title: Commission Recommendation of 22 September 2006 on the efficacy of sunscreen products and the claims made relating thereto (notified under document number C(2006) 4089)   (Text with EEA relevance)

text:
               26.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 265/39

      COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION

   of 22 September 2006
   on the efficacy of sunscreen products and the claims made relating thereto
   (notified under document number C(2006) 4089)
   (Text with EEA relevance)
   (2006/647/EC)
   THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular the second indent of Article 211 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Sunscreen products are cosmetic products within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (1).

               (2)

               Under the first paragraph of Article 2 of Directive 76/768/EEC, cosmetic products placed on the Community market must not cause damage to human health when applied under normal or reasonably foreseeable conditions of use, taking account, in particular, of the product’s presentation, its labelling and any instructions for its use.

               (3)

               Article 6(3) of Directive 76/768/EEC obliges Member States to take all measures necessary to ensure that, in the labelling, putting up for sale and advertising of cosmetic products, text, names, trade marks, pictures and figurative or other signs are not used to imply that these products have characteristics which they do not have.

               (4)

               Moreover, under Article 7a of Directive 76/768/EEC, the manufacturer or his agent or the person to whose order a cosmetic product is manufactured or the person responsible for placing an imported cosmetic product on the Community market must, for control purposes, keep information on the proof of the effect claimed for the cosmetic product, where justified by the nature of the effect or product, readily accessible to the competent authorities of the Member State concerned.

               (5)

               In order to contribute to a high level of health protection, guidance should be given as to the implications of the provisions laid down in Article 6(3) of Directive 76/768/EEC for claims made in respect of the efficacy of sunscreen products.

               (6)

               While industry has already made certain efforts in this respect, it is appropriate to set out examples of claims which should not be made in relation to sunscreen products, precautions that should be observed, and usage instructions that should be recommended for some of the characteristics claimed.

               (7)

               It is also appropriate to address certain other aspects relating to claims made for sunscreen products and the efficacy of such products, namely the minimum efficacy of a sunscreen product in order to ensure a high level of protection of public health and how the labelling of sunscreen products can be kept simple and comprehensible in order to assist the consumer in choosing the appropriate product.

               (8)

               Sun radiation consists inter alia of (shorter) ultraviolet B radiation (‘UVB radiation’) and of (longer) ultraviolet A radiation (‘UVA radiation’). The inflammation of the skin (‘sun burn’) and the resulting reddening of the skin (erythema) is mainly caused by UVB radiation. As to the cancer risk, although UVB radiation is the main contributor, the risk generated through UVA radiation cannot be neglected. Furthermore, UVA radiation is cause of premature ageing of the skin. Research also suggests that excessive exposure to UVB radiation as well as UVA radiation impacts on the body's immune system.

               (9)

               Sunscreen products can be effective in preventing sunburn. Scientific findings also suggest that sunscreen products can prevent the damage linked to photo-ageing and that they can protect against induced photo-immunosuppression. Epidemiological studies show that the use of sunscreen products may prevent some types of skin carcinoma.

               (10)

               In order to have these preventive characteristics, sunscreen products need to protect against both UVB and UVA radiation. Therefore, although the sun protection factor refers only to protection against the radiation which causes erythema (mainly UVB radiation), sunscreen products should contain both UVB and UVA protection.

               (11)

               Even sunscreen products which are very effective and which address both UVB and UVA radiation cannot guarantee full protection against healthrisks from ultraviolet (UV) radiation. No sunscreen product can filter all UV radiation. Moreover, there is, to date, no conclusive scientific evidence that the use of sunscreen products prevents melanoma. Consequently, sunscreen products should not claim or create the impression that they provide total protection from the risks deriving from over-exposure to UV radiation.

               (12)

               This holds particularly true for sun exposure of babies and young children. As exposure to sun during childhood is an important contributor to the development of skin cancer at a later age, sunscreen products should not give the impression that they provide sufficient protection for babies and young children.

               (13)

               Mistaken perceptions of the characteristics of sunscreen products should be addressed through appropriate warnings.

               (14)

               Based on several studies, the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organisation has emphasised the importance of the link between the correct application of sunscreen products and the efficacy of the sun protection factor claimed. In particular, frequent re-application of sunscreen products is crucial. Moreover, in order to reach the protection level indicated by the sun protection factor, sunscreen products have to be applied in quantities similar to the ones used for testing, i.e. 2 mg/cm2, which equals 6 teaspoons of lotion (approx. 36 grams) for the body of one average adult person. This quantity is higher than that usually applied by the consumers. Applying a smaller quantity of sunscreen product leads to a disproportionate reduction in protection. For example, if the quantity applied is reduced by half, protection may fall by as much as two-thirds.

               (15)

               Sunscreen products should be sufficiently effective against UVB and UVA radiation to ensure a high protection of public health. To this end, a sunscreen product should provide a minimum UVB and UVA protection. An increased sun protection factor (i.e. mainly UVB protection) should include an increase in the UVA protection as well. Therefore, the protection against UVA and UVB radiation should be related. Scientific findings show that certain biological damage to the skin can be prevented and reduced if the ratio of the protection factor measured in the persistent pigment darkening test (i.e. addressing mainly UVA radiation) is at least 1/3 of the factor measured by the sun protection factor testing method (i.e. addressing mainly UVB radiation). Moreover, in order to ensure a broad protection, dermatologists recommend a critical wavelength of at least 370 nm.

               (16)

               In order to ensure reproducibility and comparability of the recommended minimum protection against UVB radiation, the International Sun Protection Factor Test Method (2006) as updated in 2006 by the European, Japanese, American and South African industry should be used. In order to assess the minimum protection against UVA radiation, the persistent-pigment darkening method as applied by the Japanese industry and modified by the French health agency Agence française de sécurité sanitaire des produits de santé — Afssaps as well as the critical wavelength test should be used. These testing methods have been submitted to the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) in order to establish European standards in this field (2).

               (17)

               While these testing methods should be used as reference methods, preference should be given to in vitro testing methods delivering equivalent results, as in vivo methods raise ethical concerns. Industry should increase efforts to develop in vitro testing methods for the protection against both UVB and UVA radiation.

               (18)

               Claims concerning the efficacy of sunscreen products should be simple, meaningful and based on identical criteria in order to help the consumer to compare products and to choose the right product for a given exposure and skin type.

               (19)

               There is in particular a need for a uniform claim on UVA protection in order to facilitate the choice of the consumer for a product protecting against both UVB and UVA radiation.

               (20)

               A wide variety of numbers used on labels for indicating the sun protection factor does not support the aim of making claims that are simple and meaningful. The increase in protection from one number to the next is negligible, particularly in the high range. Moreover, the increase in protection is only linear in the case of sunburn, that is to say, a product with sun protection factor 30 protects twice as well from sunburn as product with a sun protection factor of 15. However, a product with sun protection factor 15 absorbs 93 % of UVB radiation, and a product with sun protection factor 30 absorbs 97 % of UVB radiation. Finally, sun protection factors above 50 do not substantially increase the protection from UV radiation. Therefore, the range of labelled sun protection factors can be made smaller without reducing the choice of different strengths for the consumer.

               (21)

               Labelling using one out of four categories (‘low’, ‘medium’, ‘high’ and ‘very high’), provides for a simpler and more meaningful indication of the efficacy of sunscreen products than a variety of different numbers. Therefore, the category should be labelled at least as prominently as the sun protection factor.

               (22)

               Consumers should be informed about the risks stemming from excessive sun exposure. Moreover, consumers need guidance as to the appropriate sunscreen product in terms of its efficacy taking into consideration the degree of sun exposure and the skin type,

         HEREBY RECOMMENDS:
   SECTION 1
   SUBJECT MATTER AND DEFINITIONS

               1.

               This Recommendation gives guidance on the following:

                           (a)

                           in Section 2, on the application of Article 6(3) of Directive 76/768/EEC in relation to some of the characteristics of sunscreen products and the claims made as regards their efficacy;

                           (b)

                           in Sections 3, 4 and 5, on the minimum efficacy of sunscreen products in terms of ensuring a high level of protection against UVB and UVA radiation and on the simple and comprehensible labelling of sunscreen products in order to facilitate the choice of the appropriate product for the consumer.

               2.

               For the purposes of this Recommendation, the following definitions apply:

                           (a)

                           ‘sunscreen product’ means any preparation (such as creams, oils, gels, sprays) intended to be placed in contact with the human skin with a view exclusively or mainly to protecting it from UV radiation by absorbing, scattering or reflecting radiation;

                           (b)

                           ‘claim’ means any statement regarding the characteristics of a sunscreen product in the form of text, names, trade marks, pictures and figurative or other signs used in the labelling, putting up for sale and advertising of sunscreen products;

                           (c)

                           ‘UVB radiation’ means sun radiation in the spectrum 290-320 nm;

                           (d)

                           ‘UVA radiation’ means sun radiation in the spectrum 320-400 nm;

                           (e)

                           ‘critical wavelength’ means the wavelength for which the section under the integrated optical density curve starting at 290 nm is equal to 90 % of the integrated section between 290 to 400 nm;

                           (f)

                           ‘minimum erythemal dose’ means the quantity of erythema-effective energy;

                           (g)

                           ‘sun protection factor’ means the ratio of minimum erythemal dose on skin protected by a sunscreen product to the minimum erythemal dose on the same unprotected skin;

                           (h)

                           ‘UVA protection factor’ means the ratio of the minimum UVA dose necessary to induce a persistent pigment darkening on the skin protected by a sunscreen product to the minimal UVA dose necessary to induce the minimal darkening effect on the same unprotected skin.

         SECTION 2
   UVA/UVB PROTECTION, CLAIMS, PRECAUTIONS FOR USE, USAGE INSTRUCTIONS

               3.

               The characteristics and claims referred to in points 4 to 8 should be considered for the purposes of complying with Article 6(3) of Directive 76/768/EEC.

               4.

               Sunscreen products should protect against both UVB and UVA radiation.

               5.

               No claim should be made that implies the following characteristics:

                           (a)

                           100 % protection from UV radiation (such as ‘sunblock’, ‘sunblocker’ or ‘total protection’);

                           (b)

                           no need to re-apply the product under any circumstances (such as ‘all day prevention’).

               6.

               Sunscreen products should display warnings indicating that they do not provide 100 % protection and advice on precautions to be observed in addition to their use. This may include warnings such as:

                           (a)

                           ‘Do not stay too long in the sun, even while using a sunscreen product’;

                           (b)

                           ‘Keep babies and young children out of direct sunlight’;

                           (c)

                           ‘Over-exposure to the sun is a serious health threat’.

               7.

               Sunscreen products should carry instructions for use that will ensure that the claim made for the effectiveness of the product can be achieved. This may include instructions such as:

                           (a)

                           ‘Apply the sunscreen product before exposure’;

                           (b)

                           ‘Re-apply frequently to maintain protection, especially after perspiring, swimming or towelling’.

               8.

               Sunscreen products should carry instructions for use to ensure that a sufficient quantity is applied on the skin to achieve the effectiveness claimed for the product. This may be done, for example, by indicating the quantity required through a pictogram, an illustration or a measurement device. Sunscreen products should carry an explanation of the risks involved in applying a reduced quantity, such as, ‘Warning: reducing this quantity will lower the level of protection significantly’.

         SECTION 3
   MINIMUM EFFICACY

               9.

               Sunscreen products should provide for a minimum degree of protection against UVB and UVA radiation. The degree of protection should be measured using standardised, reproducible testing methods and take photo-degradation into account. Preference should be given to in vitro testing methods.

               10.

               The minimum degree of protection provided by sunscreen products should be as follows:

                           (a)

                           a UVB protection of sun protection factor 6 as obtained in application of the International Sun Protection Factor Test Method (2006) or an equivalent degree of protection obtained with any in vitro method;

                           (b)

                           a UVA protection of UVA protection factor of 1/3 of the sun protection factor, as obtained in application of the persistent pigment darkening method as modified by the French health agency Agence française de sécurité sanitaire des produits de santé – Afssaps or an equivalent degree of protection obtained with any in vitro method;

                           (c)

                           a critical wavelength of 370 nm, as obtained in application of the critical wavelength testing method.

         SECTION 4
   SIMPLE AND MEANINGFUL CLAIMS OF EFFICACY

               11.

               Claims indicating the efficacy of sunscreen products should be simple, unambiguous and meaningful and based on standardised, reproducible criteria.

               12.

               Claims indicating UVB and UVA protection should be made only if the protection equals or exceeds the levels set out under point 10.

               13.

               The efficacy of sunscreen products should be indicated on the label by reference to categories such as ‘low’, ‘medium’, ‘high’ and ‘very high’. Each category should be equivalent to a standardised degree of protection against UVB and UVA radiation.

               14.

               The variety of numbers used on labels for indicating the sun protection factors should be restricted in order to facilitate the comparison between different products without reducing the choice for the consumer. The following range of sun protection factors for each category and the respective labelling is recommended:

                           Labelled category

                           Labelled sun protection factor

                           Measured sun protection factor (measured in accordance with the principles recommended in point 10 (a))

                           Recommended minimum UVA protection factor (measured in accordance with principles recommended in point 10 (b))

                           Recommended minimum critical wavelength (measured in accordance with principles recommended in point 10 (c))

                           ‘Low protection’

                           ‘6’

                           6-9,9

                           1/3 of labelled sun protection factor

                           370 nm

                           ‘10’

                           10-14,9

                           ‘Medium protection’

                           ‘15’

                           15-19,9

                           ‘20’

                           20-24,9

                           ‘25’

                           25-29,9

                           ‘High protection’

                           ‘30’

                           30-49,9

                           ‘50’

                           50-59,9

                           ‘Very high protection’

                           ‘50 +’

                           60 ≤

               15.

               The category of sunscreen products should be indicated on the label at least as prominently as the sun protection factor.

         SECTION 5
   CONSUMER INFORMATION

               16.

               Consumers should be informed about the risks associated with excessive exposure to UV radiation and of the category of sunscreen products required for a certain degree of sun exposure and a certain type of skin. This may be done, for example, through information on national web-sites, leaflets or press releases.

         SECTION 6
   ADDRESSEES

               17.

               This Recommendation is addressed to the Member States.

      Done at Brussels, 22 September 2006.

            For the Commission

         Günter VERHEUGEN

            Vice-President

      (1)  OJ L 262, 27.9.1976, p. 169. Directive as last amended by Commission Directive 2006/65/EC (OJ L 198, 20.7.2006, p. 11).

      (2)  Standardisation mandate addressed to CEN on methods for testing efficacy of sunscreen products, Mandate M/389, 12 July 2006.


/* 64/412/EEC: Commission Recommendation of 29 June 1964 on the customs arrangements applicable to teaching material imported temporarily from one Member State to another to be used for teaching or vocational training by public or private establishments or bodies approved by the customs administration */


Avis juridique important

|

52004SC0626

Recommendation for a Council recommendation to the Netherlands with a view to bringing an end to the situation of an excessive government deficit  /* SEC/2004/0626 final */

Recommendation for a COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION TO THE NETHERLANDS with a view to bringing an end to the situation of an excessive government deficit(presented by the Commission)EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUMOn 7 April 2004, the Commission published its Spring 2004 forecasts. [1] According to these forecasts, which took into consideration data reported by the Dutch Authorities on 31 March 2004, the general government deficit in 2003 reached 3.2% of GDP in 2003, thus exceeding the 3% of GDP Treaty reference value, and increased substantially relative to the 2002 deficit (1.9% of GDP). Based on this prima facie evidence, the Commission initiated the Excessive Deficit Procedure for the Netherlands on 28 April 2004, with the adoption of the report as foreseen in Article 104(3) of the Treaty. [2][1]  The Commission Spring 2004 forecast is available at the following website:[2]  The full text of this report is available at the following website:The application of the excessive deficit procedure (EDP) is governed by Article 104 of the Treaty and by Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 "on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure", which is part of the Stability and Growth Pact. [3][3]  OJ L 209, 2.8.1997.The Commission report according to Article 104(3) of the Treaty concluded that the excess of the 3.2% of GDP deficit in 2003 over the 3% of GDP Treaty reference value did not result, in the sense of the Stability and Growth Pact, from an unusual event outside the control of the Dutch authorities, nor was it the result of a severe economic downturn, which is defined in the Pact as an annual fall of real GDP of at least 2%. However, it occurred in a context of strongly negative growth, with real GDP growth at -0.7% in 2003, and a negative output gap of around 2% of GDP emerging. This largely explains the deterioration in the general government balance, which was further aggravated by a greater-than-expected weakening in receipts and higher-than-expected local government deficits while expenditure targets were largely met. Concerning developments in 2004, the Commission Spring forecast projects a general government deficit of 3.5% of GDP. After the publication of the Commission Spring forecast, the government adopted additional savings measures on 16 April 2004, equivalent to 0.6 % of GDP, with the objective of reducing the deficit to below 3% of GDP again in 2004, in line with the achievement in earlier years. According to the Commission report the achievement of this objective depends on the measures yielding the expected results and on not having second-round effects on economic activity and the budgetary outcome. Hence, there is a likelihood that the deficit could remain at or just above the 3% of GDP reference value in 2004.The Commission report, based on the Commission Spring forecasts, also concluded that the debt-to-GDP ratio reached 54.8% of GDP in 2003, below the 60% reference value of the Treaty. Moreover, it noted that the Commission projects the debt ratio to reach 56.3 % of GDP in 2004, which is above the 54.5 % of GDP projected by the Dutch authorities in the 2003 stability programme update but below the reference value of 60% of GDP.Article 104(4) of the Treaty states that "the Committee provided for in Article 114 (i.e. the Economic and Financial Committee) shall formulate an opinion on the report of the Commission". The Committee issued its opinion on 12 May 2004, subscribing to the assessment made by the Commission in its report. In particular, the EFC concluded that in 2003 the Netherlands did not comply with budgetary discipline regarding the deficit as defined in Article 104 of the Treaty, which suggests that an excessive deficit exists in the Netherlands.The EFC also considered that there is a likelihood that the general government deficit may remain at or just above the Treaty's reference value again in 2004, despite additional measures decided by the Dutch authorities, while the general government gross debt ratio would remain below the Treaty's reference value of 60 % of GDP in 2004.The Commission, having examined all the relevant factors taken into account in its report and having regard to the opinion of the EFC, is of the opinion that an excessive deficit exists in the Netherlands. This opinion, adopted by the Commission on 19 May 2004, has been addressed to the Council, according to Article 104(5) of the Treaty. The Commission has recommended that the Council shall decide accordingly, in conformity with Article 104(6). In addition, the Commission is herewith submitting to the Council a recommendation for a Council recommendation to be addressed to the Netherlands with a view to bringing the situation of an excessive deficit to an end, according to Article 104(7) of the Treaty.Recommendation for a COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION TO THE NETHERLANDS with a view to bringing an end to the situation of an excessive government deficitTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 104(7) thereof;Having regard to the recommendation from the Commission;Whereas:(1) According to Article 104 of the Treaty, Member States are to avoid excessive government deficits.(2) The Stability and Growth Pact is based on the objective of sound government finances as a means of strengthening the conditions for price stability and for strong sustainable growth conducive to employment creation.(3) The Amsterdam Resolution of the European Council on the Stability and Growth Pact of 17 June 1997 solemnly invites all parties, namely the Member States, the Council and the Commission to implement the Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact in a strict and timely manner.(4) The Council has decided on 2 June 2004, in accordance with Article 104(6), that an excessive deficit exists in the Netherlands.(5) Having decided on the existence of an excessive deficit in the Netherlands, the Council, in accordance with Article 104(7) of the Treaty and Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97, is required to make at the same time recommendations to the Member State concerned with a view to bringing that situation to an end within a given period. The Council recommendation has to a establish a deadline of four months at the most for effective action to be taken by the Netherlands to correct the excessive deficit as well as a deadline for the correction of the excessive deficit, which should be completed in the year following its identification unless there are special circumstances.(6) In the view of the Council, budgetary consolidation measures should secure a lasting improvement in the general government balance, while being geared towards enhancing the quality of the public finances and reinforcing the growth potential of the economy. The overall fiscal strategy of the Dutch authorities appears to conform with this orientation.(7) When defining the recommendations to correct the excessive deficit, the following factors should be taken into account: (i) the worsening in cyclical developments which contributed to the deterioration of the budgetary situation in 2003 was abrupt and unexpected and it made the effort to bring the deficit below 3% of GDP larger than expected in the 2003 budget and 2002 stability programme update; (ii) according to the Commission, in 2003 the cumulated shortfall of real GDP below estimated potential amounted to 1.7% of GDP; (iii) the Commission, in its Spring 2004 forecast of 7 April 2004, projects that the general government deficit will be 3.5% of GDP in 2004 and 3.3% of GDP in 2005, assuming there to be no policy changes while real GDP growth would reach 1.0% in 2004 and 1.6% in 2005; (iv) the additional savings measures for 2004 that the government promptly adopted on 16 April 2004 are equivalent to around 0.6 percentage point of GDP and were not taken into account in the Commission Spring 2004 forecast and (v) the Dutch government announced its intention to implement in 2005 additional measures with the aim of ensuring a general government deficit below 3% of GDP, which have not yet been specified.(8) If the macro-economic outturn is in line with the Commission Spring 2004 forecast and the measures decided upon on 16 April 2004 yield the planned amount, corrective measures of a mainly structural nature in 2005 amounting to half a percentage of GDP would lead to a deficit below the 3% of GDP Treaty reference value from that year onwards.HEREBY RECOMMENDSThe Dutch authorities should put an end to the present excessive deficit situation in accordance with Article 3(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97. The Council establishes the deadline of 2 October 2004 for the Dutch government to take action regarding corrective measures in 2005, mainly of a structural nature, amounting to half a percentage point of GDP.In addition, the Council urges the Dutch authorities to ensure that budgetary consolidation towards a position close to balance or in surplus is sustained after the excessive deficit has been corrected in particular through a reduction in the cyclically-adjusted deficit by at least 0.5 percentage point of GDP per year.This recommendation is addressed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.Done at Brussels, 2 June 2004For the CouncilThe President[...]


title: Council Recommendation of 16 February 2010 concerning the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Development Fund (10th EDF) for the financial year 2008

text:
               20.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 45/17

         COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
   of 16 February 2010
   concerning the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Development Fund (10th EDF) for the financial year 2008
   (2010/104/EU)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (1) and amended by the Agreement signed in Luxembourg on 25 June 2005 (2),
   Having regard to the Internal Agreement between the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on the financing of Community aid under the multiannual financial framework for the period 2008 to 2013 in accordance with the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement (3), hereinafter referred to as the ‘Internal Agreement’, setting up, amongst others, the 10th European Development Fund (10th EDF), and in particular Article 11(8) thereof,
   Having regard to the Financial Regulation of 18 February 2008 applicable to the 10th European Development Fund (4), and in particular Articles 142 to 144 thereof,
   Having examined the revenue and expenditure account and the balance sheet relating to the operations of the 10th EDF as at 31 December 2008 and the Court of Auditors’ report concerning the financial year 2008 together with the Commission’s replies (5),
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Pursuant to Article 11(8) of the Internal Agreement, the discharge for the financial management of the 10th EDF is to be given to the Commission by the European Parliament on the recommendation of the Council.

               (2)

               The overall implementation by the Commission of the operations of the 10th EDF during the financial year 2008 has been satisfactory,

         HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the European Parliament give the Commission a discharge in respect of the implementation of the operations of the 10th EDF for the financial year 2008.

      Done at Brussels, 16 February 2010.

            For the Council

            The President

         E. SALGADO

      (1)  OJ L 317, 15.12.2000, p. 3.

      (2)  OJ L 287, 28.10.2005, p. 4.

      (3)  OJ L 247, 9.9.2006, p. 32.

      (4)  OJ L 78, 19.3.2008, p. 1.

      (5)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2009, p. 257.


title: Council Recommendation of 10 July 2012 on the National Reform Programme 2012 of Spain and delivering a Council opinion on the Stability Programme for Spain, 2012-2015

text:
               24.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 219/81

         COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
   of 10 July 2012
   on the National Reform Programme 2012 of Spain and delivering a Council opinion on the Stability Programme for Spain, 2012-2015
   2012/C 219/24
   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 5(2) thereof,
   Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 on the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances (2), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,
   Having regard to the recommendations of the European Commission,
   Having regard to the conclusions of the European Council,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Employment Committee,
   After consulting the Economic and Financial Committee,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 26 March 2010, the European Council agreed to the Commission’s proposal to launch a new strategy for jobs and growth, Europe 2020, based on enhanced coordination of economic policies, which focuses on the key areas where action is needed to boost Europe’s potential for sustainable growth and competitiveness.

               (2)

               On 13 July 2010, the Council adopted a recommendation on the broad guidelines for the economic policies of the Member States and the Union (2010 to 2014) and, on 21 October 2010, adopted a decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States (3), which together form the ‘integrated guidelines’. Member States were invited to take the integrated guidelines into account in their national economic and employment policies.

               (3)

               On 12 July 2011, the Council adopted a recommendation (4) on Spain’s National Reform Programme for 2011 and delivered its opinion on Spain’s updated Stability Programme for 2011-2014.

               (4)

               On 23 November 2011, the Commission adopted the second Annual Growth Survey, marking the start of the second European Semester of ex ante and integrated policy coordination, which is anchored in the Europe 2020 strategy. On 14 February 2012, the Commission, on the basis of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011, adopted the Alert Mechanism Report, in which it identified Spain as one of the Member States for which an in-depth review would be carried out.

               (5)

               On 1 December 2011, the Council adopted conclusions calling on the Social Protection Committee, in cooperation with the Employment and other Committees, to present its views on actions recommended within the Europe 2020 policy cycle. These views form part of the opinion of the Employment Committee.

               (6)

               The European Parliament has been duly involved in the European Semester, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1466/97, and, on 15 February 2012, adopted a resolution on employment and social aspects in the Annual Growth Survey 2012 and a resolution on the contribution to the Annual Growth Survey 2012.

               (7)

               On 2 March 2012, the European Council endorsed the priorities for ensuring financial stability, fiscal consolidation and action to foster growth. It underscored the need to pursue differentiated, growth-friendly fiscal consolidation, to restore normal lending conditions to the economy, to promote growth and competitiveness, to tackle unemployment and the social consequences of the crisis, and to modernise public administration.

               (8)

               On 2 March 2012, the European Council also invited the Member States participating in the Euro Plus Pact to include further commitments focusing on a small number of essential, timely and measurable reforms to achieve the objectives of the Pact.

               (9)

               On 30 April 2012, Spain submitted its Stability Programme covering the period 2012-2015 and its 2012 National Reform Programme. In order to take account of their interlinkages, the two Programmes have been assessed at the same time. The Commission has also assessed, in an in-depth review under Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011, whether Spain is affected by macroeconomic imbalances. The Commission concluded in its in-depth review that Spain is experiencing imbalances which are not excessive but need to be urgently addressed.

               (10)

               Based on the assessment of the Stability Programme pursuant to Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1466/97, the Council is of the opinion that the macroeconomic scenario underlying the Programme is broadly plausible for 2012 and optimistic thereafter. The Commission services 2012 spring forecast projected GDP growth to reach – 1,8 % in 2012 and – 0,3 % in 2013, against – 1,7 % and 0,2 %, respectively, in the Stability Programme. In compliance with the excessive deficit procedure (EDP), the objective of the budgetary strategy outlined in the Stability Programme is to bring the general government deficit below 3 % of the GDP reference value by 2013, based mainly on expenditure restraint, but also on some revenue-increasing measures. Based on the (recalculated) structural balance (5), the annual average improvement of the structural balance planned in the Stability Programme is 2,6 % of GDP for 2011-13, above the fiscal effort of over 1,5 % of GDP on average over the period 2010-13 recommended under the EDP. Following the correction of the excessive deficit, the Stability Programme confirms the medium-term budgetary objective (MTO) of a balanced budgetary position in structural terms, which would be almost reached by 2015 with a structural budget deficit of 0,2 % of GDP. The MTO adequately reflects the requirements of the Stability and Growth Pact. The envisaged pace of adjustment in structural terms in 2012-13 represents sufficient progress towards the MTO and the growth rate of government expenditure, taking into account discretionary revenue measures, is in line with the expenditure benchmark of the Stability and Growth Pact.
               The Stability Programme projects the government debt ratio to peak in 2013 and to start declining thereafter. In 2014 and 2015 Spain will be in a transitional period and plans presented in the Stability Programme would ensure sufficient progress towards compliance with the debt reduction benchmark of the Stability and Growth Pact. The deficit and debt adjustment paths are subject to important downside risks.
               Macroeconomic developments could turn out to be less favourable than expected. Moreover, measures are not sufficiently specified from 2013 onwards. Budgetary compliance by regional governments, given their recent poor track record, a greater sensitivity of revenues to the ongoing structural adjustment, the uncertain revenue impact of the fiscal amnesty and potential further financial rescue operations, also pose risks to the budgetary strategy. Any impact of these financial rescue operations on the deficit would be of a one-off nature. Strict enforcement of the Budget Stability Law and the adoption of strong fiscal measures at regional level would mitigate the risks of a slippage at regional level. Given the decentralised nature of Spain’s public finances, a strong fiscal and institutional framework is essential. The Council welcomes the intention of the Commission to present, in the coming weeks, a thorough assessment of the implementation of the Council recommendation on correcting the excessive deficit, also taking into consideration the announced multi-annual budget plan for 2013-14.

               (11)

               In 2011, Spain adopted a pension reform that marks a significant step towards enhancing the long-term sustainability of public finances. However, the worsening of the economic prospects in Spain is limiting the impact of the reform on the projected age-related public expenditure. In addition, the reform still needs to be complemented by concrete measures to underpin the Global Employment Strategy for Older Workers for 2012-2014.

               (12)

               While the Spanish tax-to-GDP ratio is among the lowest in the EU, the efficiency of the tax system can be improved by increasing the share of more growth-friendly indirect taxes. In particular, there is scope for broadening the VAT tax base by reviewing the wide application of exemptions and reduced rates. The Spanish tax system also contains a bias in favour of indebtedness and the purchase of housing as opposed to rentals thanks to the deductibility of interest on mortgages.

               (13)

               Spain has made considerable progress regarding the restructuring of its financial sector. The restructuring needs to continue to ensure that any unviable bank is resolved and that viable banks can fulfil their function as providers of credit to the real economy, in a sustainable way and without unduly distorting competition. Given the weakening of macroeconomic prospects, further strengthening of the banks’ capital base may be required.

               (14)

               In February 2012, the Government adopted a comprehensive reform of the employment protection and collective bargaining system in order to tackle the high level of unemployment and the sharp segmentation in the labour market. The effects need to be monitored, in particular as regards wage developments and reduction of segmentation. To address the challenge fully, this reform needs to be complemented by a more substantial revision of the active labour market policies to improve employability and job matching.

               (15)

               To tackle Spain’s high youth unemployment, the youth action plan should be implemented without delay, including for apprenticeship and training contracts. Although Spain has taken measures to combat early school leaving, the rate remains high and conceals significant disparities across regions.

               (16)

               Poverty has increased with 1 million more people at risk in 2010 and child poverty is at an alarmingly high level of 26,2 %. The in-work poverty rate for temporary workers is more than twice as high as the one for permanent workers.

               (17)

               Professional services in Spain remain protected from competition. Reforming professional services could increase potential GDP given that they are a major input for the other sectors of the economy. Particular attention should be paid to removing unjustified and disproportionate barriers for some highly regulated professions (e.g. engineers, notaries, property registry agents, legal representatives). In addition, in Spain it takes the longest time in the Union to obtain a business licence. Lack of coordination between local, regional and national administrations has produced a proliferation of regulations, sometimes overlapping, and a segmentation of Spain’s internal market. The adjustment of large external imbalances requires facilitating export activities. Spain also faces multiple and complex challenges in the energy sector which are a serious impediment to the effective functioning of the product and service markets.

               (18)

               Spain has made a number of commitments under the Euro Plus Pact. The commitments, and the implementation of the commitments presented in 2011, relate to fostering employment, improving competitiveness, enhancing sustainability of public finances and reinforcing financial stability. The Commission has assessed the implementation of the Euro Plus Pact commitments and the overall state of implementation is partial. The results of this assessment have been taken into account in the recommendations.

               (19)

               In the context of the European Semester, the Commission has carried out a comprehensive analysis of Spain’s economic policy. It has assessed the Stability Programme and the National Reform Programme, and presented an in-depth review. It has taken into account not only their relevance for sustainable fiscal and socioeconomic policy in Spain but also their compliance with EU rules and guidance, given the need to reinforce the overall economic governance of the Union by providing EU-level input into future national decisions. Its recommendations under the European Semester are reflected in recommendations (1) to (8) below.

               (20)

               In the light of this assessment, the Council has examined the Stability Programme, and its opinion (6) is reflected in particular in recommendation (1) below.

               (21)

               In the light of the results of the Commission’s in-depth review and of this assessment, the Council has examined the National Reform Programme and Stability Programme. Its recommendations under Article 6 of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 are reflected in particular in recommendations (1), (3), (4), (5) and (8) below,

         HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Spain take action within the period 2012-2013 to:

               1.

               Deliver an annual average structural fiscal effort of above 1,5 % of GDP over the period 2010-13 as required by the Council recommendation under the EDP by implementing the measures adopted in the 2012 budget and adopting the announced multi-annual budget plan for 2013-14 by end July 2012. Adopt and implement measures at regional level in line with the approved rebalancing plans and strictly apply the new provisions of the Budgetary Stability Law regarding transparency and control of budget execution and continue improving the timeliness and accuracy of budgetary reporting at all levels of government. Establish an independent fiscal institution to provide analysis, advice and monitor fiscal policy. Implement reforms in the public sector to improve the efficiency and quality of public expenditure at all government levels.

               2.

               Ensure that the retirement age is rising in line with life expectancy when regulating the sustainability factor foreseen in the recent pension reform and underpin the Global Employment Strategy for Older Workers with concrete measures to develop lifelong learning further, improve working conditions and foster the reincorporation of this group in the job market.

               3.

               Introduce a taxation system consistent with the fiscal consolidation efforts and more supportive of growth, including a shift away from labour towards consumption and environmental taxation. In particular, address the low VAT revenue ratio by broadening the tax base for VAT. Ensure less tax-induced bias towards indebtedness and home-ownership (as opposed to renting).

               4.

               Implement the reform of the financial sector, in particular complement the ongoing restructuring of the banking sector by addressing the situation of remaining weak institutions, put forward a comprehensive strategy to deal effectively with the legacy assets on the banks’ balance sheets, and define a clear stance on the funding and use of backstop facilities.

               5.

               Implement the labour market reforms and take additional measures to increase the effectiveness of active labour market policies by improving their targeting, by increasing the use of training, advisory and job matching services, by strengthening their links with passive policies, and by strengthening coordination between the national and regional public employment services, including sharing information about job vacancies.

               6.

               Review spending priorities and reallocate funds to support access to finance for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), research, innovation and young people. Implement the Youth Action Plan, in particular as regards the quality and labour market relevance of vocational training and education, and reinforce efforts to reduce early school-leaving and increase participation in vocational education and training through prevention, intervention and compensation measures.

               7.

               Improve the employability of vulnerable groups, combined with effective child and family support services in order to improve the situation of people at risk of poverty and/or social exclusion, and consequently to achieve the well-being of children.

               8.

               Take additional measures to open up professional services, including highly regulated professions, reduce delays in obtaining business licences and eliminate barriers to doing business resulting from overlapping and multiple regulations by different levels of government. Complete the electricity and gas interconnections with neighbouring countries and address the electricity tariff deficit in a comprehensive way, in particular by improving the cost efficiency of the electricity supply chain.

      Done at Brussels, 10 July 2012.

            For the Council

            The President

         V. SHIARLY

      (1)  OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 1.

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

      (3)  Maintained for 2012 by Council Decision 2012/238/EU of 26 April 2012 on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States (OJ L 119, 4.5.2012, p. 47).

      (4)  OJ C 212, 19.7.2011, p. 1.

      (5)  Cyclically-adjusted balance net of one-off and temporary measures, recalculated by the Commission services on the basis of the information provided in the Programme, using the commonly agreed methodology.

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


title: Council Recommendation of 11 July 2017 on the 2017 National Reform Programme of Germany and delivering a Council opinion on the 2017 Stability Programme of Germany

text:
               9.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/18

         COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
   of 11 July 2017
   on the 2017 National Reform Programme of Germany and delivering a Council opinion on the 2017 Stability Programme of Germany
   (2017/C 261/05)
   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 5(2) thereof,
   Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 on the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances (2), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,
   Having regard to the recommendation of the European Commission,
   Having regard to the resolutions of the European Parliament,
   Having regard to the conclusions of the European Council,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Employment Committee,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Financial Committee,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Social Protection Committee,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Economic Policy Committee,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 16 November 2016, the Commission adopted the Annual Growth Survey, marking the start of the 2017 European Semester for economic policy coordination. The priorities of the Annual Growth Survey were endorsed by the European Council on 9-10 March 2017. On 16 November 2016, on the basis of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011, the Commission adopted the Alert Mechanism Report, in which it identified Germany as one of the Member States for which an in-depth review would be carried out. On the same date, the Commission also adopted a recommendation for a Council Recommendation on the economic policy of the euro area, which was endorsed by the European Council on 9-10 March 2017. On 21 March 2017, the Council adopted the Recommendation on the economic policy of the euro area (‘Recommendation for the euro area’) (3).

               (2)

               As a Member State whose currency is the euro and in view of the close interlinkages between the economies in the economic and monetary union, Germany should ensure the full and timely implementation of the Recommendation for the euro area, as reflected in recommendations (1) and (2) below.

               (3)

               The 2017 country report for Germany was published on 22 February 2017. It assessed Germany’s progress in addressing the country-specific recommendations adopted by the Council on 12 July 2016, the follow-up given to the country-specific recommendations adopted in previous years and Germany’s progress towards its national Europe 2020 targets. It also included an in-depth review under Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011, the results of which were also published on 22 February 2017. The Commission’s analysis led it to conclude that Germany is experiencing macroeconomic imbalances. In particular, the persistently high current-account surplus has cross-border relevance and reflects — besides a strong integration and performance of its highly competitive industry in the international division of labour — excess savings and subdued investment in both the private and the public sector. The current-account surplus increased further in 2015, stayed largely unchanged in 2016 and is expected to remain at a high level. Addressing the surplus can have implications on the rebalancing prospects of the rest of the euro area and the Union because more dynamic domestic demand in Germany can ease deleveraging needs in highly-indebted Member States. Despite low interest rates that create favourable financing conditions, business investment as a share of GDP is still subdued. While the recovery in private consumption has continued, household savings have reached record high levels in the Union. The need for action to reduce the risk of adverse effects on the German economy and, given its size and cross-border relevance, on the economic and monetary union, is particularly important.

               (4)

               Germany submitted its 2017 Stability Programme on 13 April 2017 and its 2017 National Reform Programme on 28 April 2017. In order to take account of their interlinkages, the two programmes have been assessed at the same time.

               (5)

               Relevant country-specific recommendations have been addressed in the programming of the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds) for the 2014-2020 period. As provided for in Article 23 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4), 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 that provision in guidelines on the application of the measures linking effectiveness of the ESI Funds to sound economic governance.

               (6)

               Germany is currently in the preventive arm of the Stability and Growth Pact and subject to the debt rule. In its 2017 Stability Programme, the Government plans a budget surplus of between ¼ and ½ % of GDP over 2017-2021. The medium-term budgetary objective — a structural deficit of 0,5 % of GDP — continues to be met with a margin throughout the programme period. According to the Stability Programme, the general government debt-to-GDP ratio is expected to gradually decline to 57 % in 2021. The macroeconomic scenario underpinning those budgetary projections, which has not been endorsed by an independent body, is plausible.

               (7)

               Based on the Commission 2017 spring forecast, the structural balance is forecast to register a surplus of 0,6 % of GDP in 2017 and 0,3 % of GDP in 2018, above the medium-term budgetary objective. General government debt is forecast to remain on a firm downward path beyond the requirements of the debt rule. Overall, the Council is of the opinion that Germany is projected to comply with the provisions of the Stability and Growth Pact in 2017 and 2018. At the same time, there remains scope to support domestic demand by using fiscal policy in particular to achieve a sustained upward trend in investment, and by creating conditions for higher real wage growth.

               (8)

               Public investment as a proportion of GDP has remained largely constant and is below the euro-area average. A public investment backlog persists in particular at municipal level, where net investment remained negative in 2016. This is despite the measures taken over the last few years and significant increases in public investment at general government level in 2015 and 2016. Additional measures were taken in 2016 which should increase the scope for public investment, including at federal state and municipal level. These include a reform of federal fiscal relations that, once adopted, will take effect in 2020. Moreover, extending consulting services on infrastructure investment planning to include municipalities should improve the planning and implementation of infrastructure investment at municipal level. This appears particularly relevant given that infrastructure investment projects in the federal states and municipalities are only executed to a limited extent and are influenced by capacity and planning constraints. The favourable budgetary position generally indicates available fiscal space, for example to provide additional funds to increase public investment at all levels of government.

               (9)

               Overall public and private education and research expenditure has been rather stable relative to GDP in recent years, but in education it remains below the Union average. Combined total spending on education and research, at 9,1 % in 2015, fell short of the national target of 10 % of GDP. Additional investment in education, research and innovation is crucial for Germany’s future economic success and in particular to effectively integrate recently arrived asylum seekers, refugees and migrants. To achieve the latter, Germany has undertaken considerable efforts, especially in the area of vocational education and training. In the coming years, the efforts across the whole education sector will have to be sustained.

               (10)

               The German tax system remains complex, tax administration costs are high and several corporate taxation provisions may be hampering private investment. Despite significant reductions, corporate capital costs in Germany are still among the highest in the EU-28. When accounting for the local trade tax (Gewerbesteuer) and the solidarity surcharge, the top statutory tax rate on corporate income reached 30,2 % in 2016. This was substantially above the non-weighted Union average of 22,8 %. The effective average tax rate is 28,2 % compared with a non-weighted average of 21,1 % for the Union. The bias towards debt in corporate taxation was the seventh highest in the Union in 2016. At shareholder level, the extent of the debt bias is similar. This matters in particular for SMEs, which tend to have domestic shareholders. Lowering the capital costs on equity could strengthen private investment and the underdeveloped German venture capital market. Other features of the tax system that might distort financing and investment decisions are the inclusion of non-profit elements in the tax base of the local trade tax, limitations on loss carry-forwards, and tax-induced distortions with respect to the choice of legal form. Further provisions that might reduce the investment-friendliness of the tax system include the depreciation regime, the interest rate used to calculate deductible pension provisions, the taxation of capital gains, and cash accounting for the purpose of value-added taxation. If implemented effectively, the additional general and IT-specific functional authority of the federal tax administration in relation to the states’ tax administrations that was agreed as part of the reform of federal fiscal relations could help in accelerating the modernisation of the tax administration.

               (11)

               Venture capital investment has increased in Germany, but the market still remains underdeveloped by international standards. In 2015, venture capital investment accounted for about 0,03 % of GDP, which is slightly above the Union average but still below Member States such as Finland, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Ireland or France, and far below non-Union countries such as Israel and the United States. In particular, the venture capital market in Germany appears to be failing to provide bigger later-stage investments. The federal government has taken a number of measures to support venture capital investment. For example, it simplified the taxation of investment funds, improved loss carry-forwards under the corporate income taxation system and expanded the INVEST programme for business angels.

               (12)

               The shift towards renewable energy necessitates significant investment in electricity transmission and distribution networks. However, planned investment in domestic electricity infrastructure has been significantly delayed. Only around 35 % of the highest voltage grid projects identified in the 2009 Energy Network Expansion Act had been implemented by the end of 2016, mainly owing to public opposition. Of a current total of 6 100 km of power lines planned to be built in the period up to 2024/2025 in accordance with the Federal Requirement Plan Act, which entered into force in 2015, only around 6 % have been approved and only 1 % have been constructed.

               (13)

               There are still barriers to reaping the full benefits of digitisation. For example, Germany is not performing well in the availability of high-speed and ultra-fast broadband connections, in particular in semi-urban and rural regions. Computer usage by young Germans is comparatively low and many schools lack broadband access. Performance in digital public services is also below the Union average. In particular SMEs need to catch up in terms of digitisation. Only one fifth of SMEs have a digitisation strategy. A network of SME centres of excellence has been set up to strengthen and accelerate the digitisation of SMEs and the ‘Industrie 4.0’ platform brings together all relevant stakeholders. While business R & D investment is growing and Germany is close to achieving its Europe 2020 R & D intensity target, investment is increasingly concentrated in large companies, while the contribution of SMEs is declining. Moreover, an ageing population may also have an impact on entrepreneurial activity in the coming years.

               (14)

               High regulatory barriers remain in the business services sector and regulated professions. The level of restrictions is higher than the Union average in particular for architects, engineers, lawyers and accountants/tax advisers. In addition, the business churn rate for these professions is significantly lower than the Union average, which seems to indicate relatively low dynamism and competition in professional services in Germany. These barriers include shareholding and company form restrictions for architects and engineers, and multidisciplinary restrictions for architects, engineers and lawyers. Reducing these barriers could generate more intensive competition, resulting in more firms entering the market, and leading to benefits for consumers in terms of lower prices and broader choice. In January 2017 the Commission presented reform recommendations for regulation in professional services, as part of a package of measures to tackle barriers in services markets.

               (15)

               Employment has continued to rise and unemployment has fallen to historically low levels. However, the increase in employment has been partly due to an increase in part-time work, in particular among women, and has been only partially reflected in aggregate real wage growth, which decelerated in 2016. Disincentives to work for second earners and widespread part-time work are hampering the full use of the labour market potential. Better provision of quality and affordable full-time childcare, all-day schools and the recently reformed long-term care is a crucial lever for increasing female participation in the workforce. Joint taxation of income for married couples and free healthcare insurance coverage for non-working spouses discourage second earners, in many cases women, from taking up a job or increasing the number of hours worked. Moreover, lower labour market attachment is combined with a high gender pay gap of 22 % compared to an Union average of 16,3 % in 2015.

               (16)

               Despite a slight reduction, mini-jobs remain widespread, with about 4,8 million people having a mini-job as their only job in September 2016. The number of temporary agency workers has tripled since 2005, reaching around 1 million (close to 3 % of total employment) in June 2016. Protection from potential abuses in temporary agency work and work contracts is expected to improve, but developments deserve monitoring. In addition, fixed-term contracts appear to have a comparatively high unadjusted wage gap compared to permanent contracts.

               (17)

               The tax wedge for low-wage earners is high in comparison with other Member States, thus reducing work incentives, take-home pay and consumption opportunities. Germany increased the minimum personal income tax allowance and child allowances and adjusted the income tax brackets. These measures tend to benefit low and middle income groups, but the overall impact on the tax wedge will be limited. In spite of recent substantial rises in real disposable income, wages and productivity evolutions have been diverging over a long period, leading to a considerable accumulated gap. Higher real wage growth would also contribute to reducing the high external imbalances.

               (18)

               Germany has made considerable efforts in receiving asylum seekers and in integrating refugees and other migrants. Further improvements appear possible, as in 2016 the number of jobseeking refugees increased to around 9 % of all jobseekers. Labour market integration of people with a migrant background, in particular women, remains a major challenge which, including through the education system, also applies to children born in Germany with parents born outside the Union.

               (19)

               Not all members of society have benefited equally from the overall positive economic and labour market developments of the last few years. After a period of increases, income inequality moderated only recently, while wealth inequality remains among the highest in the euro area. Moreover, the good labour market performance has not led to a decline in the risk of poverty. The at-risk-of-poverty rate in old age is above the Union average and the number of people at risk of old-age poverty is likely to increase in the coming years. The replacement rate of the statutory pension scheme is forecasted to further decline. At the same time, the rates of enrolment in second or third-pillar pension schemes are too low to compensate for the decrease in the replacement rate of the first pillar for everyone. If not offset, pension adequacy is thus expected to deteriorate. It remains to be seen how effective the recent reforms to improve incentives for later retirement (Flexi-Rente) can be in counteracting the incentives for early retirement introduced in 2014.

               (20)

               In the context of the 2017 European Semester, the Commission has carried out a comprehensive analysis of Germany’s economic policy and published it in the 2017 country report. It has also assessed the 2017 Stability Programme, the 2017 National Reform Programme and the follow-up given to the recommendations addressed to Germany in previous years. It has taken into account not only their relevance for sustainable fiscal and socioeconomic policy in Germany, but also their compliance with Union rules and guidance, given the need to strengthen the Union’s overall economic governance by providing Union-level input into future national decisions.

               (21)

               In the light of this assessment, the Council has examined the 2017 Stability Programme and is of the opinion (5) that Germany is expected to comply with the Stability and Growth Pact.

               (22)

               In the light of the Commission’s in-depth review and this assessment, the Council has examined the 2017 National Reform Programme and the 2017 Stability Programme. Its recommendations made under Article 6 of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 are reflected in recommendations (1) and (2) below,

         HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Germany take action in 2017 and 2018 to:

               1.

               While respecting the medium-term objective, use fiscal and structural policies to support potential growth and domestic demand as well as to achieve a sustained upward trend in investment. Accelerate public investment at all levels of government, especially in education, research and innovation, and address capacity and planning constraints for infrastructure investments. Further improve the efficiency and investment-friendliness of the tax system. Stimulate competition in business services and regulated professions.

               2.

               Reduce disincentives to work for second earners and facilitate transitions to standard employment. Reduce the high tax wedge for low-wage earners. Create conditions to promote higher real wage growth, respecting the role of the social partners.

      Done at Brussels, 11 July 2017.

            For the Council

            The President

         T. TÕNISTE

      (1)  OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 1.

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

      (3)  OJ C 92, 24.3.2017, p. 1.

      (4)  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).

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


Avis juridique important

|

31977K0518

77/518/ECSC: Commission Recommendation of 28 July 1977 to the Governments of the Member States of the Community amending the list of products annexed to Recommendation 77/330/ECSC establishing Community surveillance in respect of the importation in the Community of certain iron and steel products covered by the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, originating in third countries

Official Journal L 209 , 17/08/1977 P. 0018 - 0018

++++COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION  OF 28 JULY 1977  TO THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES OF THE COMMUNITY AMENDING THE LIST OF PRODUCTS ANNEXED TO RECOMMENDATION 77/330/ECSC ESTABLISHING COMMUNITY SURVEILLANCE IN RESPECT OF THE IMPORTATION IN THE COMMUNITY OF CERTAIN IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTS COVERED BY THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY , ORIGINATING IN THIRD COUNTRIES   ( 77/518/ECSC )  THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ,  HAVING REGARD TO THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY , AND IN PARTICULAR ARTICLE 74 ( 3 ) THEREOF ,  WHEREAS , BY RECOMMENDATION 77/330/ECSC OF 15 APRIL 1977 ( 1 ) , THE COMMISSION ESTABLISHED COMMUNITY SURVEILLANCE IN RESPECT OF THE IMPORTATION IN THE COMMUNITY OF CERTAIN IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTS COVERED BY THE ECSC TREATY IN ORDER TO FOLLOW DEVELOPMENTS AND TO ENSURE THAT SUCH IMPORTS OR THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THEY ARE EFFECTED DO NOT SERIOUSLY THREATEN COMMUNITY PRODUCTION ;  WHEREAS THIS SURVEILLANCE DOES NOT EXTEND TO IMPORTS OF HIGH CARBON FERRO-MANGANESE ORIGINATING IN THIRD COUNTRIES , THE PRICE OF WHICH INCREASED CONSIDERABLY IN 1976 AND CONTRIBUTED TO BRINGING DOWN INTERNAL PRICES ;  WHEREAS THIS CRITICAL TREND IS CONTINUING ; WHEREAS , CONSEQUENTLY , THE COMMUNITY SURVEILLANCE ESTABLISHED BY RECOMMENDATION 77/330/ECSC SHOULD BE EXTENDED TO IMPORTS OF HIGH CARBON FERRO-MANGANESE , AND HIGH CARBON FERRO-MANGANESE SHOULD THEREFORE BE INCLUDED IN THE LIST OF PRODUCTS ANNEXED TO THE SAID RECOMMENDATION ,  MAKES THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION :  ARTICLE 1  THE FOLLOWING PRODUCT SHALL BE ADDED TO THE LIST OF PRODUCTS ANNEXED TO RECOMMENDATION 77/330/ECSC :  CCT HEADING NO*DESCRIPTION OF GOODS*  73.02 A I*FERRO-MANGANESE CONTAINING MORE THAN 2 % BY WEIGHT OF CARBON ( HIGH CARBON FERRO-MANGANESE ) *  ARTICLE 2  THIS RECOMMENDATION SHALL BE NOTIFIED TO THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES AND PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES .  IT SHALL ENTER INTO FORCE IN RESPECT OF EACH MEMBER STATE WITH EFFECT FROM THE DATE OF ITS PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES .  DONE AT BRUSSELS , 28 JULY 1977 .  FOR THE COMMISSION  WILHELM HAFERKAMP  VICE-PRESIDENT  ( 1 ) OJ NO L 114 , 5 . 5 . 1977 , P . 15 .


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

text:
               18.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 299/53

         COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
   of 12 July 2016
   on the 2016 National Reform Programme of Sweden and delivering a Council opinion on the 2016 Convergence Programme of Sweden
   (2016/C 299/13)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 121(2) and 148(4) thereof,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,
   Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 on the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances (2), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,
   Having regard to the recommendation of the European Commission,
   Having regard to the resolutions of the European Parliament,
   Having regard to the conclusions of the European Council,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Employment Committee,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Financial Committee,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Social Protection Committee,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Economic Policy Committee,
   Whereas:

               (1)

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

               (2)

               The 2016 country report for Sweden was published on 26 February 2016. It assessed Sweden's progress in addressing the country-specific recommendation adopted by the Council on 14 July 2015 and Sweden'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 Sweden is experiencing macroeconomic imbalances. In particular, high and increasing household debt associated with high and growing house prices in a context of positive credit flows pose risks of disorderly correction with implications for the real economy and the banking sector. Policy measures have been taken in the macroprudential domain, which may however remain insufficient. Policy gaps remain in the area of housing-related taxation, the amortisation of mortgages, the functioning of housing supply and the rental market.

               (3)

               On 28 April 2016, Sweden submitted its 2016 National Reform Programme and its 2016 Convergence Programme. In order to take account of their interlinkages, the two programmes have been assessed at the same time.

               (4)

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

               (5)

               Sweden is currently in the preventive arm of the Stability and Growth Pact. In its 2016 Convergence Programme, the Government plans to achieve a headline balance of -0,4 % of GDP and to continue to meet the medium-term budgetary objective — a structural deficit of 1 % of GDP — throughout the programme period. According to the Convergence Programme, the government debt-to-GDP ratio is expected to fall to 42,5 % in 2016 and to continue declining to 39,1 % in 2019. The macroeconomic scenario underpinning these budgetary projections is plausible until 2016 and cautious thereafter. Based on the Commission 2016 spring forecast, the structural balance is forecast to be at -0,5 % in 2016 and -0,9 % of GDP in 2017, above the medium-term budgetary objective. Possible future deviations would be assessed against the requirement to maintain the structural balance at the medium-term budgetary objective. Based on its assessment of the Convergence Programme and taking into account the Commission 2016 spring forecast, the Council is of the opinion that Sweden is expected to comply with the provisions of the Stability and Growth Pact.

               (6)

               Household debt is at a very high level in Sweden and has been growing at one of the fastest rates in the Union over the past decade. Household debt to annual disposable income was 175 % in 2015 according to Riksbank (Sweden's central bank) estimates, and in relation to GDP it was 87 %. Sweden has one of the highest tax incentives for home ownership in the Union due to relatively low property taxes and high mortgage interest deductibility. The high level of household indebtedness constitutes a risk for macroeconomic stability. The Government has taken some steps to stem household indebtedness, including legislation aimed at imposing mandatory amortisation requirements on new mortgage loans, which the parliament adopted on 23 March 2016. Adoption of this key measure was significantly delayed due to questions being raised about Sweden's macroprudential authority's legal mandate to introduce this requirement. There is a risk that further measures that may be needed to address Sweden's rising imbalances may be similarly delayed unless the legal framework concerning the macroprudential authority's remit is revised. Finally, the Government has taken no action to adjust fiscal incentives by, for instance, reducing the tax deductibility of mortgage interest or revising property taxation.

               (7)

               The Swedish housing market remains a potential source of instability. House prices have risen almost constantly over the last 20 years, in particular in the metropolitan areas of Stockholm and Gothenburg. House prices keep growing, not only caused by strong fundamentals, such as disposable income growth, but also due to structural inefficiencies in the housing market. Housing supply is hampered by ineffective use of the existing housing stock, a high degree of rent control, weak competition in the construction sector, insufficient availability of land for new construction and lengthy and complex planning procedures. The existing design of the transaction tax on capital gains from real estate sales limits the potential for more efficient use of the existing housing stock. Structural inefficiencies result in insufficient investment in housing and widespread housing shortage, and contribute to the persistent increase in house prices. Lack of available and affordable housing also limits labour market mobility and is a constraint for the effective integration of migrants into the labour market. The Government has taken some measures, including increasing public funding for investments in the housing sector and simplifying some planning procedures. In December 2015, an inquiry into competition in the construction sector came up with a series of possible measures, such as enhancing transparency in the field of public housing contracts. However, the Government made no progress in reforming the rent-setting system.

               (8)

               Despite relatively good investment performance, Sweden faces challenges that may have a negative impact on the long-term competitiveness of the country. In particular, structural inefficiencies in the housing market hamper investment in this area. Investment in infrastructure to improve connectivity within and between urban areas is insufficient in view of the constraints caused by the housing shortage.

               (9)

               Sweden experienced the sharpest decline in the educational performance of 15-year-olds of any OECD country over the past decade in the PISA survey, and is now performing below both the EU and OECD averages. Deteriorating outcomes of school education risk putting pressure on Sweden's competitiveness and innovation capacity in the long run. An important performance gap between students with and without a migrant background adds to the education challenge. This gap deserves particular attention in light of the large number of newly arrived young migrants to be integrated into the education system. Unclear school funding mechanisms paired with unsystematic monitoring of the use of funding at different levels of the school system hinder the efficient use of resources. The Government has made additional funding available to improve school outcomes and equity, and it is taking steps to integrate the newly arrived migrants in education.

               (10)

               The high influx of refugees experienced in the past year has a number of social and economic consequences for Sweden. While in the short run, the inflow of refugees is set to increase public expenditure and to create additional domestic demand, thereby raising GDP, the medium-term effect on employment and growth hinges on refugees' successful labour market and social integration, including via educational support. This issue is high on the political agenda both at the EU and Member State level and will be monitored and analysed closely, including in the 2017 country report.

               (11)

               In the context of the European Semester, the Commission has carried out a comprehensive analysis of Sweden'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 Sweden in previous years. It has taken into account not only their relevance for sustainable fiscal and socioeconomic policy in Sweden but also their compliance with EU rules and guidance, given the need to strengthen the EU's overall economic governance by providing EU-level input into future national decisions. The recommendations under the European Semester are reflected in recommendation (1) below.

               (12)

               In the light of this assessment, the Council has examined the Convergence Programme, and is of the opinion (4) that Sweden is expected to comply with the Stability and Growth Pact.

               (13)

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

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

               1.

               Address the rise in household debt by adjusting fiscal incentives, in particular by gradually limiting the tax deductibility of mortgage interest payments or by increasing recurrent property taxes. Ensure that the macro-prudential authority has the legal mandate to implement measures to safeguard financial stability in a timely manner. Foster investment in housing and improve the efficiency of the housing market, including by introducing more flexibility in setting rental prices and by revising the design of the capital gains tax to facilitate more housing transactions.

      Done at Brussels, 12 July 2016.

            For the Council

            The President

         P. KAŽIMÍR

      (1)  OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 1.

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

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

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


title: Council Recommendation of 3 March 2008 adapting Recommendation 98/376/EC on a parking card for people with disabilities, by reason of the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, Romania, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic

text:
               7.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 63/43

      COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION

   of 3 March 2008
   adapting Recommendation 98/376/EC on a parking card for people with disabilities, by reason of the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, Romania, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic
   (2008/205/EC)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
   Having regard to the Act of Accession of 2003, and in particular Article 57 thereof,
   Having regard to the Act of Accession of 2005, and in particular Article 56 thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               For certain acts which remain valid beyond 1 January 2007 and require adaptation by reason of accession, the necessary adaptations were not provided for in the Acts of Accession.

               (2)

               Pursuant to Article 57 of the Act of Accession of 2003 and Article 56 of the Act of Accession of 2005 such adaptations are to be adopted by the Council in all cases where the Council adopted the original act.

               (3)

               Council Recommendation 98/376/EC of 4 June 1998 on a parking card for people with disabilities (1) should therefore be amended accordingly,

         HEREBY RECOMMENDS:
   Recommendation 98/376/EC is amended as set out in the Annex.

      Done at Brussels, 3 March 2008.

            For the Council

            The President

         J. PODOBNIK

      (1)  OJ L 167, 12.6.1998, p. 25.

      ANNEX
      Recommendation 98/376/EC is amended as follows:

                  1.

                  under the seventh indent of point D of the Annex, the list of distinguishing codes is replaced by the following:

                              ‘B

                              :

                              Belgium

                              BG

                              :

                              Bulgaria

                              CZ

                              :

                              Czech Republic

                              DK

                              :

                              Denmark

                              D

                              :

                              Germany

                              EST

                              :

                              Estonia

                              IRL

                              :

                              Ireland

                              EL

                              :

                              Greece

                              E

                              :

                              Spain

                              F

                              :

                              France

                              I

                              :

                              Italy

                              CY

                              :

                              Cyprus

                              LV

                              :

                              Latvia

                              LT

                              :

                              Lithuania

                              L

                              :

                              Luxembourg

                              H

                              :

                              Hungary

                              M

                              :

                              Malta

                              NL

                              :

                              Netherlands

                              A

                              :

                              Austria

                              PL

                              :

                              Poland

                              P

                              :

                              Portugal

                              RO

                              :

                              Romania

                              SLO

                              :

                              Slovenia

                              SK

                              :

                              Slovakia

                              FIN

                              :

                              Finland

                              S

                              :

                              Sweden

                              UK

                              :

                              United Kingdom’;

                  2.

                  under point E of the Annex, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:
                  ‘If a Member State wishes to make the entries in a national language other than one of the following: Bulgarian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Irish, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish or Swedish, it shall draw up a bilingual version of the card using one of the aforementioned languages, without prejudice to the other provisions of this Annex.’.


Avis juridique important

|

31976H0495

76/495/EEC: Council recommendation of 4 May 1976 on the rational use of energy in urban passenger transport

Official Journal L 140 , 28/05/1976 P. 0016 - 0017 Greek special edition: Chapter 12 Volume 1 P. 0134  Spanish special edition: Chapter 12 Volume 2 P. 0119  Portuguese special edition Chapter 12 Volume 2 P. 0119

COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION  of 4 May 1976  on the rational use of energy in urban passenger transport  (76/495/EEC)  THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,  Having regard to the draft from the Commission,  Whereas, in its resolution of 17 September 1974 concerning a new energy policy strategy for the Community (1), the Council accepted as an objective the "reduction of the rate of growth of internal consumption by measures for using energy rationally and economically without jeopardizing social and economic growth objectives";  Whereas, in its resolution of 17 December 1974 on a Community action programme on the rational utilization of energy (2), the Council noted that, in its communication to the Council entitled "Rational utilization of energy", the Commission had drawn up a Community action programme in this field;  Whereas tangible results should be obtained as soon as possible in the rational use of energy ; whereas measures in the field of urban passenger transport are likely to contribute to the attainment of this objective;  Whereas the measures recommended are likely to produce sufficiently large savings in energy to make the required investment economically worthwhile;  Whereas in its communication to the Council on the development of the common transport policy, the Commission proposes the development of comprehensive policies that will bring about improvements not only in the transport field but also in the energy situation,  HEREBY RECOMMENDS TO THE MEMBER STATES:      1. that, with a view to ensuring rational use of both public transport and private vehicles, they encourage the authorities responsible to promote frequent, convenient, regular, fast, reliable, comfortable urban public passenger transport services. For instance, the construction of bus shelters and the separation of private and public traffic, for example by introducing bus lanes and special priorities for buses at traffic lights, should be encouraged;       2. that they encourage research into the improvement of existing equipment and experimentation with public transport systems that will meet individual requirements more fully;       3. that, in order to reduce commuting distances by private car, they encourage the construction of convenient parking areas near public transport termini and important stations and bus stops in urban and suburban areas;       4. that they examine the advisability of changing fiscal and other regulations which encourage commuting by private car and long-distance commuting py public transport;       5. that, where public transport is insufficient, they encourage the highest possible load factor in private cars, particularly by removing the legislative and administrative barriers and regulations which prevent car-pooling on a cost-sharing basis and by adopting the necessary laws, regulations or administrative provisions to prevent insurance companies from introducing or maintaining contractual barriers to such a system;  (1)OJ No C 153, 9.7.1975, p. 1. (2)OJ No C 153, 9.7.1975, p. 5.        6. that they encourage all measures making the flow of traffic smoother, especially the flow of public transport, for example by more extensive synchronization and programming of traffic lights.         The Council, in adopting this recommendation, is aware that when these measures are being studied and implemented, their implications for other economic sectors including transport and taxation will have to be taken into consideration.   Done at Brussels, 4 May 1976.  For the Council  The President  G. THORN