Avis juridique important

|

31994H0079

94/79/EC: Commission Recommendation of 21 December 1993 on the taxation of certain items of income received by non-residents in a Member State other than that in which they are resident

Official Journal L 039 , 10/02/1994 P. 0022 - 0028

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION of 21 December 1993 on the taxation of certain items of income received by non-residents in a Member State other than that in which they are resident (94/79/EC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular the second indent of Article 155 thereof,  Whereas the internal market comprises an area without frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons services and capital is guaranteed;  Whereas the free movement of persons may be impeded by personal income tax arrangements which have the effect of imposing a heavier tax burden on non-residents than on residents in comparable situations;  Whereas steps should be taken to ensure that free movement of persons is fully guaranteed in the interests of the proper functioning of the internal market; whereas it is necessary to bring to the notice of the Member States the provisions which, in the  Commission's view, are likely to guarantee that non-residents enjoy the same tax treatment as residents;  Whereas this initiative does not affect the Commission's conduct of policy in the field of infringement procedures to ensure that the fundamental principles of the Treaty are respected;  Whereas no distinction should be made under this approach between the taxation of income from dependent personal services, income from professional activities of a self-employed nature, and income from agricultural and forestry activities and from  industrial and commercial activities, the rules of equal treatment and non-discrimination compared to residents applying equally to persons receiving such items of income;  Whereas the principle of equality of treatment stemming from Articles 48 and 52 of the Treaty requires that persons receiving the items of income in question should not, where the preponderant part of their income is received in the country of activity,  be deprived of the tax reliefs and deductions enjoyed by residents;  Whereas it might reasonably be assumed that a person receives the preponderant part of his income in the country of activity where such income constitutes at least 75 % of his total taxable income;  Whereas the Member State in which a natural person is resident should continue to have the option of not granting the deductions or other tax reliefs granted to residents where that person benefits from identical or similar deductions or other reliefs  in the Member State of activity;  Whereas the Member States continue to have the option of maintaining or introducing arrangements more favourable to taxpayers than those set out in this recommendation,  HEREBY MAKES THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION:   Scope   Article 1  1. Member States apply the provisions of this recommendation to natural persons who are residents of one Member State and who are subject to income tax in another Member State, without being resident there, on the following items of income:  - income from dependent personal services,  - pensions and other similar remuneration received in consideration of past employment, including social security pensions,  - income from professional occupations or other self-employed activities, including that of performing artists and sportsmen and sportswomen,  - income from agricultural and forestry activities,  - income from industrial and commercial activities.  2. For the purposes of this recommendation, the term 'resident' is to be defined according to the provisions of the double taxation agreements concluded between Member States or, in the absence of any such double taxation agreement, according to  national law.   Taxation of the income of non-residents   Article 2  1. Member States do not subject the items of income specified in Article 1 (1), in the Member State of taxation, to any heavier taxation than if the taxpayer, his spouse and his children were resident in that Member State.  2. Application of the provisions of paragraph 1 shall be subject to the condition that the items of income specified in Article 1 (1) which are taxable in the Member State in which the natural person is not resident constitute at least 75 % of that  person's total taxable income during the tax year.  The Member State of taxation may ask the natural person in question to provide any evidence necessary to prove that he derives at least 75 % of his income from that Member State.  3. Where a natural person benefiting from the tax treatment referred to in paragraph 1 has, in the Member State of taxation, income other than that referred to in Article 1 (1), the provisions of that paragraph shall also apply to that other income.  4. By way of derogation from the provision of paragraph 1, the Member State which taxes the items of income referred to in Article 1 (1) may decide not to grant deductions or other tax reliefs connected with income which is not taxable in that Member  State.   Double grant of deductions or other tax reliefs   Article 3  The Member State in which a natural person is resident may decide not to grant deductions or other tax reliefs which it normally grants to residents if that person benefits from identical or similar deductions or other reliefs in the Member  State which taxes the items of his income specified in Article 1.   More favourable provisions for taxpayers   Article 4  Member States may opt to maintain or introduce more favourable provisions for taxpayers than those set out in this recommendation.   Final provisions   Article 5  Member States are invited to communicate to the Commission before 31 December 1994 the texts of the main laws, regulations and administrative provisions which they adopt pursuant to this recommendation, and to notify the Commission of any  subsequent changes in this field.   Article 6  This recommendation is addressed to the Member States.  Done at Brussels, 21 December 1993.  For the Commission Christiane SCRIVENER Member of the Commission EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM I. General conditions 1. Freedom of movement for persons is one of the Community's essential objectives and is enshrined in Articles 3, 48, 49, 52 and 53 of the Treaty of Rome. It is also a fundamental element of the internal market, which the Treaty defines as 'an area  without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty'.  Freedom of movement for workers and their families is a fundamental right. The Community attaches great importance to the promotion of workers' mobility, in particular in the border regions. The Commission has indeed underlined recently in its White  Paper on growth, competitiveness and employment, the need for flexibility in the labour market. It has listed, as a first step in this direction, the need to improve the geographical mobility of workers by suppressing the obstacles that hamper it.  Indeed, freedom of movement for persons is still frustrated by the existence of a number of tax provisions which, when applied, often cause persons exercising freedom of movement for the purpose of carrying on an activity in a Member State other than  the one in which they are resident to be taxed in the other Member State in a less favourable manner than the residents of that other Member State.  Hundreds of thousands of people are subject to frequent discriminations. This is testified by the great number of complaints that the Commission receives as well as by petitions addressed to the European Parliament.  The fundamental principle of non-discrimination, being an underlying principle of the Treaty, claims for a quick and clear solution.  The problem affects the following categories of person:  - frontier workers,  - other persons in paid employment,  - recipients of pensions and other similar remuneration in consideration of past employment,  - persons exercising a professional activity or some other self-employed activity, including performing artists and sportsmen and sportswomen,  - persons exercising agricultural and forestry activities,  - persons exercising industrial and commercial activities.  2. In principle, such persons are taxed in the country in which they carry on their activity, and most Member States apply to them tax arrangements (the non-residents' regime) which differ from those applied to residents. Generally speaking, under these  arrangements, only income from sources within the country in which the activity is exercised is taxed, with no provision being made for tax reliefs on grounds of family circumstances or for the various deductions for which residents are eligible,  considering that such advantages should be granted by the country of residence.  These advantages can be grouped in different categories, taking into account the taxpayer's contributive capacity:  - as regards the worker itself, there are, for instance, the basic allowance (which provides a tax exemption for low income), but also specific deductions for medical expenses or for exceptional expenditures,  - if he is married, this statute may offer him a right, depending on the Member State concerned, to a joint assessment with his spouse, through a 'splitting' system if relevant, or a family coefficient relief or other allowances,  - as regards children, there are often special deductions, grossed up in the case of handicapped children, deductions for school expenses, etc.  However, the persons in question are very often precluded from the benefit of such reliefs in their country of residence too since they have no or insufficient taxable income in that country.  An exception to this rule is the tax treatment of the income of certain frontier workers in that Member States have concluded bilateral agreements under which such income is taxed in the country in which those workers are resident (of the 26 possible  bilateral arrangements, 14 provide for taxation in the country of residence and 12 for taxation in the country of activity). It is only where frontier workers are taxed exclusively in their country of residence that they are not discriminated against,  being taxed in the same way as other residents.  By contrast, persons who exercise an activity in an employed or self-employed capacity, agricultural and forestry activities, or industrial and commercial activities in a Member State other than the one in which they are resident and who are taxed in  their country of residence are, in most cases, subject to a higher level of taxation than persons exercising the same activities in the country in which they are resident.  3. With a view to correcting this situation, the Commission presented, in 1979, a proposal for a Directive concerning the harmonization of income taxation provisions with respect to freedom of movement for workers within the Community. The Commission  has also initiated infringement proceedings against some Member States with regard to tax provisions which discriminate against the residents.  4. Despite discussions stretching over a period of years, the Council has not been able to act on this proposal since some Member States are opposed to the principle of taxing frontier workers' income in their country of residence. Furthermore, some  associations of frontier workers have argued that taxation in the country of residence would lead in many cases, to heavier taxation than under current circumstances (e.g. under arrangements between Belgium and Luxembourg or between Denmark and  Germany).  Finally, many Member States have felt that the general problem of taxing non-resident workers may be more suitably resolved by bilateral agreements.  5. In view of this situation, the Commission last year withdrew its 1979 proposal, and it considers that the time has now come for fresh steps to be taken to encourage Member States to eliminate discriminatory provisions from their legislation on the  taxation of non-residents and to amend their laws on the basis of common rules of conduct.  This is made all the more necessary by the fact that some Member States have, at their own initiative, already amended their tax rules in this area, and others are planning to do so.  The Commission therefore believes that, unless guidelines are established at Community level, there is a risk that very divergent new rules will be introduced in various Member States.  6. As regards case law, it should be noted that on 26 January 1993 the Court delivered a judgment on this matter (Case C-112/91, Werner v. Finanzamt Aachen-Innenstadt).  The Court held that 'Article 52 of the EEC Treaty does not prevent a Member State imposing a heavier burden on its own nationals who carry out their professional activity within its territory and who reside in another Member State'. In its judgment the  Court did not, however, make any statement on the possibility of a Member State treating nationals of other Member States in the same way. A new case has since been referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling (Case C-279/93, Finanzamt Koeln-Altstadt  v. Roland Schumaekers), in which it must be decided whether application of the non-residents' tax regime to a national of another Member State is compatible with Community law.  7. This recommendation forms an integral part of the action that the Commission intends to pursue actively, so as to ensure, in particular by infringement procedures, that the fundamental principles of the Treaty, which the European citizen should be  able to benefit from, are fully respected.  8. For these reasons, the Commission has drawn up the attached recommendation defining the principles and rules should underlie Member States' legislation on the tax treatment of non-residents.  9. It seems pertinent to underline the essential elements of this recommendation.  - Its scope covers the income of all persons, whether salaried or self-employed, pensions and income from other economic activities. Compared to the 1979 proposal, it has thus been extended to cover the self-employed and agricultural, forestry,  industrial and commercial activities, about which ever increasing numbers of petitions and complaints are received concerning the tax provisions applying to them.  - The allocation of the right to tax non-residents between the state of activity and the state of residence, as determined by the double-taxation agreements concluded between the Member States, is respected as regards the income of frontier workers.  Consequently, they may be taxed either in the state where they work or the state in which they reside.  - Precise rules are laid down to ensure non-discriminatory taxation of non-residents by the state of activity where they are in a comparable position to its own residents. A comparable situation is deemed to exist where the income received in the state  of activity is at least 75 % of the non-resident's total taxable income.  - The option remains for the Member State of residence not to grant to a taxpayer the benefit of certain reliefs or deductions if these have already been accorded by the state of activity. The aim here is to ensure that the persons covered by the  recommendation are not discriminated against, and not that they be placed in a more favourable position that other taxpayers.  The Commission considers that these provisions are clear, balanced and simple to apply, and that they will provide a fair solution to the large majority of problems posed by the taxation of non-residents.  10. Implementation of the mechanism established by the recommendation may, in the Commission's opinion, require a more intensive exchange of information between the tax administration of the taxpayer's country of residence and that of his country of  activity. The Commission would stress in this context that the provisions applied under Directive 77/799/EEC (1) allow Member States to exchange any information necessary for that purpose.  If it should emerge that this exchange does not function adequately in practice, the Commission is ready to examine with the Member States the measures required to improve the situation.  11. Given the importance of fully achieving the free movement of persons, which forms a vital element of the single market, the Commission recommends that the Member States adopt the necessary tax measures as quickly as possible.  The Commission will assess the measures taken by the Member States in implementing this recommendation and will decide to take further action if necessary, taking account, inter alia, of how the Court's case law develops in this field.  II. Comments on certain Articles Article 1 12. Paragraph 1 of this Article defines the scope of the recommendation as regards the categories of persons involved. The recommendation covers natural persons who are resident in one of the Member States and subject to income tax in another Member  State without being resident there.  Paragraph 1 also lists the categories of income falling within the scope of the recommendation. The first two categories (income from dependent personal services and pensions) were already included in the 1979 proposal for a Directive. Income from  professional occupations or other self-employed activities, from agricultural and forestry activities and from industrial and commercial activities has been added in order to ensure that individuals engaged in such occupations or activities are treated  in the same way as wage and salary earners and those receiving pensions.  The definitions used for these income categories are based largely on those used in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Model Convention.  13. Paragraph 2 sets out the criteria for establishing an individual's residence status. For this purpose, reference has to be made first to the relevant provisions of the double taxation agreements concluded between Member States, since those  provisions clearly establish the place of residence of a person who has tax links with two Member States.  In the Commission's view, reference to national legislation relating to residence for tax purposes would pose more problems, since such legislation may differ from one Member State to another. Recourse should be had to such legislation only where no  agreement has been concluded between the two Member States concerned (2).  Article 2 14. Paragraph 1 of this Article establishes the principle that the persons and income covered by Article 1 may not be subjected in the Member State imposing tax to any more burdensome taxation than if the taxpayer were resident in that Member State.  In accordance with that principle, the individuals in question should benefit, in the country of activity, from the same special deductions for determining taxable income and from the other general deductions or tax reliefs granted to residents.  If the Member State of activity applies a special tax system to families (e.g. splitting allowances for dependants), this advantage should also be applied to the incomes referred to in Article 1 (1) obtained by the non-resident in that State. Special  systems of this nature are generally linked to aggregate taxation of the individuals concerned (spouse and, in some cases, children), and if this is the case the Member State of activity has the option of taking account of the income of such individuals  in determining, the rate of taxation applicable to the incomes which it is entitled to tax.  15. Paragraph 2 of this Article establishes that this principle applies only where the income derived by the individuals in question from the country of activity constitutes at least 75 % of their total taxable income.  The Commission considers that treatment identical to that of residents is justified only where non-residents are in a situation comparable to that of residents. Such a situation is deemed to exist where a non-resident derives the preponderant part of  his income (i.e. at least 75 % of his total taxable income) in the country of activity. In that case, the amount of income taxable in the country of residence is unlikely to be sufficient for the deductions and other reliefs provided for in that  country's legislation to apply.  Where, by contrast, the non-resident derives a large share of his income in his country of residence, it would not seem justified to require the Member State of activity to grant him the deductions applicable thereto. The 75 % threshold also offers the  advantage that the Member State of activity might abstain from taking into account the income obtained outside the state (in applying progressivity), and the task of the tax administration would thus be made considerably easier.  The Commission considers that this approach would solve virtually all the problems which non-residents encounter when their income is taxed in the country of activity.  The general point should be made that an entirely fair and neutral treatment of all situations in this field is impossible under current circumstances. It would be possible only if income tax legislation were completely harmonized in the Community.  16. In the same second subparagraph of paragraph 2, it is also stipulated that a Member State may ask a non-resident to prove that he derives at least 75 % of his income on its territory. In the Commission's opinion, such proof can be provided by means  of documents, such as a copy of a tax return, a written statement from an employer, a copy of a balance sheet, etc.  17. Under the terms of Article 1, the tax treatment provided for in the recommendation applies only to income derived from employment or self-employment, and to pensions and the other economic activities mentioned.  It is possible, however, that a person receiving such income in a Member State other than that of his residence may also have other sources of income in that Member State, for example property income. Article 2 (3) is designed to ensure that the same  tax treatment is applied to those other sources of income.  18. Article 2 (4) permits the Member States not to grant deductions or other tax reliefs connected with income which is not taxable in the Member State of activity. It would not seem to be justified to grant certain deductions closely connected with  income which is not taxable in that Member State. One example is provided by deductions for the purchase of certain securities, given that income from capital is generally taxable in the country of residence.  Article 3 19. The aim of this recommendation is to ensure that individuals receiving certain types of income in a Member State in which they are not resident are taxed on a fair and non-discriminatory basis.  It is also necessary to ensure, however, that non-residents do not benefit from more favourable tax treatment than other taxpayers. This could happen if they were to benefit, in the Member State of residence, from the same deductions of other tax  reliefs which they had already been granted in the Member State of activity.  This Article accordingly makes it possible for the Member State of residence to refuse to grant deductions or other tax reliefs in such cases.  However, the Commission takes the view that application of this option should be limited in practice. It has thus been observed that if the Member State of residence applies the ordinary imputation method to take account income obtained in other States  - this method already being applied by most Member States - deduction should not normally occur twice.  Article 4 20. This recommendation lays down minimum conditions for ensuring that non-residents are not taxed in a discriminatory manner in the country of activity.  It does not prevent Member States from retaining or introducing arrangements which are more favourable to taxpayers.   (1) OJ No L 336, 27. 12. 1977, p. 15.  (2) The following combinations of Members States are not covered by bilateral agreements (situation at 1 January 1993): Greece-Portugal Greece-Spain Greece-Ireland Greece-Luxembourg Portugal-Ireland Spain-Ireland Portugal-Luxembourg  Portugal-Netherlands


Avis juridique important

|

32001H0166

Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2001 on European cooperation in quality evaluation in school education

Official Journal L 060 , 01/03/2001 P. 0051 - 0053

Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Councilof 12 February 2001on European cooperation in quality evaluation in school education(2001/166/EC)THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 149(4) and Article 150(4) thereof,Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee(1),Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions(2),Acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 of the Treaty(3),Whereas:(1) There is a need to promote a European dimension in education as it is an essential objective in building a people's Europe.(2) Quality education is one of the principal objectives of primary and secondary education, including vocational education, for all Member States in the context of the learning society.(3) The quality of school education must be assured at all levels and in all areas of education, regardless of any differences in educational objectives, methods and needs, and regardless of school excellence rankings where they exist.(4) The resources devoted to education have increased in all industrialised countries during the last decades. Education is seen not only as a personal enrichment but also as a contribution towards social cohesion, social inclusion and the solution to problems of employment. Lifelong learning is an important means of controlling one's future on a professional and personal level. Quality education is essential in the light of labour market policies, the free movement of workers within the Community and the recognition of diplomas and teaching qualifications.(5) It is the responsibility of the Member States to ensure, when they have the possibility, that school syllabuses take account of developments in society.(6) Member States should help the educational establishments to meet the educational and social requirements in the new millennium and to keep pace with the developments arising from them. Member States should therefore support the educational establishments in order to improve the quality of the services they provide by helping them to develop new initiatives geared to ensure the quality of teaching and by helping them to encourage both the movement of persons between countries and the transfer of knowledge.(7) In the area of labour market policies, the Council adopts each year a set of employment guidelines building on quantitative targets and indicators. Guideline 7 of the employment guidelines for 2000, set out in the Annex to Decision/2000/228/EC(4), states that Member States will "improve the quality of their school systems in order to reduce substantially the number of young people who drop out of the school system early. Particular attention should also be given to young people with learning difficulties".(8) In guideline 8 of the said guidelines, specific reference is made to developing computer literacy, to equipping schools with computer equipment and to facilitating student access to the Internet by the end of 2002, which should have a positive impact on the quality of education and prepare young people for the digital age.(9) The promotion of mobility enshrined as an objective of the Community in Articles 149 and 150 of the Treaty should be encouraged by quality education.(10) European cooperation and transnational exchanges of experiences will contribute to identifying and disseminating effective and acceptable methods of evaluating quality.(11) Systems designed to ensure quality must remain flexible and be adaptable to the new situation created by changes in the structure and objectives of educational establishments, taking into account the cultural dimension of education.(12) Systems to ensure quality vary from one Member State and one educational establishment to another, given the diversity in the sizes, structures, financial circumstances, institutional character and educational approach of different establishments.(13) Quality evaluation and school self-evaluation in particular are tools well suited to the aim of combating the number of young people who drop out of the school system early and social exclusion in general.(14) In order to achieve the objective of quality education, a whole range of means are available. Quality evaluation is one of them and is a valuable contribution to securing and developing the quality of education within general and vocational schools. The quality evaluation of education must seek, inter alia, to assess the capacity of schools to take account of the use of the new information technologies which are becoming more widespread.(15) The networking at European level of institutions involved in quality evaluation in school education is of fundamental importance. Existing networks such as the European network of policy makers for the evaluation of education systems set up by the Member States in 1995 can provide invaluable aid to the implementation of this recommendation.(16) The Commission conducted a pilot project on quality evaluation in higher education in 1994 and 1995. Council Recommendation 98/561/EC of 24 September 1998 on European cooperation in quality assurance in higher education(5) underlines the importance of the exchange of information and experiences and cooperation regarding quality assurance between other Member States.(17) The Socrates programme(6), in particular Action 6.1., invites the Commission to promote the exchange of information and experience on questions of common interest. Evaluating quality in school education is one of the priority themes of the said Action.(18) The Commission has, since March 1996, launched various studies and operational activities to examine the question of evaluation from different perspectives with the aim of describing the wide variety and wealth of approaches and education evaluation methodologies used at different levels.(19) The Commission conducted a pilot project during the academic year 1997/1998 in 101 upper and lower secondary schools in the countries participating in the Socrates programme, which raised awareness of quality issues and helped to improve the quality of education in those schools. The final report, June 1999, entitled "Evaluation quality in school education, A European pilot project" emphasises a range of methodological elements as important elements for successful self-evaluation.(20) In its conclusions of 16 December 1997(7), the Council stated that evaluation is also an important element for assuring and, where appropriate, improving quality.(21) The Council Presidency declared in its conclusions at the Extraordinary European Council held in Lisbon on 23 and 24 March 2000 that European education and training systems must adapt both to the needs of the information society and to the need to raise levels of employment and improve its quality.(22) With a view to the enlargement of the Union, the accession countries should be involved in European cooperation in the field of quality evaluation.(23) It is necessary to take account of the principle of subsidiarity and Member States' exclusive responsibilities for the organisation and structure of their education systems, so that the particular cultural character and educational traditions of each State can flourish,I. RECOMMEND THAT MEMBER STATES:within their specific economic, social and cultural context while taking due account of the European dimension, support the improvement of quality evaluation in school education, by:1. supporting and, where appropriate, establishing transparent quality evaluation systems with the following aims:(a) to secure quality education, whilst promoting social inclusion, and equal opportunities for girls and boys,(b) to safeguard quality of school education as a basis for lifelong learning,(c) to encourage school self-evaluation as a method of creating learning and improving schools, within a balanced framework of school self-evaluation and any external evaluations,(d) to use techniques aimed at improving quality as a means of adapting more successfully to the requirements of a world in rapid and constant change,(e) to clarify the purpose and the conditions for school self-evaluation, and to ensure that the approach to self-evaluation is consistent with other forms of regulation,(f) to develop external evaluation in order to provide methodological support for school self-evaluation and to provide an outside view of the school encouraging a process of continuous improvement and taking care that this is not restricted to purely administrative checks;2. encouraging and supporting, where appropriate, the involvement of school stakeholders, including teachers, pupils, management, parents and experts, in the process of external and self-evaluation in schools in order to promote shared responsibility for the improvement of schools;3. supporting training in the management and the use of self-evaluation instruments with the following aims:(a) to make school self-evaluation function effectively as an instrument strengthening the capacity of schools to improve,(b) to ensure an efficient dissemination of examples of good practice and new instruments within self-evaluation;4. supporting the capacity of schools to learn from one another nationally and on a European scale, with the following aims:(a) to identify and to disseminate good practice and efficient tools such as indicators and benchmarks in the field of quality evaluation in school education,(b) to form networks between schools, at all appropriate levels, to support each other and provide outside impetus to the evaluation process;5. encouraging cooperation between all the authorities involved in quality evaluation in school education and promoting their European networking.This cooperation could cover some of the following areas:(a) the exchange of information and experience, in particular on methodological developments and examples of good practice, especially by using modern information and communication technologies, and, when appropriate, by organising European conferences, seminars and workshops,(b) the collection of data and the development of tools such as indicators and benchmarks of particular relevance for quality evaluation in schools,(c) publication of results of school evaluation in accordance with the relevant policies of each Member State and its educational establishments, to be made available to authorities in the Member States,(d) promoting contacts between experts in order to build European expertise in the area,(e) making use of the results of international surveys for the development of quality evaluation in schools.II. INVITE THE COMMISSION:1. to encourage, in close cooperation with the Member States, and on the basis of existing Community programmes, the cooperation referred to in points 4 and 5 of Section I, also involving relevant organisations and associations with the necessary experience in this field.In doing this, the Commission should ensure that full benefit is drawn from the expertise of the Eurydice network referred to in Action 6.1. of the Socrates programme;2. to establish, on the basis of the existing Community programmes, a database for the dissemination of effective tools and instruments of school quality evaluation. The database should also contain examples of good practice and be accessible on the Internet; interactive use thereof should be ensured;3. to make use of the resources within existing Community programmes, to incorporate the experience already gained into these programmes and to develop the existing networks;4. to make, as a first step, an inventory of the instruments and strategies for quality evaluation in primary and secondary education already in use in the various Member States. When the inventory has been compiled, the Commission will work with the Member States on appropriate follow-up. The European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions should be fully informed on a regular basis of the follow-up;5. to present on the basis of contributions from the Member States triennial detailed reports to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions in relation to the implementation of this Recommendation;6. to draw conclusions and make proposals on the basis of these reports.Done at Brussels, 12 February 2001.For the European ParliamentThe PresidentN. FontaineFor the CouncilThe PresidentT. Östros(1) OJ C 168, 16.6.2000, p. 30.(2) OJ C 317, 6.11.2000, p. 56.(3) Opinion of the European Parliament of 6 July 2000 (not yet published in the Official Journal), Council Common Position of 9 November 2000 (OJ C 375, 28.12.2000, p. 38) and Decision of the European Parliament of 16 January 2001 (not yet published in the Official Journal).(4) OJ L 72, 21.3.2000, p. 15.(5) OJ L 270, 7.10.1998, p. 56.(6) OJ L 28, 3.2.2000, p. 1.(7) OJ C 1, 3.1.1998, p. 4.


				|

		52011SC0814

			Recommendation for a COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION on the National Reform Programme 2011 of Portugal[and delivering a Council opinionon the updated Stability Programme of Portugal, 2011-2014] /* SEC/2011/0814 final */

			   	Recommendation for a
COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
on the National Reform Programme 2011 of
Portugal
[and delivering a Council opinion
on the updated Stability Programme of Portugal, 2011-2014]
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 121(2) and 148(4)
thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No
1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary
positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies, and in
particular Article 5(3) thereof,
Having regard to the recommendation of the
European Commission,
Having regard to the conclusions of the
European Council,
Having regard to the opinion of the
Employment Committee,
After consulting the Economic and Financial
Committee,
Whereas:
(1)
On 26 March 2010, the European Council agreed to
the European Commission's proposal to launch a new strategy for jobs and
growth, Europe 2020, based on enhanced coordination of economic policies, which
will focus on the key areas where action is needed to boost Europe’s potential
for sustainable growth and competitiveness.
(2)
On 13 July 2010, the Council adopted a
recommendation on the broad guidelines for the economic policies of the Member
States and the Union (2010 to 2014) and, on 21 October 2010, adopted a decision
on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States[1],
which together form the “integrated guidelines”. Member States were invited to
take the integrated guidelines into account in their national economic and
employment policies.
(3)
On 12 January 2011, the Commission adopted the
first Annual Growth Survey, marking the start of a new cycle of economic
governance in the EU and the first European semester of ex-ante and integrated
policy coordination, which is anchored in the Europe 2020 strategy.
(4)
On 25 March 2011, the European Council endorsed
the priorities for fiscal consolidation and structural reform (in line with the
Council’s conclusions of 15 February and 7 March 2011 and further to the
Commission’s Annual Growth Survey). It underscored the need to give priority to
restoring sound budgets and fiscal sustainability, reducing unemployment
through labour market reforms and making new efforts to enhance growth. It
requested Member States to translate these priorities into concrete measures to
be included in their Stability or Convergence Programmes and National Reform
Programmes.
(5)
On 25 March 2011, the European Council also
invited the Member States participating in the Euro Plus Pact to present their
commitments in time to be included in their Stability or Convergence Programmes
and their National Reform Programmes. Specific commitments and actions for 2011
are not explicitly communicated in the Portuguese National Reform Programme, but
are expected to be submitted to the European Council.
(6)
On 23 March 2011, the Portuguese government
submitted a Stability Programme for 2011-2014 to the national parliament, which
rejected it. On 19 April 2011, the Portuguese
government submitted a National Reform Programme. The
proposed macroeconomic and fiscal scenarios and the policy recommendations have
been overtaken by the Memorandum of Understanding signed on 17 May 2011.
(7)
On 17 May 2011, the Council adopted Decision
2011/0122 to make available to Portugal medium-term financial assistance for a
period of three years 2011-2014 in accordance with Council Regulation (EU) No
407/2010 of 11 May 2010 establishing a European financial stabilisation
mechanism. The accompanying Memorandum of Understanding signed on the same day
and its successive supplements lay down the economic policy conditions on the
basis of which the financial assistance is disbursed.
(8)
In 2010, Portugal's GDP grew at a rate of 1.3%.
This positive growth rate was, however, largely due to exceptional factors that
boosted exports and private consumption. Price and cost developments clearly
indicated that Portugal was not boosting competitiveness at a sufficiently fast
rate to redress its current account deficit, which was high at 10% of GDP in
2010. The weak overall economy and the steep increase in unemployment (11.2% at
the end of 2010), spilled into large government deficits, which exceeded 10% of
GDP in 2009 and 9% in 2010, up from 3.5% in 2008. As a result, Portugal has
recently come under increasing pressure in financial markets, raising concerns
about the sustainability of its public finances. Following consecutive
downgradings of Portuguese bonds by credit rating agencies, the country became
unable to refinance itself at rates compatible with long-term fiscal
sustainability. In parallel, the banking sector, which is heavily dependent on
external financing, particularly within the euro area, was increasingly cut off
from market funding.
(9)
Portugal committed to implementing the economic
and financial adjustment programme with the aim of restoring confidence in its
sovereign debt and in the banking sector and supporting growth and employment.
It provides for comprehensive action on three fronts: (i) a credible and
balanced fiscal consolidation strategy, supported by structural fiscal measures
and better fiscal control; (ii) deep and frontloaded structural reforms in the
labour and product markets; and (iii) efforts to safeguard the financial sector
against disorderly deleveraging through market-based mechanisms supported by
back-up facilities.
(10)
The Commission has assessed the National Reform
Programme[2]. It has taken into
account not only its relevance for sustainable fiscal and socio-economic policy
in Portugal but also its conformity with EU rules and guidance, given the need
to strengthen the overall economic governance of the European Union by
providing EU level input into future national decisions. In this context, the
Commission stresses the urgency of implementing the planned measures to comply
with Council Decision 2011/0122,
HEREBY
RECOMMENDS that Portugal should:
Implement the measures as laid down in
Council Decision [2011/0122] and further specified in the Memorandum of
Understanding of 17 May 2011 and its subsequent supplements.
Done at Brussels,
                                                                       For
the Council
                                                                       The
President
[1]               Maintained for 2011 by Council Decision 2011/308/EU
of 19 May 2011.
[2]               See SEC(2011) 730.


Avis juridique important

|

31978H1029

78/1029/EEC: Council Recommendation of 18 December 1978 concerning nationals of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg who hold a diploma in veterinary medicine conferred in a third country

Official Journal L 362 , 23/12/1978 P. 0012 - 0012 Spanish special edition: Chapter 06 Volume 2 P. 0061  Portuguese special edition Chapter 06 Volume 2 P. 0061

COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION of 18 December 1978 concerning nationals of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg who hold a diploma in veterinary medicine conferred in a third country (78/1029/EEC)  THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Approving Directive 78/1026/EEC concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in veterinary medicine, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services (1),  Noting that this Directive refers only to diplomas, certificates and evidence of formal qualifications conferred in a Member State,  Anxious, however, to take account of the special position of nationals of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg who, since there is no complete university training in the Grand Duchy itself, have studied in a third country,  Hereby recommends that the Governments of the other Member States should allow nationals of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg who hold a final diploma of studies in veterinary medicine conferred in a third country and recognized under the Luxembourg law of 18 June 1969, to take up and pursue activities as self-employed veterinary surgeons within the Community, by recognizing these diplomas in their territories.  Done at Brussels, 18 December 1978.  For the Council  The President  H.-D. GENSCHER  (1)See page 1 of this Official Journal.


title: Council Recommendation of 12 July 2016 on the 2016 National Reform Programme of Bulgaria and delivering a Council opinion on the 2016 Convergence Programme of Bulgaria

text:
               18.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 299/32

         COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
   of 12 July 2016
   on the 2016 National Reform Programme of Bulgaria and delivering a Council opinion on the 2016 Convergence Programme of Bulgaria
   (2016/C 299/08)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 121(2) and 148(4) thereof,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,
   Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 on the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances (2), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,
   Having regard to the recommendation of the European Commission,
   Having regard to the resolutions of the European Parliament,
   Having regard to the conclusions of the European Council,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Employment Committee,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Financial Committee,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Social Protection Committee,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Economic Policy Committee,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 26 November 2015, the Commission adopted the Annual Growth Survey, marking the start of the 2016 European Semester for economic policy coordination. The priorities of the Annual Growth Survey were endorsed by the European Council on 17-18 March 2016. On 26 November 2015, on the basis of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011, the Commission adopted the Alert Mechanism Report, in which it identified Bulgaria as one of the Member States for which an in-depth review would be carried out.

               (2)

               The 2016 country report for Bulgaria was published on 26 February 2016. It assessed Bulgaria's progress in addressing the country-specific recommendations adopted by the Council on 14 July 2015 and Bulgaria's progress towards its national Europe 2020 targets. It also included the in-depth review under Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011. On 8 March 2016, the Commission adopted a Communication presenting the results of the in-depth review. The Commission's analysis leads it to conclude that Bulgaria is experiencing excessive macroeconomic imbalances. In particular, the economy is characterised by remaining fragilities in the financial sector and high corporate indebtedness in a context of high unemployment.

               (3)

               On 15 April 2016, Bulgaria submitted its 2016 National Reform Programme and its 2016 Convergence Programme. In order to take account of their interlinkages, the two programmes have been assessed at the same time.

               (4)

               Relevant country-specific recommendations have been addressed in the programming of the European Structural and Investment Funds for the 2014-2020 period. As foreseen in Article 23 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3), where it is necessary to support the implementation of relevant Council recommendations, the Commission may request a Member State to review and propose amendments to its Partnership Agreement and relevant programmes. The Commission has provided further details on how it would make use of this provision in guidelines on the application of the measures linking effectiveness of the European Structural and Investment Funds to sound economic governance.

               (5)

               Bulgaria is currently in the preventive arm of the Stability and Growth Pact. In its 2016 Convergence Programme, the Government plans a gradual improvement of the headline balance to – 1,9 % of GDP in 2016 and – 0,2 % of GDP in 2019. The medium-term budgetary objective — a structural deficit of 1 % of GDP — is planned to be achieved as of 2017. According to the Convergence Programme, the government debt-to-GDP ratio is expected to peak at 31,8 % in 2018 and to decline to 30,8 % in 2019. The macroeconomic scenario underpinning these budgetary projections is slightly favourable. The measures needed to support the planned deficit targets starting with 2017 onwards have not been sufficiently specified. Based on the Commission 2016 spring forecast, there is a risk of some deviation from the adjustment path towards the medium-term budgetary objective in 2016 as well as in 2017, under unchanged policies. Based on its assessment of the Convergence Programme and taking into account the Commission 2016 spring forecast, the Council is of the opinion that Bulgaria is expected to broadly comply with the provisions of the Stability and Growth Pact. Nevertheless, further measures will be needed to ensure compliance in both 2016 and 2017.

               (6)

               Bulgaria made some progress in addressing last year's recommendation to make its healthcare spending more efficient, particularly by producing a national health map that will enable medical expenditure to be planned in accordance with territorial criteria and the needs of the population. The Bulgarian health system faces major challenges, including limited access, low funding and poor health outcomes. In spite of recent efforts to improve tax collection, the shadow economy remains a significant challenge affecting public revenues. Undeclared work, including under-reported remuneration and evasion of social security contributions, distorts the labour market and reduces fiscal revenue.

               (7)

               Cases of imprudent business practices in the financial sector, particularly in the banking sector, coupled with inefficient supervision, have created an environment for imbalances to accumulate. The completion, in a transparent way and according to best international practices, of the recently launched reviews of the banking, insurance and pension fund sectors and taking the necessary follow-up actions will strengthen confidence in the financial sector. Moreover, continued efforts to improve financial supervision, in both the banking and non-banking sectors, will play an important role in strengthening the financial system and positioning it to support the nascent macroeconomic recovery.

               (8)

               The labour market has experienced a modest recovery but remaining weaknesses continue to hinder growth and limit the adjustment capacity of the economy. Labour market adjustment is hampered by the structural nature of long-term unemployment, a shrinking and ageing labour force, low labour market participation and skills mismatches. While unemployment is gradually improving, there are still important challenges, for example as regards the long-term unemployed and young people not in employment, education or training. Active labour market policies could play a stronger role in helping these groups to access the labour market. The activation of people on social benefits is hindered by the fragmentation of, and limited cooperation between, different agencies delivering benefits and labour market integration services. Dedicated centres for employment and social assistance, which combine the services of the Employment Agency and the Social Assistance Agency, have been developed in a pilot project but no decision has been taken yet to roll out the project on a larger scale after it ends in December 2016.

               (9)

               Although Bulgaria's minimum wage is still the lowest in the Union, it has increased substantially since 2011 and the lack of objective criteria for minimum wage setting creates uncertainty. Despite work of the Government and social partners in this area, Bulgaria still has no clear guidelines or transparent criteria for minimum wage setting that take into account its impact on job creation, social conditions and competitiveness.

               (10)

               Very high ‘at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion’ and inequality levels remain in Bulgaria. Progress in addressing poverty and social exclusion is hindered by continuing challenges over integrating Roma into the labour force, facilitating school-to-work transitions, and improving the coverage and effectiveness of social, health and labour market policies. The general minimum income scheme provides very limited levels of support and outreach to the population. The allowance level is below the poverty line and has not been increased in line with average and minimum wage developments of recent years. Estimates on coverage indicate that a large part of the intended beneficiaries do not receive benefits. A better outreach to the target groups, while maintaining fiscal responsibility, would help to alleviate poverty.

               (11)

               The education system has limited capacity to include vulnerable groups and equip learners with relevant skills. Vulnerable groups such as Roma and pupils from poor families continue to face significant obstacles in accessing and completing education. The level of enrolment among Roma at all levels of education is significantly lower than for non-Roma. The early school leaving rate continues to increase and is particularly high in rural areas and less developed regions. Removing barriers to the participation in early childhood education of disadvantaged children is essential to increase educational outcomes and prevent dropouts. A new Pre-school and School Education Act adopted by the Parliament in September 2015 is an important step towards a comprehensive reform of the school system. The implementation of this legislation, together with targeted measures to overcome non-legislative barriers to the full participation of disadvantaged groups in education, should contribute to improving the Bulgarian economy's growth potential and social cohesiveness in the long term. Enrolment and graduation rates in tertiary education are on the rise and the employment rate of recent graduates is recovering slowly, although it remains significantly below the EU average.

               (12)

               Risks stemming from high corporate debt and barriers to deleveraging remain significant. The existing insolvency framework provides little scope for an effective debt workout process and does little to address the high level of corporate indebtedness. Reforms to facilitate corporate insolvency procedures could improve deleveraging and lead the way to new lending and investment.

               (13)

               The public procurement system in Bulgaria continues to suffer from structural weaknesses, including systematic irregularities in procurement procedures, lack of administrative capacity and deficient control mechanisms, combined with systematic court appeals that often delay works on the ground. The transition to full e-procurement has made only limited progress. The shortcomings of the Bulgarian public procurement system have led to interruption of payments and financial corrections in EU funding programmes and also affect the wider business environment.

               (14)

               Unstable policies and lack of trust in key public institutions, such as the judiciary, constitute significant deterrents to investment in the Bulgarian economy. The slow implementation of public administration reforms and reforms in specific sectors such as research, innovation and energy hamper progress in improving the investment climate. Although Bulgaria has adopted a strategic framework to reform and modernise its public administration, progress is slow and implementation often postponed. New legislation is not subject to systematic impact assessment, although there have been some efforts to change this. Frequent changes to the legal framework create uncertainty and affect the businesses environment. Corruption remains a significant concern and the national authorities' response to this problem continues to be hampered by weak and fragmented institutions. Under the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism, Bulgaria receives recommendations on judicial reform and the fight against corruption and organised crime. While these areas are of crucial importance for the overall business environment, they are therefore not covered in the country-specific recommendations for Bulgaria.

               (15)

               In the context of the European Semester, the Commission has carried out a comprehensive analysis of Bulgaria's economic policy and published it in the 2016 country report. It has also assessed the Convergence Programme and the National Reform Programme and the follow-up given to the recommendations addressed to Bulgaria in previous years. It has taken into account not only their relevance for sustainable fiscal and socioeconomic policy in Bulgaria but also their compliance with EU rules and guidance, given the need to strengthen the EU's overall economic governance by providing EU-level input into future national decisions. The recommendations under the European Semester are reflected in recommendations (1) to (4) below.

               (16)

               In the light of this assessment, the Council has examined the Convergence Programme, and its opinion (4) is reflected in particular in recommendation (1) below.

               (17)

               In the light of the Commission's in-depth review and this assessment, the Council has examined the National Reform Programme and the Convergence Programme. The recommendations under Article 6 of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 are reflected in recommendations (1) to (4) below,

         HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Bulgaria take action in 2016 and 2017 to:

               1.

               Achieve an annual fiscal adjustment of 0,5 % of GDP towards the medium-term budgetary objective in 2016 and in 2017. Further improve tax collection and take measures to reduce the extent of the informal economy, including undeclared work.

               2.

               By the end of 2016, finalise the asset quality review and stress test of the banks. By the end of 2016, complete the balance-sheet review and stress test of the insurance companies and the review of private pension funds' assets. Take, as necessary, follow-up actions in all three sectors and continue to improve banking and non-banking supervision.

               3.

               Reinforce and integrate social assistance, including relevant social services, and active labour market policies, in particular for the long-term unemployed and young people not in employment, education or training. Increase the provision of quality education for disadvantaged groups, including Roma. Improve the efficiency of the health system by improving access and funding, and health outcomes. In consultation with social partners establish guidelines and criteria for setting the minimum wage. Increase the coverage and adequacy of the minimum income scheme.

               4.

               Reform the insolvency framework to accelerate recovery and resolution procedures and improve their effectiveness and transparency. Increase the capacity of the courts regarding insolvency procedures. Strengthen the capacity of the Public Procurement Agency and contracting authorities and improve the design and control of public tendering procedures, in particular by fully implementing the National Strategy for the development of the Public Procurement Sector (2014-2020). Speed up the introduction of e-procurement.

      Done at Brussels, 12 July 2016.

            For the Council

            The President

         P. KAŽIMÍR

      (1)  OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 1.

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

      (3)  Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 320).

      (4)  Under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1466/97.


title: Council Recommendation of 13 July 2010 on broad guidelines for the economic policies of the Member States and of the Union

text:
               23.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 191/28

         COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
   of 13 July 2010
   on broad guidelines for the economic policies of the Member States and of the Union
   (2010/410/EU)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 121(2) thereof,
   Having regard to the recommendation from the European Commission,
   Having regard to the conclusions of the European Council,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The Treaty provides that Member States are to regard their economic policies as a matter of common concern and to coordinate them within the Council. In accordance with Treaty provisions, the European Union has developed and implemented policy coordination instruments for fiscal policy (the Stability and Growth Pact) and macro-structural policies.

               (2)

               The Treaty provides that employment guidelines and broad economic policy guidelines are to be adopted by the Council to guide Member States’ policies.

               (3)

               The Lisbon Strategy, launched in 2000, was based on an acknowledgement of the European Union’s need to increase employment, productivity and competitiveness, while enhancing social cohesion, in the face of global competition, technological change, environmental challenges and an ageing population. The Lisbon Strategy was re-launched in 2005, after a mid-term review which led to greater focus on growth, more and better jobs.

               (4)

               The Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs helped forge consensus around the broad direction of the Union’s economic and employment policies. Under the strategy, both broad economic policy guidelines and employment guidelines were adopted by the Council in 2005 (1) and revised in 2008 (2). The 24 guidelines laid the foundations for the national reform programmes, outlining the key macroeconomic, microeconomic and labour-market reform priorities for the Union as a whole. However, experience shows that the guidelines did not set clear enough priorities and that links between them could have been stronger. This limited their impact on national policy-making.

               (5)

               The financial and economic crisis that started in 2008 resulted in a significant loss in jobs and potential output and has led to a dramatic deterioration in public finances. The European Economic Recovery Plan (3) has nevertheless helped Member States to deal with the crisis, partly through a coordinated fiscal stimulus, with the euro providing an anchor for macroeconomic stability. The crisis therefore showed that economic policy coordination at the level of the Union can deliver significant results if it is strengthened and rendered effective. The crisis also underscored the close interdependence of the Member States’ economies and labour markets.

               (6)

               The Commission proposed setting up a new strategy for the next decade, the Europe 2020 Strategy (4), to enable the Union to emerge stronger from the crisis, and to turn its economy towards smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Five headline targets, listed under the relevant guidelines, constitute shared objectives guiding the action of the Member States, taking account of their relative starting positions and national circumstances, and of the Union. Member States should make every effort to meet the national targets and to remove the bottlenecks that constrain growth.

               (7)

               As part of comprehensive ‘exit strategies’ for the economic crisis, Member States should carry out ambitious reform programmes to ensure macroeconomic stability and the sustainability of public finance, improve competitiveness, and reduce macroeconomic imbalances and enhance labour market performance. Temporary measures introduced in response to the crisis should be withdrawn in a coordinated manner as appropriate when the recovery is secure. The withdrawal of the fiscal stimulus should be implemented and coordinated within the framework of the Stability and Growth Pact.

               (8)

               Within the Europe 2020 strategy, Member States and the Union should implement reforms aimed at ‘smart growth’, i.e. growth driven by knowledge and innovation. Reforms should aim at improving the quality of education, ensuring access for all, strengthening research and business performance, and further improving the regulatory framework in order to promote innovation and knowledge transfer throughout the Union. They should encourage entrepreneurship and help to turn creative ideas into innovative products, services and processes that can create growth, quality jobs, territorial, economic and social cohesion, and address more efficiently European and global societal challenges. Making the most of information and communication technologies is essential in this context.

               (9)

               The policies of the Union and of Member States, including through their reform programmes, should aim at ‘sustainable growth’. Sustainable growth means decoupling economic growth from the use of resources, building an energy and resource-efficient, sustainable and competitive economy, a fair distribution of the cost and benefits and exploiting Europe’s leadership in the race to develop new processes and technologies, including green technologies. Member States and the Union should implement the necessary reforms to reduce greenhouse gases emissions and use resources efficiently, which will also assist in preventing environmental degradation and biodiversity loss. They should also improve the business environment, stimulate creation of green jobs and help enterprises modernising their industrial base.

               (10)

               The policies of the Union, and Member States’ reform programmes should finally also aim at ‘inclusive growth’. Inclusive growth means building a cohesive society in which people are empowered to anticipate and manage change, thus to actively participate in society and the economy. Member States’ reforms should therefore ensure access and opportunities for all throughout the lifecycle, thus reducing poverty and social exclusion, through removing barriers to labour market participation especially for women, older workers, young people, the disabled and legal migrants.
               They should take into account the gender perspective in all these policies. They should also make sure that the benefits of economic growth reach all citizens and all regions. Ensuring effective functioning of the labour markets through investing in successful transitions, appropriate skills development, rising job quality and fighting segmentation, structural unemployment and inactivity while ensuring adequate and sustainable social protection and active inclusion to reduce poverty, while at the same time adhering to agreed fiscal consolidation, should therefore be at the heart of Member States’ reform programmes.

               (11)

               As an essential element, Member States and the Union should continue and expand their efforts to further improve their regulatory framework, especially for European enterprises. By strengthening their smart regulation instruments, Member States and the Union should guarantee that legislation is well-designed, proportionate, regularly reviewed and does not cause unnecessary burdens. Achievement of the administrative burdens reduction targets remains a priority.

               (12)

               The Union’s and the Member States’ structural reforms can effectively contribute to growth and jobs if they enhance the Union’s competitiveness in the global economy, open up new opportunities for Europe’s exporters and provide competitive access to vital imports. Reforms should therefore take into account their external competitiveness implications to foster European growth and participation in open and fair markets worldwide.

               (13)

               The Europe 2020 strategy has to be underpinned by an integrated set of European and national policies, which Member States and the Union should implement fully and at a similar pace, in order to achieve the positive spill-over effects of coordinated structural reforms, and more consistent contribution from European policies to the Strategy’s objectives, taking into account national starting positions.

               (14)

               While these guidelines are addressed to Member States and the European Union, the Europe 2020 strategy should be implemented in partnership with all national, regional and local authorities, closely associating parliaments, as well as social partners and representatives of civil society, who shall contribute to the elaboration of national reform programmes, to their implementation and to the overall communication on the strategy.

               (15)

               The Europe 2020 strategy is underpinned by a smaller set of guidelines, replacing the previous set of 24 and addressing employment and broad economic policy issues in a coherent manner. The guidelines for the economic policies of the Member States and of the Union, annexed to this Recommendation, are intrinsically linked with the relevant guidelines for employment policies. Together, they form the ‘Europe 2020 integrated guidelines’.

               (16)

               These new integrated guidelines are in line with the conclusions of the European Council. They give precise guidance to the Member States on defining their national reform programmes and implementing reforms, reflecting interdependence and are in line with the Stability and Growth Pact. The guidelines will form the basis for any country-specific recommendations that the Council may address to the Member States, or, in the case of the broad guidelines on economic policies, for policy warnings that the Commission may issue in cases of insufficient follow-up to the respective country-specific recommendations.

               (17)

               These guidelines should remain stable until 2014 to ensure a focus on implementation,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:

               (1)

               Member States and, where relevant, the European Union should take into account in their economic policies the guidelines set out in the Annex.

               (2)

               Member States should design national reform programmes consistent with the objectives set out in the ‘Europe 2020 integrated guidelines’.

      Done at Brussels, 13 July 2010.

            For the Council

            The President

         D. REYNDERS

      (1)  COM(2005) 141.

      (2)  COM(2007) 803.

      (3)  COM(2009) 615, 19.11.2009.

      (4)  COM(2010) 2020, 3.3.2010.

      ANNEX

         Broad guidelines for the economic policies of the Member States and of the Union

      Guideline 1:   Ensuring the quality and the sustainability of public finances
      Member States should vigorously implement budgetary consolidation strategies under the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) and, in particular, recommendations addressed to Member States under the excessive deficit procedure, and/or in memoranda of understanding, in the case of balance-of-payments support. In particular, Member States should achieve consolidation in line with the Council’s recommendations and meet their medium-term objectives in line with the SGP. Without prejudice to the legal framework of the SGP, this implies for most Member States achieving a consolidation well beyond the benchmark of 0,5 % of gross domestic product (GDP) per year in structural terms until debt ratios are on a solid declining path. Fiscal consolidation should start in 2011 at the latest, earlier in some Member States where economic circumstances make this appropriate, provided that the Commission’s forecasts continue to indicate that the recovery is strengthening and becoming self-sustaining.
      In designing and implementing budgetary consolidation, strategies should focus on expenditure restraint and prioritise growth-enhancing expenditure items within areas such as education, skills and employability, research and development (R & D) and innovation and investment in networks with positive impacts on productivity, where appropriate for example high-speed Internet, energy and transport interconnections and infrastructure. Where taxes may have to rise, this should, where possible, be done in conjunction with measures to make tax systems more employment, environment and growth-friendly, for example by shifting the tax burden towards environmentally harmful activities. Tax and benefits systems should provide better incentives to make work pay.
      Furthermore, Member States should strengthen national budgetary frameworks, enhance the quality of public expenditure and improve the sustainability of public finances, pursuing in particular determined debt reduction, reform of age-related public expenditure, such as pensions and health spending, and policies contributing to raising employment and effective retirement ages to ensure that age-related public expenditure and social well-fare systems are financially sustainable.
      Budget efficiency and quality of public finances are also important at the level of the Union.
      Guideline 2:   Addressing macroeconomic imbalances
      Member States should avoid unsustainable macroeconomic imbalances, arising notably from developments in current accounts, asset markets and the balance sheets of the household and corporate sectors. Member States with large current account imbalances rooted in a persistent lack of competitiveness or due to other reasons should address the underlying causes by acting, for example, on fiscal policy, on wage developments, on structural reforms relating to product and financial services markets (including the flow of productivity enhancing capital), on labour markets, in line with the employment guidelines, or on any other relevant policy area. In this context, Member States should encourage the right framework conditions for wage bargaining systems and labour cost developments consistent with price stability, productivity trends over the medium-term and the need to reduce macroeconomic imbalances. Where appropriate, adequate wage setting in the public sector should be regarded as an important signal to ensure wage moderation in the private sector in line with the need to improve competitiveness. Wage setting frameworks, including minimum wages, should allow for wage formation processes that take into account differences in skills and local labour market conditions and respond to large divergences in economic performance across regions, sectors and companies within a country. The social partners have an important role to play in this context. Member States with large current account surpluses should pursue measures aimed at implementing structural reforms conducive to strengthening potential growth and thereby also underpinning domestic demand. Addressing macroeconomic imbalances, including among Member States, would also help in achieving economic cohesion.
      Guideline 3:   Reducing imbalances within the euro area
      Member States whose currency is the euro should regard large and persistent divergences in current account positions and other macroeconomic imbalances as a matter of common concern and take urgent action to reduce the imbalances where necessary. Action is required in all euro area Member States, but the nature, importance and urgency of the policy challenges differ significantly depending on the countries considered. Given the vulnerabilities and the magnitude of the adjustment required, the need for policy action is particularly pressing in Member States showing persistently large current account deficits and large competitiveness losses. They should achieve a significant permanent reduction of the current account deficit. These euro area Member States should also aim to reduce unit labour costs taking into account productivity developments at regional, sector and company level, and enhance competition in product markets. Euro area Member States with large current account surpluses should pursue measures aimed at implementing structural reforms conducive to strengthening potential growth and thereby also underpinning domestic demand. Similarly, the euro area Member States should act on any other macroeconomic imbalances such as excessive private debt accumulation and inflation divergence. Institutional barriers to flexible adjustments of prices and wages to market conditions should be removed. Macroeconomic imbalances should be closely monitored within the Eurogroup, which should propose remedial actions when needed.
      Guideline 4:   Optimising support for R & D and innovation, strengthening the knowledge triangle and unleashing the potential of the digital economy
      Member States should review national (and regional) R & D and innovation systems, ensuring effective and adequate framework conditions for public investment within the budgetary consolidation strategies under the Stability and Growth Pact (guideline 1), and orienting them towards higher growth while addressing, where appropriate, major societal challenges (including energy, resource efficiency, climate change, biodiversity, social and territorial cohesion, ageing, health, and security) cost-effectively. In particular, public investment should serve to leverage private R & D financing. The reforms should foster excellence and smart specialisation, promote scientific integrity, reinforce cooperation between universities, research institutes, public, private and third sector players, both domestically and internationally and ensure the development of infrastructures and networks that enable knowledge diffusion. The governance of research institutions should be improved to make national research systems more cost-effective and productive. To this end, university-based research should be modernised, world-class infrastructures developed and made accessible, attractive careers and the mobility of researchers and students promoted. Funding and procurement schemes should be adapted and simplified, helping where appropriate to facilitate cross-border cooperation, knowledge transfer and merit-based competition, building on synergies and achieving grater value.
      Member States’ R & D and innovation policies should directly address national opportunities and challenges and should take into account the context of the Union in order to enhance opportunities for pooling public and private resources in areas where the Union adds value, exploiting synergies with Union funds, thus achieving sufficient scale and avoiding fragmentation. Member States and the Union should integrate innovation in all relevant policies and promote innovation in a broad sense (including non-technological innovation). With a view to promoting private investment in research and innovation, Member States and the Union should improve framework conditions — notably with regard to the business environment, competitive and open markets, and the high economic potential of the cultural and creative industries — combine, as appropriate, cost-effective fiscal incentives, depending on each Member State’s fiscal room for manoeuvre, and other financial instruments with measures to facilitate access to private finance (including risk-capital) and simplify access for SMEs, boost demand, in particular in eco-innovation, (where appropriate through green public procurement and interoperable standards), promote innovation-friendly markets and regulations, and provide efficient, affordable and effective protection and management of intellectual property. All three sides of the triangle (education-research-innovation) should mutually support and feed into each other. In line with guidelines 8 and 9, Member States should equip people with a broad range of skills needed for innovation in all its forms, including eco-innovation, and should seek to ensure a sufficient supply of science, mathematics and technology graduates.
      Member States and the Union should put in place appropriate framework conditions for the rapid development of a digital single market offering widely accessible online contents and services. Member States should promote the roll-out and take up of high-speed Internet as an essential means for acceding to knowledge and participating in its creation. Public funding should be cost-efficient and targeted to address market failures. Policies should respect the principle of technological neutrality. Member States should seek to reduce the costs of network roll-out, in particular by enhancing the coordination of public works. Member States and the Union should promote the deployment and use of modern accessible online services, including by further developing e-government, e-signature, e-identity and e-payment; support active participation in the digital society, in particular by promoting access to cultural content and services including through media and digital literacy; and promote a climate of security and trust.

         The European Union headline target, on the basis of which Member States will set their national targets, is to improve the conditions for research and development, in particular with the aim of bringing combined public and private investment levels in this sector to 3 % of GDP by 2020. The Commission will elaborate an indicator reflecting R & D and innovation intensity.

      Guideline 5:   Improving resource efficiency and reducing greenhouse gases
      Member States and the Union should put measures in place to promote the decoupling of economic growth from resource use, turning environmental challenges into growth opportunities and making more efficient use of their natural resources, which also assists in preventing environmental degradation and ensuring biodiversity. They should implement the necessary structural reforms to be successful under increasing global carbon and resource constraints in creating new business and employment opportunities. The Union and Member States should make further efforts to speed up the creation of an integrated and fully functioning internal energy market to enable gas and electricity flows without bottlenecks. In order to reduce emissions and improve energy efficiency, Member States should make extensive use of market-based instruments, supporting the principle of internalisation of external costs, including taxation, and other effective support instruments in order to reduce emissions and better adapt to climate change, support sustainable growth and jobs and resource efficiency in a cost-effective manner, incentivise the use of renewable energy and low-carbon climate-resilient technologies, a shift to more environmentally-friendly and interconnected modes of transport and promote energy savings and eco-innovation. Member States should phase out environmentally harmful subsidies and ensure fair distribution of their costs and benefits.
      Member States and the Union should use regulatory, non-regulatory and fiscal instruments, for example Union-wide energy performance standards for products and buildings, labelling, and ‘green procurement’, to incentivise cost-effective transition of production and consumption patterns, promote recycling, make the transition to energy- and resource-efficiency and a safe and sustainable low-carbon economy, and ensure progress towards more sustainable transport and safe and clean energy production while maximising European synergies in this respect and take into account the contribution of sustainable agriculture. Member States should decisively work towards smart, upgraded and fully interconnected transport and energy infrastructures, use Information and Communication Technologies, in line with guideline 4, to secure productivity gains, ensure coordinated implementation of infrastructure projects and support the development of open, competitive and integrated network markets.

         The European Union headline target, on the basis of which Member States will set their national targets, is to reduce by 2020 greenhouse gas emissions by 20 % compared to 1990 levels; to increase the share of renewable energy sources in our final energy consumption to 20 %; and moving towards a 20 % increase in energy efficiency; the Union is committed to take a decision to move to a 30 % reduction by 2020 compared to 1990 levels as its conditional offer with a view to a global and comprehensive agreement for the period beyond 2012, provided that other developed countries commit themselves to comparable emission reductions and developing countries contribute adequately according to their responsibilities and respective capabilities.

      Guideline 6:   improving the business and consumer environment, and modernising and developing the industrial base in order to ensure the full functioning of the internal market
      Member States should ensure that markets work for citizens, consumers and businesses. While ensuring the protection of consumers, Member States and the Union should put in place predictable framework conditions and ensure well-functioning, open and competitive goods and services markets. In particular, these actions should aim for the deepening the single market and regulation system, notably in the financial sector, as well as the promotion of a level playing field in financial markets at global level, the effective implementation and enforcement of single market and competition rules, and developing the necessary physical infrastructure, also with a view to reducing regional disparities.
      The external dimension of the internal market should be further developed with the aim of enhanced trade and investment. In the context of the single market due attention must be paid to respecting the adequate provision of services of general interest. Member States should continue to improve the business environment by modernising public administrations, improving corporate governance, removing remaining barriers to the internal market, eliminating unnecessary administrative burdens and avoid unnecessary new burdens by applying smart regulation instruments, including by developing further interoperable e-government services, removing tax obstacles, supporting small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), improving their access to the Single Market in line with the ‘Small Business Act for Europe’ and the ‘Think Small First’ principle, ensuring stable and integrated financial services markets, facilitating access to finance, improving conditions for promoting access to and protecting intellectual property rights, supporting internationalisation of SMEs and promoting entrepreneurship, including female entrepreneurship. Public procurement should encourage innovation, particularly for SMEs, and support the transition toward a resource- and energy-efficient economy (in line with guideline 5), while respecting the principles of market-openness, transparency and effective competition.
      Member States should support a modern, innovative, diversified, competitive, low-carbon, resource- and energy-efficient industrial base, partly by facilitating any necessary restructuring in a cost-effective manner and in full compliance with the Union’s competition rules and other relevant rules. The Union’s funds should be reprioritised by Member States in this context. Member States should work closely with industry and stakeholders to contribute to the Union’s leadership and competitiveness in global sustainable and inclusive development, particularly by encouraging corporate social responsibility, identifying bottlenecks and enabling change.


title: Recommendation of the European Central Bank of 2 September 2013 to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of the Banco de España (ECB/2013/32)

text:
               13.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 264/1

         RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK
   of 2 September 2013
   to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of the Banco de España
   (ECB/2013/32)
   2013/C 264/01
   THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,
   Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Article 27.1 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

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

               (2)

               The mandate of the Banco de España’s current external auditors ended following the audit for the financial year 2012. It is therefore necessary to appoint external auditors from the financial year 2013.

               (3)

               The Banco de España has selected KPMG Auditores, S.L. as its external auditors for the financial years 2013 to 2017,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:
   It is recommended that KPMG Auditores, S.L. should be appointed as the external auditors of the Banco de España for the financial years 2013 to 2017.

      Done at Frankfurt am Main, 2 September 2013.

            The President of the ECB

         Mario DRAGHI