title: Commission Recommendation (EU) 2016/688 of 2 May 2016 on the monitoring and management of the presence of dioxins and PCBs in fish and fishery products from the Baltic region (Text with EEA relevance)

text:
                  4.5.2016

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  L 118/16

            COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION (EU) 2016/688
      of 2 May 2016
      on the monitoring and management of the presence of dioxins and PCBs in fish and fishery products from the Baltic region
      (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)

                  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 (1) establishes maximum levels for dioxins, for the sum of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs and for non-dioxin-like PCBs in fish and fishery products. Derogations are provided in that Regulation to Finland, Sweden and Latvia for placing on their domestic market and intended for consumption in their territory of wild caught salmon, wild caught Baltic herring larger than 17 cm, wild caught char, wild caught river lamprey, wild caught trout and products derived from these fishes, originating in the Baltic region exceeding the maximum level.

                  (2)

                  Certain fish and fishery products from the Baltic region exceed regularly the maximum levels. It is not possible to control every single batch of fish and fishery products for compliance with the maximum levels. Therefore in order to ensure that only fish and fishery products in compliance with EU legislation are placed on the market, a list of fish from the Baltic region for which non-compliance can be expected has been established. This list has been established on the basis of available data and has to be regularly updated. For the fish and fishery products from the Baltic region for which compliance cannot be ensured based on the available occurrence data, specific risk management measures have been determined to ensure that only fish and fishery products compliant with EU legislation are placed on the market.

                  (3)

                  It is necessary to continue to monitor the presence of dioxins and PCBs in fish and fishery products from the Baltic region. It is appropriate to recommend a minimum number of samples of fish and fishery products to be analysed in a coordinated way, based on the amount of catch,

            HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:

                  1.

                  Denmark, Germany, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Finland and Sweden should, with the active involvement of food business operators, perform monitoring for the presence of dioxins, dioxin-like PCBs and non-dioxin-like PCBs in fish and fishery products such as liver from the Baltic region, in accordance with Annex I to this Recommendation.

                  2.

                  In order to ensure that the samples are representative for the sampled lot, Member States and food business operators should follow the sampling procedures laid down in Commission Regulation (EU) No 589/2014 (2).

                  3.

                  The method of analysis used for the monitoring of the presence of dioxins, dioxin-like PCBs and non-dioxin-like PCBs has to comply with the criteria laid down in Regulation (EU) No 589/2014.

                  4.

                  Member States should ensure that the analytical results are provided on a regular basis (every 6 months) in the EFSA data submission format to EFSA in line with the requirements of EFSA's Guidance on Standard Sample Description (SSD) for Food and Feed (3) and the additional EFSA's specific reporting requirements.

                              —

                              Samples can be individual fishes or pooled samples but in case of pooled samples, fish must be of the same size and be caught in the same ICES zone/region.

                        For Baltic herring, salmon, (sea) trout and sprat, specific additional reporting requirements apply (insofar not yet explicitly foreseen in the usual reporting format):

                              —

                              Catch zone, preferably ICES zone (other indication such as FAO zone or name of the part of the Baltic Sea is acceptable insofar ICES zone is not available). In case of fish from lakes or rivers, name of the lake or river to be given.
                              Data without precise indication of the zone where they were caught can be provided with an indication as precise as possible where they were caught.

                              —

                              Date of the catch.

                              —

                              Size of the fish/age of the fish/weight of the fish

                                          —

                                          Measurement of the size of the fish to be performed as specified in Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 (4). Size and weight are the most important parameters. Age can be provided if known.

                              —

                              Information on the matrix analysed (muscle meat, liver, …).

                              —

                              Fat content of the fish/fishes in the sample.

                              —

                              Information on the processing (trimmed, smoked or otherwise processed).

                              —

                              Any other relevant information (e.g. on the nature of the sample in case usual columns do not provide sufficient detail: e.g. single fish result).

                  5.

                  Available data from samples taken from the year 2009 onwards, and which have not yet been submitted to the EFSA database, should be provided to the EFSA in the EFSA data submission format, insofar possible.

                  6.

                  Based on the current available data, information on the presence of dioxins, dioxin-like PCBs and non-dioxin-like PCBs in certain fish species from a certain age, size and geographical region (ICES zone) and in particular as regards their compliance with the maximum level established in Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006, is provided in Annex II.

                  7.

                  In order to ensure that only fish and fishery products, compliant with EU legislation, are placed on the EU market, risk management measures as outlined in Annex III are recommended to be applied as regards fish from the Baltic region. Member States referred to in point 1 may take national measures to implement the risk management measures recommended in Annex III.

         Done at Brussels, 2 May 2016.

               For the Commission

            Vytenis ANDRIUKAITIS

               Member of the Commission

         (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 of 19 December 2006 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs (OJ L 364, 20.12.2006, p. 5).

         (2)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 589/2014 of 2 June 2014 laying down methods of sampling and analysis for the control of levels of dioxins, dioxin-like PCBs and non-dioxin-like PCBs in certain foodstuffs and repealing Regulation (EU) No 252/2012 (OJ L 164, 3.6.2014, p. 18).

         (3)  http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/datex/datexsubmitdata.htm

         (4)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 of 21 December 2005 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound, amending Regulation (EC) No 1434/98 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 88/98 (OJ L 349, 31.12.2005, p. 1).

         ANNEX I

                     (1)

                     Minimum number of samples of Baltic herring (Clupea harengus membras) recommended to be taken in 2016 for analysis of the presence of dioxins, dioxin-like PCBs and non-dioxin-like PCBs, preferably in ICES zones 28-1, 28-2, 29, 30, 31 and 32.

                                 DE

                                 DK

                                 EE

                                 FIN

                                 LT

                                 LV

                                 PL

                                 SE

                                 Tot

                                 Herring

                                 7

                                 5

                                 7

                                 20

                                 4

                                 4

                                 9

                                 14

                                 70

                     (2)

                     Minimum number of samples of European sprat (Sprattus sprattus) recommended to be taken in 2017 for analysis of the presence of dioxins, dioxin-like PCBs and non-dioxin-like PCBs, preferably in ICES zones 29, 30, 31 and 32.

                                 DE

                                 DK

                                 EE

                                 FIN

                                 LT

                                 LV

                                 PL

                                 SE

                                 Tot

                                 Sprat

                                 5

                                 8

                                 8

                                 5

                                 5

                                 9

                                 18

                                 12

                                 70

                     (3)

                     Minimum number of samples of salmon (Salmo salar) and trout (Salmo trutta, Oncorhynchus mykiss) recommended to be taken in 2018 for analysis of the presence of dioxins, dioxin-like PCBs and non-dioxin-like PCBs.

                                 DE

                                 DK

                                 EE

                                 FIN

                                 LT

                                 LV

                                 PL

                                 SE

                                 Tot

                                 Salmon/trout

                                 5

                                 12

                                 5

                                 15

                                 5

                                 5

                                 11

                                 12

                                 70

                     (4)

                     Minimum number of samples recommended to be taken yearly from 2016 until 2018 for analysis of the presence of dioxins, dioxin-like PCBs and non-dioxin-like PCBs.

                                 DE

                                 DK

                                 EE

                                 FIN

                                 LT

                                 LV

                                 PL

                                 SE

                                 Tot

                                 Several fish species (*)

                                 10

                                 10

                                 10

                                 10

                                 10

                                 10

                                 10

                                 10

                                 80

            (*)  Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua), European plaice (Pleuronectes platessa), European river lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis), char (Salvelinus sp.) white bream (Blicca bjoerkna), European eel (Anguilla Anguilla), freshwater bream (Abramis brama), European flounder (Platichthys flesus), European perch (Perca fluviatilis), northern pike (Esox lucius), pike-perch (Sander lucioperca), roach (Rutilus rutilus), vendace (Coregonus Albula), garfish (Belone belone), European smelt (Osmerus eperlanus), turbot (Psetta maxima), vimba bream (Vimba vimba), whitefish (Coregonus sp.) and whiting (Merlangius merlangus).

         ANNEX II

            Information on the presence of dioxins, dioxin-like PCBs and non-dioxin-like PCBs in certain fish species from a certain age, size and geographical region (ICES zone) and in particular as regards their compliance with the maximum level established in Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006.

         1.   Size of the fish

         The size of any fish referred to in this annex shall be measured as shown in the figure below from the tip of the snout to the end of the tail fin.
         2.   Minimum sizes of certain fish species allowed to be caught in the Baltic region for sustainability reasons (Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005)

                     —

                     Salmon (Salmo salar) (whole Baltic region except ICES 31): minimum size is 60 cm (consequently fish < 2 kg not allowed to be caught).

                     —

                     Salmon (Salmo salar) (ICES 31): minimum size is 50 cm (consequently fish < 2 kg not allowed to be caught).

                     —

                     Sea trout (Salmo trutta) (ICES 22, 23, 24 and 25 and ICES 29, 30, 31 and 32): minimum size is 40 cm (consequently fish < 2 kg not allowed to be caught).

                     —

                     Sea trout (Salmo trutta) (ICES 26, 27 and 28): minimum size is 50 cm (consequently fish < 2 kg not allowed to be caught).

               3.   Information on the presence of dioxins, dioxin-like PCBs and non-dioxin-like PCBs in certain fish species from a certain age, size and geographical region (ICES zone)

         3.1.   Baltic herring

         In ICES 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27: Baltic herring regardless the size assumed to be compliant with maximum level.
         In ICES 28-1, 29, 30, 31 and 32: Baltic herring ≤ 17 cm assumed to be compliant and Baltic herring > 17 cm suspected to be non-compliant.
         In ICES 28-2: Baltic herring ≤ 21 cm assumed to be compliant and Baltic herring > 21 cm suspected to be non-compliant.
         3.2.   Salmon

         Salmon from ICES 22 and 23 comes from the North Atlantic and not from the Baltic region and is therefore not part of these conclusions as regards presence of dioxins and PCBs and common risk management measures.
         Salmon < 2 kg assumed compliant (but not allowed to be caught for sustainability reasons — according to Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005; minimum size 60 cm and for ICES 31: 50 cm).
         In ICES 24, 25, 26:

                     —

                     salmon more than 2 kg up to 5,5 kg: compliant after trimming (trimming results in about 30 % reduction of dioxin/dioxin-like PCB content — experience only in ICES 24, 25, 26),

                     —

                     smaller salmon (2-4 kg) not trimmed: suspected non-compliance, although majority of salmon compliant,

                     —

                     larger salmon (4-5,5 kg): suspected to be non-compliant for the majority of the salmon,

                     —

                     trimmed salmon < 5,5 kg: compliant,

                     —

                     salmon trimmed and ventral part removed < 7,9 kg: compliant.

               In ICES 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32:

                     —

                     salmon > 2 kg (larger than 60 cm): suspected to be non-compliant.

               3.3.   Trout

         (Sea) trout < 2 kg assumed compliant (but not allowed to be caught for sustainability reasons according to Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005; minimum size for ICES 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30, 31 and 32: 40 cm and for ICES 26, 27 and 28: 50 cm).
         In ICES 22, 23, 24, 25, 26:

                     —

                     (sea) trout more than 2 kg up to 4,5 kg: compliant after trimming and removal ventral part,

                     —

                     smaller (sea) trout (2-4 kg): suspected non-compliance, although majority of (sea) trout compliant,

                     —

                     larger (sea) trout: suspected to be non-compliant for the majority of the (sea) trout.

               In ICES 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32:

                     —

                     all (sea) trout > 2 kg (larger than 40/50 cm) suspected to be non-compliant.

               3.4.   Sprat

         In ICES zones 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28: assumed to be compliant.
         In ICES zones 29, 30, 31 and 32: if sprats are smaller than 12,5 cm and less than 5 years, then assumed to be compliant. If larger than 12,5 cm, then suspected to be non-compliant.
         3.5.   Cod liver

         Non-compliance is suspected.
         3.6.   River lamprey

         In ICES 28: non-compliance suspected.
         In ICES 32: assumed to be compliant.
         3.7.   Other fish species

         Char is not traded and local catch falls under derogation (Sweden/Finland).
         Other fish species are assumed to be compliant.

         ANNEX III

            Risk management measures recommended to be taken by the competent authorities to ensure that fish from the Baltic region placed on the market in the EU complies with the maximum levels as established in Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006.

         1.   General recommended risk management measures

                     —

                     Traceability is of major importance.

                     —

                     For trade of herring, salmon, sea trout and sprat to other EU Member States or marketing on the domestic market not falling under a derogation, the ICES zone where the fish has been caught should be mentioned on the accompanying documents. Where necessary it should be clearly mentioned that the lot has been sampled and analysed for dioxins, for the sum of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs and for non-dioxin-like PCBs in accordance with EU legislation and has been found compliant with EU legislation. The analytical bulletin can be enclosed or should be made available upon request.

                     —

                     In case it is not possible to provide precise information on the ICES zone where the fish has been caught, for the trade of herring > 17 cm, salmon, sea trout and sprat > 12,5 cm to other EU Member States or marketing on the domestic market not falling under a derogation, the lot of fish should always be sampled and analysed for dioxins, for the sum of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs and for non-dioxin-like PCBs in accordance with EU legislation for checking compliance with EU legislation. This should be clearly stated in the accompanying documents. The analytical bulletin can be enclosed or should be made available upon request.

                     —

                     Authority at port of landing is responsible for doing the necessary controls to ensure compliance.

                     —

                     Documented evidence should be available as regards the fate of the fish which cannot be marketed for human consumption.

               2.   Specific recommended risk management measures

         2.1.   Baltic herring

                     —

                     Baltic herring from ICES 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 → can be marketed for human consumption.

                     —

                     Baltic herring from ICES 28-1, 29, 30, 31, 32:

                                 —

                                 Sweden and Finland:

                                             —

                                             Without sorting, Baltic herring can be marketed on domestic market only.

                                             —

                                             For trade to other EU Member States: obligatory sorting of herring in ≤ 17 cm and > 17 cm before placing on the market (as the sorting is done by width, this is approximate, but this is no problem):

                                                         —

                                                         Baltic herring ≤ 17 cm can be marketed for human consumption,

                                                         —

                                                         Baltic herring > 17 cm can be marketed or processed for human consumption for the domestic market only, or can be marketed outside the domestic market only if analysis of the individual lot has demonstrated compliance.

                                 —

                                 Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland:

                                             —

                                             obligatory sorting of the Baltic herring in ≤ 17 cm and > 17 cm before placing on the market (as the sorting is done by width, this is approximate, but this is no problem):

                                                         —

                                                         Baltic herring ≤ 17 cm can be marketed for human consumption,

                                                         —

                                                         Baltic herring > 17 cm cannot be marketed or processed for human consumption, unless analysis of the individual lot has demonstrated compliance.

                     —

                     Baltic herring from ICES 28-2:

                                 —

                                 Sweden and Finland:

                                             —

                                             Without sorting, Baltic herring can be marketed on domestic market only.

                                             —

                                             For trade to other EU Member States: obligatory sorting of Baltic herring in ≤ 21 cm and > 21 cm (as the sorting is done by width, this is approximate, but this is no problem):

                                                         —

                                                         Baltic herring ≤ 21 cm can be marketed or processed for human consumption,

                                                         —

                                                         Baltic herring > 21 cm can be marketed or processed for human consumption for the domestic market only, or can be marketed outside the domestic market only if analysis of the individual lot has demonstrated compliance).

                                 —

                                 Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland:

                                             —

                                             obligatory sorting of the Baltic herring ≤ 21 cm and > 21 cm before placing on the market (as the sorting is done by width, this is approximate, but this is no problem):

                                                         —

                                                         Baltic herring ≤ 21 cm can be marketed for human consumption,

                                                         —

                                                         Baltic herring > 21 cm cannot be marketed or processed for human consumption, unless analysis of the individual lot has demonstrated compliance.

               2.2.   Salmon

                     —

                     Salmon from ICES 24, 25 and 26:

                                 —

                                 Sweden, Finland and Latvia:

                                             —

                                             Salmon can be marketed for domestic market (derogation),

                                             —

                                             Trade to other EU Member States countries: only possible if analysis of the individual lot has shown compliance with EU legislation.

                                 —

                                 Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania and Poland:

                                             —

                                             Salmon larger than 2 kg can be marketed for human consumption only if analysis of the individual lot has shown compliance with EU legislation,

                                             —

                                             Salmon weighing less than 5,5 kg is compliant after trimming (procedure applied in Denmark and Poland only for ICES 24, 25 and 26) and salmon more than 5,5 kg up to 7,9 kg is compliant after trimming and removing ventral part (procedure applied in Poland for ICES 24, 25 and 26),

                                             —

                                             Trimmed salmon > 5,5 kg and salmon trimmed and ventral part removed > 7,9 kg can be marketed for human consumption only if analysis of the individual lot has shown compliance with EU legislation.

                     —

                     Salmon from ICES 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32:

                                 —

                                 Sweden, Finland and Latvia:

                                             —

                                             Salmon can be marketed for domestic market (derogation),

                                             —

                                             Trade to other EU Member States countries: only possible if analysis of individual lot has shown compliance with EU legislation.

                                 —

                                 Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania and Poland:

                                             —

                                             Salmon can be marketed for human consumption only if analysis of the individual lot has shown compliance with EU legislation.

               2.3.   (Sea) trout

                     —

                     (sea) trout from ICES 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26:

                                 —

                                 Sweden and Finland:

                                             —

                                             (sea) trout can be marketed for domestic market (derogation),

                                             —

                                             Trade to other EU Member States countries: only possible if analysis of the individual lot has shown compliance with EU legislation.

                                 —

                                 Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland:

                                             —

                                             (sea) trout weighing more than 2 kg: trout can be marketed for human consumption only if analysis of the individual lot has shown compliance with EU legislation,

                                             —

                                             (sea) trout trimmed and ventral part removed < 4,5 kg: compliant (procedure applied in Poland for ICES 22-23-24-25-26),

                                             —

                                             (sea) trout trimmed and ventral part removed > 4,5 kg can be marketed for human consumption if analysis of the individual lot has shown compliance with EU legislation.

                     —

                     (sea) trout from ICES 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32:

                                 —

                                 Sweden and Finland:

                                             —

                                             (sea) trout can be marketed for domestic market (derogation),

                                             —

                                             Trade to other EU Member States countries: only possible if analysis of the individual lot has shown compliance with EU legislation.

                                 —

                                 Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland:

                                             —

                                             (sea) trout can be marketed for human consumption only if analysis of the individual lot has shown compliance with EU legislation.

               2.4.   Sprat

                     —

                     Sprat from ICES 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 can be marketed for human consumption

                     —

                     Sprat from ICES 29, 30, 31, 32:

                                 —

                                 Obligatory sorting in sprats ≤ 12,5 cm and sprats > 12,5 cm,
                                 Sprats ≤ 12,5 cm can be marketed for human consumption,
                                 Sprats > 12,5 cm cannot be marketed or processed for human consumption, unless analysis of the individual lot has demonstrated compliance.

               2.5.   Cod liver

         Cod liver from cod caught in the Baltic region is suspected not to be compliant and therefore every lot should be analysed to show compliance before being placed on the EU market.


				|

		52013DC0384

			Recommendation for a COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION with a view to bringing an end to the situation of an excessive government deficit in France /* COM/2013/0384 final */

			   	Recommendation for a
COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
with a view to bringing an end to the
situation of an excessive government deficit in France
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union, and in particular Article 126(7) thereof,
Having regard to the recommendation from the European
Commission,
Whereas:
(1)       According to
Article 126 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union (TFEU), Member States shall avoid
excessive government deficits.
(2)       The Stability and
Growth Pact is based on the objective of sound government finances as a means
of strengthening the conditions for price stability and for strong sustainable
growth conducive to employment creation.
(3)       On 27 April 2009,
the Council decided, in accordance with Article 104(6) of the Treaty
establishing the European Community (TEC), that an excessive deficit existed in
France and issued recommendations to correct the excessive deficit by 2012 at
the latest[1],
in accordance with Article 104(7) TEC and Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC)
No 1467/97 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of
the excessive deficit procedure[2].
(4)       On 2 December 2009,
the Council decided, in accordance with Article 126(7) TFEU, that although
effective action had been taken by the French authorities, unexpected adverse
economic events with major unfavourable consequences for government finances
had occurred after the adoption of the recommendation.
As a consequence, the Council recommended that France correct its excessive
deficit by 2013 at the latest. In order to bring the general government deficit
below 3% of GDP in a credible and sustainable manner, the French authorities
were recommended to (a) implement the consolidation measures in 2010 as planned
and strengthen the fiscal effort from 2011 onwards; (b) ensure an average
annual fiscal effort of above 1% of GDP over the period 2010-13; and (c) to
specify the measures that were necessary to achieve the correction of the
excessive deficit by 2013, cyclical conditions permitting, and accelerate the
reduction of the deficit if economic or budgetary conditions turned out better
than expected at the time of the recommendation. In its recommendations, the
Council established a deadline of 2 June 2010 for effective action to be taken
in line with the provisions of Article 3(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1467/97.
(5)       On 15 June 2010,
the Commission concluded that based on the Commission services' 2010 Spring
Forecast, France had taken effective action in compliance with the Council
recommendation of 2 December 2009 to bring its general government deficit below
the 3% of GDP reference value and considered that no additional step in the
excessive deficit procedure was therefore necessary.
(6)       According to
Article 3(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1467/97, the Council may decide, on a
recommendation from the Commission, to adopt a revised recommendation under
Article 126(7) TFEU, if effective action has been taken and unexpected adverse
economic events with major unfavourable consequences for government finances
occur after the adoption of that recommendation. The occurrence of unexpected
adverse economic events with major unfavourable budgetary effects shall be
assessed against the economic forecast underlying the Council recommendation.
(7)       In accordance with
Article 126(7) TFEU and Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97, the
Council is required to make recommendations to the Member State concerned with
a view to bringing the situation of an excessive deficit to an end within a
given period. The recommendation has to establish a maximum deadline of six
months for effective action to be taken by the Member State concerned to
correct the excessive deficit. Furthermore, in a recommendation to correct an excessive
deficit the Council should request the achievement of annual budgetary targets
which, on the basis of the forecast underpinning the recommendation, are
consistent with a minimum annual improvement in the structural balance, i.e.
the cyclically-adjusted balance excluding one-off and other temporary measures,
of at least 0.5% of GDP as a benchmark.
(8)       The Commission
services' 2009 Autumn Forecast, which was underlying the Council recommendation
under Article 126(7) TFEU of 2 December 2009, projected that the French economy
would expand by 1.2% in 2010 and 1.5% in 2011. The years 2012 and 2013 were
beyond the forecast horizon, but under the assumption of a gradual closure of
the large negative output gap by 2015, higher growth than in 2011 was expected
for 2012 and 2013. GDP growth in 2010 was substantially above that expected in
the Commission services' 2009 Autumn Forecast, in 2011 it was slightly above
the projected 1.5%, while in 2012 the French economy stagnated.
(9)       The Commission
services' 2013 Spring Forecast projects GDP to decrease by 0.1% this year,
implying a much worse scenario also for 2013 than the one underpinning the
December 2009 Council recommendation. The weakness of households' real
disposable income linked in particular to rising unemployment and tax increases
will be only partly offset by inflation slowing down, while low business
confidence is expected to lead to a continued fall in investment. A slight
rebound of the external sector is forecast to translate into a modest pick-up in
activity during the second half of the year. Gradually improving confidence and
recovering real disposable income – assuming no further consolidation measures
– are set to translate into positive growth in 2014 (1.1%). Despite the
government's efforts to support employment, in particular of young people and
senior workers, the unemployment rate is forecast to further increase, reaching
10.6% and 10.9% in 2013 and 2014 respectively. Inflation is set to fall to 1.2%
in 2013 on the back of lower energy prices before accelerating again next year
notably due to planned VAT rises.
(10)     The economic crisis
has also had a significant impact on the general government balance. The
deficit rose to an unprecedented 7.5% of GDP in 2009 from an already elevated
3.3% in 2008 due to the play of automatic stabilisers and the discretionary
fiscal stimulus implemented by the authorities as part of the European Economic
Recovery Plan (EERP). In 2010, the general government deficit decreased to 7.1%
of GDP, reflecting both cyclical effects and an improvement in the structural
balance (partly offset by deficit-increasing one-offs). The structural balance
improved by 0.3% of GDP. In 2011, the deficit decreased significantly to reach
5.3% of GDP. While GDP growth remained unchanged with respect to 2010, at 1.7%,
the improvement mainly stemmed from strengthened consolidation efforts and the complete phasing-out of the EERP. The fiscal effort
as measured by the change in the structural balance was 1.2% of GDP. In 2012,
the headline deficit came out at 4.8% of GDP, falling short of the 4.5%
targeted by the authorities, despite a sizeable set of new
measures. Part of the difference stemmed from the cost of bailing out the banking group Dexia (0.1% of GDP). The structural balance
improved by 1.1% of GDP.
(11)     According to the
Commission services' 2013 Spring Forecast, the headline deficit is set to
decrease further this year on the back of the measures adopted notably as part
of the budget. Revenue measures include
a further increase in direct taxes and social contributions. Current
expenditure rules (central government and healthcare) are renewed and this will
contribute to maintaining spending restraint. Lower than previously projected
inflation and the partial suspension of indexation for second-pillar pensions
in agreement with social partners will also help contain expenditure. However,
GDP growth projected again well below potential will negatively affect the
headline balance. Overall, the deficit is expected to reach 3.9% of GDP. The
structural balance is projected to improve by another 1.3% of GDP. In 2014, the
deficit is set to reach 4.2% of GDP under the usual no policy change
assumption, which implies that only measures known in sufficient detail have
been taken into account. In particular, part of the measures aimed at funding
the recent corporate tax credit for competitiveness and employment are yet to
be specified and a number of one-off tax payments will expire at end-2013.
Overall, the stuctural balance is projected to remain broadly stable next year.

(12)     The structural
deficit, based on the Commission services' 2013 Spring Forecast, is estimated
to fall to 2.2% of GDP this year from 6.1% in 2009, i.e. 1.0% of GDP on average
over the 2010-13 reference period. When correcting for downward revisions in
potential output growth (+0.1% of GDP) and revenue windfalls (-0.2% of GDP)
compared with the time the Council recommendation was issued, the average
annual fiscal effort comes at 0.9% of GDP, thus falling slightly short of the recommended
effort of above 1% of GDP. However, a comprehensive assessment
of the discretionary measures implemented by the French authorities over
2010-13 leads to the conclusion that the cumulative budgetary impact
of these amounts to some 5¼% of GDP, i.e. 1.3% of GDP
per year on average. On top of the improvement achieved in the
structural balance, the impact of individual discretionary measures over this
period has allowed to offset the trend in autonomously rising public
expenditure due to factors such as ageing and thus the bottom-up analysis provides
a more positive picture than does the top-down approach based on the structural
balance. Measures include a substantial increase in personal and corporate
income taxation, complemented by hikes in indirect taxes and social security
contributions, a freeze in base wages of civil servants as well as savings
stemming from the General Review of Public Policies (RGPP), the 2010 pension
reform and the fact that the healthcare spending norm (ONDAM) has been systematically
(over)achieved. In view of the above, the French authorities can be
considered to have taken effective action.
(13)     The ratio of public
debt to GDP, which represented 79.2% in 2009, exceeded 90% last year. According
to the Commission services' 2013 Spring Forecast, the debt ratio will continue
to rise over the forecast horizon, to 94.0% and 96.2% of GDP in 2013 and 2014,
respectively, on the back of still relatively high general government deficits
and subdued nominal GDP growth. Stock-flow adjustments including contributions
to the European Stability Mechanism and direct loans to euro area programme
countries will also contribute to increasing public debt.
(14)     The substantial
deterioration in the budgetary position resulting from the weaker overall
position of the economy relative to the one underlying the 2009 Council
recommendation suggests that revised recommendations under Article 126(7) TFEU
for France extending the deadline to correct the excessive deficit are
justified, consistent with the rules of the Stability and
Growth Pact.
(15)     Against the
background of high uncertainties regarding economic and budgetary developments,
the budgetary target recommended for the final year of the correction period
should be set at a level clearly below the reference
value, in order to guarantee an effective and lasting achievement of the
correction within the requested deadline.
(16)     An extension by only
one year of the deadline for correction of the excessive deficit would require
a fiscal effort in 2014 well above the average annual fiscal effort over
2010-13 recommended by the Council on 2 December 2009, which would also hamper significantly the projected
economic recovery next year. A two-year extension would allow bringing
the headline deficit below 3% of GDP in 2015 while limiting the impact on
growth in 2014 and 2015. Granting France two additional years would be
consistent with headline deficit targets of 3.9% of GDP for 2013, 3.6% for 2014
and 2.8% for 2015. The underlying annual improvement in the structural budget
balance would be 1.3% of GDP in 2013 and 0.8% both in 2014 and 2015. Also
taking into account a possible trend deterioration of the structural balance,
this would imply that discretionary measures of above 1% of GDP per year would
be needed in 2014 and 2015.
(17)     In order to achieve
the budgetary targets, it is crucial that the authorities fully implement the
already adopted measures for 2013 (currently estimated at 1½% of GDP) and
specify, adopt and implement rapidly expenditure savings and/or revenue
measures of above 1% of GDP per year in 2014 and 2015 (the overall impact of
the measures adopted/specified in sufficient detail so far for 2014-15 is only
marginal). In particular, most planned savings backing
the various spending norms for 2014-15 still need to be specified. Maintaining the freeze in base wages beyond 2013, which
applies to all sub-sectors of general government, has
not been explicitly confirmed. Moreover, while the MAP ('modernisation de
l'action publique') spending review is on going, it remains unclear whether it
will translate into sizeable (and easy to quantify) savings. Regarding the
pension system, the actual measures that would underpin the planned reform
remain to be unveiled. Specifics are also lacking on the projected slowdown in
local government spending. On the revenue side, a number of one-off tax
payments will expire at end-2013 and no specific measures to compensate for
these have been announced so far. Risks to next year's macroeconomic scenario
of the French authorities are also clearly tilted to the downside. Indeed,
while GDP growth is forecast to be 1.2% and thus very close the Commission
services' 2013 Spring Forecast (1.1%), the underlying fiscal scenarios are at
odds: the former factors in a structural effort of 1% in 2014 whereas the
latter is built on a slightly deteriorating structural balance. The newly
created fiscal council ('Haut Conseil des finances publiques') has also
considered the macroeconomic scenario underpinning the current 2014 deficit target
as markedly optimistic. Overall, the situation will have to be monitored
closely and the authorities should stand ready to take corrective action in the
event of expenditure slippages or revenue shortfalls.
(18)     The Commission Fiscal
Sustainability Report 2012 shows that France does not appear to face a risk of
fiscal stress in the short term. In the medium and long term, risks appear
medium and low. However, recent developments affecting the pension system are
of more concern. In particular, the most recent projections by the Pensions
Advisory Council ('Conseil d'orientation des retraites') point to persistent
deficits of the system by 2020. This confirms the urgent need for an additional
pension reform in order to fully restore the long-term sustainability of public
finances.
(19)     France fulfils the
conditions for the extension of the deadline for correcting the excessive
general government deficit as laid out in Article 3(5) of Regulation (EC) No
1467/97 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive
deficit procedure,
HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:
(1)
France should put an end to the present excessive deficit situation by
2015 at the latest.
(2)
France should reach a headline deficit of 3.9% of GDP in 2013, 3.6% in
2014 and 2.8% in 2015, which is consistent with delivering an improvement in
the structural balance of 1.3% of GDP in 2013, 0.8% in 2014 and 0.8% in 2015, based on the extended Commission services' 2013 Spring Forecast.

(3)
France should fully implement the already adopted measures for 2013 (1½%
of GDP) and specify, adopt and implement rapidly the necessary
consolidation measures for 2014 and 2015 to
achieve the recommended improvement in the structural balance, while proceeding
as currently planned with a thorough review of spending categories across all
sub-sectors of general government, including at social security and local
government level.
(4)
France should use all windfall gains for deficit
reduction. Budgetary consolidation measures should secure a lasting
improvement in the general government structural balance in a growth-friendly
manner.
(5)
The Council establishes the deadline of 1 October 2013 for France to
take effective action and, in accordance with Article
3(4a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97, to report in detail the consolidation
strategy that is envisaged to achieve the targets.
Furthermore, the French authorities should strengthen the long-term sustainability of the pension system by
further adjusting all relevant parameters. In particular, the planned reform
should be adopted by the end of this year, as currently envisaged, and bring
the system into balance in a sustainable manner no later than 2020 while
avoiding any further increase in the cost of labour. In addition, to ensure the
success of the fiscal consolidation strategy, it will be important to back the
fiscal consolidation by comprehensive structural reforms, in line with the
Council recommendations addressed to France in the context of the European
Semester and in particular those related to the Macroeconomic Imbalance
Procedure.
Beyond the report foreseen in recommendation (5), the French
authorities should report on progress made in the implementation of these
recommendations at least every six months as well as in
a separate chapter in the stability programmes, until full correction of the
excessive deficit has taken place.
This recommendation is addressed to the Republic of France.
Done at Brussels,
                                                                       For
the Council
                                                                       The
President
[1]               All documents related to the
excessive deficit procedure of France can be found at: http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/economic_governance/sgp/deficit/countries/france_en.htm
[2]               OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 6.


title: Council Recommendation of 21 March 2013 concerning the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Development Fund (eighth EDF) for the financial year 2011

text:
               26.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 88/1

         COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
   of 21 March 2013
   concerning the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Development Fund (eighth EDF) for the financial year 2011
   2013/C 88/01
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to the fourth ACP-EEC Convention, signed at Lomé on 15 December 1989 (1) and amended by the Agreement signed in Mauritius on 4 November 1995 (2),
   Having regard to the Internal Agreement between the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on the financing and administration of the Community aid under the Second Financial Protocol to the fourth ACP-EC Convention (3) (the ‘Internal Agreement’) setting up, amongst others, the eighth European Development Fund (eighth EDF), and in particular Article 33(3) thereof,
   Having regard to the Financial Regulation of 16 June 1998 applicable to development finance cooperation under the fourth ACP-EC Convention (4), and in particular Articles 66 to 74 thereof,
   Having examined the revenue and expenditure account and the balance sheet relating to the operations of the eighth EDF as at 31 December 2011, and the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors on the activities funded by the eighth, ninth and tenth European Development Funds (EDFs) (5), concerning the financial year 2011, together with the Commission's replies contained in that Annual Report,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Pursuant to Article 33(3) of the Internal Agreement, the discharge for the financial management of the eighth EDF is to be given to the Commission by the European Parliament on the recommendation of the Council.

               (2)

               The overall implementation by the Commission of the operations of the eighth EDF during the financial year 2011 has been satisfactory,

         HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the European Parliament give the Commission a discharge in respect of the implementation of the operations of the eighth EDF for the financial year 2011.

      Done at Brussels, 21 March 2013.

            For the Council

            The President

         P. HOGAN

      (1)  OJ L 229, 17.8.1991, p. 3.

      (2)  OJ L 156, 29.5.1998, p. 3.

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

      (4)  OJ L 191, 7.7.1998, p. 53.

      (5)  OJ C 344, 12.11.2012, p. 243.


Avis juridique important

|

31997H0822

97/822/EC: Commission Recommendation of 3 November 1997 concerning a coordinated Community monitoring programme for 1998 to ensure compliance with maximum levels of pesticide residues in and on certain products of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables

Official Journal L 337 , 09/12/1997 P. 0014 - 0017

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION of 3 November 1997 concerning a coordinated Community monitoring programme for 1998 to ensure compliance with maximum levels of pesticide residues in and on certain products of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables (97/822/EC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to 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 (1), as last amended by Directive 97/41/EC (2), and in particular Article 4 (2) (b) thereof,Whereas Article 4 (2) (b) of Directive 90/642/EEC requires the Commission to submit to the Standing Committee on Plant Health by 30 September each year a recommendation setting out a coordinated Community monitoring programme for the following year to ensure compliance for maximum levels of pesticide residues set out in Annex II to the said Directive;Whereas Annex II Directive 90/642/EEC has been completed by lists of maximum residue levels for certain pesticides by Council Directives 93/58/EEC (3), 94/30/EC (4), 95/38/EC (5) and 96/32/EC (6), and has been amended by Council Directive 95/61/EC (7);Whereas a specific exercise for all Member States should be coordinated for 1998; whereas this is the third such specific coordinated programme to be recommended and indications as to the products to be included in future annual specific coordinated programmes are important for the planning of the competent authorities of the Member States; whereas products will not normally be repeated in specific coordinated programmes within an interval of three years;Whereas a systematic statistical approach to numbers of samples to be taken in the specific coordinated exercise is necessary; whereas such an approach has been set out by the Commission of the Codex alimentarius (8) and indicates that examination of a total sample number of 459 gives a 99 % confidence of detecting one sample containing pesticide residues if it is anticipated that 1 % of products of plant origin will contain residues; whereas the total number of samples to be taken by each Member State should be apportioned on the basis of population and consumer numbers, with a minimum of 12 samples per product and per year, and indicated in Annex I B;Whereas Article 4 (2) (a) of Directive 90/642/EEC requires Member States to specify the criteria applied in drawing up their national inspection programmes when sending to the Commission information on their implementation during the previous year; whereas 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; whereas details of accreditation pursuant to Directive 93/99/EC of 29 October 1993 on the subject of additional measures concerning the official control of foodstuffs (9) and the laboratories carrying out analyses should be indicated;Whereas information on the results of monitoring programmes and details of intended national monitoring programmes are particularly appropriate for treatment, storage and transmission by electronic/informatic methods; whereas formats have been developed for supply in diskette form to the Member States by the Commission; whereas Member States should therefore be able to send their reports and intended national monitoring programmes to the Commission in the standard format; whereas the further development of such a standard format is most effectively undertaken by the development of guidelines by the Commission;Whereas the measures provided for in this recommendation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health,HEREBY RECOMMENDS THE MEMBER STATES TO:1. as a specific exercise for 1998, sample and analyse for the product/pesticide residue combinations set out in Annex I A, on the basis of the number of samples of each product allocated to each Member State in Annex I B, reflecting as appropriate, national, Community and third country share of the Member State's market and report the results, together with the analytical methods used and reporting levels achieved, at the latest by 31 August 1999;2. by 31 August 1998, send to the Commission all the information as required by Article 4 (3) of Directive 90/642/EEC concerning the 1997 monitoring exercise to ensure, at least by check-sampling, compliance with maximum pesticide residue levels including:2.1. - the results of their national programmes concerning pesticides listed in Annex II to Directive 90/642/EEC, in relation to harmonized levels and, where these have not yet been fixed at Community level, in relation to the national levels in force,2.2. - the criteria applied when drawing up their national programmes concerning the numbers of samples taken and the analyses carried out,2.3. - the criteria applied when defining and fixing reporting levels,2.4. - details of accreditation, in accordance with the provisions of Article 3 of Directive 93/99/EC, of the laboratories carrying out the analyses and, where such accreditation has not yet been accorded, the criteria applied in establishing quality assurance measures in those laboratories.This recommendation is addressed to the Member States.Done at Brussels, 3 November 1997.For the CommissionFranz FISCHLERMember of the Commission(1) OJ L 350, 14. 12. 1990, p. 71.(2) OJ L 184, 12. 7. 1997, p. 33.(3) OJ L 211, 23. 8. 1993, p. 6.(4) OJ L 189, 23. 7. 1994, p. 70.(5) OJ L 197, 22. 8. 1995, p. 14.(6) OJ L 144, 18. 6. 1996, p. 96.(7) OJ L 292, 17. 12. 1995, p. 27.(8) Codex alimentarius, Pesticide residues in foodstuffs, Rome 1994, ISBN 92-5-203271-1; vol. 2, p. 367.(9) OJ L 290, 24. 11. 1993, p. 14.ANNEX I A Maximum residue levels (MRLs) to be monitored in the specific exercise for 1998 set out in point 1 of the recommendation >TABLE>ANNEX I B Number of samples of each product to be taken by each Member State >TABLE>


Avis juridique important

|

31999H0026

1999/26/EC: Commission Recommendation of 22 December 1998 concerning a coordinated programme for the official control of foodstuffs for 1999 (notified under number C(1998) 4501)

Official Journal L 007 , 13/01/1999 P. 0034 - 0045

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION of 22 December 1998 concerning a coordinated programme for the official control of foodstuffs for 1999 (notified under number C(1998) 4501) (1999/26/EC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Directive 89/397/EEC of 14 June 1989 on the official control of foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 14(3) thereof,After consultation with the Standing Committee for Foodstuffs,Whereas it is necessary, with a view to the sound operation of the internal market, to arrange for coordinated food inspection programmes at Community level;Whereas such programmes place emphasis on compliance with Community legislation, the protection of public health, consumer interests and fair trade practices;Whereas simultaneous implementation of national programmes and coordinated programmes can provide information and experience on which to base future control activities,HEREBY RECOMMENDS:During 1999 Member States should take samples and/or carry out inspections, undertaking laboratory analyses where indicated, for:(a) Ochratoxin A in coffee,(b) Additives in foodstuffs.1. Although sampling rates have not been set, Member States should ensure that the number of samples taken is sufficient to provide an overview of the subject under consideration in each Member State. Suggestions will be made for the methods of analysis.2. Member States should provide information as requested following the format of the record sheets provided in the Annex to help enhance the comparability of results.3. Ochratoxin A in coffee The aim of this element of the programme is to survey the enforcement actions taken by Member States when unacceptable amounts of a toxic substance are found for which no specific maximum limit exists. However according to Community and national food legislation, food intended for human consumption must be safe and, notably, Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 315/93 (2), prohibits the selling of foodstuffs with excessive amounts of contaminants from the public health viewpoint and in particular at a toxicological level.Ochratoxin A is considered to be a potent nephrotoxic agent, a carcinogen and having genotoxic properties. No specific maximum limit for ochratoxin A in coffee has been fixed in the European Community at Community level nor, for most of the Member States, at national level.Available scientific data do not clearly indicate the effects of different processes like roasting on the reduction of the ochratoxin contents. Furthermore raw coffee is sold to a limited extent directly to the consumer. Therefore all types of coffee (raw; roasted; ground; instant; etc.) should be controlled for ochratoxin A contamination.Sampling should be executed following the provisions laid down for the official control of aflatoxins in groundnuts and derived products by Commission Directive 98/53/EC (3).4. Additives in foodstuffs Several Directives regulate the use of additives in foodstuffs (Directive 94/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (4), amended by Directive 96/83/EC (5), dealing with the use of sweeteners; Directive 94/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6), dealing with the use of colours; Directive 95/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (7), as last amended by Directive 96/85/EC (8), dealing with the use of additives other than colours and sweeteners).The aim of this element of the programme is to measure the degree of compliance with the aforementioned Directives in Member States following the recent harmonisation of usage conditions of these substances; furthermore to survey the enforce-ment actions taken by Member States in case of non-compliance with legislation.The control should include inspections in food processing establishments (checking the recipes) and analyses of samples taken from the market or in food processing establishments.The results of the inspections and of the analyses should be recorded accordingly in the sheets provided in the Annex. These record sheets follow the format of the statistical return forms for the annual inspection programmes of the Member States.The inquiry should focus on a limited number of additives because of practical reasons. As the selection criterion, Member States should select additives for which exposure assessments, undertaken in the Member States as part of the scientific cooperation, underscore that there are risks of the acceptable daily intake being exceeded.The presented list should be used as a guideline to select the priority for the present study. Nevertheless other additives may be of particular relevance for specific Member States and could be added to the report.As the selection criterion for the categories of products within which these additives are to be sought, the categories presented in the Annex should be selected as they are the main contributors for the intake of the additives under consideration. However other products are not excluded.Done at Brussels, 22 December 1998.For the CommissionMartin BANGEMANNMember of the Commission(1) OJ L 186, 30. 6. 1989, p. 23.(2) OJ L 37, 13. 2. 1993, p. 1.(3) OJ L 201, 17. 7. 1998, p. 93.(4) OJ L 237, 10. 9. 1994, p. 3.(5) OJ L 48, 19. 2. 1997, p. 16.(6) OJ L 237, 10. 9. 1994, p. 13.(7) OJ L 61, 18. 3. 1995, p. 1.(8) OJ L 295, 4. 11. 1998, p. 18.ANNEX 1. OCHRATOXIN A IN COFFEE Table 1.1 - Type of product: green coffee beans (raw coffee) >START OF GRAPHIC>>END OF GRAPHIC>Table 1.2 - roasted coffee (in beans or ground; normal or decaffeinated) >START OF GRAPHIC>>END OF GRAPHIC>Table 1.3 - instant coffee (normal or decaffeinated) >START OF GRAPHIC>>END OF GRAPHIC>2. ADDITIVES IN FOODSTUFFS Table 2.1 - Inspections in establishments for the use of additives >START OF GRAPHIC>>END OF GRAPHIC>Table 2.2. - Samples and analyses for additives >START OF GRAPHIC>>END OF GRAPHIC>


Avis juridique important

|

31988H0129

88/129/EEC: Council recommendation of 7 March 1987 concerning the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Development Fund (1975) (Fourth EDF) for the financial year 1986

Official Journal L 064 , 10/03/1988 P. 0030 - 0030

*****COUNCIL  RECOMMENDATION  of 7 March 1987  concerning the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Development Fund (1975) (Fourth EDF) for the financial year 1986  (88/129/EEC)  THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 206b thereof,  Having regard to the ACP-EEC Convention of Lomé, signed on 28 February 1975,  Having regard to Council Decision 76/568/EEC of 29 June 1976 on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Economic Community (1),  Having regard to the Internal Agreement on the financing and administration of Community aid (2), signed on 11 July 1975, and in particular Article 31 (3) thereof,  Having regard to the Financial Regulation of 27 July 1976 applicable to the Fourth European Development Fund (3), and in particular Articles 64 to 67 thereof,  Having examined the revenue and expenditure account and the balance sheet relating to the operations of the European Development Fund (1975) (Fourth EDF) as at 31 December 1986 and the Court of Auditors' report relating to the financial year 1986 together with the Commission's replies (4),  Whereas, pursuant to Article 31 (3) of the Internal Agreement, the discharge for the management of the European Development Fund (1975) (Fourth EDF) must be given to the Commission according to the procedure provided for in Article 206 of the Treaty;  Whereas the overall implementation by the Commission of the operations of the European Development Fund (1975) (Fourth EDF) during the financial year 1986 has been satisfactory,  HEREBY RECOMMENDS  that the European Parliament give the Commission a discharge in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Development Fund (1975) (Fourth EDF) for the financial year 1986.  Done at Brussels, 7 March 1987.  For the Council  The President  G. STOLTENBERG  (1) OJ No L 176, 1. 7. 1976, p. 8.  (2) OJ No L 25, 30. 1. 1976, p. 168.  (3) OJ No L 229, 20. 8. 1976, p. 9.  (4) OJ No C 336, 15. 12. 1987, pp. 129, 253.


title: 2004/704/EC:Commission Recommendation of 11 October 2004 on the monitoring of background levels of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs in feedingstuffs (notified under document number C(2004) 3461)Text with EEA relevance

text:
               22.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 321/38

      COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION

   of 11 October 2004
   on the monitoring of background levels of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs in feedingstuffs
   (notified under document number C(2004) 3461)
   (Text with EEA relevance)
   (2004/704/EC)
   THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular the second indent of Article 211 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Directive 2002/32/EC of 7 May 2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council on undesirable substances in animal feed (1) establishes maximum levels for dioxins in feed materials and compound feedingstuffs.

               (2)

               Although, from a toxicological point of view, the maximum level should include dioxins, furans and dioxin-like PCBs, maximum levels have been set only for dioxins and furans and not for dioxin-like PCBs, given the very limited data available on the prevalence of the latter. The abovementioned Directive provides for a review of the maximum levels for the first time, by 31 December 2004 at the latest, in the light of new data on the presence of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs, in particular with a view to the inclusion of dioxin-like PCBs in the levels to be set.

               (3)

               Directive 2002/32/EC provides for a further review of the maximum levels by 31 December 2006 at the latest, with the aim of significantly reducing the maximum levels.

               (4)

               It is necessary to generate reliable data across the European Community on the presence of dioxin-like PCBs in the widest range of products intended for animal feed (as defined in Directive 2002/32/EC on undesirable substances in animal feed) in order to have a clear picture of the time trends in background presence of these substances in products intended for animal feed.

               (5)

               The relationship between the presence of dioxins, furans, dioxin-like PCBs and non-dioxin-like PCBs is important but to a large extent unknown. It is therefore appropriate to analyse the selected samples also for non-dioxin-like PCBs where possible.

               (6)

               Commission Recommendation 2002/201/EC of 4 March 2002 on the reduction of the presence of dioxins, furans and PCBs in feedingstuffs and foodstuffs (2) recommends that Member States perform random monitoring of the presence of dioxins, furans and dioxin-like PCBs in products intended for animal feed, proportionate to their production, use and consumption of products intended for animal feed. This monitoring should be carried out following detailed guidelines established by the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health. These guidelines should contain provisions, inter alia concerning the minimum frequency and the format of reporting of the results, in order to ensure a high degree of uniformity across the European Community.

               (7)

               It is important that these data are reported on a regular basis to the Commission. The Commission will ensure the compilation of these data into a database which will be publicly available for consultation.

               (8)

               The Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia joined the European Community on 1 May 2004. It is appropriate that the new Member States participate in the monitoring programme as soon as possible. It is however acknowledged that it is appropriate to foresee a transitional arrangement for the new Member States and that for the time being no detailed minimum frequency for the random monitoring of the presence of dioxins, furans and dioxin-like PCBs in feedingstuffs is recommended for the new Member States,

         HEREBY RECOMMENDS:

               1.

               That Member States perform from the year 2004 onwards until 31 December 2006 the monitoring of the background presence of dioxins, furans and dioxin-like PCBs in products intended for animal feed using the recommended minimum frequency of samples to be analysed yearly, as foreseen in the table of Annex I as guidance. The frequency of the samples should be reviewed each year in the light of the experience gained.

               2.

               That the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia participate as soon as possible in the monitoring programme on the presence of dioxins, furans and dioxin-like PCBs in feedingstuffs. The frequency of the samples to be analysed yearly by the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia will be established from the year 2005 onwards.

               3.

               That Member States provide on a regular basis to the Commission the data with the information and in the format as foreseen in Annex II for compilation into one database. It is appropriate that data from recent years obtained by making use of a method of analysis complying with the requirements laid down by Commission Directive 2002/70/EC of 26 July 2002 establishing requirements for the determination of levels of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs in feedingstuffs (3) and reflecting background levels are also provided.

               4.

               That Member States, if possible, also perform the analysis on non-dioxin-like PCBs in the same samples.

      Done at Brussels, 11 October 2004.

            For the Commission

         David BYRNE

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  OJ L 140, 30.5.2002, p. 10. Directive as last amended by Commission Directive 2003/100/EC (OJ L 285, 1.11.2003, p. 33).

      (2)  OJ L 67, 9.3.2002, p. 69.

      (3)  OJ L 209, 6.8.2002, p. 15.

      ANNEX I

         Table: Overview of the recommended minimum number of feed samples to analyse yearly. Distribution of samples is based on production and/or use in each country. Particular attention is paid to feed materials and compound feedingstuffs expected to have a larger variation in background levels of dioxins, furans and dioxin-like PCBs

                  Total number samples recommended for each country

                  Feed materials, additives, premixtures

                  Compound feedingstuffs

                  Plant origin

                  Minerals

                  Trace elements, binders, anti-caking agents

                  Premixtures — all species

                  Animal origin

                  Total

                  Terrestrial animals

                  Fish

                  Total

                  Country (1)

                  Number

                  Cereals, grains, their products and by-products

                  Oil seeds oil fruits, their products and by-products/legume seeds, their products and by-products

                  Forages and roughage

                  Other feed materials of plant origin

                  Animal fat/animal products (including milk powder and egg products)

                  Fish oil

                  Fish meal

                  Number

                  Cattle

                  Pigs

                  Poultry

                  Other (rabbit, horse, pet food)

                  Fish

                  Number

                  Belgium

                  60

                  5

                  5

                  5

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  4

                  3

                  3

                  37

                  4

                  10

                  5

                  2

                  2

                  23

                  Denmark

                  107

                  5

                  5

                  5

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  4

                  3

                  24

                  23

                  78

                  4

                  10

                  3

                  2

                  10

                  29

                  Germany

                  163

                  20

                  12

                  11

                  9

                  9

                  9

                  8

                  10

                  3

                  3

                  94

                  24

                  19

                  14

                  4

                  8

                  69

                  Greece

                  53

                  5

                  5

                  3

                  2

                  2

                  2

                  3

                  3

                  4

                  3

                  32

                  2

                  2

                  2

                  1

                  14

                  21

                  Spain

                  135

                  8

                  6

                  5

                  7

                  8

                  8

                  8

                  6

                  5

                  9

                  70

                  12

                  21

                  14

                  8

                  10

                  65

                  France

                  232

                  28

                  19

                  28

                  11

                  11

                  11

                  12

                  7

                  4

                  5

                  136

                  15

                  19

                  32

                  15

                  15

                  96

                  Ireland

                  56

                  5

                  3

                  5

                  2

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  33

                  7

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  5

                  21

                  Italy

                  117

                  10

                  7

                  12

                  5

                  5

                  5

                  7

                  5

                  4

                  3

                  63

                  12

                  6

                  14

                  7

                  15

                  54

                  Luxembourg

                  33

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  2

                  1

                  1

                  2

                  2

                  1

                  1

                  19

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  2

                  3

                  14

                  Netherlands

                  111

                  5

                  5

                  5

                  7

                  8

                  8

                  7

                  5

                  3

                  3

                  56

                  14

                  19

                  13

                  6

                  3

                  55

                  Austria

                  47

                  5

                  5

                  5

                  2

                  2

                  2

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  33

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  2

                  3

                  14

                  Portugal

                  50

                  3

                  5

                  5

                  2

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  33

                  4

                  3

                  5

                  2

                  3

                  17

                  Finland

                  48

                  5

                  3

                  5

                  2

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  33

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  2

                  4

                  15

                  Sweden

                  49

                  5

                  3

                  6

                  2

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  34

                  4

                  3

                  3

                  2

                  3

                  15

                  United Kingdom

                  158

                  10

                  10

                  10

                  6

                  6

                  6

                  10

                  4

                  10

                  8

                  80

                  15

                  7

                  13

                  10

                  33

                  78

                  Total EU

                  1 417

                  122

                  96

                  113

                  65

                  70

                  70

                  79

                  64

                  76

                  76

                  831

                  126

                  131

                  130

                  68

                  131

                  586

                  Iceland

                  67

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  2

                  1

                  1

                  2

                  3

                  19

                  16

                  53

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  2

                  3

                  14

                  Norway

                  127

                  5

                  5

                  5

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  5

                  3

                  13

                  15

                  60

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  2

                  56

                  67

                  Total EEA

                  1 611

                  130

                  104

                  121

                  70

                  74

                  74

                  86

                  70

                  108

                  107

                  944

                  132

                  137

                  136

                  72

                  190

                  667

         (1)  The Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia joined the European Community on 1 May 2004. It is appropriate that the new Member States participate in the monitoring programme as soon as possible. It is however acknowledged that it is appropriate to foresee a transitional arrangement for these new Member States and therefore no detailed minimum frequency for the random monitoring of the presence of dioxins, furans and dioxin-like PCBs in feedingstuffs is recommended for these countries.

      ANNEX II
      A.   Explanatory notes to the form for analytical results of dioxins, furans and dioxin-like PCBs and other PCBs in feed
      1.   General information about the samples analysed
      Country: Name of the Member State where the monitoring has been carried out
      Year: The year the monitoring was carried out
      Product: Feed item analysed — use, if possible, for feed materials the terminology of Council Directive 1996/25/EC of 29 April 1996 on the circulation and use of feed materials (1). In the case of compound feed the composition is very useful information.
      Stage of marketing: Place where the product (sample) was collected
      Expression of results: The results have to be reported on product basis. The results are to be expressed on the basis on which the maximum levels have been established (relative to a feedingstuff with a moisture content of 12 % — Directive 2002/32/EC). In case of the analysis of non dioxin-like PCBs, it is highly recommended to express the levels on the same basis.
      Type of sampling: Random sampling — analytical results from targeted sampling can also be reported but it must be clearly indicated that the sampling was targeted and does not necessarily reflect normal background levels.
      Methods: Refer to the method used
      Accredited: Specify if the analytical method is accredited or not.
      Uncertainty (%): The percentage of the measurement uncertainty embodied in the analytical method
      2.   Specific information about the samples analysed
      Sample No: Number of samples of same kind of product analysed. If you have results of more samples than there are marked columns, just add new columns with number at the end of the form.
      Method of production: Conventional/organic (as detailed as possible)
      Area: In so far as relevant, district or region where the sample was collected, if possible with indication if it concerns rural area, urban area, industrial zone, harbour, open sea, etc. E.g. Brussels — urban area; Mediterranean — open sea
      Number of subsamples: If the analysed sample is a pooled sample, the number of subsamples (number of individuals) should be notified. If the analytical result is just based on one sample, one should be notified. Number of subsamples in a pooled sample could vary, so please specify this for every sample.
      Fat content (%): The percentage of fat content in the sample (if available)
      Moisture content (%): The percentage of moisture content in the sample (if available)
      3.   Results
      Dioxins, furans, dioxin-like PCBs: results of every congener should be reported in ppt — nanogram/kilo (ng/kg)
      Non-dioxin-like PCBs: results of every congener should be reported in ppb — microgram/kilo (μg/kg)
      LOQ: Limit of quantification in ng/kg or μg/kg (for non dioxin-like PCBs)
      LOD: Limit of detection in ng/kg or μg/kg (for non dioxin-like PCBs)
      For congeners analysed but below the LOD (limit of detection) the case of results should be filled in as < LOD (the LOD should be reported as a value). For congeners analysed but being below LOQ (limit of quantification) the case should be filled in as < LOQ (the LOQ should be reported as a value).
      For PCB congeners analysed in addition to the PCB-7 and dioxin-like PCBs, the number of the PCB congener needs to be added to the form, e.g. 31, 99, 110, etc. If the sample is analysed for more PCB congeners than there are marked rows, just add new rows at the bottom of the form.
      4.   Remarks
      Besides the lipid extraction method used, additional relevant remarks to the submitted data can be mentioned.
      B.   Form for reporting congener-specific analytical results of dioxins, furans, dioxin-like PCBs and other PCBs in feed

         (1)  OJ L 125, 23.5.1996, p. 35. Directive as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 806/2003 (OJ L 122, 16.5.2003, p. 1).


Avis juridique important

|

31985Y0016

Recommendation No 16 of 12 December 1984 concerning the conclusion of Agreements pursuant to Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71

Official Journal C 273 , 24/10/1985 P. 0003 - 0003

RECOMMENDATION No  16of 12 December 1984concerning the conclusion of agreements pursuant to Article 17 of Council  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71(85/C 273/03)THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES ON SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS, Having regard to the opinion of the Advisory  Committee on Social Security for Migrant Workers, adopted at its 15th meeting on 11 April 1984,  Whereas Article 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 lays down that two or more Member States, the  competent authorities of those States or the bodies designated by those authorities may, by common  agreement, provide for exceptions to the provisions of the aforementioned Regulation concerning the  determination of the legislation applicable in the interests of certain categories of employed or  self-employed persons, or of certain such persons; Whereas certain employed persons, by virtue of  their special knowledge and skills or because of specific objectives set by the undertaking or  organization with which they are employed, are posted abroad to the territory of a Member State  other than the one in which they are normally employed in the interests of, in the name of, or on  behalf of that undertaking or organization for a period of more than 12 months; Whereas it is  recommended that in the interests of these employed persons, they should be allowed to choose  between being subject to the legislation of the Member State of employment or remaining subject to  the legislation of the Member State where they are normally employed for the duration of the  posting abroad, RECOMMENDS to the competent authorities of the Member States that they conclude, or  have concluded by the bodies designated by these competent authorities, agreements pursuant to  Article 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 applicable to employed persons who, by virtue of their  special knowledge and skills or because of specific objectives set by the undertaking or  organization with which they are employed are posted abroad to a Member State other than the one in  which they are normally employed in the interests of, in the name of, or on behalf of that  undertaking or organization for a period exceeding 12 months. These agreements should lay down that  these employed persons remain subject to the legislation of the sending State for the full duration  of their assignment provided that the workers concerned agree to this condition. J. DOWNEY Chairman  of the Administrative Commission   RECOMMENDATION No 17of 12 December 1984concerning the statistical data to be supplied each  year for the drawing up of the reports of the Administrative Commission(85/C 273/04)THE  ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ON SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS,  Having regard to Article 103 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72, Whereas recommendation No 13 of 24 May  1973 should be amended following the entry into force of Regulations (EEC) No 1390/81 and (EEC) No  3795/81 concerning the extension of Regulations (EEC) No 1408/71 and (EEC) No 574/72 to  self-employed persons and to members of their families and whereas this extension requires a  certain adjustment of the statistics kept by the social security institutions of the Member States;  Whereas under the provisions of Article 13 (1) of the Rules, adopted in pursuance of Article 80 (3)  of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, the Administrative Commission should periodically draw up a general  report on its activities and on the implementation of the Regulations on social security for  migrant workers; Whereas the drawing up of this report makes it necessary to collect a certain  number of statistical data each year; Whereas such data are of real interest only if they present a  certain degree of homogeneity for all the Member States and if they are supplied shortly after the  end of the period to which they relate; Whereas it is therefore appropriate to simplify the  relevant statistical tables and whereas precise instructions should for this purpose be given by  the competent authorities to the national institutions, RECOMMENDS that the competent institutions  of the Member States take the measures necessary to ensure that the following items of information  can be collected, if possible, and supplied each year: 1. The number of employed and self-employed  persons - nationals of the other Member States, refugees or stateless persons - who are working in  the territory of one of the Member States and, in addition, the number of employed and  self-employed persons who are nationals of non-member countries. This number may be either the  average over the period covered or the number on a particular date. If possible, the numbers should  be broken down according to sex. Moreover, a breakdown should be provided between employed persons  and self-employed persons. These statistics should primarily be supplied by the social security  institutions. If this proves impossible, other sources or estimates may be used. 2. For  benefits-in-kind provided under Articles 19, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 52 and 55 of Regulation (EEC)  No 1408/71: (a) for benefits-in-kind to be refunded in accordance with Article 93 of Regulation  (EEC) No 574/72, the amount of benefits provided under the aforementioned Articles and the  corresponding number of cases; (b) for benefits-in-kind to be refunded in accordance with Articles  94 and 95 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72, the information derived from the compilation of the lists  referred to in the abovementioned Articles or from other sources provided for under bilateral and  multilateral agreements. This information shall be supplied by the country which has provided the  benefits (creditor country) for each debtor country separately. A distinction should, where  appropriate, be made between schemes for employed persons and schemes for self-employed persons.  Where two Member States reciprocally waive refunds between their institutions, the above data  should be supplied in so far as they are available. As far as possible the statistics should be  related to calendar years. 3. For benefits in respect of invalidity, old age, death, accidents at  work and occupational diseases (pensions) granted and paid under Regulations (EEC) No 1408/71 and  (EEC) No 574/72 and under bilateral and multilateral agreements or under national legislation: (a)  the number of pensioners residing in the territory of each of the other Member States. This number  may be either the average or the total number of cases during the period covered or the number on a  particular date; (b) the corresponding amounts of pensions thus granted and paid in the course of  the period covered. A breakdown should be made between pensioners and their survivors and between  schemes for employed persons and schemes for self-employed persons. 4. For death grants provided  under Articles 65 and 66 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71: the number of cases and the corresponding  amounts of death grants transferred to beneficiaries residing in another Member State. A breakdown  should be provided between schemes for employed persons and schemes for self-employed persons. 5.  For unemployment benefits: - the number of wholly unemployed persons who were formerly employed or  self-employed and who have received unemployment benefits in pursuance of Article 69 (1) of  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, -the number of days of unemployment for which unemployment benefits  were paid, -the amounts paid. 6. For family allowances: (a) the amount of family allowances granted  for members of the family of workers and unemployed persons in the course of the period covered in  pursuance of: (i) Regulations (EEC) No 1408/71 and (EEC) No 574/72; (ii) bilateral agreements;  (iii) national legislation; where these members of the family reside in the territory of another  Member State; where the worker or the unemployed person is subject to French legislation the amount  to be stated is that of the family allowances refunded by France to institutions of the country of  residence; (b) the number of members of the family in respect of whom family allowances were paid,  broken down by country of residence; (c) the number of families for which the family allowances  mentioned above were paid. This number may be either the average over the period covered, the total  number over that period, or the number on a particular date. 7. These data should be sent to the  secretariat, arranged according to models adopted by the Audit Board, before 31 December of the  year following that to which they relate. 8. After they have been analyzed these statistics will be  communicated to the Administrative Commission together with comments, and will be published in the  Administrative Commission's general report. 9. This recommendation shall apply for the first time  to data for the year 1985. J. DOWNEY Chairman of the Administrative Commission


Recommandation de la Commission adressée aux États membres relative à la détermination de la notion de « résidence normale » pour l'application, dans les relations entre les États membres, du régime de l'importation temporaire aux véhicules routiers privés