesign Working Plan foreseen in Article 16 of the Directive. Industry should provide the Commission with any proposal for a self-regulation measure for such product groups before or during the technical, environmental and economic analysis (‘preparatory study’) for the product group concerned.
      Industry may be requested to amend the proposal to take account of any comments received from the Commission and the Consultation Forum.
      If the Commission decides to recognise a self-regulation measure, it will refrain from adopting an ecodesign implementing regulation. If, however, monitoring of the self-regulation measure or feedback from stakeholders indicates flaws in the implementation of the self-regulation measure, the Commission will reassess the situation.
      The recognition of a self-regulation measure does not prevent the Commission from adopting legislation under other policy instruments (e.g. Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (6), Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (7)) for the product group in question.
      3.   GUIDELINES FOR ECODESIGN SELF-REGULATION MEASURES
      Any ecodesign self-regulation measure concluded by industry should contain rules governing its operation. To ensure the homogeneity of self-regulation measures recognised under the Directive and to facilitate their establishment and implementation, self-regulation measures should follow the Guidelines set out below. A self-regulation measure may provide further rules in addition to those set out in the Guidelines, and may expand upon the rules as contained in the Guidelines.
      3.1.   Openness of Participation

      Companies interested to establish a self-regulation measure should make a public announcement of their intention to do so before the process of developing the measure is started. They should provide a contact point, so as to give an opportunity for other companies to participate.
      The self-regulation measure should contain a list of the companies who are signatories to the measure. Companies active in the same product market should be able, at any time, to join the self-regulation measure, on the condition that they participate in its operational costs. The membership form to be completed and signed by a company wishing to become a signatory should be attached to the self-regulation measure. The signatories should send to the Commission, without undue delay, the original completed and signed membership forms.
      A signatory withdrawing from the self-regulation measure should give at least a month's written notice to the Chair of the Steering Committee (see section 3.5). The Chair should inform the Steering Committee of the withdrawal of a signatory within a week of receipt of the written notice.
      3.2.   Added Value

      Proposals for self-regulation measures or for revised versions of existing self-regulation measures should be accompanied by an explanatory note explaining how the proposal would meet the ecodesign objectives more quickly or at lesser expense than mandatory requirements, supported by evidence.
      If some or all of the signatories have concluded a separate agreement or association of any kind in relation to the objectives of the self-regulation measure, all relevant documents relating to the agreement or the association should be mentioned and made publicly available.
      The self-regulation measure should provide for a review of all the essential elements, indicating a date or specific circumstances that trigger the review. The timing of the review should be justified based on the need for the measure to (continue to) deliver added value, taking into account the stages of requirements included in the measure and the pace of technological development of the product group concerned.
      The review should establish whether a new version of the measure is needed. The review and revision process should be open to participation of observers on the Steering Committee. The findings of the review process and, where relevant, the proposal for the revised self-regulation measure should be submitted to the Commission.
      3.3.   Representativeness

      The self-regulation measure should state the market coverage of its signatories which should be at least 80 % of units placed on the Union market and/or put into service (8) of the type of products covered by the measure. The signatories should provide evidence, compiled or verified by an independent legal or natural person proving that the self-regulation measure has a market coverage of at least 80 %. This should be sent to the Commission:

                  —

                  when submitting a self-regulation measure or a revised version of an existing self-regulation measure, with the findings having been generated or updated within the previous 6 months,

                  —

                  within 3 months of any change in the signatories (e.g. after the withdrawal of a signatory or after a relevant division of a signatory has been sold off to a non-signatory), unless the most recent report shows that the market coverage will remain at least 80 % following the change, and

                  —

                  2 years after sending the latest report, to update coverage following changes in the market.
                  The self-regulation measure should define the precise indicator(s) used to assess the market coverage claimed. The indicators should be objective, measurable and verifiable by an independent body. The indicators should cover all energy-related product categories covered by the measure.

            3.4.   Quantified and staged objectives

      The self-regulation measure should list all the types of products within its scope, provide definitions of these products, and list product types belonging to the product group falling within the scope of the self-regulation measure but exempt from its requirements. Justifications should be provided for any exemptions made.
      The self-regulation measure should lay down design, and where appropriate, information requirements for the products within its scope. The requirements should relate to significant environmental impacts over the product life-cycle and aim at improving the environmental performance of the products.
      It should be possible to measure compliance with the requirements using clear and reliable indicators. Details of how compliance is to be measured and verified should be provided. The self-regulation measure should provide documentation on which the proposed requirements are based. Any major differences between the proposed requirements and the documentation should be highlighted.
      The requirements should be presented with a date of their application and if the self-regulation measure covers a long time-span it should include successive levels of requirements. The requirements should apply to at least 90 % of all units (covered by the self-regulation measure) placed on the market and/or put into service by each signatory.
      3.5.   Involvement of civil society

      The Consultation Forum, which includes Member States' representatives, industry, trade unions, traders, retailers, importers, environmental protection groups and consumer organisations, should be consulted on any proposal for a self-regulation measure.

         Steering Committee

      The self-regulation measure should establish a Steering Committee that will manage the operation of the measure.
      The Steering Committee should consist of all signatories to the self-regulation measure and the Commission. Each of these should be represented by one member who all have equal voting rights.
      Members of the Consultation Forum, and the Independent Inspector should have the status of observer to the Steering Committee, without voting rights.
      The Steering Committee should meet at least once per year in Brussels. The meetings of the Steering Committee should be open to interested parties, including companies from the sector covered by the self-regulation measure that are not signatories to it.
      The Steering Committee should elect a Chair from among its members. The Chair should include in the draft agenda for a Steering Committee meeting all points requested by the members and observers. Invitations to the Steering Committee meeting should be sent to all members and observers. An announcement of the Steering Committee meeting, including a draft agenda, should be published on the website of the self-regulation measure no later than 1 month before the meeting.
      Documents to be presented and discussed at the Steering Committee meeting should be sent to all members and observers of the Steering Committee, and should be published on the website of the self-regulation measure no later than 1 week in advance of the meeting.
      All participants should have a right to take the floor at the Steering Committee meetings and to request that the Chair record their views in the minutes.
      The draft minutes should be sent to all members and observers of the Steering Committee and they should be given at least 2 weeks to submit comments on them. The final minutes should be published on the self-regulation measure's website within 1 month of the meeting.

         Website

      A website should be established for the self-regulation measure. The website should contain at least:

                  —

                  the most recent and previous versions of the self-regulation measure,

                  —

                  an up-to-date list of signatories and information on recent withdrawals and exclusions of signatories,

                  —

                  summary versions of reports on the market coverage (without disclosure of individual signatories' commercial or confidential data),

                  —

                  up-to-date lists of products declared compliant by the signatories (products found to be non-compliant by the Independent Inspector should not be included),

                  —

                  the compliance reports produced by the Independent Inspector,

                  —

                  an up-to-date list of non-compliant signatories,

                  —

                  for every Steering Committee meeting: invitations, draft agendas, meeting documents and meeting minutes, and

                  —

                  information on the Independent Inspector, including its contact details.
                  The website should allow visitors to submit questions about the self-regulation measure to the signatories and to the Independent Inspector. These should be replied to within 1 month.

         Complaints

      The self-regulation measure should ensure that any party can submit, free of charge, substantiated allegations of possible non-compliance to the Independent Inspector. The Independent Inspector should evaluate these allegations and, where appropriate, follow-up by requesting information from the signatory concerned, by testing and/or by an inspection. The Independent Inspector should at each Steering Committee meeting provide an overview of all allegations submitted since the last meeting and, if it has not investigated any of them, provide its reasons for this.

         Access to data

      The self-regulation measure should include a requirement that the signatories provide, upon request, the Commission and observers to the Steering Committee with access to technical data on the environmental performance of products and models covered by the measure, including all characteristics related to special conditions, to enable the Commission and observers to the Steering Committee to assess the level of ambition and the impacts of proposed and existing self-regulation measures. The rules on access to such data need not apply to commercially sensitive data.
      The self-regulation measure should include a requirement that the signatories provide, upon request, market surveillance authorities of the Member States responsible for ecodesign with specific documentation and information, to the extent this is not included in the documentation supplied with the products, to enable them to verify compliance with the requirements of the self-regulation measure, including through testing.
      3.6.   Monitoring and reporting

         Independent Inspector

      An Independent Inspector should monitor compliance of signatories with the self-regulation measure. The self-regulation measure should state the rules that apply to the Independent Inspector, which can be a natural or legal person.
      The Independent Inspector should have the necessary skills for verifying compliance with the requirements and be free of conflict of interest. The Independent Inspector's contractual obligations should not restrict its role in carrying out compliance verification.
      The Independent Inspector should:

                  —

                  perform its duties with due care and supervise adequately all tasks for which it is responsible,

                  —

                  be impartial in all its activities, basing its opinions and reports solely on the facts, and

                  —

                  respect confidentiality, where necessary, in order to protect the signatories' commercial interests or sensitive data and to this end sign a ‘non-disclosure agreement’ with the signatories to the self-regulation measure, if requested.

            The self-regulation measure should lay down the procedure to select an Independent Inspector and how it will be ensured that the Inspector is free of conflict of interest and has the necessary skills for verifying compliance with the requirements. The appointment of the selected Independent Inspector is to be agreed with the Commission services. The Steering Committee should be involved in determining the terms and conditions of the contract of the Independent Inspector.

         Compliance reporting by signatories

      The self-regulation measure should lay down rules on at least the following aspects of the documentation to be submitted by each signatory to the Independent Inspector:

                  —

                  the type of market and technical data to be reported,

                  —

                  the format in which the data are to be submitted,

                  —

                  the means by which documentation is to be sent, and

                  —

                  the frequency and timing of the submission of documentation.

            Each signatory should report all the information and data (including market data and data on the environmental performance of products) necessary for the Independent Inspector to reliably verify the signatory's compliance with all the commitments undertaken in the measure.
      Signatories should provide market data allowing the Independent Inspector to establish whether at least 90 % of their products comply with the commitments. If signatories commit to ensuring that 100 % of their products comply with the commitments, they are not required to provide specific market data to the Independent Inspector.
      Reporting should be carried out for every model covered by the self-regulation measure that is placed on the Union market and/or put into service. If the difference between certain models is not relevant to the self-regulation measure (i.e. it does not concern any aspect related to the requirements), reports may combine similar models, provided that this is indicated. The information and data reported by the signatories may differ only inasmuch as their respective commitments differ.
      The format in which data are to be submitted to the Independent Inspector should be the same for all signatories.
      The means should, as far as possible, take advantage of electronic means of communication, whilst taking account of confidentiality requirements and the administrative burden placed on all parties concerned.
      The period to be reported on should be 1 year. Each signatory should every year provide the documentation within 2 months after the end of the reporting period. Additional requests made by the Independent Inspector for signatories to provide any missing information after the deadline should be honoured within a short deadline, to be specified in the self-regulation measure.

         Compliance verification

      The self-regulation measure should empower the Independent Inspector to verify compliance with the requirements of the self-regulation measure through:

                  —

                  checking the documentation provided by signatories;

                  —

                  testing products; and

                  —

                  inspecting the signatories' premises.

            The Independent Inspector should decide on an appropriate combination of these methods.

         Testing

      Testing concerns verifying the characteristics of products covered by the self-regulation measure by means of physical tests performed in a laboratory. As a general rule, this should be done in an independent laboratory, preferably an accredited one. As an alternative, testing activities may be performed on the premises of one of the signatories, provided that full objectivity can be guaranteed.
      The Independent Inspector should select, at random, an adequate number of products from different signatories for testing, preferably acquiring them from retailers in different Member States (physical or online shops). If signatories provide the products directly, they should not be involved in selecting the samples.
      The Independent Inspector may select specific models or select models from a specific signatory if information obtained from any source points to possible non-compliance of those models or that signatory.
      The signatories should provide, on the request of the Independent Inspector, specific documentation and information required for the purpose of testing, if this is not included in the documentation supplied with the products.
      The detailed test reports for each separate product tested should be provided to the Commission and to the signatory concerned.

         Inspections

      The Independent Inspector may carry out an inspection of a specific signatory on the basis of specific information justifying such an inspection. The specific information should be disclosed to the signatory concerned.
      An inspection should only be used as a means of checking compliance with the commitments made under the self-regulation measure if no other more cost-effective means is available. During an inspection, the Independent Inspector should only carry out those activities that are strictly necessary for checking the compliance of the signatory with the commitments made under the self-regulation measure.
      The Independent Inspector should not give the signatory advance warning of the inspection or only at short notice. The signatory should provide any support required.
      The Independent Inspector should send a draft of the inspection report to the signatory concerned for comment within 1 month of the inspection. The signatory should submit its comments within 2 weeks of receiving the draft report. The Independent Inspector should, within 2 weeks, amend, if necessary, the draft report to take account of the comments received from the signatory. The report, including the reason for the inspection, should be provided to the Commission and to the signatory concerned. A summary should be presented at the first meeting of the Steering Committee held following the finalisation of the report. The summary should not disclose any commercially sensitive information, unless this is necessary to prove non-compliance.

         Reporting by the Independent Inspector

      The Independent Inspector should prepare the draft compliance report and send it to the members of the Steering Committee at the latest 3 months after the end of the reporting period. The members of the Steering Committee should be allowed 2 weeks to submit their comments on the report. The Independent Inspector should submit the final version of the compliance report to the Steering Committee at the latest 4 months after the end of the reporting period. The compliance report should include:

                  —

                  information about the data collection and processing methods used and any difficulties encountered in preparing the report*,

                  —

                  the results of document checking*,

                  —

                  the approach for selecting products for testing and if specific models or signatories were targeted, the reasons for doing so*,

                  —

                  a list of products tested and a summary of the individual results,

                  —

                  summaries of any inspections carried out during the reporting period,

                  —

                  a list of non-compliant signatories,

                  —

                  information about the reasons for any non-compliance*, and

                  —

                  recommendations for future reporting periods.

            The self-regulation measure may specify that the items indicated with an asterisk (*) should be presented in aggregated form summarising the results for all the signatories combined and not include individual signatories' commercial or confidential data. In such cases, individual reports containing the specific information separately for each signatory concerning those items should be provided to the Commission and to the signatory concerned.

         Non-compliance

      Non-compliance should be subject to a graduated scale of sanctions.
      A signatory failing to report its compliance report to the Independent Inspector should be subject to an inspection by the Independent Inspector in the year following the reporting period concerned. A repeated failure to report compliance documentation should lead to immediate exclusion of the signatory from the self-regulation measure.
      A signatory that, according to the Independent Inspector's inspection or compliance report, has not complied with the requirements of the self-regulation measure should be required to take corrective action. Non-compliance that continues for more than 6 months after the report by the Independent Inspector should lead to immediate exclusion of the signatory from the self-regulation measure.
      The Chair should inform the Steering Committee in writing of the exclusion of any non-compliant signatory within 1 week of receiving information from the Independent Inspector that a condition for immediate exclusion has been met.
      3.7.   Cost-effectiveness of administering a self-regulatory initiative

      The signatories should bear all expenses related to the Independent Inspector and its activities, the website and the operation of the Steering Committee, except for the costs of participation of the representative of the Commission and the observers other than the Independent Inspector.
      The self-regulation measure should encourage the signatories to share expertise, experience, information and best practice with signatories to other ecodesign self-regulation measures.
      3.8.   Sustainability

      The self-regulation measure should state its policy objectives. These should be consistent with the policy objectives of the Directive.
      3.9.   Incentive compatibility

      The proposed self-regulation measure should be consistent with other factors and incentives at national level.

         (1)  Better regulation for better results — An EU agenda, COM(2015) 215.

         (2)  Cf. Recitals 18-21 and Articles 15(3)(b) and 17 of the Directive.

         (3)  Annex VIII to the Directive.

         (4)  COM(2012) 684, COM(2013) 23 and COM(2015) 178.

         (5)  https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/best-practice-principles-better-self-and-co-regulation

         (6)  Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products (OJ L 153, 18.6.2010, p. 1).

         (7)  Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the EU Ecolabel (OJ L 27, 30.1.2010, p. 1).

         (8)  The ‘Blue Guide’ on the implementation of EU product rules explains what ‘making available’ on the market and ‘putting into service’ mean (http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/4942/).


Avis juridique important

|

31995H0377

95/377/EC: Commission Recommendation of 13 September 1995 on the use of the statistical classification of economic activities in the European Communities for breaking down net turnover by type of activity

Official Journal L 225 , 22/09/1995 P. 0018 - 0020

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION of 13 September  1995 on the use of the statistical classification of economic activities in the European  Communities for breaking down net turnover by type of activity (Text with EEA relevance)  (95/377/EC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to the Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978  (1) on the annual  accounts of certain types of companies, and in particular Article 43 (1) (8) thereof, Whereas the operation of the internal market requires the application of standards for economic  data so that companies, financial institutions and administrations may have reliable and comparable  statistics; whereas these statistics are particularly important for companies in order to assess  their performance and level of competitiveness and to identify their position vis-à-vis the  competition; Whereas the need for international comparability of economic data has led the Member States and  Community institutions to adopt common classifications so that the contents of the categories of,  in particular, activities and products, will be interpreted in a standard fashion in all the Member  States and will be consistent with the United Nations international classifications; whereas, with  this end in view, a Regulation has been adopted establishing a 'statistical classification of  economic activities in the European Community - NACE Rev. 1` (2), used by the Commission  departments for all statistics by economic activity and by the Member States either directly or via  a derived national classification; Whereas Directive 78/660/EEC prescribes measures for coordinating national provisions regarding the  annual accounts of certain types of company and requires these accounts to give a true and fair  view of a company's assets, financial position and profit and loss; whereas to this end, the  minimum contents of the notes of the accounts must be laid down, Article 43 (1) (8) stating that  the notes must set out the net turnover broken down by categories of activity; Whereas by virtue of the exemptions provided for in Directive 78/660/EEC, not all companies in  Member States need to provide this information, with the result that information is provided on a  voluntary basis; Whereas it is desirable to establish the conditions whereby the information published on the  companies which provide information on a voluntary basis corresponds to comparability criteria both  within a given Member State and between Member States of the European Union; Whereas: -  the convergence of accounting and statistical terminology may help improve the comparability and  quality of economic information, -  the general use of NACE Rev. 1 for breaking down net turnover by activity pursuant to Article 43  (1) (8) of Directive 78/660/EEC would be a useful area for application of this convergence as it  would give a minimum content to the said provision; whereas this use would thus offer numerous  advantages in connection with increased consistency between economic and accounting terminology and  in particular: 1.  reduction of the administrative burden on companies in connection with the collection of  statistics thanks to the use of a common reference, 2.  improved correspondence between the information collected from the companies and the statistics  made available to users of economic information, -  it is highly desirable to achieve this (these) aim(s) without imposing new obligations on  companies; Whereas, according to the principle of subsidiarity, the establishment of joint statistical and  accounting standards permitting the production of harmonized information is an activity which can  be performed efficiently only at Community level and whereas these standards would be applied in  each Member State; Whereas, in the light of this situation, the Commission thinks it is necessary to recommend the  Member States to encourage an approach likely to improve the transparency and smooth running of the  internal market; whereas in the Contact Committee set up pursuant to Article 52 of the Fourth  Council Directive with the particular task of facilitating the harmonized application of the  Directive through regular meetings dealing in particular with practical problems arising in  connection with its application, a majority of the Members were in favour of the Commission's  proposal for the use by companies, on a voluntary basis, of NACE Rev. 1 for breaking down their net  turnover by category of activity, RECOMMENDS THE MEMBER STATES: -  to encourage all companies breaking down their net turnover by category of  activity, pursuant to Article 43 (1) (8) of Directive 78/660/EEC, to use the NACE Rev. 1  categories; -  to encourage those companies which refer to the statistical classification to use NACE Rev. 1 as  described in the Annex to this recommendation. Done at Brussels, 13 September 1995. For the Commission Mario MONTI Member of the Commission  ANNEX Use of NACE Rev. 1 as the reference classification for the breakdown of turnover  by activity Data on turnover broken down by activity may be rendered comparable as follows: -  companies will use a classification suited to their internal management requirements to break  down sales of goods or services in their accounts, -  they are recommended to draw up their classification by category of activity in such a way that  it is compatible with the statistical classification of economic activities in the European  Community, NACE Rev. 1 or the national version thereof  (1). 1.  Degree of compatibility An internal management classification shall be deemed compatible with the European statistical  classification if it: -  uses indentical headings (divisions, groups or classes) as NACE Rev. 1  (2)  (3). -  corresponds to a subdivision of NACE Rev. 1 so that the NACE Rev. 1 headings can be obtained by  adding together items in the internal classification. 2.  Level of detail required NACE Rev. 1 comprises several levels of headings known as divisions, groups and classes. The part common to all the Member States will go to the level of detail of the NACE Rev. 1 classes.  Information should be provided by reference to this level, which is regarded as the most relevant,  since the system is identical up to the fourth digit in all countries. This also permits the main  activity to be determined and ensures consistency between the Member States. 3.  Special cases and exceptions 3.1.  Some companies might regard the four-digit level of NACE Rev. 1 as too detailed for breaking  down their turnover, which could be prejudicial to their interests. In such cases, the breakdown by  activity may be made at the three-digit (group) or two-digit (division) level of NACE Rev. 1; 3.2.  In some cases of partial compatibility between the internal classification and the  statistical classification it will not be possible to allocate turnover to a single class, group or  division of NACE Rev. 1 or only at a cost which is out of proportion with the usefulness of the  information provided: elements of this kind may be grouped under an item entitled 'non-broken-down  turnover`. 4.  Note For the purposes of breaking down their turnover by activity, companies should separate their  purely commercial activities (trade)  (4) and their production activities (sales of goods and  services produced by the company).


Avis juridique important

|

31970H0126

70/126/EEC: Commission Recommendation of 22 December 1969 to the Federal Republic of Germany on the adjustment of the State monopoly of a commercial character in alcohol (Only the German text is authentic)

Official Journal L 031 , 09/02/1970 P. 0020 - 0023 Danish special edition: Series II Volume VI P. 0032  English special edition: Series II Volume VI P. 0030

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION of 22 December 1969 to the Federal Republic of Germany on the adjustment of the State monopoly of a commercial character in alcohol (Only the German text is authentic) (70/126/EEC) I    1. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, by letter of 29 January 1959, informed the Commission of the European Economic Community that ethyl alcohol, spirits and spirituous beverages, with the exception of rum, arrack, cognac and liqueurs are in the Federal Republic of Germany subject to a State monopoly of a commercial character within the meaning of Article 37 of the EEC Treaty.  In pursuance of Council Regulation No 7a 1 of 18 December 1959, ethyl alcohol derived from agricultural products, excluding spirits and spirituous beverages, was added to Annex II to the Treaty. Articles 38 et seq of the Treaty are therefore applicable to ethyl alcohol derived from agricultural products.  Under Article 37 (1) of the EEC Treaty Member States are required progressively to adjust State monopolies of a commercial character so as to ensure that, when the transitional period has ended, no discrimination regarding the conditions under which goods are procured and marketed exists between nationals of Member States.       2. Since the entry into force of the EEC Treaty the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has to an increasing extent granted import permits in respect of spirits and spirituous beverages from other Member States. Such measures are not, however, sufficient to ensure the free movement of spirits and spirituous beverages within the Community by the end of the transitional period. For that reason, on 26 November 1963, the Commission recommended the Federal Republic of Germany to grant all requests for import permits within certain quotas and to increase these quotas by 15 % each year. The Federal Republic of Germany has complied with that Recommendation.  In order to achieve the final abolition of those quantitative restrictions by progressive steps by the end of 1969, the Commission by letter of 27 June 1969, recommended a greater increase in import quotas, referring in this connection to Article 37 (3) in conjunction with Article 33 (3) of the EEC Treaty. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has not yet taken the measures proposed.  The Federal Republic of Germany has progressively reduced the differential treatment of German and imported spirits with regard to the deferment of tax payments (Monopolausgleich and Branntweinaufschlag). Certain differences however still remain : deferred payment is allowed on the whole of the Branntweinaufschlag, levied on domestic products, but deferment of the Monopolausgleich is allowed only for an amount corresponding to the duty on the alcohol.  Apart from these measures the Federal Republic of Germany has so far taken no steps to harmonize the Monopolausgleich on imported spirits with the Branntweinaufschlag on corresponding German products.       3. As in the case of ethyl alcohol derived from agricultural products, ethyl alcohol not derived from agricultural products may be imported, as before, only by the monopoly. Trade in such products is also reserved exclusively to the monopoly.  Since the two kinds of ethyl alcohol cannot be distinguished in the pure form, and since, in Germany, there is a national organization of the market in ethyl alcohol derived from agricultural products, the effectiveness of which depends on regulations concerning the production and importation of, and trade in, ethyl alcohol not derived from agricultural products, the Commission has refrained until now from recommending the Federal Republic of Germany to take certain measures with regard to the latter product. Moreover, consideration is being given to the substitution of a common organization of the market in ethyl alcohol derived from agricultural products for the national organization of that market.       4. Although the steps taken so far by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany concerning spirits and  1OJ No 7, 30.1.1961, p. 71/61.   spirituous beverages are in accordance with the requirement progressively to adjust the monopoly, they are not sufficient to ensure that, as laid down in Article 37 of the EEC Treaty, no discrimination regarding the conditions under which goods are procured and marketed exists between nationals of Member States.  Since the end of the transitional period provided for by the EEC Treaty is approaching, all measures must be taken, not only in respect of spirits and spirituous beverages but also in respect of ethyl alcohol not derived from agricultural products, to ensure that by 31 December 1969 at the latest no discrimination regarding the conditions under which goods are procured and marketed exists between nationals of Member States.  Article 37, which comes under the Title relating to the free movement of goods and, more particularly, under the Chapter concerning the elimination of quantitative restrictions between Member States, aims at achieving by the end of the transitional period in respect of products subject to a State monopoly of a commercial character (or a like system) the same result as that achieved for other products by the application of Articles 30 to 34, that is to say the free movement of goods.  However, a different procedure was provided in order to achieve that result in the sectors covered by State monopolies. Their progressive adjustment was provided for partly in order to take account of the fact that in the view of the Member States concerned the products subject to a monopoly presented special problems and partly so that the elimination of quantitative restrictions and of measures having an equivalent effect in those sectors should not be without practical result. There were indeed grounds for fearing that the liberalization of trade in respect of the products subject to a monopoly would not take place if the monopolies, by virtue of their exclusive right to import, export and market certain products, were to remain free to decide to what extent and under what conditions products coming from other Member States could be allowed on the domestic market (or, conversely, to what extent domestic products could be exported to other Member States).  It is for that reason that Article 37 contains the provision designed to ensure that when the transitional period has ended no discrimination regarding the conditions under which goods are procured and marketed exists between nationals of Member States'.  It should be stressed that the ending of discrimination resulting directly from the provisions applicable to products subject to a monopoly is not the only requirement laid down in Article 37 ; that objective could be achieved, in the absence of an Article governing State monopolies, by means of other provisions of the Treaty, in particular those prohibiting charges having an equivalent effect to customs duties and measures having an equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions. It follows from what has been said above in relation to the special characteristics of State monopolies and of the restrictions to which they may give rise that the objective of the "adjustment", i.e. of ensuring that "no discrimination exists", is to eliminate the possibility that the particular powers vested in the monopolies in respect of the importing and domestic marketing. or the exporting, of certain products might at the end of the transitional period still give rise to discrimination.  Since these are the objectives laid down in Article 37, it is incumbent upon the Federal Republic of Germany to adjust the alcohol monopoly before the end of the transitional period in order that the objectives may be at tained. On the other hand, it is for the Commission, in addition to its general duty to see that the Treaty is implemented, to make recommendations in accordance with Article 37 (6) as to the manner in which the adjustment provided for in that Article shall be carried out.  The Commission considers that the objective of Article 37 of the EEC Treaty will not be attained so long as the German alcohol monopoly is in a position to decide whether, to what extent and in respect of what quantities products from other Member States may be imported and marketed and so long as taxation differences remain between imported and domestic products. The Commission considers that, apart from the abolition of such discrimination in taxation, the best solution for attaining the objective laid down in Article 37 - because there is no doubt that it will be effective - is to abolish the exclusive rights to import, export and market which the German monopoly in respect of alcohol still has, in so far as these rights concern trade between Member States.       5. The Commission considers, however, that, since there is no common organization of the market in ethyl alcohol derived from agricultural products, since there is an interdependence between such alcohol and ethyl alcohol not derived from agricultural products, and since spirits may often be a substitute for ethyl alcohol, thus adversely affecting its saleability, it might prove necessary to take special measures until the entry into force of a common organization of the market.  Under Article 37 (4) of the EEC Treaty, if a State monopoly of a commercial character has rules which are designed to make it easier to dispose of agricultural products or obtain for them the best return, steps should be taken in applying the rules contained in Article 37 to ensure equivalent safeguards for the employment and standard of living of the producers concerned, account being taken of the adjustments that will be possible and the specialization that will be needed with the passage of time. That provision is applicable to the German alcohol monopoly.  The German alcohol monopoly does in fact constitute a national market organization. It influences the production of ethyl alcohol, in particular by means of quotas and the fixing of purchase prices and thereby ensures that the producers concerned receive an adequate income. Moreover, the production of spirits is guided, as to both quantity and price, so as to favour the production  and sale of ethyl alcohol derived from agricultural products and in this way account is taken of the interests of producers of certain agricultural raw materials. The unrestricted opening of the German market to products from other Member States before the entry into force of a common organization of the market could thus adversely affect the sale of German ethyl alcohol derived from agricultural products as well as the competitive position of German spirits and, in consequence, the employment and standard of living of producers of certain agricultural raw materials.  The Commission considers that these facts set out above must be taken into account in connection with the adjustment of the German alcohol monopoly.    II  On these grounds the Commission recommends the German Federal Republic to take the following measures, in accordance with Article 37 of the EEC Treaty:      1. As regards spirits and spirituous beverages:        (a)          - from 1 January 1970 at the latest, to grant import permits applied for in respect of spirits and spirituous beverages from other Member States with out restriction and without delay;                   - to impose on spirits and spirituous beverages from other Member States a duty to that levied on corresponding domestic products;          to allow the payment of the duty to be deferred for the same period as in the case of corresponding domestic products.                                 (b) The Commission considers that, until the entry into force of regulations establishing a common organization of the market in ethyl alcohol derived from agricultural products, the interests of German producers of agricultural raw materials processed into alcohol and spirits could be adequately protected by the following measures:  - in principle to regard imported spirits, so far as taxation is concerned, as having been manufactured in distilleries producing 10 000 hectolitres of pure alcohol per annum;  to maintain the basic obligation to bottle spirits before importation;  - where necessary, and until Community provisions are adopted, to apply non-discriminatory quality standards, in particular in respect of rum, corn spirit, molasses, and sugar cane, and to adopt non-discriminatory provisions regarding the alcoholic strength of spirits;   - to levy a special charge on spirituous beverages imported from another Member State, provided that the selling price of ethyl alcohol derived from agricultural products which is intended for the manufacture in Germany of spirituous beverages is higher than the lowest price at which producers of spirituous beverages in the exporting Member State may obtain ethyl alcohol, whether on their own market or on the market of another Member State. The amount of the charge may in no circumstances exceed the difference between those prices. Where the spirituous beverage has come from a Member State other than the exporting Member State it may be treated as if it had been imported directly from the Member State whence it comes.                                             2. With regard to ethyl alcohol not derived from agricultural products:        (a)          - it should allow nationals of all Member States freely and directly to import from other Member States ethyl alcohol not derived from agricultural products;                   - it should allow suppliers from all Member States to set up their own distribution network in the Federal Republic of Germany, to hold stocks there and to fix their selling price freely;                   - it should allow suppliers from all Member States to supply German consumers freely and directly;                   - it should allow direct exports to the other Member States without restriction.                                 (b) Until the entry into force of regulations establishing a common organization of the market in ethyl alcohol derived from agricultural products, the Federal Republic of Germany may, in order to safeguard the market for ethyl alcohol derived from agricultural products, decide:          - that ethyl alcohol not derived from agricultural products may be used only in certain sectors of industry, no distinction being permitted however between German products and those from other Member States;                   - that a special charge, equal to the difference between the purchase price for German ethyl alcohol not derived from agricultural products and the price at which the German monopoly sells to the industry concerned, may, where necessary, be levied on imports from other Member States of ethyl alcohol not derived from agricultural products.              Done at Brussels, 22 December 1969.  For the Commission  The President  Jean REY


Avis juridique important

|

31973H0304

73/304/EEC: Commission Recommendation of 20 September 1973 to the Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg relating to the draft regulation of the Grand Duchy enforcing Regulation (EEC) No 516/72 and Regulation (EEC) No 517/72

Official Journal L 283 , 10/10/1973 P. 0016 - 0016

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION of 20 September 1973 to the Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg relating to the draft regulation of the Grand Duchy enforcing Regulation (EEC) No 516/72 and Regulation (EEC) No 517/72 (73/304/EEC) The Permanent Representation of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, informed the Commission, by a letter dated 6 July 1973, of a draft regulation enforcing Regulation (EEC) No 516/72 (1) of the Council of 28 February 1972 on the introduction of common rules for shuttle services by coach and bus between Member States and also Regulation (EEC) No 517/72 (2) of the Council of 28 February 1972 on the introduction of common rules for regular and special regular services by coach and bus between Member States.  This Communication has the force of a consultation of the Commission under the terms of Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 516/72 and Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 517/72.  The Commission notes that the draft regulation of the Grand Duchy refers to the measures for enforcement which the Member States are obliged to take, pursuant to the above-mentioned Council Regulations. Under the terms of the Articles indicated above, these measures shall cover, inter alia, the organization of, procedure for and means of carrying out, checks on compliance and the penalties applicable in case of breach. As regards the regular and special regular services, according to Article 22 paragraph 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 517/72, these measures shall also determine whether, and subject to what conditions, the authorization or the running of the service may be transferred.  The Commission is of the opinion that these provisions meet the obligations imposed on the Member States regarding the organization of, procedure for and means of carrying out, checks on compliance, and also regarding the penalties applicable in case of breach.  The Commission notes, however, that the draft regulation of the Grand Duchy does not clearly state that the case of transfer of the authorization refers only to the regular and special regular services. The Commission further points out that this draft makes the transfer of the authorization subject to the prior agreement of the authority which issued it, without the conditions for the transfer of this authorization having been determined.  Accordingly, the Commission recommends that the Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg supplements the provisions of the draft regulation in question:     - by indicating therein that the proposed case of transfer of the authorization refers only to the authorization of regular and special regular services;        - by determining the conditions under which this authorization or the running of the service may be transferred.         Done at Brussels, 20 September 1973.  For the Commission  The President  François-Xavier ORTOLI  (1) OJ No L 67, 20.3.1972, p. 13. (2) OJ No L 67, 20.3.1972, p. 19.


title: Commission recommendation No 788/78/ECSC of 19 April 1978 extending the provisional anti-dumping measures established in relation to imports of steel products originating in Czechoslovakia

text:
20 . 4 . 78                             Official Journal of the European Communities                         No L 106 / 19
                               COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION No 788 / 78 / ECSC
                                                       of 19 April 1978
              extending the provisional anti-dumping measures established in relation to
                               imports of steel products originating in Czechoslovakia
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN                                    HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION :
COMMUNITIES,
                                                                                Article 1
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Coal and Steel Community, and in particular Article               The provisional anti-dumping measures established by
74 thereof,                                                       recommendations No 1 12/ 78 / ECSC, No 119 / 78 /
                                                                  ECSC , No 121 / 78 / ECSC and No 120 / 78 / ECSC in
Having regard to Commission recommendation
                                                                  relation to imports of steel products originating in
77/329 / ECSC on protection against dumping or the
                                                                  Czechoslovakia are hereby extended for a period not
granting of bounties or subsidies by countries which
                                                                  exceeding three months.
are not members of the European Coal and Steel
Comunity ('), as amended by recommendation No                                             Article 2
3004/77/ ECSC (2), and in particular Articles 16 and 19
thereof,                                                          Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 1 above,
 Having heard the opinions expressed within the Advi             the amount secured by way of provisional anti
sory Committee provided for by recommendation                     dumping duties shall be released to the extent that the
77/ 329 / ECSC,                                                   importer establishes to the satisfaction of the compe
                                                                  tent national authorities that it is due to a diminution
Whereas the Commission has established by recom                  in value resulting from the quality of the goods being
mendations No 1 12/78 / ECSC (3), No 1 1 9/78 /                   inferior to the lowest quality described in the last
 ECSC (4), No 121 /78 / ECSC (5) and No 120/78 /                  publication of basic prices by the Commission .
 ECSC (6) provisional anti-dumping duties in relation
to imports of steel products originating in Czechoslo                                    Article 3
vakia ;
                                                                  This recommendation is addressed to the Member
Whereas the examination of this matter has not yet                States. It shall enter into force in respect of each
been completed and exporters and importers known                  Member State from the date of its publication in the
to be concerned have requested that the duty be                    Official Journal of the European Communities.
extended for a period not exceeding three months ;
Whereas, therefore, it is appropriate to extend the                Done at Brussels, 19 April 1978 .
 provisional measures ;
                                                                                For the Commission
Whereas, however, due consideration should be given
 to any diminution of value of the products imported,                                        fitienne DAVIGNON
claimed by the importers and established to the satis
faction of the competent national authorities,                                          Member of the Commission
(!) OJ   No L 114, 5. 5. 1977, p. 6.
(2) OJ   No L 352, 31 . 12. 1977, p. 13.
(3) OJ   No L 17, 21 . 1 . 1978, p. 27.
(4) OJ   No L 19, 24. 1 . 1978, p. 5.
(5) OJ   No L 19, 24. 1 . 1978, p. 9.
(6) OJ   No L 19, 24. 1 . 1978, p. 7.


Important legal notice

|

E2002C0912(02)

Recommendation of the EFTA Surveillance Authority of 5 March 2002 concerning a coordinated monitoring programme for 2002 to ensure compliance with maximum levels of pesticide residues in and on cereals and certain other products of plant origin

Official Journal C 216 , 12/09/2002 P. 0009 - 0012

Recommendation of the EFTA Surveillance Authorityof 5 March 2002concerning a coordinated monitoring programme for 2002 to ensure compliance with maximum levels of pesticide residues in and on cereals and certain other products of plant origin(2002/C 216/06)THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY,HAVING REGARD to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, in particular Article 109 and Protocol 1 thereof,HAVING REGARD to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice, in particular Article 5(2)(b) and Protocol 1 thereof,HAVING REGARD to the Act added in point 38 in Chapter XII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement (Council Directive 86/362/EEC of 24 July 1986 on the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on cereals(1)), as last amended, in particular Article 7(2)(b) thereof,HAVING REGARD to the Act added in point 54 in Chapter XII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement (Council Directive 90/642/EEC of 27 November 1990 on the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on certain products of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables(2)), as last amended, in particular Article 4(2)(b) thereof,AFTER CONSULTING the EFTA Foodstuffs Committee assisting the EFTA Surveillance Authority,WHEREAS:(1) Article 7(2)(b) of Directive 86/362/EEC and Article 4(2)(b) of Directive 90/642/EEC require the EFTA Surveillance Authority, by 31 December each year, to submit to the EFTA Foodstuffs Committee, assisting the EFTA Surveillance Authority, a Recommendation setting out a coordinated monitoring programme to ensure compliance for maximum levels of pesticide residues set out in the Annexes II to the said Directives. Article 1(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 645/2000(3) provides that such recommendations may cover periods of between one and five years.(2) The EFTA Surveillance Authority should progressively work towards a system which would permit the estimation of actual pesticide dietary exposure, as provided for in the second paragraph of Article 7(3) of Directive 86/362/EEC and the second paragraph of Article 4(3) of Directive 90/642/EEC. To facilitate examination of the feasibility of such estimations, data concerning the monitoring of residues of pesticides in a number of food products, which constitute major components of European diets, should be available. In view of the resources available at national level for pesticide residue monitoring, the EFTA States are only able to analyse samples of eight products each year within a coordinated monitoring programme. Pesticide uses show changes within a five years rolling programme timescale. Each pesticide should thus generally be monitored in 20-30 food products over a series of three-year cycles.(3) The EFTA States should adopt continuous monitoring methods, since these facilitate the recognition of changes in the occurrence of pesticides.(4) Residues of the pesticides acephate, the benomyl group, chlorpyriphos, iprodione and methamidophos should be monitored in 2002, as this will allow examination of the feasibility of using these pesticides for estimation of actual dietary exposure to them, since these compounds (identified as Group A in the Annex) have already been monitored between 1996 and 2001.(5) Residues of the pesticides diazinon, metalaxyl, methidathion, thiabendazole and triazophos should be monitored between 2002 and 2005, as this will allow examination of the feasibility of using these pesticides for estimation of actual dietary exposure to them, since these compounds (identified as Group B in the Annex) have already been monitored between 1997 and 2001.(6) Residues of the pesticides chlorpyriphos-methyl, deltamethrin, endosulfan, imazalil, lambda-cyhalothrin, the maneb group, mecarbam, permethrin, pirimiphos-methyl and vinclozolin should be monitored between 2002 and 2005, as this will allow examination of the feasibility of using these pesticides for estimation of actual dietary exposure to them, since these compounds (identified as Group C in the Annex) have already been monitored between 1998 and 2001.(7) Residues of the pesticides azinphos-methyl, captan, chlorothalonil, dichlofluanid, dicofol, dimethoate, folpet, malathion, omethoate, oxydemeton-methyl, phorate, procymidone, propyzamide and azoxystrobine should be monitored between 2002 and 2005, as this will allow examination of the feasibility of using these pesticides for estimation of actual dietary exposure to them, since these compounds (identified as Group D in the Annex) have already been monitored in 2001.(8) Residues of the pesticides aldicarb, bromopropylate, cypermethrin, methiocarb, methomyl, parathion and tolylfluanid should be monitored between 2002 and 2005, as this will allow examination of the feasibility of using these pesticides for estimation of actual dietary exposure to them, since these compounds (identified as Group E in the Annex) will be monitored in 2002.(9) A systematic statistical approach to numbers of samples to be taken in each coordinated monitoring exercise is necessary. The Commission of the Codex Alimentarius has set out such an approach(4). Based on a binomial probability distribution it can be calculated that examination of 459 samples gives a 99 % confidence of detecting one sample containing pesticide residues above the limit of detection (LOD) where 1 % of products of plant origin contain residues above the LOD. At least 459 samples should therefore be taken across the European Economic Area. For the EFTA States it is recommended, on the basis of population and consumer numbers, to take a minimum of 12 samples per product and per year.(10) Draft guidelines concerning quality control procedures for pesticide residue analysis have been discussed by the experts of the EC Member States at Oeiras, Portugal, on 15 and 16 September 1997 and discussed and taken note of in the Subgroup Pesticide Residues of the Working Group on Plant Health on 20 and 21 November 1997. It is agreed that these draft guidelines should be implemented as far as possible by the analytical laboratories of the EC Member States and should be reviewed in the light of this experience. The guidelines were again discussed and revised by the experts of the EC Member States at Athens, Greece on 15 to 17 November 1999. The revised guidelines have been submitted to the Standing Committee on Plant Health and have been published by the Commission(5).(11) Article 7(2)(a) of Directive 86/362/EEC and Article 4(2)(a) of Directive 90/642/EEC require the EFTA States to specify the criteria applied in drawing up their national inspection programmes when sending to the EFTA Surveillance Authority information on their implementation during the following year. Such information should include the criteria applied in determining the numbers of samples to be taken and analyses to be carried out and the reporting levels applied and the criteria by which the reporting levels have been fixed. Details of accreditation under Directive 93/99/EEC of 29 October 1993 on the subject of additional measures concerning the official control of foodstuffs(6) of the laboratories carrying out analyses should be indicated.(12) Information on the results of monitoring programmes is particularly appropriate for treatment, storage and transmission by electronic/informatic methods. Formats have been developed for supply of data in diskette form from the EC Member States to the Commission. The EFTA States could use the same format and should therefore be able to send their reports to the EFTA Surveillance Authority in the standard format. The further development of such a standard format is most effectively undertaken by the development of guidelines,HEREBY RECOMMENDS THE EFTA STATES TO:1. Sample and analyse for the product/pesticide residue combinations set out in the Annex to this Recommendation, taking a minimum of 12 samples of each product and reflecting as appropriate, national, EEA and third country share of the EFTA State's market; for at least one pesticide possibly posing an acute risk, one of the products will be subjected to individual analysis of the individual units in the laboratory sample: two samples of an appropriate number of units should be taken, where possible the produce of a single producer; if in the first laboratory sample a detectable level of the pesticide is found, the units of the second sample should be analysed individually; in 2002 this should include at least one of the following combinations: aldicarb/potatoes, aldicarb/bananas, oxydemeton-methyl/spinach, chlorpropham/potatoes and phosmet/pears.2. By 31 August 2003, report the results for the part of the specific exercise allocated for 2002 in the Annex, indicating the analytical methods used and reporting levels achieved, in accordance with the quality control procedures set out in the Quality Control Procedures for Pesticide Residue Analysis. The report should be produced in a format, including the electronic format, as set out in Annexes II and III to the Recommendation of the EFTA Surveillance Authority for the year 1999(7).3. By 31 August 2002, send to the EFTA Surveillance Authority and to the EFTA States all the information as required by Article 7(3) of Directive 86/362/EEC and Article 4(3) of Directive 90/642/EEC concerning the 2001 monitoring exercise to ensure, at least by check sampling, compliance with maximum pesticide residue levels including:(1) the results of their national programmes concerning pesticides listed in the Annexes II of Directives 86/362/EEC and 90/642/EEC, in relation to harmonised levels and, where these have not yet been fixed at Community level, in relation to the national levels in force;(2) information on their laboratories quality control procedures and, in particular, information concerning aspects of the guidelines concerning quality control procedures for pesticide residue analysis which they have not been able to apply or have had difficulty in applying;(3) information on accreditation in accordance with the provisions of Article 3 of Directive 93/99/EEC (including type of accreditation, accreditation body and copy of accreditation certificate) of the laboratories carrying out the analyses;(4) information about the proficiency tests and ring tests in which the laboratory has participated.4. By 30 September 2002, send to the EFTA Surveillance Authority their intended national programme for monitoring maximum pesticide residue levels fixed by Directives 90/642/EEC and 86/362/EEC for the year 2003.This Recommendation is addressed to Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.Done at Brussels on 5 March 2002.For the EFTA Surveillance Authority.Bernd HammermannCollege MemberPeter DyrbergDirector(1) OJ L 221, 7.8.1986, p. 37.(2) OJ L 350, 14.12.1990, p. 71.(3) OJ L 78, 29.3.2000, p. 7.(4) Codex Alimentarius, Pesticide Residues in Foodstuffs, Rome 1994, ISBN 92-5-203271-1; Vol. 2, p. 372.(5) Document No SANCO/3103/2000(http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/ph_ps/pest/index_en.htm)(6) OJ L 290, 24.11.1993, p. 14.(7) OJ L 74, 23.3.2000, Annex II (Quality control procedures) p. 25 and Annex III (Working document/reporting format) p. 38.ANNEXPesticide/product combinations to be monitored in the specific exercise set out in point 1 of the Recommendation>TABLE>


Avis juridique important

|

31974H0430

74/430/EEC: Commission Recommendation of 19 July 1974 to the French Republic concerning the adjustment of the State monopoly of a commercial character in matches vis- à-vis the new Member States

Official Journal L 237 , 29/08/1974 P. 0002 - 0002

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION of 19 July 1974 to the French Republic concerning the adjustment of the State monopoly of a commercial character in matches vis-à-vis the new Member States (74/430/EEC) I. There exists in France a monopoly for the importation of matches which constitutes a State monopoly of a commercial character within the meaning of Article 37 of the EEC Treaty. The State alone may import matches, and has delegated its powers to the "Service d'exploitation industrielle des tabacs et des allumettes"(SEITA). On the other hand there are no restrictions on the marketing of matches, whether at the wholesale or at the retail level. Law No 72- 1069 of 4 December 1972 and Decree No 72-1253 of 29 December 1972, which lays down implementing measures, modified this monopoly as regards the original Member States of the European Communities.  II. Under Article 44 of the Act concerning the Conditions of Accession and the Adjustments to the Treaties, the new Member States are progressively to adjust their State monopolies of a commercial character within the meaning of Article 37 (1) of the EEC Treaty, so as to ensure that by 31 December 1977 no discrimination regarding the conditions under which goods are procured and marketed exists between nationals of Member States ; moreover, the second subparagraph of Article 44 (1) imposes equivalent obligations on the original Member States in relation to the new Member States.  Under Article 44 (2) the Commission is required to address to the Member States, from the beginning of 1973, recommendations as to the manner in which and the timetable according to which the adjustment provided for in that Article must be carried out.  III. In the new Member States there are no monopolies of a commercial character relating to matches.  So far France has taken no steps to liberalize imports of matches from the new Member States. The Commission therefore feels that the adjustment provided for in Article 44 of the Act concerning the Conditions of Accession and the Adjustments to the Treaties should consist of eliminating that form of discrimination which consists of imposing quantitative restrictions on imports of matches from the new Member States, and which derives from the fact that SEITA has the discretionary power to grant or refuse import licences.  IV. For these reasons, and while reserving the right to take such further action as it may subsequently consider necessary in the light of the results obtained by the application of this Recommendation, the Commission recommends the French Republic, pursuant to Article 44 (2) of the Act concerning the Conditions of Accession and the Adjustments to the Treaties:    1. to open an import quota for matches from the new Member States of:      - 3 % of 1973 national production for 1974,           - 5 % of 1974 national production for 1975,           - 9 % of 1975 national production for 1976,           - 15 % of 1976 national production for 1977,             it being understood that by 31 December 1977 all quantitative restrictions on imports of matches from the new Member States will have been removed;       2. inform all importers of the new opportunities offered to them by these quotas to obtain supplies of matches from the new Member States, in particular by publishing a Notice to importers in the Journal Officiel de la République Française.       3. to abolish by 31 December 1977 at the latest SEITA's exclusive right to import matches from and export matches to the new Member States.         Done at Brussels, 19 July 1974.  For the Commission  The President  François-Xavier ORTOLI


Avis juridique important

|

31985H0111

85/111/EEC: Commission Recommendation of 15 January 1985 concerning the Convention of 19 June 1980 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Only the German text is authentic)

Official Journal L 044 , 14/02/1985 P. 0042 - 0043

*****COMMISSION  RECOMMENDATION  of 15 January 1985  concerning the Convention of 19 June 1980 on the law applicable to contractual obligations  (Only the German text is authentic)  (85/111/EEC)  I  The Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980, has been signed by all 10 Member States of the Community: it was signed on 19 June 1980 by Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, on 10 March 1981 by Denmark and on 7 December 1981 by the United Kingdom; on 10 April 1984, the representatives of the Governments of the Member States signed the Convention on the accession of the Hellenic Republic to the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations.  The Convention is the first step towards unification and codification of general rules of conflict in the field of civil law in the Community. Unification will make it easier to determine the law applicable and will increase legal certainty. It should also ensure that all courts in the Community always apply the same substantive law to the same matter in dispute between the same parties. Where the parties are free to choose between courts in different Member States, their choice should not prejudice the question of the substantive law in accordance with which the action is to be judged. The aim, therefore, is to prevent forum shopping. The Convention is thus a logical complement to the legal unification process begun with the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the Judgments Convention).  II  The Convention creates uniform conflict rules for contractual obligations within the Community. Its provisions have the character of unified law. This can be seen from the preamble, which expresses the wish of the Member States 'to continue in the field of private international law the work of unification of law which has already been done within the Community, in particular in the field of jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments' and 'to establish uniform rules concerning the law applicable to contractual obligations'.  Title II of the Convention accordingly bears the heading 'Uniform rules'. Article 25 of the Convention provides for consultations between the signatory States in cases where a Contracting State considers that 'the unification achieved by this Convention is prejudiced by the conclusion of other agreements'. The Joint Declaration of 19 June 1980 annexed to the Convention also states that differences of interpretation of the Convention should not be allowed to impair its unifying effect. It may be inferred from this that all the Contracting States have an obligation to incorporate the Convention into national law in a manner which is in line with the character of the Convention as a common source of law, embodying unified rules.  Uniform interpretation is possible only if the courts of the Contracting States can acknowledge and apply the provisions of the Convention as rules common to all the Contracting States. In the Commission's view, the Contracting States are obliged to give effect to the Convention in such a way as to ensure that this is possible. If the Convention could be referred to indirectly for interpretative purposes only in cases where the interpretation of the law implementing it was doubtful, this would contradict the character of the Convention as an instrument embodying unified rules.  Giving effect to the Convention in the Federal Republic of Germany, if carried out, as planned, in accordance with Article 1 (2) of the draft Law on the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Entwurf des Gesetzes zum EuIPRUE, Bundestag publication 10/503) would prevent direct application of the provisions contained in Articles 1 to 21 of the Convention. Furthermore, if the incorporation of these Community provisions into the Law introducing the Civil Code (Einfuehrungsgesetz zum Buergerlichen Gesetzbuch) were effected with amendments, omissions and adjustments to the logical arrangement of that introductory Law, this would undo a set of rules that was uniform and common to all the Member States of the Community. Under Article 36 of the draft Law on the Convention, the German courts are to take account of the international character of the provisions corresponding to the Convention. Article 36 of the draft Law is modelled on Article 18 of the Convention and reads as follows:  'Article 36  Uniform interpretation  In the interpretation and application of the provisions of this chapter relating to contractual obligations, regard shall be had to the international character of the rules and to the desirability of achieving uniformity in their interpretation and application in the Contracting States which are parties to the Convention of 19 June 1980 on the Law applicable to contractual obligations (BGBL. . . . II p. . . . ).'  Article 36 of the draft Law does not allow performance of the obligations arising from Articles 1 to 21 of the Convention, Articles whose direct application is precluded by Article 1 (2) of the draft Law.  A number of provisions contained in Articles 1 to 21 of the Convention are not included in the draft Law, e.g. Article 1 (1) and (2) (a), (b), (d), (g) and (h) (Scope), Article 20 (Precedence of Community law) and Article 21 (Relationship with other conventions).  Some of the provisions of the Convention which have been incorporated into the draft Law have been redrafted or changed in substance. The provisions subject to such changes are, in particular, Article 13 'Subrogation' (Article 33 (3) EGBGB-E), Article 15 'Exclusion of renvoi' (Articles 3 and 4 of the draft Law), Article 16 'Ordre public' (Article 6 of the draft Law) and Article 19 'States with more than one legal system' (Article 4 (3) of the draft Law).  In general terms, comprehension and interpretation of the Convention are made more difficult because its provisions are divided up among various sections of the draft Law.  Even scrupulous application of Article 36 of the draft Law would not allow the desired goal of legal clarity and legal certainty through legal uniformity to be achieved. On the contrary, the work of the courts would be made more difficult, because they would have to compare texts which differed from one another in form and substance and would have to decide which provisions of national law corresponded to the Convention, in order, where necessary, to refer matters to the Court of Justice of the European Communities for interpretation.  The systematization aimed at in incorporating the Convention into the draft Law would, in its proposed form, result not only in a formal modification of the uniform law common to all the Member States of the Community, but also in a substantive change in that uniform law.  The manner in which implementation of the Convention is envisaged would render practically nugatory the jurisdiction of the European Court in respect of the Federal Republic of Germany. This would be contrary to the obligation accepted correspondingly by the Federal Republic of Germany in the Joint Declaration on the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980 'to examine the possiblity of conferring jurisdiction in certain matters on the Court of Justice of the European Communities and, if necessary, to negotiate an agreement to this effect'.  Since the agreed aim in the signing of the Convention by all the Member States of the Community was to achieve unification in an important area of private international law, it is essential that the codification, arrangement and drafting of its provisions for the purposes of national law should also respect the limits necessarily imposed by such unification. Each Member State must refrain from all measures which might jeopardize achievement of the stated aims of the Convention, and should introduce only those measures which are best suited to achieving such goals.  III  For these reasons, the Commission delivers the following recommendation pursuant to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular the second indent of Article 155 thereof:  1. The Commission recommends that the Federal Republic of Germany should make full use of all the scope afforded by its constitution in order to ensure that:  (a) its courts can resort directly to the wording of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations;  (b) changes in the content, formulation and order of the provisions of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations and omissions and adaptations of those provisions are avoided in giving effect to the Convention under national law.  2. This recommendation is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.  Done at Brussels, 15 January 1985.  For the Commission  COCKFIELD  Member of the Commission


Avis juridique important

|

31977H0608

77/608/EEC: Commission Recommendation of 19 September 1977 to the United Kingdom Government regarding the draft Regulations implementing Council Directive 74/561/EEC of 12 November 1974 on admission to the occupation of road haulage operator in national and international transport operations

Official Journal L 248 , 29/09/1977 P. 0027 - 0028

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION of 19 September 1977 to the United Kingdom Government regarding the draft Regulations implementing Council Directive 74/561/EEC of 12 November 1974 on admission to the occupation of road haulage operator in national and international transport operations (77/608/EEC) By letters dated 22 December 1976 and 18 February 1977, the Permanent Representation of the United Kingdom to the European Communities sent to the Commission, for consultation purposes, the text of draft Regulations relating to the implementation of Council Directive 74/561/EEC of 12 November 1974 on admission to the occupation of road haulage operator in national and international transport operations.  This communication was sent pursuant to Article 7 (1) of the Directive, which provides that "Member States shall, after consulting the Commission and before 1 January 1977, adopt the measures necessary for the implementation of this Directive, and in particular Article 3 (4) thereof".  The Commission regrets that the United Kingdom Government, by failing to inform it of the implementing measures in good time, has thereby failed to fulfil the obligations incumbent upon it under Article 7 of the Directive, and has made it impossible for the Commission to issue this recommendation by the requisite date.  The Commission hereby issues the following recommendation in respect of the draft Regulations referred to above:    1. The Commission notes that the draft United Kingdom Regulations satisfy the provisions of the Directive on the following points:      (a) the principle, definition and implementation of the conditions regarding good repute and professional competence (Article 3 of the Directive);           (b) the temporary operation of a road haulage undertaking, pursuant to Article 4 (1);           (c) the withdrawal of authorizations where the provisions of Article 3 (1) (a), (b) or (c) are no longer satisfied, pursuant to Article 6 (2).                  2. As regards financial standing, the Commission recommends that the United Kingdom Government supplements Section 9 (3) of the draft Regulations to take account of Article 3 (3) of the Directive, namely:  "Appropriate financial standing shall consist in having available sufficient resources to ensure the launching and proper administration of the undertaking..."       3. As regards the determination of the natural persons who must, in each case, meet the conditions of admission to the occupation set out in Article 3 (1) of the Directive, the Commission draws the attention of the United Kingdom Government to the definition of an "undertaking" contained in the second subparagraph of Article 1 (2) of the Directive. Undertakings are defined there as any association or group of persons with or without legal personality. Two or more individuals trading in partnership, as referred to in Section 9 (6) of the draft Regulations, must therefore be regarded as forming an undertaking.  In this case it is therefore insufficient to provide, as does Section 9 (6) that if one or more of the partners is professionally competent then the holder of the authorization will be regarded as meeting this condition. It is essential that, as provided in the third subparagraph of Article 3 (1) of the Directive, "provisions (a) and (c) above (good repute and professional competence) must be satisfied by one of the natural persons who will continuously and effectively manage the transport operations of the undertaking".  Consequently, the Commission recommends that the United Kingdom Government amends Section 9 (6) of the draft Regulations to ensure that the requirements of the third subparagraph of Article 3 (1) referred to above are satisfied.       4. The Commission also notes that Section 10 of the draft Regulations contains certain special provisions to regulate the hypothetical situation where the holder of an authorization - or the applicant - is a holding company whilst the vehicles used - or to be used - under the authorization belong to a subsidiary. These provisions indicate that it is the subsidiary that must be assessed on all points concerning good repute and financial standing.  The Commission recommends that the United Kingdom Government supplements Section 10 so as to ensure that the professional competence required is also assessed at this level, having regard to the third subparagraph of Article 3 (1) of the Directive.        5. As regards the transitional provisions, Sections 4 (4) and 9 of the draft Regulations largely meet the corresponding requirements of Article 5 of the Directive.  However, the Commission draws the attention of the United Kingdom Government to the wording of this Article.  In the first place Article 5 (1) does not make the application of the temporary provision subject to proof that the occupation has been exercised continuously.  The Commission therefore recommends that the Government amends this point in Section 4 (4) of the draft order so as to bring it into line with the Community provisions.  Secondly, Article 5 (2) of the Directive provides that natural persons who, after 31 December 1974 and before 1 January 1978, were:      (i) authorized to engage in the occupation of road haulage operator without having furnished proof under national regulations, of their professional competence, or           (ii) designated continuously and effectively to manage the transport operations of the undertaking,  must, before 1 January 1980, satisfy the condition of professional competence referred to in Article 3 (4).  The same requirement applies in the case referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 3 (1).  Section 9 (9) of the draft Regulations, which deals with this point, requires that the same persons meet the conditions of professional competence by 1 January 1978, thus imposing stricter conditions than those intended by Article 5 (2) of the Directive.  The Commission therefore recommends that the United Kingdom Government amends Section 9 (9) so that the natural persons concerned may benefit from the time limit laid down at the end of Article 5 (2) of the Directive.       6. Finally, the Commission reminds the Government that Article 6 (1) and (3) of the Directive requires that Member States shall state the grounds for any decisions to reject applications for admission to the occupation and that they shall ensure that the parties concerned are able to defend their interests by appropriate means with regard either to any such decision to refuse authorization or a decision to withdraw an authorization.  As the draft Regulations make no provision on this subject the Commission recommends that the United Kingdom Government remedies this shortcoming.  Done at Brussels, 19 September 1977.  For the Commission  Richard BURKE  Member of the Commission