               28.10.2020

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/173

      P8_TA(2018)0483
      Defence of academic freedom in the EU's external action
      European Parliament recommendation of 29 November 2018 to the Council, the Commission and the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on Defence of academic freedom in the EU’s external action (2018/2117(INI))
      (2020/C 363/24)

         The European Parliament,

                  —

                  having regard to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

                  —

                  having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Article 13 thereof,

                  —

                  having regard to the EU Strategic Framework and Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy (11855/2012), adopted by the Foreign Affairs Council on 25 June 2012,

                  —

                  having regard to the EU Human Rights Guidelines on Freedom of Expression Online and Offline, adopted by the Foreign Affairs Council on 12 May 2014,

                  —

                  having regard to the EU Annual Report on Human Rights and Democracy in the World in 2016 and the European Union’s policy on the matter,

                  —

                  having regard to the Recommendation Concerning the Status of Higher Education Teaching Personnel, adopted by the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), at its 29th session from 21 October to 12 November 1997,

                  —

                  having regard to the Lima Declaration on Academic Freedom and Autonomy of Institutions of Higher Education, adopted by the World University Service in September 1988,

                  —

                  having regard to Resolution 29/7 on the Right to Education, adopted by the UN Human Rights Council at its 42nd meeting of 2 July 2015,

                  —

                  having regard to General Comment No. 13 of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adopted on 8 December 1999 at its Twenty-first session,

                  —

                  having regard to Opinion 891/2017 of the Venice Commission,

                  —

                  having regard to the reports by national, European and international non-governmental organisations, and, in particular, the Principles of State Responsibility to Protect Higher Education from Attack,

                  —

                  having regard to its previous resolutions addressing fundamental rights,

                  —

                  having regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

                  —

                  having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

                  —

                  having regard to Rule 113 of its Rules of Procedure,

                  —

                  having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A8-0403/2018),

                  A.

                  whereas UNESCO defines academic freedom as ‘the right, without constriction by prescribed doctrine, to freedom of teaching and discussion, freedom in carrying out research and disseminating and publishing the results thereof, freedom to express freely their opinion about the institution or system in which they work, freedom from institutional censorship and freedom to participate in professional or representative academic bodies’;

                  B.

                  whereas the right to education is of fundamental importance for the enjoyment of all other human rights and for achieving sustainable development; whereas this right can only be enjoyed in an atmosphere of academic freedom and with the autonomy of institutions of higher education;

                  C.

                  whereas the Lima Declaration on Academic Freedom and Autonomy of Institutions of Higher Education defines academic freedom as the freedom of members of the academic community — covering all persons teaching, studying, researching and working at an institution of higher education — individually or collectively, in the pursuit, development and transmission of knowledge, through research, study, discussion, documentation, production, creation, teaching, lecturing and writing;

                  D.

                  whereas this definition must be grounded in core democratic values, including equitable access and anti-discrimination principles, accountability, critical and independent thinking, institutional autonomy and social responsibility; whereas there can be no democracy without the academic freedom that enables informed debate;

                  E.

                  whereas academic freedom is a key element to advance to sustainable development, in particular to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals enshrined in the 2030 Agenda, where quality education, scientific research and innovation occupy a central place;

                  F.

                  whereas autonomy is a necessary precondition for education institutions to fulfil their proper functions; whereas academic freedom requires constant and vigilant protection from undue pressure from the State or commercial interests;

                  G.

                  whereas academic freedom — including its constituent freedoms of thought, opinion, expression, association, travel, and instruction — contributes to creating the space in which any open and stable pluralistic society is free to think, question, share ideas and produce, consume and disseminate knowledge;

                  H.

                  whereas attacks on academic freedom undermine research, study, teaching, public discourse and the right to education, eroding academic quality and social, political, economic and cultural development; whereas answers to issues in society should be found through reason, evidence and persuasion;

                  I.

                  whereas the right to education, teaching and research can only be fully enjoyed in an atmosphere of academic freedom;

                  J.

                  whereas there is an urgent need to adequately address academic freedom during the accession process to the EU in order to prevent the occurrence of attacks in EU Member States, such as the attempts to close the Central European University (CEU) in Budapest, which are set to result in the relocation of student admissions to Vienna as of 2019, as well as the blocking of gender studies in Hungary; whereas candidate countries should commit to core higher education values, including academic freedom and institutional autonomy;

                  K.

                  whereas the academic community and education institutions are increasingly vulnerable to interference, pressure or repression from states, the business sector or other non-state actors; whereas every year, hundreds of attacks on universities, higher education institutions and their members are reported around the world, including killings, violence and disappearances, wrongful imprisonment/detention, wrongful prosecution, loss of position, wrongful dismissal/expulsion from study, restrictions on travel or movement and other extreme or systemic threats; whereas violations of academic freedoms are also occurring within Member States of the EU and its closest partners;

                  L.

                  whereas cuts in public funding for education, including higher education, and the subsequent need for alternative sources of income puts academic freedom at risk, particularly when such external funding originates from autocratic regimes abroad or multinational corporations;

                  M.

                  whereas foreign education institutions within the EU are facing attacks from national governments and encountering violations of their academic freedom;

                  N.

                  whereas the attempts to control or silence higher education institutions or their scholars, students and staff extend well beyond the individuals and institutions directly targeted and affect society at large by shrinking the space for the inclusive democratic participation, free speech and empowerment of all citizens and by depriving future generations of high-quality academics and researchers;

                  O.

                  whereas the effective realisation of the right to education and the guarantee of academic freedom require states to ensure an adequate and reliable level of funding for education; whereas policies of financial and economic austerity have gravely undermined academic freedom and continue to do so around the world, including within the EU;

                  P.

                  whereas violations of academic freedom are rarely addressed within a human rights framework, reflecting, in part, a lack of familiarity with issues of academic freedom among human rights advocates and, in part, the fact that claims often refer to other rights being violated, such as freedom of expression or opinion; whereas, as a result, standards in this area are underdeveloped and violations of academic freedom underreported;

                  Q.

                  whereas there is a general need both to raise awareness of the importance of academic freedom as a tool to promote democracy, respect for the rule of law and accountability, and to create opportunities to improve the capacity for its advocacy and defence;

                  R.

                  whereas it is important to identify attacks on academic freedom as part of a global phenomenon, and to encourage the recognition of academics and students being targeted not only as individuals whose rights are being violated, but also as human rights defenders who are being attacked; whereas a robust response is needed at international and national level, both from within higher education itself and from civil society and the public at large;

                  S.

                  whereas many at-risk academics and students are not able to obtain access to the opportunities provided by EU programmes for academic mobility and human rights defenders, as a result of not meeting the application criteria or of having great difficulty in following the general application procedures, requirements and schedules;

                  T.

                  whereas funding limitations in EU programmes restrict the actions of organisations and universities in the EU that already support students and scholars who are at risk or flee their countries as a result of the threat of persecution for their academic engagement; whereas these organisations and universities require more assistance for their actions and initiatives;

                  U.

                  whereas the EU is committed to promoting and protecting human rights, democratic institutions and the rule of law worldwide; whereas the EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy calls for a more effective EU human rights and democracy support policy, including increasing the effectiveness of Human Rights Dialogues, improving the visibility and impact of human rights country strategies, focusing on effective implementation of the EU Human Rights Guidelines and improving public diplomacy and communications on human rights;

                  1.

                  Recommends the following to the Council, the Commission and the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy:

                              (a)

                              explicitly recognise the importance of academic freedom in public statements, policies and actions relating to the EU’s external action, including recognition of the principles that ideas are not crimes and that critical discourse is not disloyalty, but rather essential parts of a democratic society and its development, that the autonomy of education institutions should be protected at all times, and that academic freedom plays an essential role in the educational advancement and the development of humankind and modern society;

                              (b)

                              recognise that claims to academic freedom fall under existing human rights law, derived from the right to education and the rights to freedom of expression and of opinion; recall that academic freedom extends to the freedom of academics to disseminate information and conduct research and distribute knowledge and truth without restriction, the freedom to express their views and opinions — even if controversial or unpopular — in the areas of their research and professional expertise, which may include an examination of the functioning of public institutions in a given political system and criticism thereof;

                              (c)

                              publicly highlight the problems of attacks on academic freedom, including their negative consequences; express concern regarding the vulnerability of the academic community to undue interference by national authorities, private actors or corporate interests; recall the responsibility of states to guarantee academic freedom, act in conformity therewith and proactively protect higher education institutions, academics and students from attacks, regardless of their origin and nature;

                              (d)

                              ensure that EU institutions and Member States’ representatives visiting third countries are briefed on the situation of academic freedom;

                              (e)

                              demonstrate support for the institutions, staff and students that are at risk or have been the victims of coercion or violent attacks and publicly condemn such attacks, by raising the issue at all levels, including through statements, visits, invitations to public appearances and trial and prison monitoring, and specific references to individual cases of members of higher education communities at risk;

                              (f)

                              support equal access to the academic community, regardless of ethnicity, caste, disability, nationality, religious belief, gender identity, sexual orientation or other status; pay particular attention in their dealings with third countries, to support the elimination of gender-based discrimination and all forms of violence and to help realise gender equality and the right to education for all;

                              (g)

                              highlight that attacks on academic freedom can also take the form of cyberattacks, as academics today increasingly make use of the internet and social media to express their ideas and opinions;

                              (h)

                              raise academic freedom at different levels of political dialogue, including in human rights dialogues and consultations with partner countries; step up diplomatic efforts with partner countries through bilateral and multilateral engagement in relation to incidents of concern, involving threats or attacks on academic freedom and particularly violent attacks on institutions and members of the higher education community, as well as discriminatory policies or practices, undue restrictions on research or expression, wrongful prosecution or detention and restrictions on the right to form and join trade unions; encourage partner countries to set up a framework for academic freedom and institutional autonomy and to monitor the implementation of these fundamental rights; ensure that any international cooperation agreements with partner countries respect these principles;

                              (i)

                              include the defence and protection of academic freedom and institutional autonomy in the Copenhagen criteria for the EU accession process with a view to preventing attacks on academic freedom in Member States, as seen in the case of the CEU in Hungary;

                              (j)

                              encourage all states to do as most EU Member States have already done and endorse and implement the Safe Schools Declaration and its accompanying Guidelines for Protecting Schools and Universities from Military Use during Armed Conflict, which serve as guidance on the responsibility to protect core values, especially academic freedom and institutional autonomy, in the context of violent and coercive attacks on higher education;

                              (k)

                              work with the UN, the Council of Europe, international agencies, civil society and higher education communities to create mechanisms for monitoring and reporting attacks, threats and undue restrictions on higher education and individual scholars and to strengthen and promote monitoring in order to raise awareness, hold perpetrators to account and improve efforts to prevent and respond to attacks on academic freedom;

                              (l)

                              engage and encourage regular dialogue with university communities and organisations whose mission it is to protect higher education communities and promote academic freedom, in order to develop the best policy frameworks, initiatives and advocacy strategies for academic freedom;

                              (m)

                              contribute to the development of capacities for prompt, thorough and transparent investigations of violations of academic freedom, particularly in situations involving violent attacks; improve efforts to prevent and respond to attacks on academic freedom and undertake all reasonable efforts to hold perpetrators to account;

                              (n)

                              foster work on research and advocacy aimed at reforming legislation and regulations imposing undue restrictions on academic freedom or the academic autonomy of higher education institutions, and promote institutional autonomy as a way of protecting systems of higher education from state, business or other non-state actors’ interference or attacks and preserving higher education from politicisation and ideological manipulation;

                              (o)

                              step up diplomatic efforts with partner countries through bilateral and multilateral engagement in relation to incidents of concern involving threats or attacks on academic freedom, in particular violent attacks on institutions and members of the higher education community, as well as discriminatory policies or practices, undue restrictions on research or expression, wrongful prosecution or detention;

                              (p)

                              revisit existing support and protection mechanisms for human rights defenders to develop the capacity to identify and provide assistance, including emergency protection and support, in cases involving attacks on academic freedom, including through physical protection, legal and visa support, medical support, trial and prison monitoring, advocacy and lobbying, and long-term support during exile; calls, in particular, on the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights to include among its priorities the promotion of academic freedom and support for at-risk members of the academic community;

                              (q)

                              review existing programmes and resources for academic mobility and other forms of education and research cooperation, including their criteria, application procedures, requirements, timeframes and schedules, for the purpose of eliminating obstacles which might preclude otherwise qualified at-risk academics or students from being able to obtain access to programme opportunities, placements or other resources; promote the existing projects financed by the EU, such as the ‘Academic Refuge’, which strive to raise greater awareness of the importance of academic freedom in the higher education sector and the consequences for society at large when this freedom is repressed;

                              (r)

                              ensure that the EU’s macro-financial assistance programmes for third countries and the policies of European financial institutions do not undermine academic freedom by supporting policies that reduce the allocation of national income to the education sector;

                              (s)

                              create new initiatives within existing and future programmes — possibly as synergies developed and funded by the Union through its non-education and research budgets — such as the Instrument for Pre-Accession (IPA III), Horizon 2020, Erasmus+ and the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions, for new EU-funded programme actions to support the placement of at-risk academics, student researchers and full degree students with international protection status in European higher education and research institutions;

                              (t)

                              support ongoing normative efforts at regional and international level, including through the adoption of an international declaration on academic freedom and the autonomy of higher education institutions; encourages the EU and its Member States to take initiative on academic freedom at the UN Human Rights Council;

                              (u)

                              ensure continued, high-level support to the European Inter-University Centre and the Global Campus on Human Rights and Democracy, as a flagship of the EU’s support to human rights education worldwide;

                  2.

                  Instructs its President to forward this recommendation to the Council, the Commission and the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.


title: Recommendation of the European Systemic Risk Board of 22 December 2020 amending Recommendation ESRB/2015/2 on the assessment of cross-border effects of and voluntary reciprocity for macroprudential policy measures (ESRB/2020/16) 2021/C 43/01

text:
                  8.2.2021

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  C 43/1

         RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN SYSTEMIC RISK BOARD
         of 22 December 2020
         amending Recommendation ESRB/2015/2 on the assessment of cross-border effects of and voluntary reciprocity for macroprudential policy measures
         (ESRB/2020/16)
         (2021/C 43/01)
         THE GENERAL BOARD OF THE EUROPEAN SYSTEMIC RISK BOARD,
         Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
         Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on European Union macro-prudential oversight of the financial system and establishing a European Systemic Risk Board (1), and in particular Articles 3 and 16 to 18 thereof,
         Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (2), and in particular Article 458(8) thereof,
         Having regard to Decision ESRB/2011/1 of the European Systemic Risk Board of 20 January 2011 adopting the Rules of Procedure of the European systemic Risk Board (3), and in particular Articles 18 to 20 thereof,
         Whereas:

                     (1)

                     In order to ensure effective and consistent national macroprudential policy measures, it is important to complement the mandatory reciprocity required under Union law with voluntary reciprocity.

                     (2)

                     The framework on voluntary reciprocity for macroprudential policy measures set out in Recommendation ESRB/2015/2 of the European Systemic Risk Board (4) aims to ensure that all exposure-based macroprudential policy measures activated in one Member State are reciprocated in the other Member States.

                     (3)

                     On 8 January 2018, pursuant to Recommendation ESRB/2018/1 of the European Systemic Risk Board (5), Recommendation ESRB/2015/2 was amended in order to recommend the reciprocation of a 15 per cent floor for the average risk-weight on residential mortgage loans secured by a mortgage on housing units in Finland, which was applied by Finanssivalvonta (the Finnish Financial Supervisory Authority), in accordance with Article 458(2)(d)(vi) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (hereinafter the ‘CRR’), to credit institutions authorised in Finland which use the Internal Ratings Based (IRB) Approach for calculating regulatory capital requirements.

                     (4)

                     In response to Finanssivalvonta’s decision of 30 September 2020 not to renew, from 31 December 2020, the risk weight floor, the General Board of the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) has decided to exclude the Finnish measure from the list of macroprudential policy measures which are recommended to be reciprocated under Recommendation ESRB/2015/2.

                     (5)

                     Therefore, Recommendation ESRB/2015/2 should be amended accordingly,

               HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:

            SECTION I

            AMENDMENTS

         Recommendation ESRB/2015/2 is amended as follows:

                     1.

                     in Section 1, sub-recommendation C(1) is replaced by the following:

                                 ‘1.

                                 The relevant authorities are recommended to reciprocate the macroprudential policy measures adopted by other relevant authorities and recommended for reciprocation by the ESRB. It is recommended that the following measures, as further described in the Annex, be reciprocated:
                                 Belgium:

                                             —

                                             a risk-weight add-on for retail exposures secured by residential immovable property located in Belgium applied in accordance with Article 458(2)(d)(vi) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 to credit institutions authorised in Belgium which use the IRB Approach for calculating regulatory capital requirements and composed of:

                                                         (a)

                                                         a flat risk-weight add-on of 5 percentage points; and

                                                         (b)

                                                         a proportionate risk-weight add-on consisting of 33 per cent of the exposure-weighted average of the risk-weights applied to the portfolio of retail exposures secured by residential immovable property located in Belgium;

                                       France:

                                             —

                                             a tightening of the large exposure limit provided for in Article 395(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, applicable to exposures to highly-indebted large non-financial corporations having their registered office in France to 5 per cent of eligible capital, applied in accordance with Article 458(2)(d)(ii) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 to global systemically important institutions (G-SIIs) and other systemically important institutions (O-SIIs) at the highest level of consolidation of their banking prudential perimeter;

                                       Sweden:

                                             —

                                             a credit institution-specific floor of 25 per cent for the exposure-weighted average of the risk weights applied to the portfolio of retail exposures to obligors residing in Sweden secured by immovable property in accordance with Article 458(2)(d)(vi) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 to credit institutions authorised in Sweden which use the IRB Approach for calculating regulatory capital requirements.’;

                     2.

                     The Annex is replaced by the Annex to this Recommendation.

            SECTION II

            ENTRY INTO FORCE

         This Recommendation shall enter into force on 1 January 2021.

            Done at Frankfurt am Main, 22 December 2020.

                  The Head of the ESRB Secretariat,

                  on behalf of the General Board of the ESRB

               Francesco MAZZAFERRO

            (1)  OJ L 331, 15.12.2010, p. 1.

            (2)  OJ L 176, 27.6.2013, p. 1.

            (3)  OJ C 58, 24.2.2011, p. 4.

            (4)  Recommendation ESRB/2015/2 of the European Systemic Risk Board of 15 December 2015 on the assessment of cross-border effects of and voluntary reciprocity for macroprudential policy measures (OJ C 97, 12.3.2016, p. 9).

            (5)  Recommendation ESRB/2018/1 of the European Systemic Risk Board of 8 January 2018 amending Recommendation ESRB/2015/2 on the assessment of cross-border effects of and voluntary reciprocity for macroprudential policy measures (OJ C 41, 3.2.2018, p. 1).

            ANNEX
            The Annex to Recommendation ESRB/2015/2 is replaced by the following:

                     ‘ANNEX

                        Belgium

                           A risk weight add-on for retail exposures secured by residential immovable property located in Belgium, imposed on credit institutions authorised in Belgium using the IRB Approach and applied in accordance with Article 458(2)(d)(vi) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013. The add-on is composed of two components:

                                 (a)

                                       a flat risk weight add-on of 5 percentage points; and

                                 (b)

                                       a proportionate risk weight add-on consisting of 33 per cent of the exposure-weighted average of the risk weights applied to the portfolio of retail exposures secured by residential immovable property located in Belgium.

                           I.   Description of the measure

                                 1.

                                 The Belgian measure, applied in accordance with Article 458(2)(d)(vi) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 and imposed on credit institutions authorised in Belgium using the IRB Approach, consists of a risk weight add-on for retail exposures secured by residential immovable property located in Belgium, which is composed of two components:

                                             (a)

                                             The first component consists of a 5 percentage point increase to the risk weight for retail exposures secured by residential immovable property located in Belgium obtained after computing the second part of the risk-weight add-on in accordance with point (b).

                                             (b)

                                             The second component consists of a risk-weight increase of 33 per cent of the exposure-weighted average of the risk-weights applied to the portfolio of retail exposures secured by residential immovable property located in Belgium. The exposure-weighted average is the average of the risk-weights of the individual loans calculated in accordance with Article 154 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, weighted by the relevant exposure value.

                           II.   Reciprocation

                                 2.

                                 In accordance with Article 458(5) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, relevant authorities of the Member States concerned are recommended to reciprocate the Belgian measure by applying it to branches located in Belgium of domestically authorised credit institutions using the IRB Approach within the deadline specified in sub-recommendation C(3).

                                 3.

                                 Relevant authorities are recommended to reciprocate the Belgian measure by applying it to domestically authorised credit institutions using the IRB Approach that have direct retail exposures secured by residential immovable property located in Belgium. In accordance with sub-recommendation C(2), the relevant authorities are recommended to apply the same measure as the one that has been implemented in Belgium by the activating authority within the deadline specified in sub-recommendation C(3).

                                 4.

                                 If the same macroprudential policy measure is not available in their jurisdiction, the relevant authorities are recommended to apply, following consultation with the ESRB, a macroprudential policy measure available in their jurisdiction that has the most equivalent effect to the above measure recommended for reciprocation, including adopting supervisory measures and powers laid down in Title VII, Chapter 2, Section IV of Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (*1). Relevant authorities are recommended to adopt the equivalent measure by no later than four months following the publication of this Recommendation in the Official Journal of the European Union.

                           III.   Materiality threshold

                                 5.

                                 The measure is complemented by an institution-specific materiality threshold of EUR 2 billion to steer the potential application of the de minimis principle by the relevant authorities reciprocating the measure.

                                 6.

                                 In line with Section 2.2.1 of Recommendation ESRB/2015/2, relevant authorities of the Member State concerned may exempt individual domestically authorised credit institutions using the IRB Approach having non-material retail exposures secured by residential immovable property in Belgium which are below the materiality threshold of EUR 2 billion. When applying the materiality threshold, the relevant authorities should monitor the materiality of exposures and are recommended to apply the Belgian measure to previously exempted individual domestically authorised credit institutions when the materiality threshold of EUR 2 billion is breached.

                                 7.

                                 Where there are no credit institutions authorised in the Member States concerned with branches located in Belgium or which have direct retail exposures secured by residential immovable property in Belgium, which use the IRB Approach and which have exposures of EUR 2 billion or above to the Belgian residential immovable property market, relevant authorities of the Member States concerned may, pursuant to Section 2.2.1 of Recommendation ESRB/2015/2, decide not to reciprocate the Belgian measure. In this case the relevant authorities should monitor the materiality of the exposures and are recommended to reciprocate the Belgian measure when a credit institution using the IRB Approach exceeds the threshold of EUR 2 billion.

                                 8.

                                 In line with Section 2.2.1 of Recommendation ESRB/2015/2, the materiality threshold of EUR 2 billion is a recommended maximum threshold level. Reciprocating relevant authorities may therefore instead of applying the recommended threshold set a lower threshold for their jurisdictions where appropriate, or reciprocate the measure without any materiality threshold.

                        France

                        A tightening of the large exposure limit provided for in Article 395(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, applicable to exposures to highly-indebted large non-financial corporations having their registered office in France to 5 per cent of eligible capital, applied in accordance with Article 458(2)(d)(ii) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 to global systemically important institutions (G-SIIs) and other systemically important institutions (O-SIIs) at the highest level of consolidation of their banking prudential perimeter.

                     I.   Description of the measure

                                 1.

                                 The French measure, applied in accordance with Article 458(2)(d)(ii) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 and imposed on G-SIIs and O-SIIs at the highest level of consolidation of their banking prudential perimeter (not at a sub-consolidated level), consists of a tightening of the large exposure limit to 5 per cent of their eligible capital, applicable to exposures to highly-indebted large non-financial corporations having their registered office in France.

                                 2.

                                 A non-financial corporation is defined as a natural or legal person under private law having its registered office in France, and which, at its level and at the highest level of consolidation, belongs to the non-financial corporations sector as defined in point 2.45 of Annex A to Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (*2)

                                 3.

                                 The measure applies to exposures to non-financial corporations having their registered office in France and to exposures to groups of connected non-financial corporations as follows:

                                             (a)

                                             For non-financial corporations which are part of a group of connected non-financial corporations having its registered office at the highest level of consolidation in France, the measure applies to the sum of the net exposures towards the group and all its connected entities within the meaning of point (39) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013;

                                             (b)

                                             For non-financial corporations which are part of a group of connected non-financial corporations having its registered office at the highest level of consolidation outside France, the measure applies to the sum of:

                                                         (i)

                                                         the exposures to those non-financial corporations having their registered office in France;

                                                         (ii)

                                                         the exposures to the entities in France or abroad over which the non-financial corporations referred to in (i) have direct or indirect control within the meaning of point (39) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013; and

                                                         (iii)

                                                         the exposures to the entities in France or abroad which are economically dependent on the non-financial corporations referred to in (i) within the meaning of point (39) of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013.
                                                         Non-financial corporations which do not have their registered office in France and which are not a subsidiary or an economically dependent entity of, and which are not directly or indirectly controlled by, a non-financial corporation having its registered office in France, therefore fall outside the scope of the measure.
                                                         In accordance with Article 395(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, the measure is applicable after taking into account the effect of the credit risk mitigation techniques and exemptions in accordance with Articles 399 to 403 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013.

                                 4.

                                 A G-SII or an O-SII must consider a non-financial corporation having its registered office in France as large if its original exposure to the non-financial corporation, or to the group of connected non-financial corporations within the meaning of paragraph 3, is equal to or larger than EUR 300 million. The original exposure value is calculated in accordance with Articles 389 and 390 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 before taking into account the effect of credit risk mitigation techniques and exemptions set out in Articles 399 to 403 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, as reported in accordance with Article 9 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 (*3).

                                 5.

                                 A non-financial corporation is considered highly-indebted if it has a leverage ratio that is greater than 100 per cent and a financial charges coverage ratio that is below three, calculated at the highest level of group consolidation as follows:

                                             (a)

                                             The leverage ratio is the ratio between total debt net of cash and equity; and

                                             (b)

                                             The financial charges coverage ratio is the ratio between, on the one hand, the value added plus operating subsidies less: (i) payroll; (ii) operating taxes and duties; (iii) other net ordinary operating expenses excluding net interest and similar charges; and (iv) depreciation and amortisation, and, on the other hand, interest and similar charges.
                                             The ratios are calculated based on accounting aggregates defined in accordance with the applicable standards, as presented in the non-financial corporation’s financial statements, certified where appropriate by a chartered accountant.

                           II.   Reciprocation

                                 6.

                                 Relevant authorities are recommended to reciprocate the French measure by applying it to domestically authorised G-SIIs and O-SIIs at the highest level of consolidation within the jurisdiction of their banking prudential perimeter.

                                 7.

                                 If the same macroprudential policy measure is not available in their jurisdiction, in line with sub-recommendation C(2), the relevant authorities are recommended to apply, following consultation with the ESRB, a macroprudential policy measure available in their jurisdiction that has the most equivalent effect to the above measure recommended for reciprocation. The relevant authorities are recommended to adopt the equivalent measure by no later than six months following the publication of this Recommendation in the Official Journal of the European Union.

                           III.   Materiality threshold

                                 8.

                                 The measure is complemented by a combined materiality threshold to steer the potential application of the de minimis principle by the relevant authorities reciprocating the measure, which is composed of:

                                             (a)

                                             A threshold of EUR 2 billion for the total original exposures of domestically authorised G-SIIs and O-SIIs at the highest level of consolidation of the banking prudential perimeter to the French non-financial corporations sector;

                                             (b)

                                             A threshold of EUR 300 million applicable to domestically authorised G-SIIs and O-SIIs equalling or exceeding the threshold mentioned in (a) for:

                                                         (i)

                                                         a single original exposure to a non-financial corporation having its registered office in France;

                                                         (ii)

                                                         the sum of original exposures to a group of connected non-financial corporations, which has its registered office at the highest level of consolidation in France, calculated in accordance with paragraph 3(a);

                                                         (iii)

                                                         the sum of original exposures to non-financial corporations having their registered office in France which are part of a group of connected non-financial corporations having its registered office at the highest level of consolidation outside France as reported in templates C 28.00 and C 29.00 of Annex VIII to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 680/2014;

                                             (c)

                                             A threshold of 5 per cent of the G-SII’s or O-SII’s eligible capital at the highest level of consolidation, for exposures identified in (b) after taking into account the effect of the credit risk mitigation techniques and exemptions in accordance with Articles 399 to 403 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013.
                                             The thresholds referred to in paragraphs (b) and (c) are to be applied irrespective of whether the relevant entity or non-financial corporation is highly-indebted or not.
                                             The original exposure value referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) is to be calculated in accordance with Articles 389 and 390 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 before taking into account the effect of credit risk mitigation techniques and exemptions set out in Articles 399 to 403 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 as reported in accordance with Article 9 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 680/2014.

                                 9.

                                 In line with Section 2.2.1 of Recommendation ESRB/2015/2, the relevant authorities of the Member State concerned may exempt domestically authorised G-SIIs or O-SIIs at the highest level of consolidation of their banking prudential perimeter which do not breach the combined materiality threshold referred to in paragraph 8. When applying the materiality threshold, the relevant authorities should monitor the materiality of the exposures of domestically authorised G-SIIs and O-SIIs to the French non-financial corporations sector as well as the exposure concentration of domestically authorised G-SIIs and O-SIIs to large non-financial corporations having their registered office in France, and are recommended to apply the French measure to previously exempted domestically authorised G-SIIs or O-SIIs at the highest level of consolidation of their banking prudential perimeter when the combined materiality threshold referred to in paragraph 8 is breached. Relevant authorities are also encouraged to signal the systemic risks associated with the increased leverage of large non-financial corporations having their registered office in France to other market participants in their jurisdiction.

                                 10.

                                 Where there are no G-SIIs or O-SIIs at the highest level of consolidation of their banking prudential perimeter authorised in the Member States concerned and having exposures to the French non-financial corporations sector above the materiality threshold referred to in paragraph 8, the relevant authorities of the Member States concerned may, pursuant to Section 2.2.1 of Recommendation ESRB/2015/2, decide not to reciprocate the French measure. In this case the relevant authorities should monitor the materiality of the exposures of domestically authorised G-SIIs and O-SIIs to the French non-financial corporations sector as well as the exposure concentration of domestically authorised G-SIIs and O-SIIs to large non-financial corporations having their registered office in France, and are recommended to reciprocate the French measure when a G-SII or O-SII at the highest level of consolidation of its banking prudential perimeter exceeds the combined materiality threshold referred to in paragraph 8. Relevant authorities are also encouraged to signal the systemic risks associated with the increased leverage of large non-financial corporations having their registered office in France to other market participants in their jurisdiction.

                                 11.

                                 In line with Section 2.2.1 of Recommendation ESRB/2015/2, the combined materiality threshold referred to in paragraph 8 is a recommended maximum threshold level. Reciprocating relevant authorities may therefore instead of applying the recommended threshold set a lower threshold for their jurisdictions where appropriate, or reciprocate the measure without any materiality threshold.

                        Sweden

                        A credit institution-specific floor of 25 per cent for the exposure-weighted average of the risk weights applied to the portfolio of retail exposures to obligors residing in Sweden secured by immovable property in accordance with Article 458(2)(d)(vi) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 to credit institutions authorised in Sweden, using the IRB Approach for calculating regulatory capital requirements.

                     I.   Description of the measure

                                 1.

                                 The Swedish measure, applied in accordance with Article 458(2)(d)(vi) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 and imposed on credit institutions authorised in Sweden using the IRB Approach, consists of a credit institution-specific floor of 25 per cent for exposure-weighted average of the risk weights applied to the portfolio of retail exposures to obligors residing in Sweden secured by immovable property.

                                 2.

                                 The exposure-weighted average is the average of the risk weights of the individual exposures calculated in accordance with Article 154 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, weighted by the relevant exposure value.

                           II.   Reciprocation

                                 3.

                                 In accordance with Article 458(5) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, relevant authorities of the Member States concerned are recommended to reciprocate the Swedish measure by applying it to branches located in Sweden of domestically authorised credit institutions using the IRB Approach within the deadline specified in sub-recommendation C(3).

                                 4.

                                 Relevant authorities are recommended to reciprocate the Swedish measure by applying it to domestically authorised credit institutions using the IRB Approach that have direct retail exposures to obligors residing in Sweden secured by immovable property. In accordance with sub-recommendation C(2), the relevant authorities are recommended to apply the same measure as the one that has been implemented in Sweden by the activating authority within the deadline specified in sub-recommendation C(3).

                                 5.

                                 If the same macroprudential policy measure is not available in their jurisdiction, the relevant authorities are recommended to apply, following consultation with the ESRB, a macroprudential policy measure available in their jurisdiction that has the most equivalent effect to the above measure recommended for reciprocation. Relevant authorities are recommended to adopt the equivalent measure by no later than four months following the publication of this Recommendation in the Official Journal of the European Union.

                           III.   Materiality threshold

                                 6.

                                 The measure is complemented by an institution-specific materiality threshold of SEK 5 billion to steer the potential application of the de minimis principle by the relevant authorities reciprocating the measure.

                                 7.

                                 In line with Section 2.2.1 of Recommendation ESRB/2015/2, relevant authorities of the Member State concerned may exempt individual domestically authorised credit institutions using the IRB Approach having non-material retail exposures to obligors residing in Sweden secured by immovable property which are below the materiality threshold of SEK 5 billion. When applying the materiality threshold, the relevant authorities should monitor the materiality of exposures and are recommended to apply the Swedish measure to previously exempted individual domestically authorised credit institutions when the materiality threshold of SEK 5 billion is exceeded.

                                 8.

                                 Where there are no credit institutions authorised in the Member States concerned with branches located in Sweden or which have direct retail exposures to obligors residing in Sweden, secured by immovable property, which use the IRB Approach and which have retail exposures of SEK 5 billion or above to obligors residing in Sweden, secured by immovable property, relevant authorities of the Member States concerned may, pursuant to Section 2.2.1 of Recommendation ESRB/2015/2, decide not to reciprocate the Swedish measure. In this case the relevant authorities should monitor the materiality of the exposures and are recommended to reciprocate the Swedish measure when a credit institution using the IRB Approach exceeds the threshold of SEK 5 billion.

                                 9.

                                 In line with Section 2.2.1 of Recommendation ESRB/2015/2, the materiality threshold of SEK 5 billion is a recommended maximum threshold level. Reciprocating relevant authorities may therefore, instead of applying the recommended threshold, set a lower threshold for their jurisdictions where appropriate, or reciprocate the measure without any materiality threshold.

               .

               (*1)  OJ L 176, 27.6.2013, p. 338.

               (*2)  Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on the European system of national and regional accounts in the European Union (OJ L 174, 26.6.2013, p. 1).

               (*3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 680/2014 of 16 April 2014 laying down implementing technical standards with regard to supervisory reporting of institutions according to Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 191, 28.6.2014, p. 1).’


title: Commission Recommendation (EU) 2021/946 of 3 June 2021 on a common Union Toolbox for a coordinated approach towards a European Digital Identity Framework

text:
               14.6.2021

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 210/51

      COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION (EU) 2021/946
      of 3 June 2021
      on a common Union Toolbox for a coordinated approach towards a European Digital Identity Framework
      THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
      Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 292 thereof,
      Whereas:

                  (1)

                  In just one year, the COVID-19 pandemic has radically changed the role and relevance of digitalisation in our societies and economies, and accelerated its pace. In a response to the increased digitalisation of services, the demand by users and business for means to identify and authenticate online, as well as to digitally exchange information related to identity, attributes or qualifications, in a secure way and with a high level of data protection, has increased radically.

                  (2)

                  The objective of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) (the ‘eIDAS Regulation’) is to enable the cross-border recognition of government electronic identification (‘eIDs’) to access public services, and to establish a Union market for trust services recognised across borders with the same legal status as the traditional equivalent paper-based processes.

                  (3)

                  In its conclusions of 1-2 October 2020, the European Council called on the Commission to make a proposal for the development of an EU-wide framework for secure public electronic identification, including interoperable digital signatures, to provide people with control over their online identity and data as well as to enable access to public, private and cross-border digital services.

                  (4)

                  The Commission Communication ‘2030 Digital Compass: the European way for the Digital Decade’ (2) sets the objective that, by 2030, the Union and its citizens should benefit from a wide deployment of a trusted, user-controlled identity, allowing each user to control their own online interactions and presence.

                  (5)

                  The Commission adopted a proposal to amend the eIDAS Regulation (3). It proposes a European Digital Identity framework to offer users self-determined personal digital wallets that would allow for a secure and easy access to different services, both public and private, under the users full control. In addition, it creates a new qualified trust service for attestation of attributes concerning information related to identity, such as addresses, age, gender, civil status, family composition, nationality, educational and professional qualifications and titles, licenses, other permits and payment data, that can be offered, shared and exchanged across borders, in full security, data protection and with legal effect across borders.

                  (6)

                  Given the acceleration of digitisation, Member States have deployed or are developing national electronic identity systems including digital wallets and national trust frameworks for the integration of attributes and credentials. Other solutions are being prepared or in the process of being deployed by private sector operators.

                  (7)

                  The development of divergent national solutions creates fragmentation and deprives people and businesses from the benefits of the Single Market, as they cannot use secure, convenient and uniform identification systems across the Union to access both public and private services.

                  (8)

                  To support the competitiveness of European businesses, online service providers should be able to rely on digital identity solutions recognised across the Union, irrespective of the Member State in which they have been issued, thus benefiting from a harmonised European approach to trust, security and interoperability. Users and service providers alike should be able to benefit from the same legal value provided to electronic attestations of attributes valid across the Union.

                  (9)

                  In order to avoid fragmentation and barriers due to diverging standards, and to ensure a coordinated process to impede endangering the implementation of the future European Digital Identity framework, there needs to be a process for close and structured cooperation between the Commission, the Member States and the private sector.

                  (10)

                  To accelerate the path towards achieving this objective, Member States should increase their cooperation and identify a Toolbox for a European Digital Identity framework. The toolbox should lead to a technical architecture and reference framework, a set of common standards and technical references as well as best practices and guidelines as a basis for the implementation of the European Digital Identity framework. To ensure a harmonised approach for electronic identity in line with the expectations of citizens and businesses, including of persons with disabilities, cooperation should start immediately in parallel and in full respect of the legislative process and in alignment with its outcome.

                  (11)

                  This Recommendation sets up a structured process of cooperation between Member States, the Commission and, where relevant, private sector operators to develop the Toolbox.

                  (12)

                  The Toolbox should cover four cross-cutting dimensions, namely the provision and exchange of identity attributes, functionality and security of the European Digital Identity Wallets, reliance on the European Digital Identity Wallet including identity matching, and governance. The Toolbox should meet the requirements laid out in the proposal for a European Digital Identity framework. It should be updated as necessary following the outcome of the legislative process.

                  (13)

                  Collaboration between Member States is necessary for the exchange of best practices and the development of guidelines in areas where harmonisation is not required, but an alignment of practices would support implementation of the European Digital Identity framework by Member State.

                  (14)

                  The eIDAS expert group shall be tasked as main interlocutor for the purposes of implementing this Recommendation.

                  (15)

                  Catalogues of attributes and schemes for the attestation of attributes have already been established in other areas, such as for the Once Only Technical System of the Single Digital Gateway Regulation or other data exchange initiatives at European level. Alignment and reuse of that work should be considered to ensure interoperability considering also the principles of the European Interoperability framework.

                  (16)

                  Existing international and European standards and technical specifications should be re-used where appropriate and reference pilots and test implementations of the European Identity Digital Wallet framework and related components should be carried out to facilitate deployment, up-take and interoperability.

            HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:
      1.   OBJECTIVES AND DEFINITIONS

                  (1)

                  It is recommended that Member States work towards the development of a Toolbox to support the implementation of the European Digital Identity framework in close coordination with the Commission and, where relevant, other concerned public and private sector parties. In particular, Member States are recommended to work closely together on the basis of a proposal by the Commission to identify the following elements as part of the Toolbox:

                              (a)

                              a technical architecture and reference framework defining the functioning of the European Digital Identity framework in accordance with the eIDAS Regulation, taking into account the Commission’s proposal for a European Digital Identity framework;

                              (b)

                              common standards and technical specifications further to point 3(2);

                              (c)

                              common guidelines and best practices in areas where alignment of practices will support the smooth functioning of the European Digital Identity framework further to point 3(3) of this Recommendation.

                  (2)

                  For the purposes of this Recommendation, the definitions set out in the Commission’s proposal for a European Digital Identity framework apply.

            2.   PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING A TOOLBOX

                  (1)

                  It is recommended that Member States implement this Recommendation through the eIDAS expert group. The general rules of procedure of that expert group apply.

                  (2)

                  Standardisation bodies, relevant private and public sector stakeholders and external experts will be consulted and associated to the process as appropriate.

                  (3)

                  The following schedule for the implementation of this Recommendation is foreseen:

                              (a)

                              by September 2021: agreement on process and working procedures, launch of data collection exercise from Member States and discussion of technical architecture outline;

                              (b)

                              by December 2021: agreement on technical architecture outline;

                              (c)

                              by June 2022, identification of specific technical architecture, standards and references, guidelines and best practices for:

                                          (1)

                                          the provision and exchange of identity attributes;

                                          (2)

                                          functionality and security of the European Digital Identity Wallets;

                                          (3)

                                          reliance on the European Digital Identity Wallets including identity matching;

                                          (4)

                                          governance;

                              (d)

                              by 30 September 2022: agreement between the Member States, in close cooperation with the Commission, on the Toolbox for the implementation of the European Digital Identity framework including a comprehensive technical architecture and reference framework, common standards and technical references and guidelines and best practices;

                              (e)

                              by 30 October 2022: publication of the toolbox by the Commission.

                  (4)

                  Notwithstanding point 4 ‘Review’, it is recommended that the Member States and other concerned parties implement the toolbox following its publication, in the form of test implementations and reference pilots.

            3.   COOPERATION AT UNION LEVEL TO DEVELOP A TOOLBOX TO SUPPORT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EUROPEAN DIGITAL IDENTITY FRAMEWORK

         Content of the Toolbox

                  (1)

                  In order to facilitate the implementation of the European Digital Identity framework, it is recommended that Member States cooperate to establish a toolbox including a comprehensive technical architecture and reference framework, a set of common standards and technical references and a set of guidelines and descriptions of best practices. The scope of the toolbox should cover at least all aspects of the functionality of the European Digital Identity Wallets and of the qualified trust service for attestation of attributes as proposed by the Commission’s proposal for a European Digital Identity framework. The content should evolve in parallel with and reflect the outcome of the discussion and process of adoption of the European Digital Identity Framework.

         Common Standards and Technical References

                  (2)

                  It is recommended that Member States identify common standards and technical references in particular in the following areas: European Digital Identity Wallets user functionalities including signing by means of qualified electronic signatures, interfaces and protocols, level of assurance, notification of relying parties and verification of their authenticity, electronic attestation of attributes, mechanisms for verifying validity of electronic attestations of attributes and associated person identification data, certification, publication of a list of European Digital Identity Wallets, communication of security breaches, verification of identity and attributes by qualified trust providers of electronic attestations of attributes, identity matching, minimum list of attributes from authentic sources such as addresses, age, gender, civil status, family composition, nationality, educational and professional qualifications, titles and licenses, other permits and payment data, catalogue of attributes and schemes for the attestation of attributes and verification procedures for qualified electronic attestations of attributes, cooperation and governance.

         Guidelines, best practices and cooperation

                  (3)

                  It is recommended that Member States identify guidelines and best practices in particular in the following areas: business models and fees structure, verification of attributes against authentic sources including via designated intermediaries.

            4.   REVIEW

      It is recommended that Member States cooperate to update the deliverables resulting from this Recommendation after the adoption of the legislative proposal for a European Digital Identity Framework to account for the final text of the legislation.

         Done at Brussels, 3 June 2021.

               For the Commission

            Thierry BRETON

               Member of the Commission

         (1)  Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market and repealing Directive 1999/93/EC (OJ L 257, 28.8.2014, p. 73).

         (2)  COM(2021) 118 final.

         (3)  COM(2021) 281 final.


title: Council Recommendation (EU) 2021/992 of 18 June 2021 amending Recommendation (EU) 2020/912 on the temporary restriction on non-essential travel into the EU and the possible lifting of such restriction

text:
                  21.6.2021

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  L 221/12

         COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION (EU) 2021/992
         of 18 June 2021
         amending Recommendation (EU) 2020/912 on the temporary restriction on non-essential travel into the EU and the possible lifting of such restriction
         THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
         Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article Article 77(2)(b) and (e) and Article 292, first and second sentence thereof,
         Whereas:

                     (1)

                     On 30 June 2020, the Council adopted a Recommendation on the temporary restriction on non-essential travel into the EU and the possible lifting of such restriction (1) (‘Council Recommendation’).

                     (2)

                     Since then, the Council adopted Recommendations (EU) 2020/1052 (2), (EU) 2020/1144 (3), (EU) 2020/1186 (4), (EU) 2020/1551 (5), (EU) 2020/2169 (6), (EU) 2021/89 (7), (EU) 2021/132 (8), (EU) 2021/767 (9) and (EU) 2021/892 (10) amending Council Recommendation (EU) 2020/912 on the temporary restriction on non-essential travel into the EU and the possible lifting of such restriction.

                     (3)

                     On 20 May 2021, the Council adopted Recommendation (EU) 2021/816 amending Recommendation (EU) 2020/912 on the temporary restriction on non-essential travel into the EU and the possible lifting of such restriction (11) in order to update the criteria used to assess whether non-essential travel from third countries is safe and should be allowed.

                     (4)

                     The Council Recommendation provides that Member States should gradually lift the temporary restriction on non-essential travel to the EU as from 1 July 2020 in a coordinated manner with regard to the residents of the third countries listed in Annex I to the Council Recommendation. Every two weeks, the list of third countries referred to in Annex I should be reviewed, and as the case may be updated, by the Council, after close consultation with the Commission and the relevant EU agencies and services following an overall assessment based on the methodology, criteria and information referred to in the Council Recommendation.

                     (5)

                     Discussions have since then taken place within the Council, in close consultation with the Commission and the relevant EU agencies and services, on the review of the list of third countries set out in Annex I to the Council Recommendation and in application of the criteria and methodology laid down in the Council Recommendation, as amended by Recommendation (EU) 2021/816. As a result of these discussions, the list of third countries set out in Annex I should be amended. In particular, Albania, Lebanon, Republic of North Macedonia, Serbia and United States of America should be added to the list, as well as Taiwan, under the category of entities and territorial authorities that are not recognised as states by at least one Memeber State. As regards Hong Kong and Macao, non-essential travel should now be possible without the requirement of reciprocity.

                     (6)

                     Border control is in the interest not only of the Member State at whose external borders it is carried out but of all Member States which have abolished internal border control. Member States should therefore ensure that measures taken at the external borders are coordinated in order to ensure a well functioning Schengen area. To that end, as of 18 June 2021, Member States should continue lifting the temporary restriction on non-essential travel into the EU in a coordinated manner with regard to the residents of the third countries, Special Administrative Regions and other entities and territorial authorities listed in Annex I of the Council Recommendation as amended by this Recommendation.

                     (7)

                     In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 22 on the Position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the TFEU, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Recommendation and is not bound by it or subject to its application. Given that this Recommendation builds upon the Schengen acquis, Denmark shall, in accordance with Article 4 of the said Protocol, decide within a period of six months after the Council has decided on this Recommendation whether it will implement it.

                     (8)

                     This Recommendation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in which Ireland does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2002/192/EC (12); Ireland is therefore not taking part in its adoption and is not bound by it or subject to its application.

                     (9)

                     As regards Iceland and Norway, this Recommendation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the latter's association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point A, of Council Decision 1999/437/EC (13).

                     (10)

                     As regards Switzerland, this Recommendation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation's association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point A, of Decision 1999/437/EC (14) read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2008/146/EC (15).

                     (11)

                     As regards Liechtenstein, this Recommendation constitutes a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Protocol between the European Union, the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation's association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis which fall within the area referred to in Article 1 point A, of Decision 1999/437/EC (16) read in conjunction with Article 3 of Decision 2011/350/EU (17),

               HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:
         Recommendation (EU) 2020/912, as amended by Recommendation (EU) 2020/1052, by Recommendation (EU) 2020/1144, by Recommendation (EU) 2020/1186, by Recommendation (EU) 2020/1551, by Recommendation (EU) 2020/2169, by Recommendation (EU) 2021/89, by Recommendation (EU) 2021/132, by Recommendation (EU) 2021/767, by Recommendation (EU) 2021/816 and by Recommendation (EU) 2021/892 on the temporary restriction on non-essential travel into the EU and the possible lifting of such restriction is amended as follows:

                     (1)

                     The first paragraph of point 1 of the Council Recommendation is replaced by the following:

                                 1.

                                 As from 18 June 2021, Member States should gradually lift the temporary restriction on non-essential travel to the EU in a coordinated manner with regard to the residents of the third countries listed in Annex I.

                     (2)

                     Annex I to the Recommendation is replaced by the following:

                           ‘ANNEX I
                           Third countries, Special Administrative Regions and other entities and territorial authorities whose residents should not be affected by temporary external borders restriction on non-essential travel into the EU:
                           I.   STATES

                                       1.

                                       ALBANIA

                                       2.

                                       AUSTRALIA

                                       3.

                                       ISRAEL

                                       4.

                                       JAPAN

                                       5.

                                       LEBANON

                                       6.

                                       NEW ZEALAND

                                       7.

                                       REPUBLIC OF NORTH MACEDONIA

                                       8.

                                       RWANDA

                                       9.

                                       SERBIA

                                       10.

                                       SINGAPORE

                                       11.

                                       SOUTH KOREA

                                       12.

                                       THAILAND

                                       13.

                                       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                                       14.

                                       CHINA (*1)

                                 II.   SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGIONS OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

                                       Hong Kong SAR

                                       Macao SAR

                                 III.   ENTITIES AND TERRITORIAL AUTHORITIES THAT ARE NOT RECOGNISED AS STATES BY AT LEAST ONE MEMBER STATE

                                       Taiwan

                        (*1)  subject to confirmation of reciprocity"

            Done at Brussels, 18 June 2021.

                  For the Council

                  The President

               J. LEÃO

            (1)  OJ L 208 I, 1.7.2020, p. 1.

            (2)  OJ L 230, 17.7.2020, p. 26.

            (3)  OJ L 248, 31.7.2020, p. 26.

            (4)  OJ L 261, 11.8.2020, p. 83.

            (5)  OJ L 354, 26.10.2020, p. 19.

            (6)  OJ L 431, 21.12.2020, p. 75.

            (7)  OJ L 33, 29.1.2021, p. 1.

            (8)  OJ L 41, 4.2.2021, p. 1.

            (9)  OJ L 165 I, 11.5.2021, p. 66.

            (10)  OJ L 198, 4.6.2021, p. 1.

            (11)  OJ L 182, 21.5.2021, p. 1.

            (12)  Council Decision 2002/192/EC of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland’s request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis (OJ L 64, 7.3.2002, p. 20).

            (13)  OJ L 176, 10.7.1999, p. 31.

            (14)  OJ L 53, 27.2.2008, p. 52.

            (15)  Council Decision 2008/146/EC of 28 January 2008 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation’s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis (OJ L 53, 27.2.2008, p. 1).

            (16)  OJ L 160, 18.6.2011, p. 21.

            (17)  Council Decision 2011/350/EU of 7 March 2011 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Protocol between the European Union, the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation’s association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis, relating to the abolition of checks at internal borders and movement of persons (OJ L 160, 18.6.2011, p. 19).