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

text:
               18.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 299/49

         COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
   of 12 July 2016
   on the 2016 National Reform Programme of Hungary and delivering a Council opinion on the 2016 Convergence Programme of Hungary
   (2016/C 299/12)
   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 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 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2), the Commission adopted the Alert Mechanism Report, in which it identified Hungary as one of the Member States for which an in-depth review would be carried out.

               (2)

               The 2016 country report for Hungary was published on 26 February 2016. It assessed Hungary's progress in addressing the country-specific recommendations adopted by the Council on 14 July 2015 and Hungary'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 presented the results of the in-depth review. The Commission's analysis leads it to conclude that Hungary is experiencing no macroeconomic imbalances. In particular, although high external debt rollover needs and the share of non-performing loans remain a concern, risks linked to external and internal liabilities have been reduced.

               (3)

               On 29 April 2016, Hungary 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 the effectiveness of the European Structural and Investment Funds to sound economic governance.

               (5)

               The Convergence Programme indicates that the budgetary impact of the exceptional inflow of refugees is significant and an addendum of 6 May provides adequate evidence of the scope and nature of these additional budgetary costs. According to the Commission's assessment, the eligible additional expenditure amounted to 0,04 % of GDP in 2015 and currently no further incremental costs are expected in 2016. The provisions set out in Article 5(1) and Article 6(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 cater for this additional expenditure, in that the inflow of refugees is an exceptional event, its impact on Hungary`s public finances is significant and sustainability would not be compromised by allowing for a temporary deviation from the adjustment path towards the medium-term budgetary objective. Therefore, the required adjustment towards the medium-term budgetary objective for 2015 has been reduced to take into account these costs. Regarding 2016, a final assessment, including on the eligible amounts, will be made in spring 2017 on the basis of observed data as provided by Hungary's authorities.

               (6)

               Hungary is currently in the preventive arm of the Stability and Growth Pact and subject to the debt rule. In its 2016 Convergence Programme, the Government plans the headline deficit to increase to 2,4 % of GDP by 2017 and then to decrease gradually to 1,2 % by 2020. The Government plans a gradual improvement of the structural balance in order to reach its revised medium-term budgetary objective — a deficit of 1,5 % of GDP in structural terms — by 2019. However, the recalculated (4) structural deficit would remain higher than the medium-term budgetary objective. According to the Convergence Programme, the government debt-to-GDP ratio is expected to decline gradually from 75,3 % in 2015 and to below 65 % in 2020. The macroeconomic scenario underpinning these budgetary projections is broadly plausible until 2017 and becomes increasingly favourable thereafter. The measures needed to support the planned deficit targets from 2017 onwards have not been sufficiently specified, in particular for after 2017. Based on the Commission 2016 spring forecast, there is a high risk of a significant deviation from the required adjustment in 2016 as well as, under unchanged policies, in 2016 and 2017 taken together. At the same time, Hungary is forecast to comply with the debt reduction benchmark in 2016 and in 2017. Based on its assessment of the Convergence Programme and taking into account the Commission 2016 spring forecast, the Council is of the opinion that there is a risk that Hungary will not comply with the provisions of the Stability and Growth Pact. Therefore further measures will be needed in both years to ensure compliance.

               (7)

               Internal financial imbalances have been reduced and the banking system has become less vulnerable, but challenges remain. Considerable progress has been made in reducing private sector debt, previously mostly denominated in foreign currencies. Lending to households showed signs of recovery but a turnaround in corporate lending has yet to take place. The profitability of the banking sector has started to recover, helped by the improving economic environment and by a moderation in the previous policies towards taxes on banks. Nevertheless, banks remain cautious in their lending, even though they are well capitalised and highly liquid. The main remaining challenge for banks is to reduce the still high share of non-performing loans that hinder new lending and put pressure on profits. The contingent liability risks linked to the increased ownership of the state in the banking sector are still high.

               (8)

               Despite considerable recent improvements in tax policies and the tax administration, Hungary's reliance on sector-specific taxes remains a potential barrier to investment. The selective design of these taxes causes distortions across sectors. While several other sector-specific taxes remain in place, the levy on credit institutions has been reduced significantly and the progressive rates in the food inspection fee have been repealed. The labour tax wedge for low-income earners is still high, especially for those without children. This can have a negative impact on their employability and can also hamper investment. Steps have been taken to reduce the tax wedge (including a one percentage point cut in the uniform tax rate of the personal income tax and an increase of the family tax allowance for earners with two children). However, measures are not sufficiently well targeted to have a significant effect for low-income earners. There is a potential for shifting tax away from labour to areas less distortive to growth. Several measures have been taken to improve compliance and reduce compliance costs, although tax compliance costs remain high. Despite improvements in recent years, Hungary still faces challenges regarding the efficiency of tax collection. The Government announced a major institutional reform, to be launched in 2016, targeting efficiency in the tax administration.

               (9)

               Limited progress has been made as regards promoting competition and transparency in public procurement (for example, by adopting the new Public Procurement Act, the compliance of which with EU law has still to be assessed), while unpredictable regulatory changes and administrative burden hamper private business and investment. The high number of negotiated procedures without publication, and contract awards with a single bid, show that a low level of competition in procurement persists. In May 2016, the Government presented an e-procurement strategy. Its implementation and impact on improving efficiency and transparency needs to be monitored and the risk of corruption remains. Changes would be needed to make the new National Anti-Corruption Action Programme (NAP) 2015-2018 more effective in preventing corruption in public institutions and applying dissuasive sanctions. The Government has not renewed its earlier commitment to revise the 2013 whistle-blower law, which lacks provisions that adequately protect whistle-blowers from retaliation. The NAP's plans to revise the asset declaration system lack ambition, and new legislative amendments passed in 2015 introduced some further restrictions to public access to information. The Government has taken steps to reduce the administrative burden, but Hungary's restrictive regulations in service sectors and a volatile regulatory environment remain concerns for businesses and thus create uncertainty for investors. Establishment and operational restrictions on the retail sector constitute significant barriers to entry and expansion. Mark-ups in the Hungarian retail sector are the third highest in the Union and have been increasing continuously for the last decade while the allocative efficiency indicator is among the lowest in the Union.

               (10)

               Recent labour market developments are favourable in Hungary, with unemployment having fallen to pre-crisis levels. Employment creation in the private sector is picking up, but the public works scheme has also contributed to reducing unemployment. The scheme is the main active labour market policy in Hungary. Its budgetary cost has more than quadrupled over the last five years. However, the scheme does not seem sufficiently to improve the reintegration of participants into the open labour market. In the first half of 2015, the rate of successful exit from the scheme to regular employment was 13,1 %, but around 60 % of the participants who left it in that period returned to the scheme within 180 days. This significantly risks locking participants into the scheme, particularly low-skilled workers and people in disadvantaged regions. Although the scheme targets the long-term unemployed, the low-skilled and unemployed people living in disadvantaged areas, 47 % of participants in 2015 had secondary or tertiary education. The proportion of unemployed people involved in public works is also significant in counties with well-performing labour markets. The recent reform of the public employment service is likely to make it less effective. The administrative complexity of the management arrangements — currently the responsibility over the public employment service is spread between four ministries — may significantly compromise effective steering and an increased result orientation. The maximum duration of unemployment benefits (three months) is the lowest in the Union and is significantly shorter than the average time necessary to find a job. Poverty indicators are improving, but they remain high, especially among the most disadvantaged, in particular Roma and children. The adequacy and coverage of social assistance remains a challenge and recent reforms could further restrict the conditions for access to a number of benefits.

               (11)

               The average performance of Hungarian students in basic skills was below the EU average in the 2012 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and the proportion of low-achievers increased between 2009 and 2012. The influence of the socioeconomic background and school location on educational performance is among the strongest in the Union. The selectivity of the education system deepens performance gaps among students in different school types and these gaps widen over time. The lack of equal access to quality mainstream education is particularly acute for Roma. With the exception of early childhood education, where there has been significant improvement in recent years, gaps remain wide between completion rates of Roma and non-Roma on all other educational levels, i.e. primary, secondary and tertiary education. Early school leaving remains high among Roma. Hungary has introduced a number of measures that aim to address low-achievement more effectively. However, important details on the implementation of these measures are not available, making it difficult to assess their potential impact. A systemic approach to promoting inclusive mainstream education has yet to be developed. The announced implementation plan for the early school leaving strategy has yet to be published. The transition between different forms and stages of education remains difficult and the implementation of recent reforms in vocational education should be targeted at facilitating transitions.

               (12)

               In the context of the European Semester, the Commission has carried out a comprehensive analysis of Hungary'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 Hungary in previous years. It has taken into account not only their relevance for sustainable fiscal and socioeconomic policy in Hungary but also their compliance 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. The recommendations under the European Semester are reflected in recommendations (1) to (3) below.

               (13)

               In the light of this assessment, the Council has examined the Convergence Programme, and its opinion (5) is reflected in particular in recommendation (1) below.

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

               1.

               In view of the high risk of a significant deviation, achieve an annual fiscal adjustment of 0,3 % of GDP towards the medium-term budgetary objective in 2016 and of 0,6 % of GDP in 2017, unless the medium-term budgetary objective is respected with a lower effort, by taking the necessary structural measures.

               2.

               Further reduce sector-specific taxes and reduce the tax wedge for low-income earners. Strengthen transparency and competition in public procurement through e-procurement, increased publication of tenders and further improvement of the anti-corruption framework. Improve the regulatory environment in the services sector and in the retail sector by addressing restrictive regulations and ensuring predictability.

               3.

               Facilitate the transition from the public works scheme to the primary labour market and reinforce other active labour market policies. Improve the adequacy and coverage of social assistance and unemployment benefits. Take measures to improve educational outcomes and to increase the participation of disadvantaged groups, in particular Roma, in inclusive mainstream education.

      Done at Brussels, 12 July 2016.

            For the Council

            The President

         P. KAŽIMÍR

      (1)  OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 1.

      (2)  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 (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)  The structural balance as recalculated by the Commission based on the information in the Convergence Programme, following the commonly agreed methodology.

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


title: Commission Recommendation of 24 October 2006 on the management of financial resources for the decommissioning of nuclear installations, spent fuel and radioactive waste

text:
               28.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 330/31

      COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION

   of 24 October 2006
   on the management of financial resources for the decommissioning of nuclear installations, spent fuel and radioactive waste
   (2006/851/Euratom)
   THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 124 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The preamble to the Treaty recognises that the Member States are anxious to create the conditions of safety necessary to eliminate hazards to the life and health of the public.

               (2)

               Article 2(b) of the Treaty calls on the Community, in particular, to establish uniform safety standards to protect the health of workers and the general public and ensure that they are applied.

               (3)

               Chapter III of the Treaty lays down basic standards allowing the Community to ensure the protection of the health and safety of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation.

               (4)

               Council Directive 96/29/Euratom lays down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation (1).

               (5)

               Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (2), calls on the Member States to ‘adopt all measures necessary to ensure that, before consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location are made subject to an assessment with regard to their effects.’

               (6)

               Ionising radiation from radioactive materials can have consequences beyond the service life of nuclear installations and beyond national frontiers.

               (7)

               The safety of workers and of the general public against those risks is of paramount importance to the European Communities. High safety standards should therefore be observed to guarantee that these risks are addressed during and beyond the service life of nuclear installations.

               (8)

               The European Parliament, the Council and the Commission have underlined (3)‘the need for Member States to ensure that adequate financial resources for decommissioning and waste management activities, which are audited in Member States, are actually available for the purpose for which they have been established and are managed in a transparent way, thus avoiding obstacles to fair competition in the energy market’.

               (9)

               The Commission has also noted ‘the importance of ensuring that funds established for the purpose of decommissioning and waste management activities, which relate to the objectives of the Euratom Treaty, are managed in a transparent way, and used only for the said purpose. In this context, it intends, within the scope of its responsibilities of the Euratom Treaty to publish an annual report on the use of decommissioning and waste management funds. It shall pay particular attention to ensuring the full application of the relevant provisions of Community law’ (4).

               (10)

               In its Communication to the European Parliament and the Council (5), the Commission noted the need for increased transparency and harmonisation in the management of these financial resources. The Commission has also expressed its intention to present a recommendation in 2005.

               (11)

               Decommissioning operations themselves can also pose potential risks to public health and the environment, particularly if the measures necessary to deal with the radiological risks of decommissioning operations are not taken in time.

               (12)

               In order to address all these risks, safe decommissioning of nuclear installations, including long-term management of radioactive waste and spent fuel, should be ensured.

               (13)

               Safe decommissioning of nuclear installations, including the long-term management of radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, calls for substantial financial resources. A lack of these resources at the time they are needed may adversely affect the decommissioning process. Sufficient financial resources at the appropriate time should be available to allow complete decommissioning at nuclear installations in conformity with safety standards.

               (14)

               In accordance with the polluter-pays principle, nuclear operators should set aside adequate financial resources for the future decommissioning costs during the productive life of those installations.

               (15)

               In the context of the specificities of the accession negotiations, the issue of early shutdown of nuclear power reactors deemed not to be economically upgradeable was addressed. Accordingly, the Community has, on its own initiative, taken part in the raising of financial resources and provides economic support, subject to certain conditions, to various decommissioning projects in certain new Member States.

               (16)

               Article 26 of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, which entered into force on 18 June 2001, specifies that ‘each Contracting Party shall take the appropriate steps to ensure the safety of decommissioning of a nuclear facility. Such steps should ensure, inter alia, that qualified staff and adequate financial resources are available.’ Article 22(ii) of the Convention calls on each Contracting Party to take the appropriate steps to ensure that ‘adequate financial resources are available to support the safety of facilities for spent fuel and radioactive waste management during their operating lifetime and for decommissioning.’

               (17)

               Article 2(c) of the Treaty calls on the Community to facilitate investment and ensure the establishment of the basic installations necessary for the development of nuclear energy in the Community. The development of such energy cannot be dissociated from the process of the decommissioning of such investments or installations. Article 41 of the Treaty requires investment projects relating to nuclear energy to be communicated to the Commission for examination. Council Regulation (Euratom) No 2587/1999 of 2 December 1999 defining the investment projects to be communicated to the Commission in accordance with Article 41 of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (6) includes decommissioning activities as investment projects to be communicated to and discussed with the Commission. Consequently, persons and undertakings (7) should inform the Commission of decommissioning funding arrangements in respect of newly built nuclear installations.

               (18)

               Ensuring sufficient financial resources when needed requires a sound and prudent analysis of both the sources for such financing and the costs linked to the decommissioning of such installations. The method of determining the amounts of funding for decommissioning has to take account of technological aspects and nuclear safety constraints.

               (19)

               In order to ensure the availability of resources when needed for the purposes of decommissioning nuclear installations, transparent management with appropriate external supervision of such financial resources is of paramount importance; this will also help to avoid obstacles to fair competition in the energy market. Various appropriate management possibilities could be in place in order to ensure such objectives. A dedicated national body should be put in place so as to provide an expert judgment concerning fund management and decommissioning cost matters.

               (20)

               This Recommendation does not create derogations from State aid rules. In this context, State intervention concerns issues covered by the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community and therefore has to be assessed accordingly. However, to the extent that it is not necessary for or goes beyond the objectives of this Treaty or distorts or threatens to distort competition in the internal market, it has to be assessed under the Treaty establishing the European Community.

               (21)

               The manner in which these financial resources are invested should be carefully addressed so as to avoid any possible misuse. The investments should be long-term and have a secure risk profile, while at the same time providing adequate protection of the real value of the funds.

               (22)

               With a view to ensuring safety, the gathering of appropriate resources to guarantee the decommissioning of nuclear installations should take into account the specific circumstances of certain installations.

               (23)

               Experience shows that exchange of information between national experts concerning the various approaches to and financial arrangements for decommissioning and waste management is an excellent way of facilitating a common response to safety challenges. In an effort to increase cooperation between the Commission and the Member States, the Commission therefore announces its intention to establish a permanent group on decommissioning funding. The Commission should be assisted by this Decommissioning Funding Group in its proceedings in the context of this Recommendation.

               (24)

               Without prejudice to the general principle of subsidiarity, a certain degree of harmonisation should be suggested with regard to the concepts used in decommissioning matters. Such harmonisation should be progressed through the Decommissioning Funding Group where commonly agreed interpretations of this Recommendation should be reached for its practical implementation and in particular with a view to harmonisation of methodologies for cost calculation of decommissioning activities.

               (25)

               The Joint Research Centre, set up on the basis of Article 8 of the Treaty, carries out research programmes in the nuclear field, which may involve ionising risks after the life service of its installations. To guarantee the safety of those installations, the Commission should ensure compliance of this Centre with the recommendations contained herein. In particular, the Commission should verify the adequacy of financing resources for the purposes of decommissioning the installations of the Centre. The Commission departments responsible for nuclear and budgetary matters are the best placed to carry out such tasks,

         HEREBY RECOMMENDS:
   SECTION 1
   AIM
   In view of the safety objectives of the Treaty, this Recommendation proposes measures to ensure that adequate financial resources are available at the scheduled time for all decommissioning activities of nuclear installations and for the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste.
   SECTION 2
   DEFINITIONS
   For the purpose of this Recommendation, the following definitions shall apply:

         (a)
         ‘decommissioning’ shall mean all activities covering the technical decommissioning of the nuclear installation (decontamination, dismantling and demolition) and waste management (management and disposal of radioactive waste and spent fuel) leading to the release of the nuclear installations from radiological restrictions;

         (b)
         ‘decommissioning fund’ shall mean any type of financial resources intended specifically to cover the expenditure necessary for decommissioning nuclear installations;

         (c)
         ‘external decommissioning fund’ shall mean a decommissioning fund managed by a dedicated body independent in its decisions from the contributors to the fund;

         (d)
         ‘internal decommissioning fund’ shall mean a decommissioning fund managed by the operator;

         (e)
         ‘segregated decommissioning fund’ shall mean a decommissioning fund either internal or external, which is identified separately;

         (f)
         ‘operator’ shall mean the legal person who operates the nuclear installation and has the prime responsibility for nuclear safety;

         (g)
         ‘nuclear installation’ shall mean any civilian facility and its land, buildings and equipment in which radioactive materials are produced, processed, used, handled, stored or disposed.
   SECTION 3
   DECOMMISSIONING OF NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS

               1.

               All nuclear installations should be decommissioned after permanent shutdown and the management of waste should be properly addressed.

               2.

               Decommissioning activities should be carried out without undue risk to the health and safety of workers and the general public.

               3.

               The polluter pays principle should be fully applied throughout the decommissioning of nuclear installations. In this regard, the primary concern of nuclear operators should be to ensure the availability of adequate financial resources for safe decommissioning by the time the respective nuclear installation is permanently shut down.

               4.

               The financial resources available should be aimed at covering all aspects of decommissioning activities, from technical decommissioning of the installation to waste management.

         SECTION 4
   INSTITUTIONAL AND PROCEDURAL ASPECTS

               5.

               Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 41 of the Treaty and the Regulations in force with regards to its implementation (8), persons and undertakings should report on the planned decommissioning funding regime in the context of the procedure provided for under Article 41 of the Treaty concerning the construction of new nuclear installations.
               In the review of the proposed decommissioning funding regime the Commission will — subject to the requirements of Article 44 of the Treaty — consult the Decommissioning Funding Group.

               6.

               Where not already provided for, Member States should set up or appoint a national body capable of providing an expert judgment on fund management and decommissioning cost matters. This body should be independent as regards the contributors to the fund.
               The national body should annually review the financial resources gathered and periodically, at least every five years, the decommissioning cost estimates. Any shortfall between cost estimates and resources gathered should be addressed in good time.
               Member States should report annually on the conclusions of the proceedings of the relevant national body mentioned above to the Commission.

         SECTION 5
   DECOMMISSIONING FUNDS

               7.

               Nuclear installations should set up adequate decommissioning funds on the basis of the revenues obtained from their nuclear activities during the designed lifetime.

               8.

               A segregated fund with appropriate control on prudent use should be the preferred option for all nuclear installations. The review of the national body provided for in this Recommendation should play a key role in ensuring proper management and use of the funds.

               9.

               New nuclear installations should set up segregated decommissioning funds with appropriate control on prudent use.

         SECTION 6
   ESTIMATION OF DECOMMISSIONING COSTS

               10.

               In view of the differences in the use of the decommissioning funds gathered, technical decommissioning of the installation, on the one hand, and waste management, on the other, should be addressed separately, on the basis of separate cost calculations.

               11.

               In order to ensure that adequate financial resources are available, cost calculations should be based upon a prudent choice from the realistically available alternatives and subject to the external supervision and agreement of the national body foreseen in this Recommendation.

               12.

               All cost estimates should be site-specific and based upon best available estimates.

               13.

               If during implementation the decommissioning project proves to be more expensive than the approved cost estimates, the operator should cover the additional expenses. This aspect should be carefully addressed should the operator change during or beyond the lifetime of the nuclear installation.

               14.

               Due attention should be paid to cases arising for historical reasons where a special solution is the most appropriate. This case-by-case approach should be transparent and with the full involvement of the national body provided for in this Recommendation.

         SECTION 7
   USE OF DECOMMISSIONING FUNDS

               15.

               Financial resources should be used only for the purpose for which they have been established and managed. In this context, due consideration should be given to transparency. All commercially non-sensitive information should be publicly available.

               16.

               A secure risk profile should be sought in the investment of the assets, ensuring that a positive return is achieved over any given period of time.

               17.

               As the operator has no influence on the financial management of an external decommissioning fund, the value of the investments should be guaranteed by the State in order to ensure that adequate funds are available when required, even if a nominal loss is made by the independent manager of the invested amounts by the time these financial resources are to be used. In such cases, the funds should not be supplemented with an amount higher than the loss in the investment.

               18.

               If the management of an internal fund underperforms, the operator should be responsible for ensuring that adequate funds are available when needed.

               19.

               In the case of nuclear installations whose main purpose is other than the sale of products or services, decommissioning should be properly planned and budgeted so as to allow adequate funding to be available for the safe and timely decommissioning of such installations.

               20.

               Budgetary planning should be subject to the review of the national body provided for in this Recommendation. In the absence of such a national body, Member States may request the Commission to provide advice concerning the measures to be taken.

      Done at Brussels, 24 October 2006.

            For the Commission

         Andris PIEBALGS

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  OJ L 159, 29.6.1996, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. Directive as last amended by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and the Council (OJ L 156, 25.6.2003, p. 17).

      (3)  Interinstitutional statement of OJ L 176, 15.7.2003, p. 56.

      (4)  Commission statement of OJ L 176, 15.7.2003, p. 56.

      (5)  COM(2004) 719, Report on the use of financial resources earmarked for the decommissioning of nuclear power plants, 26.10.2004.

      (6)  OJ L 315, 9.12.1999, p. 1.

      (7)  Persons and undertakings engaged in industrial activities listed in Annex II to the Euratom Treaty.

      (8)  Council Regulation (Euratom) No 2587/1999 of 2 December 1999 defining the investment projects to be communicated to the Commission in accordance with Article 41 of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ L 315, 9.12.1999, p. 1) and Commission Regulation (Euratom) No 1352/2003 of 23 July 2003 amending Regulation (EC) No 1209/2000 determining procedures for effecting the communications prescribed under Article 41 of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ L 192, 31.7.2003, p. 15).


Avis juridique important

|

32002H0515(01)

Council Recommendation of 25 April 2002 on improving investigation methods in the fight against organised crime linked to organised drug trafficking: simultaneous investigations into drug trafficking by criminal organisations and their finances/assets

Official Journal C 114 , 15/05/2002 P. 0001 - 0002

Council Recommendationof 25 April 2002on improving investigation methods in the fight against organised crime linked to organised drug trafficking: simultaneous investigations into drug trafficking by criminal organisations and their finances/assets(2002/C 114/01)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, adopted in Vienna on 20 December 1988,TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the United Nations Convention against transnational organised crime adopted in Palermo in 2000,TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the Presidency Conclusions of the special meeting of the European Council held in Tampere on 15 and 16 October 1999,TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the European Union Action Plan to Combat Drugs, approved by the Feira European Council in June 2000,TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the Council of Europe 1990 Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime,TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the Council Framework Decision on money laundering, the identification, tracing, freezing, seizing and confiscation of instrumentalities and the proceeds of crime, of 26 June 2001(1),Whereas:(1) The actions envisaged by the European Union Action Plan to Combat Drugs include stepping up the fight against organised crime, illicit drug trafficking and organised crime linked to it, and other forms of drug-related crime by means of various actions, including the promotion of new investigation techniques.(2) The European Union has also shown its firm determination to fight all types of crime, including those linked to organised drug trafficking, by adopting the necessary legislation, and trying to counteract the concern caused by the growing incidence of illicit drug trafficking in different social groups.(3) Illicit drug trafficking generates vast fortunes which allow drug-related crime to adversely affect society in general; for that reason, depriving such organisations of the enormous profits obtained from their illicit activities, as well as seizing the drugs, causes them serious damage, thus thwarting and preventing their resurgence.(4) Investigation techniques should be promoted, made more rigorous and also improved, in order to make them more effective in the fight against crime linked to organised drug trafficking.(5) It is convinced by the results obtained in some Member States, and should like to try to implement, where necessary, the investigation technique whereby action is taken on all fronts from the outset of the investigation on crime linked to drug-trafficking, which makes it possible to uncover illicit drug-trafficking activities, the assets (of whatever kind) held by the organisation and those acquired as the investigation proceeds, and to identify their holders.(6) It is also convinced that the technique of simultaneous investigation will be more effective, since the competent authorities will be able to decide to seize property of any kind resulting from criminal activity and prevent its disposal, in all cases in accordance with the national laws of each State.(7) Such an investigation technique can also lead to further evidence corroborating the link with those involved with the crime, or revealing the involvement of other people in the drug-trafficking offence.(8) Sources constitute an essential basis for investigating assets, either internal such as the databases of law enforcement bodies, or external whether public (with public access where relevant) or private (consultation by means of a court order).(9) There is a need for greater cooperation in expediting requests submitted by the competent law enforcement, court and tax authorities to the persons responsible for the various registers containing data on the ownership of assets of any nature held by the persons presumed to be involved in drug trafficking offences. (The persons responsible would be in charge of, for example, public registers, such as the Property Register, or private registers such as those of credit institutions), in each case observing the applicable national laws.(10) The final objectives of such an investigation technique are to ensure that the perpetrators are held accountable, to make good any damage caused and to compensate any victims where appropriate.(11) The investigation technique of "uncovering" the assets of any nature belonging to criminals involved in organised drug trafficking will be known as asset investigation, for the period required to establish the assets resulting from the investigation, which may or may not coincide with the conclusion of the drug-trafficking investigation.(12) Assets are defined as the collective property and financial rights owned by a natural or legal person, and asset investigation is defined as the investigation technique enabling information in a series of files and databases (public or private) or other sources to be systematically analysed to identify such individual assets and financial rights and to attribute their ownership to specific natural or legal persons.(13) Instrumentalities, property, proceeds and confiscation are as defined in the 1990 Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime.(14) In the context of the European Union, a number of initiatives are close to completion with the aim of implementing new measures against crime, including drug-related crime, on joint investigation teams and on court orders for the preventive freezing of assets and obtaining evidence,HEREBY RECOMMENDS MEMBER STATES:A. To apply, whenever they consider it necessary, the investigation method in the fight against crime, including crime linked to organised drug trafficking, consisting of investigating on all fronts, right from the beginning, any activities connected with illicit drug trafficking and identifying the organisation's finances and assets.B. To encourage the setting up of permanent or temporary groups specialised in asset investigation, in order to promote greater efficiency in the investigation method described.C. To reinforce or facilitate cooperation between the competent law enforcement, court and tax authorities and persons responsible for the various public or private registers of ownership holding information on assets of any nature, by speeding up the processing of requests for information made by those authorities. (The persons responsible would be in charge of, for example, public registers, such as the Property Register, or private registers such as those of credit institutions), in each case observing the applicable national laws.D. To promote the creation of joint investigative teams between Member States pursuant to the legal instruments of the European Union by applying such methods in cases where the investigation into the criminal organisation involved in drug trafficking affects more than one Member State.E. To invite Europol, in accordance with the Council Recommendation of 30 November 2000 to the Member States in respect of Europol's assistance to joint investigative teams set up by the Member States(2), to support those teams when requested to do so.F. To use the possibilities offered by CEPOL (the European Police College) in devising specific training modules on use of this special investigation technique.Done at Luxemburg, 25 April 2002.For the CouncilThe PresidentM. Rajoy Brey(1) OJ L 182, 5.7.2001, p. 1.(2) OJ C 357, 13.12.2000, p. 7.


Important legal notice

|

E2001C0228

Recommendation of the EFTA Surveillance Authority No 228/01/COL of 2 July 2001 on a coordinated programme for the official control of foodstuffs for 2001

Official Journal L 006 , 10/01/2002 P. 0065 - 0069

Recommendation of the EFTA Surveillance AuthorityNo 228/01/COLof 2 July 2001on a coordinated programme for the official control of foodstuffs for 2001THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY,Having regard to the EEA Agreement, and in particular Article 109 and Protocol 1 thereof,Having regard to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, and in particular Article 5(2)(b) and Protocol 1 thereof,Having regard to the Act referred to in point 50 of Chapter XII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement on the official control of foodstuffs (Council Directive 89/397/EEC of 14 June 1989 on the official control of foodstuffs)(1), and in particular Article 14(3) thereof,After consulting the EFTA Foodstuffs Committee assisting the EFTA Surveillance Authority,Whereas:(1) It is necessary, with a view to the sound operation of the European Economic Area, to arrange for coordinated food inspection programmes within the EEA.(2) Such programmes place emphasis on compliance with the foodstuffs legislation in force under the EEA Agreement, the protection of public health, consumer interests and fair trade practices.(3) Article 3 of the Act referred to in point 54n of Chapter XII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement (Council Directive 93/99/EC of 29 October 1993 on the subject of additional measures concerning the official control of foodstuffs)(2) requires the laboratories referred to in Article 7 of Directive 89/397 to comply with the criteria in the European Standard EN 45000 series. Only such laboratories may be considered suitable to carry out analyses within the coordinated programme of official controls.(4) The results from simultaneous implementation of national programmes and coordinated programmes can provide information and experience on which to base future control activities.(5) The European Commission, in its recommendation of 18 April 2001 concerning a coordinated programme for the official control of foodstuffs for 2001, has recommended the Member States of the European Union to apply a corresponding programme,HEREBY RECOMMENDS THE EFTA STATES TO:1. Carry out inspections and controls during 2001 including, where indicated, taking samples and analysing such samples in laboratories, with the aim of:- monitoring compliance with the EEA labelling rules concerning the Quantitative Ingredients Declaration (QUID);- assessing the bacteriological quality of smoked fish products.2. Although sampling and/or inspection rates have not been set in this Recommendation, ensure that they are sufficient to provide an overview of the subject under consideration.3. Provide information as requested following the format of the record sheets provided in the Annex to this Recommendation to help enhance the comparability of results.4. Ensure that foodstuffs submitted for analysis under this programme are submitted to laboratories complying with the provisions of Article 3 of Directive 93/99.SCOPE AND METHODS:A. Quantitative Ingredients Declaration (QUID)1. Scope of the programmeA statement of the quantity of an ingredient or category of ingredients used in the manufacture or preparation of foodstuff provides the consumer with better information and helps ensuring fair trade. According to Article 7 of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs(3), a declaration of quantity is compulsory if(4):- the ingredient or category of ingredients concerned appears in the name under which the foodstuff is sold or is usually associated with that name by the consumer; or- the ingredient or category of ingredients concerned is emphasised on the labelling in words, picture or graphics; or- the ingredient or category of ingredients concerned is essential to characterise a foodstuff and to distinguish it from products with which it might be confused because of its name or appearance.Products not labelled in accordance with the requirements of the abovementioned Directive should not be traded. However, products labelled before 14 February 2000 are permitted until the stocks are depleted. The aim of this element of the programme is to check the compliance of foodstuffs with the new provisions for Quantitative Ingredient Declaration.2. MethodThe examinations should concern, in particular, milk products (i.e. yoghurt, cheese, etc.), fruits juices, and dry biscuits. The competent authorities of the EFTA States should carry out inspections on premises of manufacturers or importers of foodstuffs in order to check compliance with the provisions for Quantitative Ingredients Declaration. Samples could be taken in addition to the inspections in order to determine the quantity of an ingredient or category of ingredients.The results of the control should be recorded on the record sheet in Annex I.B. Bacteriological quality of smoked fish1. Scope of the programmeThere is no Community legislation fixing specific microbiological standards for smoked fish. Experience shows that a considerable percentage of these products may be contaminated by pathogenic micro-organisms, including Listeria monocytogenes, and that the adoption of new techniques of production and processing may increase the risk of bacteriological contamination.Listeria monocytogenes is known to cause foodborne outbreaks of listeriosis in humans, with potentially fatal consequences for susceptible categories of the population and therefore actions shall be taken to reduce the risk of human listeriosis from food consumption, in particular ready-to-eat food, such as smoked fish.Certain measures may be adopted relating to the management of risk at the level of food business operators. Implementation of good hygiene practices and principles used to develop the HACCP (Hazard analysis and critical control points) system are important tools in ensuring food safety.The aim of this element of the programme is to assess the level of contamination on smoked fish, specifically on smoked salmon, in particular as concerns Listeria monocytogenes and indicator organisms for faecal contamination. The programme should allow the assessment of the bacteriological quality of these products and possible risks for human health.2. MethodThe examinations should concern refrigerated and pre-packaged salmon and other hot or cold smoked fish. The competent authorities of the EFTA States should take samples of products at retail level, possibly close to the date of minimum durability. In those countries with important volumes of production it is recommended to take samples also at the site of production (raw material and/or finished products). These samplings should be in the form of samples, from the same lot, comprising, when possible, five units of one hundreds grams minimum each and the product should be kept in its original packaging. Products should be refrigerated as soon as samples have been taken and they should be sent immediately, in this state, to the laboratory.The level of sampling is left to the judgement of the competent authorities of the EFTA States. In this regard, volume and characteristics of production, trade and consumption patterns are important factors to be taken into account.Laboratories are allowed to use methods of their choice provided their level of performance matches the aims to be achieved. However, for detection and enumeration of Listeria monocytogenes, it is recommended to use the most recent version of standard EN/ISO 11290-1 and EN/ISO 11290-2. Additional equivalent methods recognised by competent authorities may also be used.The results of the control should be recorded on the record sheet in Annex II. In the case of sampling at the site of production a separate record sheet should be used.This Recommendation is addressed to Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.Done at Brussels, 2 July 2001.For the EFTA Surveillance AuthorityHannes HafsteinCollege Member(1) Hereinafter referred to as Directive 89/397.(2) Hereinafter referred to as Directive 93/99.(3) OJ L 109, 6.5.2000, p. 29.(4) The Directive is not yet incorporated into the EEA Agreement, but the provisions of the Directive are the same as in Directive 79/112/EEC, as amended, and as incorporated into the EEA Agreement.ANNEX I>PIC FILE= "L_2002006EN.006802.TIF">ANNEX II>PIC FILE= "L_2002006EN.006902.TIF">


title: Recommendation for a Council opinion in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) n°1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the updated stability programme of Greece, 2001-2004

text: ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---


				|

		52013PC0395

			Recommendation for a COUNCIL DECISION abrogating Decision 2009/590/EC on the existence of an excessive deficit in Romania /* COM/2013/0395 final */

			   	Recommendation for a
COUNCIL DECISION
abrogating Decision 2009/590/EC on the
existence of an excessive deficit in Romania
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
and in particular Article 126(12) thereof,
Having regard to the recommendation from
the Commission,
Whereas:
(1)       By Council Decision 2009/590/EC
of 7 July 2009[1],
following a recommendation from the Commission in accordance with Article 104(6)
of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC), it was decided that an
excessive deficit existed in Romania. The Council noted that the general
government deficit reached 5.4 % of GDP in 2008, thus above the 3% of GDP
Treaty reference value, while the general government gross debt was 13.6% of
GDP, well below the 60% of GDP Treaty reference value[2].
(2)       On 7 July 2009, in
accordance with Article 104(7) TEC and Article 3(4) of Council Regulation
(EC) No 1467/97 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation
of the excessive deficit procedure[3],
the Council, based on a recommendation from the Commission, addressed a
recommendation to Romania with a view to bringing the excessive deficit
situation to an end by 2011 at the latest. The recommendation was made public.
(3)       On 12 February 2010, in
accordance with Article 126(7) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union (TFEU) and Article 3(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 of
7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive
deficit procedure, the Council, based on a recommendation from the Commission,
acknowledging that the Romanian authorities had taken effective action in
compliance with the Council Recommendation of 7 July 2009 and that unexpected
adverse economic events with major unfavourable consequences for government
finances had occurred in Romania, addressed a revised recommendation to Romania
with a view to bringing the excessive deficit situation to an end by 2012 at
the latest. This recommendation was made public.
(4)       In accordance with Article
4 of the Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaties,
the Commission provides the data for the implementation of the procedure. As
part of the application of this Protocol, Member States are to notify data on
government deficits and debt and other associated variables twice a year,
namely before 1 April and before 1 October, in accordance with Article 3 of
Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2009 of 25 May 2009 on the application of the
Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaty establishing
the European Community[4].

(5)       When considering whether a
decision on the existence of an excessive deficit should be abrogated, the
Council should take a decision on the basis of notified data. Moreover, a
decision on the existence of an excessive deficit should be abrogated only if
the Commission forecasts indicate that the deficit will not exceed the 3% of
GDP threshold over the forecast horizon[5].
(6)       Based on data provided by
the Commission (Eurostat) in accordance with Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 479/2009
following the notification by Romania before 1 April 2013 and on the
Commission services’ 2013 spring forecast, the following conclusions are
warranted:
–
The larger-than-expected recession in 2009 resulted
in a significant shortfall in government revenue, which pushed the general
government deficit to 9% of GDP despite efforts to reduce government
expenditure. Following this unexpected development and the extension of the
deadline for the correction of the excessive deficit by one year, the general
government deficit was subsequently reduced to 6.8% of GDP in 2010, to 5.6% of
GDP in 2011 and to 2.9% of GDP in 2012, which is below the 3% of GDP Treaty reference
value. The correction of the deficit has been driven mainly by strict control
of expenditure growth, including through control of the public sector wage bill,
a freeze in pensions and a reduction in all social benefits except pensions. It
was also supported by revenue measures such as an increase in the VAT rates by
5 percentage points and a broadening of the personal income tax base. The
fiscal adjustment was implemented in the context of two consecutive economic
adjustment programmes supported by balance-of-payments assistance.
–
The 2013 convergence programme projects the
deficit to continue falling to 2.4% of GDP in 2013 and 2.0% of GDP in 2014. In
the Commission services' 2013 spring forecast, the general government deficit
is projected to decrease to 2.6% of GDP in 2013 and to 2.4% of GDP in 2014,
based on a no-policy-change assumption, which remains below the Treaty
reference value.
–
The Commission services'
2013 spring forecast projects the general government gross debt to increase
slightly from 37.8% of GDP in 2012 to 38.5% of GDP in
2014.
(7)       The Council recalls that,
starting from 2013, which is the year following the correction of the excessive
deficit, Romania should progress towards its medium-term objective at an
appropriate pace, including respecting the expenditure benchmark.
(8)       In accordance with Article
126(12) of the Treaty, a Council Decision on the existence of an excessive
deficit is to be abrogated when the excessive deficit in the Member State
concerned has, in the view of the Council, been corrected.
(9)       In the view of the
Council, the excessive deficit in Romania has been corrected and Decision 2009/590/EC
should therefore be abrogated,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
From an overall assessment it follows that the
excessive deficit situation in Romania has been corrected.
Article 2
Decision 2009/590/EC is hereby abrogated.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to Romania.
Done at Brussels,
                                                                       For
the Council
                                                                       The
President
[1]               OJ L 202, 4.8.2009, p. 48-49.
[2]               The general government deficit and debt for 2008 were
subsequently revised to currently 5.8% of GDP and 13.4% of GDP respectively.
[3]               OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 8.
[4]               OJ L 145, 10.6.2009, p. 1.
[5]               In line with the “Specifications on the
implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact and Guidelines on the format
and content of Stability and Convergence Programmes” of 3 September 2012. See:
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/economic_governance/sgp/pdf/coc/code_of_conduct_en.pdf


title: Commission Recommendation of 7 February 2008 on a code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research (notified under document number C(2008) 424)

text:
               30.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 116/46

      COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION

   of 7 February 2008
   on a code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research
   (notified under document number C(2008) 424)
   (2008/345/EC)
   THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 211 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               In its Communication to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘Towards a European research area’ the Commission proposed in January 2000 the creation of a European Research Area (1) with a view to consolidating and structuring European research policy. In May 2007, in the Green Paper ‘The European Research Area: New Perspectives’, the Commission relaunched a broad institutional and public debate on what should be done to create a unified and attractive European Research Area that would fulfil the needs and expectations of the scientific community, business and citizens (2).

               (2)

               The Commission adopted in February 2000 a Communication on the precautionary principle (3), aiming to build a common understanding of how to assess, appraise, manage and communicate risks that science is not yet able to evaluate fully.

               (3)

               In March 2000 the Lisbon European Council set for the Community the objective of becoming in the next decade the most competitive and dynamic knowledge economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion.

               (4)

               In 2004, with its Communication ‘Towards a European strategy for nanotechnology’ (4), the Commission identified actions aimed at creating the Community added value necessary to remain competitive in this sector while ensuring its responsible development. In its conclusions of 24 September 2004 (5), the Council (Competitiveness) welcomed the proposed integrated, safe and responsible approach and the Commission’s intention to draw up an Action Plan for nanotechnology.

               (5)

               Taking into account the results of a public consultation, the Commission drew up in 2005 a Nanotechnologies Action Plan (6) which sets out coherent and interconnected actions for the immediate implementation of an integrated, safe and responsible strategy for nanosciences and nanotechnologies based on the priority areas identified in the Communication ‘Towards a European strategy for nanotechnology’. Both Communications explicitly acknowledged that environmental, human health and safety aspects need to be integrated in all nanosciences and nanotechnologies research.

               (6)

               Following the Nanosciences and nanotechnologies Action Plan, in January 2007 the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies presented an opinion on the ethical aspects of nanomedicine (7).

               (7)

               Following comments made during a public consultation on a previous opinion, the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks adopted in March 2006 a modified opinion on the appropriateness of existing methodologies to assess the potential risks associated with engineered and adventitious products of nanotechnologies (8).

               (8)

               In June 2006 the European Council adopted a revised sustainable development strategy fine-tuning the Community sustainable development strategy launched at the Gothenburg Summit in June 2001 that centred on objectives of environment and health protection and poverty eradication.

               (9)

               In its conclusions (9) of 23 November 2007, the Council (Competitiveness) recognised the need to foster synergies and cooperation between all nanosciences and nanotechnologies stakeholders, including the Member States, the Commission, academia, research centres, industry, financial bodies, non-governmental organisations and society at large.

               (10)

               A first report on the implementation of the Nanotechnologies Action Plan for Europe was presented by the Commission in 2007 (10). In this report the Commission announced its intention to adopt a voluntary Code of Conduct for Responsible Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies Research.

               (11)

               This Recommendation includes the Code of Conduct, aiming to promote integrated, safe and responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research in Europe for the benefit of society as a whole.

               (12)

               The general principles and guidelines on actions to be taken outlined in this Recommendation benefited from a public consultation.

               (13)

               This Recommendation provides Member States with an instrument to undertake further initiatives to ensure safe, ethical and sustainable nanosciences and nanotechnologies research in the European Union.

               (14)

               This Recommendation also aims at contributing to proper coordination between Member States with a view to optimise synergies between all nanosciences and nanotechnologies research stakeholders at European and international levels,

         HEREBY RECOMMENDS:

               1.

               That Member States be guided by the general principles and guidelines for actions to be taken, set out in the Code of Conduct for Responsible Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies Research, in the Annex, as they formulate, adopt and implement their strategies for developing sustainable nanosciences and nanotechnologies (hereinafter N&N) research, in line with the Commission Nanotechnologies Strategy and Action Plan.

               2.

               That Member States endeavour to follow these general principles and guidelines when implementing their national regulatory research and development strategies or developing sectoral and institutional research and development standards, taking into account pre-existing applicable N&N guidelines, good practices or regulations.

               3.

               That Member States consider such general principles and guidelines on research to be an integral part of institutional quality assurance mechanisms by regarding them as a means for establishing funding criteria for national/regional funding schemes, as well as adopting them for the auditing, monitoring and evaluation processes of public bodies.

               4.

               That Member States encourage the voluntary adoption of the Code of Conduct by relevant national and regional authorities, employers and research funding bodies, researchers, and any individual or civil society organisation involved or interested in N&N research and endeavour to undertake the necessary steps to ensure that they contribute to developing and maintaining a supportive research environment, conducive to the safe, ethical and effective development of the N&N potential.

               5.

               That Member States cooperate with the Commission in order to review this recommendation every two years, as well as to monitor the extent to which relevant stakeholders have adopted and applied the Code of Conduct.

               6.

               That the criteria for measuring such adherence to and application of the Code of Conduct be established and agreed with the Member States in relation to similar work undertaken at Community level.

               7.

               That Member States, in their bilateral agreements on research strategies and activities with third countries and in their role as members of international organisations, take due account of this Recommendation when proposing research strategies and taking decisions, and duly coordinate with other Member States and the Commission.

               8.

               That this Recommendation also be used as an instrument to encourage dialogue at all governance levels among policy makers, researchers, industry, ethics committees, civil society organisations and society at large with a view to increasing understanding and involvement by the general public in the development of new technologies.

               9.

               That the Member States inform the Commission by 30 June 2008 and annually thereafter of any measures they have taken further to this Recommendation, inform it of the first results of its application and provide good practices.

      Done at Brussels, 7 February 2008.

            For the Commission

         Janez POTOČNIK

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  COM(2000) 6, 18.1.2000.

      (2)  COM(2007) 161, 4.4.2007.

      (3)  COM(2000) 1, 2.2.2000.

      (4)  COM(2004) 338, 12.5.2004.

      (5)  Doc. 12487/04.

      (6)  COM(2005) 243, 7.6.2005.

      (7)  EGE Opinion No 21, 17 January 2007.

      (8)  SCENIHR/002/05, 10 March 2006.

      (9)  Doc. 14865/07.

      (10)  COM(2007) 505, 6.9.2007.

      ANNEX
      Code of Conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research
      This Code of Conduct provides Member States, employers, research funders, researchers and more generally all individuals and civil society organisations involved or interested in nanosciences and nanotechnologies (N&N) research (all stakeholders) with guidelines favouring a responsible and open approach to N&N research in the Community.
      The Code of Conduct is complementary to existing regulations. It does not limit or otherwise affect the possibilities of Member States to grant a wider measure of protection with regard to N&N research than is stipulated in this Code of Conduct.
      Stakeholders who adhere to this Code of Conduct should also be inspired, where applicable, by the principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
      The Code of Conduct will be regularly monitored and revised every two years by the Commission in order to take into account developments in N&N worldwide and their integration in European society.
      1.   Scope and aim
      The Code of Conduct invites all stakeholders to act responsibly and cooperate with each other, in line with the N&N Strategy and Action Plan of the Commission, in order to ensure that N&N research is undertaken in the Community in a safe, ethical and effective framework, supporting sustainable economic, social and environmental development.
      The Code of Conduct covers all N&N research activities undertaken in the European Research Area.
      The Code of Conduct is voluntary. It offers a set of general principles and guidelines for actions to be taken by all N&N stakeholders. It should facilitate and underpin the regulatory and non-regulatory approaches outlined in the 2005-09 N&N Action Plan for Europe, improving the implementation of current regulation and coping with scientific uncertainties.
      The Code of Conduct should also be a European basis for dialogue with third countries and international organisations.
      2.   Definitions
      For the purpose of the Code of Conduct, the following definitions apply:

                  (a)

                  Nano-objects: in the absence of recognised international terminology the generic term of ‘nano-object’ is used throughout the Code of Conduct to designate products resulting from N&N research. It includes nanoparticles and their aggregation at nanoscale, nano-systems, nano-materials, nano-structured materials and nano-products.

                  (b)

                  N&N research: in the broadest sense understood here, N&N research encompasses all research activities dealing with matter at the nanometric scale (1 to 100 nm). It includes all man-made nano-objects be they engineered or involuntarily generated. Naturally occurring nano-objects are excluded from the scope of the Code of Conduct. N&N research encompasses research activities from the most fundamental research to applied research, technology development and pre- and co-normative research underpinning scientific advice, standards and regulations.

                  (c)

                  N&N stakeholders: Member States, employers, research funders, researchers and more generally all individuals and civil society organisations engaged, involved or interested in N&N research.

                  (d)

                  Civil society organisations: In the context of the Code of Conduct, civil society organisations are considered to be any legal entity that is non-governmental, not-for-profit, not representing commercial interests, and pursuing a common purpose in the public interest.

            3.   General principles
      This Code of Conduct is based on a set of general principles which call for actions aimed at guaranteeing their respect by all stakeholders.
      3.1.   Meaning
      N&N research activities should be comprehensible to the public. They should respect fundamental rights and be conducted in the interest of the well-being of individuals and society in their design, implementation, dissemination and use.
      3.2.   Sustainability
      N&N research activities should be safe, ethical and contribute to sustainable development serving the sustainability objectives of the Community as well as contributing to the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals (1). They should not harm or create a biological, physical or moral threat to people, animals, plants or the environment, at present or in the future.
      3.3.   Precaution
      N&N research activities should be conducted in accordance with the precautionary principle, anticipating potential environmental, health and safety impacts of N&N outcomes and taking due precautions, proportional to the level of protection, while encouraging progress for the benefit of society and the environment.
      3.4.   Inclusiveness
      Governance of N&N research activities should be guided by the principles of openness to all stakeholders, transparency and respect for the legitimate right of access to information. It should allow the participation in decision-making processes of all stakeholders involved in or concerned by N&N research activities.
      3.5.   Excellence
      N&N research activities should meet the best scientific standards, including standards underpinning the integrity of research and standards relating to Good Laboratory Practices (2).
      3.6.   Innovation
      Governance of N&N research activities should encourage maximum creativity, flexibility and planning ability for innovation and growth.
      3.7.   Accountability
      Researchers and research organisations should remain accountable for the social, environmental and human health impacts that their N&N research may impose on present and future generations.
      4.   Guidelines on actions to be taken
      The guidelines set out in this point are based on the set of general principles described in point 3. They are meant to give guidance on how to achieve good governance, due respect for precaution, as well as wide dissemination and good monitoring of the Code of Conduct. The main responsibilities for action are indicated below, but all N&N stakeholders should contribute to their implementation as much as possible within the scope of their own remit.
      4.1.   Good governance of N&N research
      Good governance of N&N research should take into account the need and desire of all stakeholders to be aware of the specific challenges and opportunities raised by N&N. A general culture of responsibility should be created in view of challenges and opportunities that may be raised in the future and that we cannot at present foresee.
      4.1.1.   Member States should cooperate with the Commission in order to maintain an open and pluralistic forum for discussion on N&N research at Community level as a means to stimulate the societal debate about N&N research, encouraging the identification and discussion of concerns and hopes and facilitating the emergence of possible initiatives and solutions. Accordingly, Member States should enhance communication on benefits, risks and uncertainties related to N&N research. Specific attention should be paid to the younger and older members of the population.
      4.1.2.   With due respect for intellectual property rights, Member States, N&N research funding bodies, research organisations and researchers are encouraged to make easily accessible and understandable by lay people as well as by the scientific community all N&N scientific knowledge as well as related information such as relevant standards, references, labels, research on impacts, regulations and laws.
      4.1.3.   Member States should encourage private and public sector laboratories to share best practices in N&N research, with due respect for the protection of intellectual property.
      4.1.4.   N&N research organisations and researchers should ensure that scientific data and results are duly peer-reviewed before being widely disseminated outside the scientific community in order to ensure their clarity and balanced presentation.
      4.1.5.   Given its potential, Member States and N&N research organisations should ensure that N&N research is conducted at the highest level of scientific integrity. Questionable N&N research practices (not limited to plagiarism, falsification and fabrication of data) should be fought as they may entail risks for health, safety and the environment, raise public distrust and slow down the dissemination of benefits from research. Individuals signalling impropriety in research should be protected by their employers and national or regional laws.
      4.1.6.   Member States should ensure that appropriate human and financial resources are dedicated to the application of existing laws and regulations applicable to N&N research. Organisations performing N&N research activities should demonstrate transparently that they comply with relevant regulations.
      4.1.7.   National and local ethics committees and competent authorities should evaluate the manner of applying ethical review requirements to dual-use nanotechnology research. They should notably address the fundamental rights implications of any possible restrictions on informed consent and the publication of research results related to human health.
      Favouring an inclusive approach

                  4.1.8.

                  The broad directions of N&N research should be decided in an inclusive manner, allowing all stakeholders to enrich the preliminary discussions on these directions.

                  4.1.9.

                  Member States, N&N research funding bodies, research organisations and researchers are encouraged to consider, at the earliest stages and through participatory foresight exercises, the future implications of technologies or objects being researched. This could allow the development of solutions to meet potential negative impacts caused by the use of a new object or technology at a later stage. Consultations with relevant ethics committees should be part of such foresight exercises as appropriate.

                  4.1.10.

                  N&N research itself should be open to contributions from all stakeholders who should be informed and supported so that they can take an active part in the research activities, within the scope of their mission and mandate.

            Key priorities

                  4.1.11.

                  Research authorities and standardisation bodies should endeavour to adopt N&N standard terminology to facilitate the communication of scientific evidence. They should encourage standard measurement procedures as well as the use of appropriate reference materials in order to improve comparability of scientific data.

                  4.1.12.

                  N&N research funding bodies should devote an appropriate part of N&N research to the development of methods and tools for risk assessment, the refinement of metrology at nano-scale and standardisation activities. In this context, particular attention should be paid to developing methods to assess the risk of second-generation, active nano-structures.

                  4.1.13.

                  Member States, N&N research funding bodies and organisations should encourage fields of N&N research with the broadest possible positive impact. A priority should be given to research aiming to protect the public and the environment, consumers or workers and aiming to reduce, refine or replace animal experimentation.

                  4.1.14.

                  N&N research funding bodies should carry out and publish balanced assessments, based on best available scientific data, of the potential costs, risks, and benefits of research areas eligible for funding.

            Prohibition, restrictions or limitations

                  4.1.15.

                  N&N research funding bodies should not fund research in areas which could involve the violation of fundamental rights or fundamental ethical principles, at either the research or development stages (e.g. artificial viruses with pathogenic potentials).

                  4.1.16.

                  N&N research organisations should not undertake research aiming for non-therapeutic enhancement of human beings leading to addiction or solely for the illicit enhancement of the performance of the human body.

                  4.1.17.

                  As long as risk assessment studies on long-term safety is not available, research involving deliberate intrusion of nano-objects into the human body, their inclusion in food (especially in food for babies), feed, toys, cosmetics and other products that may lead to exposure to humans and the environment, should be avoided.

            4.2.   Due respect for precaution
      Given the deficit of knowledge of the environmental and health impacts of nano-objects, Member States should apply the precautionary principle in order to protect not only researchers, who will be the first to be in contact with nano-objects, but also professionals, consumers, citizens and the environment in the course of N&N research activities.
      4.2.1.   Students, researchers and research organisations involved in N&N research should take specific health, safety and environmental measures adapted to the particularities of the nano-objects manipulated. Specific guidelines on the prevention of pathologies induced by nano-objects should be developed in line with the Community Strategy 2007-14 on Health and Safety at Work (3).
      4.2.2.   N&N research organisations should apply existing good practices in terms of classification and labelling. In addition, as nano-objects might present specific properties due to their size, they should undertake research on systems (including e.g. the development of specific pictograms) aiming to inform researchers and more generally people likely to come into contact with nano-objects in research premises (e.g. security and emergency staff) so that they may take the necessary and appropriate protection measures in the course of their duties.
      4.2.3.   Public and private N&N research funding bodies should request that a risk assessment be presented along with each submission of a proposal for funding for N&N research.
      4.2.4.   N&N research funding bodies’ programmes should include monitoring of the potential social, environmental and human health impacts of N&N over a relevant period of time.
      Application of the precautionary principle should include reducing the gaps in scientific knowledge, and therefore undertaking further actions in research and development such as the following:
      4.2.5.   Research funding bodies should devote an appropriate part of N&N research to understanding the potential risks, notably to the environment and human health, induced by nano-objects, encompassing their whole life cycle, from their creation up to their end of life, including recycling.
      4.2.6.   N&N research organisations and researchers should launch and coordinate specific N&N research activities in order to gain a better understanding of fundamental biological processes involved in the toxicology and ecotoxicology of nano-objects man-made or naturally occurring. They should widely publicise, when duly validated, data and findings on their biological effects, be they positive, negative or null.
      4.2.7.   N&N research funding bodies should launch and coordinate specific research activities in order to gain a better understanding of ethical, legal and societal impacts of the new fields opened by N&N. Information and communication technologies and biotechnology should receive particular attention as well as the convergence between these fields and cognitive sciences and N&N.
      4.3.   Wide dissemination and monitoring of the Code of Conduct
      4.3.1.   Member States should support the wide dissemination of this Code of Conduct, notably through national and regional public research funding bodies.
      4.3.2.   In addition to the existence of this Code of Conduct, N&N research funding bodies should make sure that N&N researchers are aware of all relevant legislation, as well as ethical and social frameworks.
      4.3.3.   As the application of the Code of Conduct should be monitored across the Community, Member States should cooperate with the Commission in order to devise adequate measures to carry out such monitoring at national level and guarantee synergies with other Member States.

         (1)  The United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2, 8.9.2000.

         (2)  Directive 2004/9/EC and Directive 2004/10/EC.

         (3)  COM(2007) 62, 21.2.2007.


title: Commission Recommendation of  8 December 2005  on the treatment in the Harmonised Indices of Consumer Prices of certain issues concerning health care reforms within the framework of Council Regulation (EC) No 2494/95 and specific implementing measures relating hereto   (Text with EEA relevance)

text:
               10.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 324/94

      COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION

   of 8 December 2005
   on the treatment in the Harmonised Indices of Consumer Prices of certain issues concerning health care reforms within the framework of Council Regulation (EC) No 2494/95 and specific implementing measures relating hereto
   (Text with EEA relevance)
   (2005/881/EC)
   THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 211 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Health care insurance in the Netherlands will be reformed from January 2006. A new compulsory basic social insurance scheme will cover a large part of health care for the total population, and it is expected that about 37,5 % of the total population will be moved from private insurance schemes to the new social insurance scheme (thereafter referred to as ‘the reform’).

               (2)

               The reform introduces a fundamental change in the organisation and institutional structure of the health care system. Its treatment in the Harmonised Indices of Consumer Prices (HICPs) must be appropriate, consistent with the HICP legal framework and in particular the following Regulations:

                           —

                           Council Regulation (EC) No 2494/95 of 23 October 1995 concerning harmonized indices of consumer prices (1) and in particular Articles 4, 5(3), 8(3), 9 and 12 thereof,

                           —

                           Commission Regulation (EC) No 1749/96 of 9 September 1996 on initial implementing measures for Council Regulation (EC) No 2494/95 concerning harmonized indices of consumer prices (2), Articles 2, 4 and Annex Ia, in particular footnotes 16 and 17 thereof,

                           —

                           Commission Regulation (EC) No 2454/97 of 10 December 1997 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 2494/95 as regards minimum standards for the quality of HICP weightings (3),

                           —

                           Commission Regulation (EC) No 1617/1999 of 23 July 1999 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 2494/95 as regards minimum standards for the treatment of insurance in the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices and modifying Commission Regulation (EC) No 2214/96 (4), Articles 2 and 3 thereof,

                           —

                           Council Regulation (EC) No 2166/1999 of 8 October 1999 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 2494/95 as regards minimum standards for the treatment of products in the health, education and social protection sectors in the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices (5), Article 4 thereof,

                     and result in HICPs that are comparable, reliable and relevant.

               (3)

               The HICP legal framework does not handle explicitly and specifically the case of this reform, which involves fundamental changes in the eligibility and access rules for social insurance. Taking into account the potential impact on the HICP, and the consequent uncertainty for users, the Commission considers it necessary to issue a recommendation, regarding the treatment of the reform in the HICP to clarify the existing HICP Regulations.

               (4)

               For measuring changes in consumer prices, the HICP legal framework requires that the HICP should take account of changes from zero prices to positive prices and vice versa. A reading of this requirement in isolation might indicate that the HICP should record a very substantial fall in inflation as a result of this reform. However, in the context of this reform, the Commission (Eurostat) considers that such a treatment would show an unwarranted price change as a consequence of pricing transactions using different valuation concepts.

               (5)

               The valuation of health care expenditure in the HICP (COICOP/HICP 06) (6) is conditioned on the treatment of health insurance (COICOP/HICP 12.5.3).

               (6)

               Social insurance does not fall within Household Final Monetary Consumption Expenditure (HFMCE) either before or after the reform. The reform results in a significant reduction in the population covered by private insurance schemes.

               (7)

               The per capita consumption volumes for health care remain in principle unchanged from those in the base or reference period, but the composition of the consumer population and the valuation concept both change in the periods being compared as a result of new eligibility and access rules for the health insurance schemes.

               (8)

               The impact on the HICP, as from the January in which such a reform takes effect, of consumers moving to the new social health insurance scheme, should thereby be approximately neutral for the HICP.

               (9)

               The Commission considers that such treatment does not call into question the treatment of earlier examples of changes from zero prices to positive prices and vice versa (e.g. TV licence abolition of 2000 and health insurance reform of 2004 in the Netherlands, or the health care reform of 2004 in Germany).

               (10)

               The Commission (Eurostat) has taken into consideration the views of key HICP users and national HICP experts with regard to the above,

         HEREBY RECOMMENDS:

               1.

               Changes in consumer prices should not be measured for the HICP simply as a result of changes in the eligibility and access rules for social health insurance. Rather the HICP should capture changes in the prices within one and the same scheme and price changes resulting from changes in the rules determining prices within one and the same scheme.

               2.

               Both prices and weights for health insurance and health care expenditure should be mutually coherent, and that must be the case across time.

               3.

               In order that the HICP be accurate and relevant, reforms presenting the characteristics described above, should be accounted for by means of adjusting the weights and chaining the price indices for

                           (a)

                           health insurance, or within health insurance between the preceding December and the January in which a reform takes effect;

                           (b)

                           health care expenditure, or within health care expenditure between the preceding December and the January in which a reform takes effect. This treatment is thereby consistent with the treatment of health insurance.

               4.

               This Recommendation should be taken into account by the Authorities compiling HICPs taking into consideration the specific circumstances of the individual reforms.

               5.

               This Recommendation is addressed to the Member States.

      Done at Brussels, 8 December 2005.

            For the Commission

         Joaquín ALMUNIA

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  OJ L 257, 27.10.1995, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 284, 31.10.2003, p. 1).

      (2)  OJ L 229, 10.9.1996, p. 3. Regulation as last amended by Regulations (EC) No 1708/2005 (OJ L 274, 20.10.2005, p. 9).

      (3)  OJ L 340, 11.12.1997, p. 24.

      (4)  OJ L 192, 24.7.1999, p. 9.

      (5)  OJ L 266, 14.10.1999, p. 1.

      (6)  Classification of individual consumption by purpose adapted to the needs of the HICPs (COICOP/HICP).