Avis juridique important

|

32003H0532

Commission Recommendation of 10 July 2003 on guidance for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council allowing voluntary participation by organisations in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS) concerning the selection and use of environmental performance indicators (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2003) 2253)

Official Journal L 184 , 23/07/2003 P. 0019 - 0032

Commission Recommendationof 10 July 2003on guidance for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council allowing voluntary participation by organisations in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS) concerning the selection and use of environmental performance indicators(notified under document number C(2003) 2253)(Text with EEA relevance)(2003/532/EC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 211, second indent, thereof,Whereas:(1) Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 allowing voluntary participation by organisations in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS)(1) defines the essential requirements for participation by organisations in EMAS.(2) Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 calls on the Commission to promote consistency in the application of EMAS.(3) This consistency can be enhanced by providing guidance on producing an environmental statement as referred to in Article 3(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 761/2001, both to organisations and environmental verifiers.(4) Pursuant to Annex III 3.3 to Regulation (EC) No 761/2001, organisations implementing EMAS may use environmental performance indicators to increase clarity, transparency and comparability of the information provided by an organisation.(5) The selection and use of environmental performance indicators may also help organisations in better understanding and improving their environmental management and performance.(6) The guidance on the EMAS environmental statement contained in Annex I.3 to Recommendation No 2001/680/EC(2) announces that the Commission will develop guidance on the selection and use of environmental performance indicators in due course.(7) The selection and use of environmental performance indicators should be cost-effective and appropriate to the size and type of organisation and its needs and priorities.(8) The guidance provided for in this Recommendation is in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 761/2001,HEREBY RECOMMENDS:1. For the purpose of producing the EMAS environmental statement organisations may use the environmental performance indicators contained in Annex I.2. This Recommendation is addressed to the Member States.Done at Brussels, 10 July 2003.For the CommissionMargot WallströmMember of the Commission(1) OJ L 114, 24.4.2001, p. 1.(2) OJ L 247, 17.9.2001, p. 1.ANNEX IGUIDANCE ON THE SELECTION AND USE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR THE EMAS REGULATION1. IntroductionIn Annex III 3.3 of the EMAS Regulation participating organisations are encouraged to use environmental performance indicators where appropriate.The use of such indicators will enhance the reporting of environmental performance by converting raw data into information that can be easily understood by the intended audience. Environmental performance indicators summarise extensive environmental data to a limited number of significant key information sets. This will assist organisations in quantifying and reporting environmental performance. Another important function of environmental indicators is to assist organisations in the management of their environmental aspects and impacts. Besides that, organisations such as ranking agencies and financial advisory firms are becoming increasingly interested in environmental performance.Creating environmental information can be expensive and time consuming. Environmental performance indicators should therefore be cost-effective and appropriate to the size and type of organisation and its needs and priorities. They should address primarily those environmental impacts that are most significant and which the company can influence by its operations, management, activities, products and services. They should also be sensitive enough to reflect significant changes in environmental impacts. In addition, organisations should make the optimum use of the environmental information they collect. To this end the indicators should fulfil the dual purpose of assisting the management of the organisation and providing information to stakeholders. Depending on an organisation's capabilities and resources, the use of environmental performance indicators may initially be limited to those aspects considered most relevant, with the initial scope being gradually widened over time. The indicators and measurement units provided in this guidance are given by way of example.Several publications and standards which may assist organisations already exist and are referenced in the literature Annex II of this Recommendation.The basic principles of environmental indicator systems are:- comparability: indicators should enable a comparison and show changes in the environmental performance,- balance between problematic (bad) and prospective (good) areas,- continuity: indicators should be based on the same criteria and should be taken over comparable time sections or units,- timeliness: indicators should be updated frequently enough to allow action to be taken,- clarity: indicators should be clear and understandable.2. Categories of environmental performance indicatorsUsually, three categories of environmental indicators are defined for evaluating and reporting the environmental performance of an organisation(1):>TABLE>Operational performance indicators (OPIs): These concentrate on the aspects associated with an organisation's operations including activities, products or services and can cover such topics as emissions, product and raw material recycling, fuel consumption of vehicle fleet, or energy usage.Operational performance indicators can be subdivided into input indicators, physical facilities and equipment indicators and output indicators. They concentrate on planning, controlling and monitoring the environmental impacts of the organisation's operations. Operational performance indicators are also a tool for communicating environmental data through environmental reports or environmental statements, in accordance with the EMAS Regulation. By integrating cost aspects into them, they furthermore represent a basis for environmental cost management.Management Performance Indicators (MPIs): These concentrate on the efforts of management to provide the infrastructure for environmental management to succeed and can, among others, cover environmental programmes, objectives and targets, training, incentive schemes, audit frequency, site inspections, administration and community relations.These indicators serve primarily as internal control and information measurements, but do not by themselves provide sufficient information to give an accurate picture of the organisation's environmental performance.Environmental Condition Indicators (ECIs): These give information on the quality of the environment surrounding the organisation or the local, regional or global state of the environment. Examples include the water quality of a nearby lake, the regional air quality, concentrations of greenhouse gases or the concentration of certain pollutants in the soil. While they may be quite wide-ranging they can be used to focus the attention of the organisation on the management of the environmental aspects associated with significant environmental impacts.The condition of environmental media (air, water, land) and the environmental problems that arise from it depend often on a variety of influences. Examples are emissions from different organisations, private households or transport. Data about the condition of environmental media are usually measured and recorded by governmental institutions. These data are used to derive specific environmental indicator systems for the main environmental problems. In connection with environmental policy goals, public environmental indicators can be used by organisations as an orientation for setting priorities in determining their own indicators and objectives. This is especially the case when the organisation is one of the main sources of an environmental problem, for example the impact of an airport on its surroundings in respect of noise or the impact of a direct effluent discharge on local water quality. In particular in these cases, ECIs enable the measurement of environmental impacts of the organisation.These three categories of environmental indicators have become widely accepted and organisations should consider a combination of these indicators in order to be able to demonstrate, that:- they understand the environmental impacts associated with their activities, products and services (ECIs);- they are taking appropriate measures to ensure the management of environmental aspects associated with the environmental impacts (MPIs); and- the results of the management of environmental aspects is improved environmental performance of their operations (OPIs).It is recognised however that for organisations with less significant environmental impacts and a less complex environmental management system the most important indicators will be those relating to operational performance.3. GuidanceIn selecting environmental performance indicators for a particular environmental aspect an organisation should ask itself the following questions:- What are the organisation's main environmental aspects and impacts?- Where can most improvements be achieved?- Where can environmental improvements also lead to cost reduction?The selected environmental indicators should comply with environmental policy priorities:- How does the organisation affect the local or regional environmental situation in relation to important local or regional environmental policy issues?- What environmental problems dominate the current political discussions?- What external requirements, for example from interested parties, affect the organisation?FigureFlowchart about decision processes when selecting environmental performance indicators>PIC FILE= "L_2003184EN.002201.TIF">In addition, organisations should select indicators which enhance their management. Indicators which do not contribute to the management of the organisation will ultimately not be incorporated in day-to-day management and hence will have little effect in improving performance. In short, only those indicators which enable the employees and management to perform their tasks better are the ones which are most appropriate to the organisation.The sections (a) to (e) below consider each of the criteria detailed in Annex III 3.3 to the EMAS Regulation and assist organisations in the selection of appropriate indicators(a) Indicators should give an accurate appraisal of the organisation's performanceIt is important that the organisation can have a correct assessment of its environmental performance. The indicators should represent environmental performance as accurately as possible, providing a balanced illustration of environmental aspects and impacts.For instance, if an organisation reduces emissions to air or water but as a result produces more solid waste to landfill, then the organisation should consider and report the overall environmental benefit. This will also have financial implications since the cost of disposal will also have to be included to enable management to estimate the costs and benefits of such action.In the following, examples of indicators and measurement units for use in the EMAS environmental statement are given. They relate to the different indicator categories and subcategories as mentioned in the table of section 2 on categories of environmental performance indicators above.In addition to absolute values of environmental impacts, measurement units may also address the environmental impact per unit of product or service, per turnover, gross sales or gross value added ("eco-efficiency" indicators) or the environmental impact per employee(2).N.B.:Often the local environmental media and ecosystems are most relevant for environmental condition indicators (ECIs). However, in some cases - such as greenhouse gas emissions - the state of the global environmental might also be of relevance. If ECIs do not primarily reflect the environmental impact of the registered organisation itself but rather the impact of other organisations or unknown sources this should be clearly mentioned in the communication with stakeholders.>TABLE>>TABLE>>TABLE>>TABLE>>TABLE>>TABLE>>TABLE>In the following a few examples of presenting environmental performance indicators in diagrams are given. In many cases it is beneficial to give not only information on the past year but trends over several years.FigureDevelopment of three different types of hazardous waste in 1000 tonnes per year between 1996 and 2002: Slags (10 04 01), dross and skimmings (10 04 02) and flue gas dust (10 04 04)(3)>PIC FILE= "L_2003184EN.002701.TIF">If organisations are reporting management indicators such as training then it can be beneficial to know that part of the overall training dedicated to environmental subjects or alternatively the proportion of auditing which is dedicated to environment. This will better allow an organisation to estimate the costs of its environmental management.FigureProportions of training hours per employee in safety, environment and quality in 2002>PIC FILE= "L_2003184EN.002702.TIF">In the case where organisations wish to report their performance in relation to the condition of the environment it will be beneficial to know the relative contribution of the organisation to the environmental impact. Thus if an organisation is reporting on the condition of a local river it would be beneficial to estimate its contribution to the overall river condition in order to target its efforts efficiently.(b) Indicators should be understandable and unambiguousFor reasons of both credibility and management control it is important that indicators do not create a false impression or mislead the intended audience. The indicators should be clear and understandable to the user and correspond to the users' information requirements. Indicators should be coherent and concentrate on essential data.For reporting purposes data is often aggregated or normalised. Whilst this may allow for a succinct presentation it is important that the end result is easily understood. For instance reporting against an internal index for in-house recycling may not be understandable if the method for generation of that index is not explained in simple terms.Normalising data against a base year may allow for year on year comparison but may not reflect all aspects of environmental performance. For example, it is important that the effects of acquisitions and divestments are clearly explained and the audience should be able to understand the absolute magnitude of the aspect being reported.(c) Indicators should allow for year on year comparisonThis aspect ensures that it is easy to follow the development of environmental performance of an organisation. The importance of the correct selection of indicators at the beginning of the reporting process can be demonstrated in the requirement for year on year comparison. If the parameters for reporting a particular environmental aspect and impact change then it is often difficult to see if improvement is made.For instance, if energy is reported in year 1 as total consumption but in year 2 as energy usage per tonne of product the year on year comparison cannot be made. Therefore organisations should ensure that continuity over time is considered when selecting indicators. For avoiding confusion, indicators should always be accompanied by the absolute values, for example as presented in the following table.TableExample of a table that allows for year on year comparison((Rauberger (1998).))>TABLE>Organisations should also be aware that for giving an accurate picture of annual performance development absolute annual averages and, if necessary, their variances should be reported. If this is not appropriate an average year or a long-term average should be chosen as baseline. Exceptional peak years are not suitable as reference years.It is occasionally necessary to change the method by which an environmental aspect is reported. In this instance an organisation should strive to ensure that comparisons with previous years can be made, for example by recalculating the previous years data in accordance with the new reporting method.(d) Indicators should allow for comparison with sector, national or regional benchmarksOne of the essential requirements for comparison of indicators is that they are generated the same way for avoiding the comparison of "apples and pears". In the area of energy consumption, for example, the question could be whether to report on primary or secondary energy consumption. The organisation should take care to apply the "common standard" when creating their indicators. These "common standards" are set in certain cases by research, trade associations, non-governmental organisations, local, national or regional governments. Organisations should ensure that they are aware of these benchmarks and that if reporting against these aspects then the indicators they choose should allow for direct comparison with these benchmarks. To avoid over reporting - if several different benchmarks have been produced - organisations should choose the most relevant for their sector.TableExample of a table that allows for comparison with benchmark((Rauberger (1998).))>TABLE>(e) Indicators should allow for comparison with regulatory requirementsFor both internal management and external credibility, organisations should be able to demonstrate how they are performing in relation to regulatory requirements. Where regulatory requirements exist for the aspect to be reported, organisations should include these requirements in the same table or graphical representation as the performance.FigureExample of a graph that allows for comparison with a regulatory requirement>PIC FILE= "L_2003184EN.002901.TIF">4. SummaryBefore deciding on the indicator to be used for tracking an environmental aspect an organisation should ask itself the following questions:(a) Can the data represent the environmental impact of the organisation?(b) Can the indicators enable the quantification of environmental targets?(c) Does the data support the management process of the organisation?(d) Is the data understandable without complicated explanation?(e) Will data in this format be usable year on year?(f) Are any existing legal limits for this aspect incorporated?(g) Can the data be compared with relevant benchmarks for this aspect?If the answer to any of the above is NO then an organisation should give further consideration to the design of that environmental indicator. Indicators should however be regularly reviewed to ensure their relevance and to take account of new information or developments.(1) The major categories OPIs, MPIs, and ECIs as well as most subcategories correspond directly to relevant indicator categories used in EN/ISO 14031:1999 "Environmental management - Environmental performance evaluation - Guidelines". The subcategories "products supporting the organisation's operation", "transport", "employee involvement", "administration and planning", "purchasing and investments" and "health and safety" are specific for EMAS.(2) The use of employee related indicators should be treated with caution as this measure depends in some cases heavily on the capital-labour mix employed by the company.(3) The codes in brackets relate to the codes of the different entries in the European waste list.ANNEX IIA SELECTION OF NATIONAL, REGIONAL AND GLOBAL PUBLICATIONS CONCERNING ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORSANPA - National Agency for the Protection of the Environment (1998): "Manuale per l'attuazione del Sistema Comunitario di Ecogestione ed Audit (Manual for the Implementation of the European Eco-Management and Audit Scheme) (EMAS)", CD-ROM Sezione Banca Dati Indicatori (Section - Database of Environmental Indicators), Roma, Internet: www.anpa.it/emas.Association for Environmental Management in Banks; Savings Banks and Insurance Companies (VfU) and German Federal Environment Ministry (1997): "Time to act - environmental management in financial institutions - A survey of recent developments including principles and guidelines for in-house eco-balances of financial service providers", Bonn, Internet: www.vfu.de.Business in the Community (2000): "Winning With Integrity", London, Internet: www.bitc.org.uk.Business in the Community (2001): "A Measure of Progress", London, Internet: www.bitc.org.uk.FORGE Group (2000): "Guidelines on Environmental Management and Reporting for the Financial Services Sector", Internet: www.bba.org.uk.German Federal Environment Ministry and Federal Environmental Agency (ed.) (1997): "A Guide to Corporate Environmental Indicators", Bonn/Berlin, Internet: www.umweltbundesamt.de.German Federal Environmental Agency (1999): "Leitfaden betriebliche Umweltauswirkungen - Ihre Erfassung und Bewertung im Rahmen des Umweltmanagements. (Guideline of Operational Environmental Impacts - Collection and Evaluation in the Framework of Environmental Management)", Berlin, Internet: www.umweltbundesamt.de.Global reporting initiative (2002): "Sustainability reporting guidelines", Boston, USA, Internet: www.globalreporting.org.EN/ISO 14031:1999 "Environmental management - Environmental performance evaluation - Guidelines", Geneva, Internet: www.iso.ch.ISO/TR 14032:1999 "Environmental management - Examples of environmental performance evaluation (EPE)", Geneva, Internet: www.iso.ch.Jasch, C. and Rauberger, R. (1998): "Leitfaden Kennzahlen zur Messung der betrieblichen Umweltleistung (Guideline Indicators for the Measurement of Operational Environmental Performance)" edited by the Austrian Federal Ministry for the Environment, Youth and Family Affairs, Vienna, IÖW Wien Publications No 25/1998, Internet: www.ioew.at/ioew/index.html.Rauberger, R. (1998): "Erweitertes betriebliches Umweltcontrolling (Extended Operational Environmental Controlling)", in "Praxishandbuch Umweltschutz - Management", edited by Hans-Peter Wruk and Horst Ellringmann, Cologne, Deutscher Wirtschaftsdienst, Internet: www.dvd-verlag.com.UK Association of Certified and Chartered Accountants and Certified Accountants Educational Trust (2001): "An Introduction to Environmental Reporting", London, Internet: www.accaglobal.com.UK Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2000): "Environmental Reporting - Guidelines for Company Reporting on Waste", London, DEFRA Publications, Internet: www.defra.gov.uk/environment/envrp/ index.htm.UK Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2000): "Environmental Reporting Guidelines for Company Reporting on Water", London, DEFRA Publications, Internet: www.defra.gov.uk/environment/envrp/ index.htm.UK Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2001): "Environmental Reporting - General Guidelines", London, DEFRA Publications, Internet: www.defra.gov.uk/environment/envrp/ index.htm.UK Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2001): "Guidelines for Company Reporting on Greenhouse Gas Emissions", London, DEFRA Publications, Internet: www.defra.gov.uk/environment/envrp/ index.htm.United Nations Division for Sustainable Development (2001): "Environmental Management Accounting, Procedures and Principles", United Nations publication, Economic and Social Affairs Series, Internet: www.un.org/esa/sustdev/estema1.htm.VDI Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (ed.) (2001): "Betriebliche Kennzahlen für das Umweltmanagement - Leitfaden zu Aufbau, Einführung und Nutzung (Operational Indicators for Environmental Management - Guideline for Setup, Introduction and Use)", VDI Richtline Nr. 4050, Duesseldorf, Internet: www.vdi.de.World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2000): "Measuring eco-efficiency - a guide to reporting company performance", Geneva, Internet: www.wbcsd.org/newscenter/reports/ 2000/MeasuringEE.pdf.


Avis juridique important

|

31996Y0110(02)

Council recommendation of 22 December 1995 on concerted action and cooperation in carrying out expulsion measures

Official Journal C 005 , 10/01/1996 P. 0003 - 0007

COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONof 22 December 1995on  concerted action and cooperation in carrying out expulsion measures(96/C  5/02) THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the recommendation of the Ministers of the Member States of the European  Communities responsible for immigration of 30 November 1992 concerning transit for the purposes of  expulsion and the addendum thereto of 1 and 2 June 1993, Whereas Article K.1 (3) (c) of the Treaty on European Union stipulates that combating unauthorized  immigration, residence and work by nationals of third countries on the territory of Member States  are matters of common interest; Whereas the Council has already adopted specific measures to secure better control of migratory  flows and to prevent third-country nationals entering Member States' territory unauthorized and  remaining there illegally; Whereas expulsion measures in respect of third-country nationals whose presence is unauthorized  cannot be carried out owing to the absence of travel or identity documents; Whereas, in order to achieve the effective carrying-out of expulsion measures, recommendations  addressed to the Member States of the European Union and aimed at better coordination of those  measures should be adopted at Council level; Whereas the provisions of this recommendation are without prejudice to the European Convention for  the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950 of to the Geneva  Convention of 28 July 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees, as amended by the New York Protocol  of 31 January 1967, HEREBY RECOMMENDS MEMBER STATES' GOVERNMENTS: to apply the principles set out below: with a view to cooperation in the procurement of the necessary documentation1. to implement  specific mechanisms to improve the procurement of the necessary documentation from the consular  authorities of the third State to which third-country nationals are to be expelled when they lack  travel or identity documents; 2. where Member States experience repeated difficulties with certain third States in the matter of  procuring documentation: (a) to make a particular effort to arrange for persons to be expelled to be identified by the  consular authorities; (b) to issue repeated invitations to consular authorities to visit centres in which third-country  nationals are being held, where appropriate, in order to identify them for the purpose of providing  documentation; (c) to urge the same authorities to issue travel documents with a period of validity sufficient for  expulsion to be carried out; 3. in the first instance to make use of the provisions on presumption of nationality of the  standard readmission agreement adopted by the Council on 30 November 1994; 4. to issue, where it is not possible to obtain the necessary travel documents by using the above  means, the standard travel document adopted by the Council on 30 November 1994; with a view to cooperation in carrying out transit for expulsion purposes5. to cooperate to  facilitate transit for expulsion purposes when the decision has been adopted by another Member  State on the basis of the principles set out herein: (a) In accordance with the Ministers' recommendation of 30 November 1992 concerning transit for the  purposes of expulsion and the addendum thereto of 1 and 2 June 1993, which are annexed hereto, any  Member State may, at the request of another Member State, authorize the transit of a third-country  national across its territory for expulsion purposes. (b) The Member State requesting the transit shall notify the requested State whether it considers  it essential for the person being expelled to have an escort. (c) The requested State shall be free to decide on the transit procedures; whether the escort is to  be provided by the Member State which decided on the expulsion, whether it will provide the escort  itself during transit or whether escort during transit will be arranged jointly with the State  which decided on the expulsion. (d) In the case of unescorted transit, the Member State which adopted the expulsion measure may,  giving sufficient notice, request the State which has authorized transit to take the necessary  measures in order to ensure departure to the place of destination. (e) In the event of a third-country national's refusal to embark in the transit Member State, the  Member States concerned may consider, in accordance with their laws and lest expulsion prove  impossible to carry out, the possibility of availing themselves of, or seeking to establish, the  appropriate legal machinery for enforcing expulsion. (f) The transit Member State may return the third-country national to the territory of the Member  State which adopted the expulsion measure if, for any reason whatsoever, the expulsion measure  cannot be carried out. (g) Member States may determine bilaterally the circumstances in which it may be possible to forego  the refunding of costs on a case-by-case basis and replace it with an annual settlement of expenses  occasioned by expulsion operations at either party's request; with a view to concerted action in carrying out expulsions6. to carry out expulsions, in  appropriate instances, as a concerted effort with other Member States on the basis of the following  principles: (a) the Member State which adopts the expulsion measure shall assume responsibility for carrying  out measures for the expulsion of a third-country national it has itself adopted and shall use the  resources available on the air transport market or, if necessary, resources it has organized  itself. (b) The Member State which adopts the expulsion measure may request cooperation from another Member  State to locate seats available to carry out the expulsion by air. (c) The Member State whose cooperation has been requested for carrying out an expulsion measure by  air shall be entitled to refuse to allow expulsion to be carried out from its territory. (d) With a view to coordinating the carrying-out of expulsion measures, each Member State shall  inform other Member States which authority in its territory shall be responsible for: - centralizing information on seats available on flights for expulsion purposes, - contacting the competent authorities in the other Member States with a view to using seats  available on flights, - requesting authorization from other Member States to use seats available on flights departing  from them, - exchanging information with the authorities in other Member States in relation to carrying out  expulsions by air, with a view to monitoring the implementation of this recommendationthe Council shall regularly  review the progress achieved in relation to the practical application of the cooperation and  concerted action measures covered by this recommendation. Done at Brussels, 22 December 1995. For the CouncilThe PresidentL. ATIENZA SERNA ANNEX I RECOMMENDATION concerning transit for the purposes of expulsion (approved by the  Ministers on 30 November 1992) The Ministers with responsibility for immigration, CONSIDERING Member States' practices regarding transit for the purposes of expulsion; WHEREAS it is appropriate to standardize such practices with a view to their harmonization; WHEREAS the measures to be applied should meet the criteria of speed, efficiency and economy, RECOMMEND that the following guidelines be applied: IFor the purposes of this recommendation 'transit` means the transit of a person who is not a  national of a Member State through the territory or the transit zone of a port or airport of a  Member State. IIA Member State which has decided to expel a third-country national- to a third country should  in principle do so without the person transiting through the territory of another Member State, - to another Member State should in principle do so without the person transiting through the  territory of a third Member State. III1. Where there are special reasons to justify this and, in particular, in the interests of  efficiency, speed and economy, Member States may ask another Member State to authorize entry into  its territory or transit through its territory of third-country nationals who are the subject of an  expulsion measure  (1). 2. The State which has adopted the expulsion measure shall prove, before such a request is made,  that the expellee's right to continue his journey and to enter the country of destination are  guaranteed in the normal way. 3. The State to which the request is made shall deal with it without prejudice to the cases  referred to in section VI. IVThe State taking the expulsion measure shall notify the transit State whether the person being  expelled needs to be escorted. The transit State may: - authorize the State which adopted the expulsion measure to provide the escort itself, - decide to provide the escort itself, or- decide to provide the escort in cooperation with the  State which adopted the expulsion measure. V1. Requests for transit for purposes of expulsion must include information concerning: - the identity of the third-country national being expelled, - the State of final destination, - the nature and date of the expulsion decision, and the authority which took the decision, - factors enabling a judgment to be made as to whether the third-country national can be admitted  to the country of final destination or the second transit country, - the travel documents or other personal documents in the possession of the person concerned, - the identification of the department making the request, - the conditions of transit through the requested State (timetable, route, means of transport,  etc.), - whether an escort is required, and the details thereof. 2. Requests for transit for expulsion purposes must be submitted as soon as possible in accordance  with the domestic legislation of the requested State to the authorities responsible for expulsion,  who must reply to the request at the earliest opportunity. 3. The transit State may request information, particularly concerning the need for transit. VICases in which transit for expulsion purposes may be refused: - where the third-country national who is the subject of a request for overland transit constitutes  a threat to public order, national security or the international relations of the transit State, - where the information referred to in Section V (3) is not considered satisfactory. VIIIf for some reason the expulsion measure cannot be carried out, the State through which transit  is to take place may return the expellee, without any formalities, to the territory of the  requesting State. VIIIWhere expulsion cannot be carried out at the expense of the third-country national or a third  party, the requesting State shall be liable for: - travel and other expenses, including escort costs, up until the departure from the territory of  the Member State of transit of a third-country national whose transit has been authorized, - the costs involved in any return. IXThese recommendations shall not preclude closer cooperation between two or more Member States. XMember States which propose to conduct negotiations with another Member State or with a third  State on transit for purposes of expulsion shall inform the other Member States in due time. XIThis recommendation shall not contravene the provisions of the European Convention for the  Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950, nor those of the Convention  on the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951. This recommendation shall not contravene the provisions of international conventions currently in  force concerning extradition and extradition in transit. This recommendation shall not replace extradition and transit extradition procedures by the transit  procedure for expulsion purposes.(1) Statement re Section III: 'Reasons of efficiency, speed and economy as referred to in Section III will include, inter alia,  obligations resulting from the geographical situation of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.`  ANNEX II ADDENDUM to the recommendation concerning transit for the purposes of expulsion  (approved by the Ministers on 1 and 2 June 1993) 1. With a view to meeting the criteria of  efficiency, speed and economy in connection with transit for purposes of expulsion a distinction  may be made between the different expulsion measures, by air, sea or land, applied by the Member  States. 2. Expulsion by air accompanied by transit through the transit zone of an airport should be  excluded from the provisions requiring an entry and transit authorization (see Section III of the  recommendation), so that in such cases it will be sufficient to notify the country of transit. 3. Notification of transit for expulsion purposes by air should contain the information required  for transit requests indicated in Section V of the recommendation. 4. In the case of expulsion by land or sea, requests for and notifications of entry into the  territory of a State or transit through that State shall be addressed to a central contact body  designated by the transit State, in accordance with the recommendations set out in the  recommendation. If, in the case of expulsion by air, the transit State does not grant permission, that information  must be communicated to the requesting State within 24 hours of the notification of transit. 5. Member States shall draw up a joint list of contact bodies. In the case of expulsion by air, it would be desirable to contact directly the competent  official(s) of the transit airport concerned or, in accordance with national procedures, any other  competent official, provided that the 24-hour rule is observed (see point 4 above).


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

text:
               9.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/36

         COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
   of 11 July 2017
   on the 2017 National Reform Programme of France and delivering a Council opinion on the 2017 Stability Programme of France
   (2017/C 261/09)
   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 France 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, France should ensure the full and timely implementation of the Recommendation for the euro area, as reflected in recommendations (1) to (4) below.

               (3)

               The 2017 country report for France was published on 22 February 2017. It assessed France’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 France’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 France is experiencing excessive macroeconomic imbalances. In particular, France is characterised by weak competitiveness and high and increasing public debt, in a context of low productivity growth. The need for action to reduce the risk of adverse effects on the French economy and, given its size and cross border relevance, on the economic and monetary union is particularly important.

               (4)

               On 28 April 2017, France submitted its 2017 National Reform Programme and its 2017 Stability Programme. 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)

               France is currently in the corrective arm of the Stability and Growth Pact. In its 2017 Stability Programme, the Government plans to correct the excessive deficit by 2017, in line with the Council Recommendation of 10 March 2015 under the excessive deficit procedure, with a headline deficit of 2,8 % of GDP. The headline deficit is planned to decline further to 1,3 % of GDP in 2020. The medium-term budgetary objective — a structural deficit of 0,4 % of GDP — is planned to be achieved by 2019. However, the recalculated (5) structural balance is projected to reach -1,2 % of GDP in 2020 and therefore the medium-term objective would not be reached by the programme horizon. According to the 2017 Stability Programme, the general government debt-to-GDP ratio is expected to decrease from 95,9 % of GDP in 2018 to 93,1 % of GDP in 2020. The macroeconomic scenario underpinning those budgetary projections is plausible. At the same time, the measures needed to support the planned deficit targets from 2018 onwards have not been sufficiently specified.

               (7)

               On 10 March 2015, the Council recommended France to put an end to the excessive deficit situation by 2017 and to achieve a general government deficit of 2,8 % of GDP, consistent with an improvement in the structural balance of 0,9 % of GDP, in 2017. Based on the Commission 2017 spring forecast, the headline deficit is projected to reach 3,0 % of GDP in 2017, in line with the Treaty reference value, but above the target recommended by the Council. For 2018, under unchanged policies, the headline deficit is projected at 3,2 % of GDP, thus exceeding the Treaty reference value and pointing to risks to the durable correction of the excessive deficit. Moreover, the recommended fiscal effort is not projected to be delivered over the period covered by the excessive deficit procedure as the consolidation strategy pursued by France relies primarily on improving cyclical conditions and a continuation of the low-interest-rate environment, which are outside the control of the authorities.

               (8)

               For 2018, should a timely and durable correction eventually be achieved, France would become subject to the preventive arm of the Stability and Growth Pact and to the transitional debt rule. In the light of its fiscal situation and in particular of its debt level, France is expected to further adjust towards its medium-term budgetary objective of a structural deficit of 0,4 % of GDP. According to the commonly agreed adjustment matrix under the Stability and Growth Pact, that adjustment translates into a requirement of a nominal growth rate of net primary government expenditure (6) which does not exceed 1,2 % in 2018. It would correspond to an annual structural adjustment of 0,6 % of GDP. Under unchanged policies, there is a risk of a significant deviation from that requirement in 2018. There is also a risk that France will not comply with the transitional debt rule in 2018, as the structural balance is projected to deteriorate by 0,5 % of GDP as opposed to the minimum linear structural adjustment of 0,4 % of GDP. Overall, the Council is of the opinion that France needs to stand ready to take further measures to ensure compliance in 2017 and that further measures will be needed as of 2018 to comply with the provisions of the Stability and Growth Pact. However, as foreseen in Regulation (EC) No 1466/97, the assessment of the budgetary plans and outcomes should take account of the Member State’s budgetary balance in the light of the cyclical conditions. As recalled in the Commission Communication on the 2017 European Semester accompanying these country-specific recommendations, the assessment of the 2018 Draft Budgetary Plan and subsequent assessment of 2018 budget outcomes will need to take due account of the goal of achieving a fiscal stance that contributes to both strengthening the ongoing recovery and ensuring the sustainability of France’s public finances. In that context, the Council notes that the Commission intends to carry out an overall assessment in line with Regulation (EC) No 1466/97, in particular in light of the cyclical situation of France.

               (9)

               The public expenditure-to-GDP ratio in France is one of the highest in the Union. The expenditure ratio is projected to reach 56,2 % of GDP in 2017, 9,7 percentage points higher than in the Union. France has followed an expenditure-based consolidation strategy that has relied mainly on declining interest rates and cuts in public investment. However, it is unlikely that the low-interest-rate environment will prevail in the medium term and the cut in productive public investment could harm future economic potential. In contrast, the spending reviews have identified a number of possible efficiency gains that have not been implemented. The spending reviews identified a fraction — less than 2 % — of the overall planned expenditure savings of EUR 50 billion over the period 2015-2017. However, only part of them has translated into actual measures in the 2016 budget, while the measures in the 2017 budget Act relied on those already identified in the spending review exercise of 2015. Savings derived from spending reviews could significantly increase by widening the expenditure areas under review and by implementing a multi-annual strategy to fully translate the identified savings into concrete budgetary measures.

               (10)

               High social security contributions combined with high level of taxes weighing on companies can discourage private investment and hamper companies’ growth and new hires. Policy measures to reduce labour costs have continued to be implemented, with the start in April 2016 of the second phase of reductions in employers’ social security contributions planned under the solidarity and responsibility pact. In addition, the Government has increased for 2017 the tax credit for competitiveness and employment (CICE) from 6 % to 7 %. These measures to reduce the labour tax wedge have improved France’s competitiveness since 2013 but accumulated past losses have not yet been recovered. At the average wage, in 2015 France had the highest employers’ social security contribution in the Union as a share of total labour costs paid by the employer, even though it is on a declining trend. The recent evaluations of these measures highlighted their positive effect on employment and firms’ profit margins but further evaluations are needed to fully assess their impact on wages, investment, employment and firms’ margins. Recent evaluations also suggest that the consolidation of labour cost reduction schemes and their transformation in permanent reductions in social contributions would optimise their effects on employment and investment.

               (11)

               At 38,4 % as of 1 July 2016, the effective average corporate tax rate was the highest in the Union and other taxes on production are also particularly high. However, France has adopted steps to reduce the statutory corporate income rate to 28 % in 2020. At the same time, the tax burden continues to fall less on consumption than in other Member States. In 2014, France ranked 27th in the Union for tax revenues from consumption as a percentage of total taxation. The VAT system is characterised by a middle-ranking standard rate and low reduced rates applied to a large base. The complexity of the tax system may be a barrier to a well-functioning business environment. France has a high tax burden coupled with many tax breaks, reduced rates and a great number of tax schemes resulting in increased compliance costs and uncertainties, in particular for businesses. Total tax expenditure is sizeable in France at more than 3 % of GDP. The administrative cost to tax authorities of collecting taxes is also high and is above the Union average.

               (12)

               In 2016, the unemployment rate decreased to 10,1 %. Unemployment is higher among young people, the low-skilled and those not born in the Union. Ongoing governance reforms are key to aligning training opportunities with employment prospects and economic needs. In parallel, jobseekers, less qualified workers and SME employees face persistent difficulties in having access to training. Ensuring their participation and the relevance of training provided may require strengthening existing measures and rebalancing resources. Young people, and among them the least qualified, still face difficulties entering the labour market. In this context, measures taken to support apprenticeships have translated into positive results so far. But the initial vocational education and training offered, specifically when school-based and in some tertiary sectors, is not sufficiently linked to employment opportunities. Moreover, pupils from a disadvantaged background are more often steered towards initial vocational education, which also accounts for the large majority of early drop outs, contributing to high educational inequalities. The impact of socioeconomic status on students’ performance is the highest in the OECD.

               (13)

               In 2016 only 54,5 % of non-EU-born people of working-age were in employment. The non-EU-born female employment rate (45,4 %) was one of the lowest in the Union. The employment gap between non-EU-born and French-born people increased to 17,5 percentage points in 2016 (23,7 percentage points for women). The poor performance of non-EU-born people pulls down the overall employment rate and represents a chronic underutilisation of labour. Second-generation immigrants also face adverse employment outcomes that are not explained by differences in age, education and skills. Moreover, gaps in educational outcomes are persistent, as second-generation immigrants are only partially catching up. In order to address this challenge, a comprehensive strategy is necessary, including in particular specific measures on language skills, upskilling and training, job counselling and other targeted active labour market policies. Effective access to services is key to promoting labour market participation, as well as action against discriminatory practices affecting the hiring of non-EU-born and second-generation immigrants.

               (14)

               Since 2013 the French minimum wage has followed its indexation rules. In a context of weak inflation and slowing wage growth, its growth has been lower than reference wages. While the minimum wage is high compared with the median wage, the cost of labour at the minimum wage has been reduced by exemptions from social contributions. Increases in the minimum wage induce wage increases for most categories of workers and risk creating upward wage compression. While indexation of the minimum wage is important to preserve workers’ purchasing power, the current indexation mechanism might contribute to delaying the necessary overall wage adjustment. Moreover, in the current context of high unemployment, there are risks that the cost of labour at the minimum wage hampers employment opportunities for low-skilled people. The group of independent experts annually assesses the minimum wage in France and provides non-binding opinions on its development. Their opinion on ad-hoc hikes has always been respected so far and is playing an important role to control the use of such ad-hoc hikes.

               (15)

               With the law of August 2016 on labour, social dialogue and professional pathways, France introduced measures aimed at improving firms’ capacity to adjust to economic cycles and at reducing segmentation. The law clarifies rules on economic dismissals, extends the scope of majority company-level agreements and increases the effectiveness of collective bargaining. Persistently high levels of unemployment have put a strain on the sustainability of the unemployment benefit system. In that regard social partners reached in March 2017 an agreement on a new unemployment benefit convention, endorsed by the Government, which aims at reducing the annual deficit by EUR 1,2 billion.

               (16)

               Although France has improved its overall regulatory performance, the business environment continues to be middle-ranking in comparison to major competitors. In particular, despite continued simplification efforts, businesses are still faced with a high regulatory burden and fast-changing legislation. This is one of the main obstacles to private investment. With the simplification programme, France has taken steps to reduce red tape for businesses, but one fifth of the measures adopted before 2016 had not yet been implemented by May 2017. At the same time, threshold effects continue to affect the development of firms with implications for their economic and market performance. Increased social and fiscal obligations applicable to firms above a certain number of employees may discourage them from expanding to a size that would allow them to export and innovate. These threshold effects can, in turn, affect firms’ productivity, competitiveness and internationalisation. Indeed, according to empirical evidence, the 10- and 50-employee thresholds are particularly costly for employers, while the French economy is characterised by a disproportionally low share of companies above those thresholds, suggesting a link between the two phenomena.

               (17)

               Competition in services has improved in a number of sectors, but some economically important sectors, such as accountancy, architecture, homecare services, accommodation and food services, taxi and private-hire vehicle services, are still characterised by low competition and/or regulatory obstacles. Barriers remain in place for these services, in particular excessive regulatory requirements, and these discourage entry or limit effective competition. Reducing these barriers could allow existing firms or new ones, making use of new technological and digital developments, to increase their competitiveness and/or enter markets, and lead to benefits for consumers through lower prices and better-quality service. To this end, as part of a package of measures to tackle barriers in services markets, in January 2017 the Commission has launched a mutual evaluation exercise inviting Member States to conduct evaluation of the respective barriers they have in place to limit access to certain professions.

               (18)

               Innovation in France does not match the performance of Europe’s innovation leaders. A high degree of complexity remains and overall coordination is a challenge. The discrepancy between the amount of public support granted and France’s middling innovation performance raises questions about the efficiency of public support mechanisms. In particular, cooperation between public research and companies is suboptimal and weighs on the economic output of the innovation system.

               (19)

               In the context of the 2017 European Semester, the Commission has carried out a comprehensive analysis of France’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 France in previous years. It has taken into account not only their relevance for sustainable fiscal and socioeconomic policy in France, 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.

               (20)

               In the light of this assessment, the Council has examined the 2017 Stability Programme and its opinion (7) is reflected in particular in recommendation (1) below.

               (21)

               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) to (4) below,

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

               1.

               Ensure compliance with the Council recommendation of 10 March 2015 under the excessive deficit procedure. Pursue a substantial fiscal effort in 2018 in line with the requirements of the preventive arm of the Stability and Growth Pact, taking into account the need to strengthen the ongoing recovery and to ensure the sustainability of France’s public finances. Comprehensively review expenditure items with the aim to make efficiency gains that translate into expenditure savings.

               2.

               Consolidate the measures reducing the cost of labour to maximise their efficiency in a budget-neutral manner and in order to scale up their effects on employment and investment. Broaden the overall tax base and take further action to implement the planned decrease in the statutory corporate-income rate.

               3.

               Improve access to the labour market for jobseekers, in particular less-qualified workers and people with a migrant background, including by revising the system of vocational education and training. Ensure that minimum wage developments are consistent with job creation and competitiveness.

               4.

               Further reduce the regulatory burden for firms, including by pursuing the simplification programme. Continue to lift barriers to competition in the services sector, including in business services and regulated professions. Simplify and improve the efficiency of public support schemes for innovation.

      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)  Cyclically-adjusted balance net of one-off and temporary measures, recalculated by the Commission using the commonly agreed methodology.

      (6)  Net government expenditure comprises total government expenditure excluding interest expenditure, expenditure on Union programmes fully matched by Union funds revenue and non-discretionary changes in unemployment benefit expenditure. Nationally financed gross fixed capital formation is smoothed over a 4-year period. Discretionary revenue measures or revenue increases mandated by law are factored in. One-off measures on both the revenue and expenditure sides are netted out.

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


title: Commission Recommendation (EU) 2017/1804 of 3 October 2017 on the implementation of the provisions of the Schengen Borders Code on temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders in the Schengen area

text:
               7.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 259/25

         COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION (EU) 2017/1804
   of 3 October 2017
   on the implementation of the provisions of the Schengen Borders Code on temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders in the Schengen area
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 292 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               In an area without internal border control, the temporary reintroduction of internal border control may only be decided in exceptional circumstances to provide a response to situations seriously affecting the public policy or internal security of that area, of parts thereof, or of one or more Member States. Given the impact that such reintroduction may have on all persons and goods having the right to move freely within the area without internal border control, it may only be a last resort measure subjected to strict conditions as to the scope and duration of any temporary reintroduction.

               (2)

               The current provisions of the Schengen Borders Code provide for the possibility to rapidly reintroduce temporary internal border control where a serious threat to public policy or internal security requires immediate action in a Member State, for a period of maximum 2 months (Article 28). The Code also provides for the reintroduction of border controls for serious threats to public policy or internal security in case of foreseeable events, for a period of maximum 6 months (Article 25). The combined implementation of Articles 28 and 25 of the Schengen Borders Code allows maintaining border control for a total period of up to eight months. Moreover, a new threat to public policy or internal security triggers a new application of the rules (and thus a new calculation of the duration of the period of controls).

               (3)

               Article 29 of the Schengen Borders Code contains an exceptional procedure allowing reintroduced internal border controls for a period going up to 2 years where the overall functioning of the area without internal border control is put at risk as a result of persistent serious deficiencies relating to external border control detected during a Schengen evaluation. With the adoption of the Regulation (EU) 2016/1624 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), this procedure can also be used in case a Member State does not take the necessary action further to a vulnerability assessment or does not cooperate with the Agency, where the situation at the external borders requires urgent action.

               (4)

               While in the vast majority of cases the time limits currently in force have proved to be sufficient, recent times showed that certain serious threats to public policy or internal security, such as terrorist threats or important uncontrolled secondary movements within the Union, may persist well beyond the above periods.

               (5)

               A proposal for an amendment to the relevant provisions of the Schengen Borders Code to address such persistent threats in the future has been adopted by the Commission. The proposal modifies the time limits as set out in Article 25 of the Schengen Borders Code in case of foreseeable events and as such recognises that prolonging the reintroduced border controls at internal borders beyond the current time limits may be justified up to a maximum period of two years. Moreover, the proposal also provides for a possibility to further prolong border controls at internal borders where the specific threat to internal security or public policy persists even beyond that time limit.

               (6)

               These new deadlines are accompanied by additional procedural requirements for the Member States to be fulfilled prior to the reintroduction or prolongation of internal border controls. In particular, Member States are required to support their notifications with a risk assessment demonstrating that the intended reintroduction or prolongation of internal border control is a last resort measure and explaining how internal border control would help addressing the identified threat. Furthermore, the Commission is now required to issue an opinion whenever internal border control exceeds six months. The provisions concerning the ‘consultation procedure’ following the opinion of the Commission are also modified to reflect the new role for the European Border and Coast Guard and Europol and to ensure that the results of such consultation, in particular as regards the involvement of the neighbouring Member States, are duly taken into account. All these changes are intended to ensure that reintroduction of internal border control is used only where and for as long as necessary and justified.

               (7)

               The proposed changes to the Schengen Borders Code build on the current provisions. While awaiting the adoption of the amendment of the Schengen Borders Code as detailed above, it is essential that all Member States intending to reintroduce temporary border control at internal borders implement to the full extent the requirements of the existing provisions in the Schengen Borders Code which already now require Member States intending to use this measure to consider first alternative measures to border controls and to cooperate with the neighbouring Member States.

               (8)

               Pursuant to Article 26 of the Schengen Borders Code, prior to a decision to reintroduce or to prolong temporary border controls at internal borders, the Member State concerned should assess the extent to which such a measure is likely to adequately remedy the threat to public policy or internal security and the proportionality of the measure in relation to that threat, taking into account, among others, the likely impact of such a measure on free movement of persons within the area without internal border control. Targeted controls, based on constantly updated risk analysis and intelligence would therefore help optimising the benefit of the controls and limit their negative effects on free movement.

               (9)

               The Member States affected by the reintroduced controls at the relevant border sections should be admitted to regularly express their views on their necessity, with a view to organising mutual cooperation between all Member States involved and to examining, on a regular basis, the proportionality of the measures to the events giving rise to the reintroduction of border control and the threat to public policy or internal security. The Member State having decided to reintroduce such controls should take these views into account when examining and reviewing the necessity of such checks, with the objective of constantly adapting them to the circumstances.

               (10)

               Under Article 27(1)(e) of the Schengen Borders Code, the Member State reintroducing or prolonging internal border controls should provide, among others, information on the measures to be taken by the other Member States in the context of the planned border controls. Furthermore, under Article 27(5) of the Schengen Borders Code, joint meetings between the Member State planning to reintroduce border control at internal borders, the other Member States, especially those directly affected by the such measures, and the Commission may take place with a view to organising, where appropriate, mutual cooperation between the Member States. Such contacts with the neighbouring Member States should be used to limit the impact on free movement.

               (11)

               As the temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders may only be used in exceptional circumstances and as a last resort measure, the Member States should first examine whether other measures alternative to border control could not be used to effectively remedy the identified threat and decide to reintroduce border controls at the internal borders concerned only as a measure of last resort, when such less restrictive measures for cross-border traffic cannot sufficiently address the threats identified. The Member States concerned should inform of the outcome of this reflection and the reasons for opting for border controls in their notification pursuant to Article 27(1) of the Schengen Borders Code.

               (12)

               In this respect, the Member States should make all necessary efforts to further and fully implement the Recommendation of the Commission of 12 May 2017 (C(2017) 3349 final) on proportionate police checks and police cooperation in the Schengen area.

               (13)

               This Recommendation should be implemented in full respect of fundamental rights.

               (14)

               This Recommendation should be addressed to all Schengen States bound by Title III of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2),

         HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:

      LIMITING THE IMPACT ON FREE MOVEMENT

   In order to strike the right balance between the need to protect public policy or internal security in Member States and the benefits of the area without controls at internal borders, the Member States intending to reintroduce temporary internal border control should carefully take into account and regularly evaluate the following aspects when assessing pursuant to Article 26 of the Schengen Borders Code the need and proportionality of any temporary reintroduction of controls at internal borders pursuant to Articles 25 and 28 of the Schengen Borders Code:

               (a)

               the likely impact of such reintroduction on the free movement of persons within the area without internal border control;

               (b)

               the likely impact of such reintroduction on the internal market.

         To this end, the Member States intending to reintroduce temporary internal border control should inform in the notification pursuant to Article 27(1) of the Schengen Borders Code of the outcome of their assessment of the impact of the planned reintroduction or prolongation of border controls at internal borders on free movement and the internal market.
   The Member States intending to reintroduce temporary internal border control should refrain from any measures which would not be justified by the identified serious threat to public policy or internal security. For instance, they should limit the border sections where internal border control is temporarily reintroduced to what is strictly necessary to address the threat identified.

      SHARED RESPONSIBILITY AND COOPERATION

   In view of this objective of limiting the impact on free movement, the Member States intending to reintroduce temporary internal border control should:

               (a)

               consult well in advance the Member States affected by the intended reintroduction;

               (b)

               maintain a close and constant cooperation, allowing for a constant review and adaptation of the controls so as to reflect the evolving needs and impact on the ground;

               (c)

               stand ready to assist each other with a view to the effective implementation of border controls, where needed and justified.

      USE OF ALTERNATIVE MEASURES

   In order to ensure that temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders is a last resort measure, used only when the identified serious threat to public policy or internal security cannot be addressed appropriately by other means, the Member States should implement fully the Recommendation of the Commission of 12 May 2017 (C(2017) 3349 final) on proportionate police checks and police cooperation in the Schengen area.

      Done at Brussels, 3 October 2017.

            For the Commission

         Dimitris AVRAMOPOULOS

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1624 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2016 on the European Border and Coast Guard and amending Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Regulation (EC) No 863/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 and Council Decision 2005/267/EC (OJ L 251, 16.9.2016, p. 1).

      (2)  Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ L 77, 23.3.2016, p. 1).


title: Council Recommendation of 22 December 2009 on seasonal influenza vaccination (Text with EEA relevance)

text:
               29.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 348/71

      COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION

   of 22 December 2009
   on seasonal influenza vaccination
   (Text with EEA relevance)
   (2009/1019/EU)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 168(6) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Seasonal influenza is a contagious viral disease which occurs as epidemic during the winter months in Europe. It is one of the most significant and commonly occurring communicable diseases and is an important source of morbidity and mortality in all Member States.

               (2)

               In some cases, complications go beyond a self-limiting respiratory infection and result in severe pneumonia or other secondary complications with a sometimes fatal outcome. These complications occur far more commonly among older age groups and among people with chronic medical conditions.

               (3)

               Seasonal influenza can be mitigated through vaccination but the virus frequently changes its antigenic composition and, therefore, vaccine composition is reviewed regularly by the World Health Organisation (WHO) expert groups.

               (4)

               The 2003 World Health Assembly adopted Resolution 56.19 to increase influenza vaccination coverage of all people at high risk with the goal of attaining vaccination coverage of at least 50 % of the older age groups of the population by 2006 and 75 % by 2010.

               (5)

               On 26 October 2005 and 14 June 2006 the European Parliament adopted resolutions entitled ‘Strategy against an influenza pandemic’ and ‘Pandemic influenza preparedness and response planning in the European Community’ respectively, calling on the Member States to increase influenza vaccination in line with WHO recommendations. Those resolutions also urged Member States to increase vaccination coverage during the inter-pandemic period in accordance with WHO recommendations.

               (6)

               Therefore, concerted action at the level of the European Union should be taken to mitigate the impact of seasonal influenza by encouraging vaccination among risk groups and healthcare workers. The purpose of this Recommendation is to reach the target of 75 % vaccination coverage of the older age groups recommended by the WHO as early as possible and preferably by the 2014-2015 winter season. This target of 75 % should, if possible, be extended to the risk group of people with chronic conditions, taking into account the guidance issued by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC).

               (7)

               Increased vaccination rates among risk groups would also contribute to higher vaccination rates in general, including of healthcare workers.

               (8)

               To bring about these changes, a necessary first step is that all participants of the healthcare environment, risk groups, healthcare workers, physicians, healthcare managers and policymakers are informed of the problem of seasonal influenza through public and professional awareness campaigns. Healthcare workers should be made aware of the particular danger faced by their more vulnerable patients. Healthcare workers should also be made aware of their responsibility to give the appropriate advice on vaccination to their patients.

               (9)

               It is, in particular, essential to gather specific and comparable data at national level regarding the uptake rates in risk groups in order to assess properly the situation in all the Member States. Until now such data has not always been available. Based on this data the Commission and the Member States will be able to share information and best practices with third countries through the existing channels of international cooperation in the field of health.

               (10)

               Regulation (EC) No 851/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 establishing a European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (1) (ECDC) in particular entrusts the ECDC with the mission to provide technical and scientific expertise to the Commission and to the Member States. The ECDC also operates the dedicated network established for the surveillance of seasonal influenza in accordance with Commission Decision 2000/96/EC of 22 December 1999 on the communicable diseases to be progressively covered by the Community network under Decision No 2119/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2). The ECDC should therefore assist the Member States in providing scientific expertise on seasonal influenza vaccination.

               (11)

               In the context of seasonal influenza vaccination the objective to reach 75 % vaccination coverage of the older age groups, recommended by the WHO, will clearly be facilitated by concerted action at the level of the European Union,

         HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION:

               1.

               Member States are encouraged to adopt and implement national, regional or local action plans or policies, as appropriate, aimed at improving seasonal influenza vaccination coverage, with the aim of reaching, as early as possible and preferably by the 2014-2015 winter season, a vaccination coverage rate of 75 % for ‘older age groups’ and, if possible, for other risk groups referred to in point 2(a), if not already reached. Member States are also encouraged to improve vaccination coverage among healthcare workers.
               The action plans or policies should take into account the gaps identified at national level and organise the activities referred to in point 2(b) and (c).

               2.

               In the framework of the action plans or policies referred to in point 1, Member States are encouraged to:

                           (a)

                           take into account the definition of ‘older age groups’ and of ‘risk groups’ as contained in the guidance issued by the ECDC;

                           (b)

                           measure uptake in all risk groups, and to analyse the reasons why some people do not wish to receive vaccinations;

                           (c)

                           foster education, training, and information exchange on seasonal influenza and vaccination by organising:

                                       (i)

                                       information action for healthcare workers;

                                       (ii)

                                       information action for risk groups and their families regarding the risks associated with, and the prevention of, influenza;

                                       (iii)

                                       effective information action to remove obstacles to vaccination uptake.

               3.

               Member States are encouraged to report on a voluntary basis to the Commission on the implementation of this Recommendation, in particular, on the coverage achieved among risk groups.

               4.

               The Commission is invited to report regularly to the Council on the implementation of this Recommendation, on the basis of the data the Member States will make available.

               5.

               The Commission is invited to continue to support research on influenza through the Research Framework Programmes.

      Done at Brussels, 22 December 2009.

            For the Council

            The President

         A. CARLGREN

      (1)  OJ L 142, 30.4.2004, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 28, 3.2.2000, p. 50.


title: Commission recommendation No 245/78/ECSC of 2 February 1978 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of iron or steel coils for re-rolling originating in Japan and Bulgaria

text:
7. 2. 78                                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No L 37/ 13
                               COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION No 245 / 78 / ECSC
                                                         of 2 February 1978
                imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of iron or steel coils for
                                       re-rolling originating in Japan and Bulgaria
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN                                       1 012 000 tonnes in 1974 to 1 015 000 tonnes in the
COMMUNITIES,                                                         first six months of 1977, imports originating in Japan
                                                                     having risen from 349 000 tonnes in 1974 to 266 000
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European                tonnes in the first six months of 1977 and imports
Coal and Steel Community, and in particular Articles                 from Bulgaria having risen from 68 000 tonnes in
74 and 86 thereof,                                                   1974 to 81 000 tonnes in the first six months of 1977
                                                                     and that, as a result, they have been able to acquire a
Having regard to Commission recommendation                           share of the Community market of 16 % in total and
77/329/ ECSC on protection against dumping or the                    7 % for imports originating in Japan and Bulgaria,
granting of bounties or subsidies by countries which                 together with those from Czechoslovakia and South
are not members of the European Coal and Steel                       Korea, which are already subject to a provisional anti
Community ('), as amended by recommendation No                       dumping duty in the Community, and that, on the
3004/77/ ECSC (2), and in particular Articles 1.5 and 19             other hand, the Community steel industry is in a
thereof,                                                             crisis situation characterized by a reduction in the
                                                                     number employed from 780 000 to 720 000 between
                                                                     1974 and 1977 and by short time working and that, as
Having heard the opinions expressed within the Advi                 a result, the Community steel industry recorded
sory Committee provided for by recommendation                        serious losses in most of the firms concerned ;
77/329/ ECSC ;
Whereas the Commission has received a complaint,                     Whereas, in order to remedy this situation , the
submitted in the name of the relevant Community                      Commission has introduced , in particular, a system of
industry, setting out evidence as to the existence of                minimum prices (4), for sales within the Community
dumping of iron or steel coils for re-rolling origi                 of certain steel products produced by the European
nating in Japan and Bulgaria and certain other coun                 steel industry ;
tries and material injury resulting therefrom ;
Whereas the Commission has published basis                           Whereas, the import prices into the Community of
prices (3) based on the lowest normal prices or costs of             products originating in Japan and Bulgaria are consid
production in the supplying countries where normal                   erably lower than these minimum prices and that
conditions of competition prevail, including the costs               such undercutting jeopardizes the equilibrium of the
of transport, insurance and customs duties ;                         entire pricing system and causes or threatens to cause
                                                                     material injury to the Community industry or to a
Whereas the prices of imports into the Community of                  major part of it ;
the products which are the subject of the complaint
have been compared with these basis prices ;
                                                                     Whereas immediate action has been requested by
Whereas a preliminary examination of the matter                      certain Member States ;
based on this comparison shows that these products,
originating in Japan and Bulgaria are offered for
import within the Community (the Belgian and                         Whereas, in the serious conditions being experienced
United Kingdom markets) at prices lower than the                     by the Community steel industry, the interests of the
basis prices and that dumping has taken place, the                   Community require immediate action ;
 margin of which is constituted by this undercutting ;
                                                                     Whereas it is for the Commission , without prejudice
Whereas, with regard to injury to the industry                       to the results of the investigation opened in accor
concerned , the evidence submitted to the Commis                    dance with Article 1 1 of recommendation 77/ 329 /
sion shows that, on the one hand, imports into the                    ECSC, to decide promptly to apply provisional
Community of the products increased globally from                    measures consisting of the imposition of a provisional
                                                                     anti-dumping duty on imports of the products
 (') OJ No L 114, 5. 5. 1977, p. 6.
(2) OJ No L 352, 31 . 12. 1977, p. 13 .                              concerned originating in Japan and Bulgaria, the rate
 (3 ) Communication from the Commission of 31 December
       1977 concerning the basis prices of certain steel products    (4 ) OJ No L 1 14, 5 . 5 . 1977, p . 1 and OJ No L 352, 31 . 12.
      (OJ No L 353, 31 . 12 . 1977, p. 1 ).                               1977, p . 17.
 ---pagebreak--- No L 37/ 14                        Official Journal of the European Communities                             7 . 2 . 78
of which corresponds to the difference between the            tional upon the deposit of security for the amount of
basis price published by the Commission for this              the provisional duty.
product and its price on importation into the Commu
nity,
                                                                                Article 3
HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION :
                                                             This recommendation shall be notified to the Member
                                                              States .
                       Article 1
                                                              It shall enter into force for each Member State on the
1.    A provisional anti-dumping duty is hereby
imposed on the following products originating in
                                                              date of its publication in the Official Journal of the
                                                              En ropea n Communities.
Japan and Bulgaria :
— iron or steel coils for re-rolling,                        Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 18 of
— Common Customs Tariff heading No 73.08 ,                    recommendation 77/329/ ECSC, it shall apply until
— NIMEXE code 73.08-01 to 49 .                                the entry into force of an Act of the Commission
                                                             either adopting definitive measures or extending the
2. The amount of this duty shall be equal to the              provisional duty, and in any event for a maximum
amount by which the effective price (basic price plus         period of three months.
extras) established by contract, free frontier duty-paid,
is lower than the effective price (basic price plus
extras) published by the Commission for this product.
                                                              Done at Brussels, 2 February 1978 .
3.    The provisions in force for the collection of
customs duty shall apply to the collection of this duty.
                                                                                For the Commission
                       Article 2
                                                                                Wilhelm HAFERKAMP
The entry of the products described in Article 1 for
consumption within the Community shall be condi                                              Vice-President


Avis juridique important

|

E1995C0608(02)

RECOMMENDATION OF THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY of 19 April 1995 concerning a coordinated programme of inspections in 1995 to ensure compliance with maximum levels of pesticide residues in and on certain products of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables

Official Journal L 125 , 08/06/1995 P. 0028 - 0029

RECOMMENDATION OF THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY of 19 April 1995 concerning a coordinated programme of inspections in 1995 to ensure compliance with maximum levels of pesticide residues in and on certain products of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY,Having regard to the EEA Agreement, and in particular Article 109 and Protocol 1 thereof,Having regard to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, and in particular Article 5 (2) (b) and Protocol 1 thereof,Having regard to the Act referred to in point 54 of Chapter XII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement (Council Directive 90/642/EEC of 27 November 1990 on the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on certain products of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables (1)), and in particular Article 4 (3) thereof,Whereas Directive 90/642/EEC was amended by Directive 93/58/EEC (2) providing for a first list of maximum levels of pesticide residues as referred to in Article 1 (1) of Directive 90/642/EEC, to be implemented by the EFTA States not later than 1 July 1994; whereas Article 4 (1) of Directive 90/642/EEC requires Member States to draw up forward programmes laying down the nature and frequency of the inspections to be carried out to ensure compliance with the established list of maximum levels of pesticide residues; whereas the requirements of Article 4 (2) of Directive 90/642/EEC that EFTA States should send to the EFTA Surveillance Authority by 1 August each year all the necessary information on the implementation of their inspection programmes carried out during the previous year does not, however, come into force until 1 August 1995;Whereas there is therefore insufficient information concerning the EFTA States' completed and intended programmes of inspections available to the EFTA Surveillance Authority; whereas it is nevertheless necessary, in order to ensure compliance with the mandatory maximum levels of pesticide residues and to contribute to the completion and operation of the internal market, to make basic arrangements for a coordination of the inspections for pesticide residues to be carried out by the EFTA States during 1995; whereas it would also be helpful for the establishment of future coordinated recommendations for the EFTA Surveillance Authority to be informed in advance of the EFTA States' forward programmes for the monitoring of maximum levels of pesticide residues provided for by Directive 93/58/EEC;Whereas the inspections and check sampling by EFTA States to ensure compliance with the maximum levels of pesticide residues set out in the list referred to in Article 1 (1) of Directive 90/642/EEC should be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Act referred to in point 20 of Chapter XII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement (Commission Directive 79/700/EEC of 24 July 1979 establishing methods of sampling for the official control of pesticide residues in and on fruit and vegetables (3)), the Act referred to in point 37 of Chapter XII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement (Council Directive 85/591/EEC of 20 December 1985 concerning the introduction of methods of sampling and analysis for the monitoring of foodstuffs (4)), and the Acts referred to in points 50 and 54.N of Chapter XII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement (Council Directives 89/397/EEC (5) and 93/99/EEC (6) concerning the official control of foodstuffs);Whereas the EFTA States have been consulted within the EFTA Foodstuffs Committee assisting the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 19 December 1994,HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:It is recommended that the EFTA States:1. as a priority criterion, monitor products from a significant proportion of the groups of products set out in Annex I of Directive 90/642/EEC;2. as a priority criterion, take a minimum number of samples reflecting the production, consumption and importation into the EEA of each product regularly throughout 1995 or during the marketing season of the product, with clearly recorded origin and stage of trade or marketing;3. as a priority criterion, analyse for residues of as many pesticides listed in Annex II of Directive 90/642/EEC as is possible, bearing in mind the analytical methods employed;4. in enforcing the mandatory Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) also, where appropriate, determine the level of residue contained in each sample;5. send to the EFTA Surveillance Authority as soon as possible details of their national monitoring plans for 1995 drawn up in conformity with Article 4 (1) of Directive 90/642/EEC;6. by 1 July 1995 if possible, but at the latest by 1 August 1995, send to the EFTA Surveillance Authority all the information as required by Article 4 (2) of Directive 90/642/EEC and, in particular, report the results of the monitoring exercise for 1994 using the model report forms; and7. by 1 September 1995, send to the EFTA Surveillance Authority their intended national monitoring programme for the year 1996.Done at Brussels, 19 April 1995.For the EFTA Surveillance AuthorityThe PresidentKnut ALMESTAD(1) OJ No L 350, 14. 12. 1990, p. 71.(2) OJ No L 211, 23. 8. 1993, p. 6.(3) OJ No L 207, 15. 8. 1979, p. 26.(4) OJ No L 372, 31. 12. 1985, p. 50.(5) OJ No L 186, 30. 6. 1989, p. 23.(6) OJ No L 290, 24. 11. 1993, p. 14.


title: Recommendation for a Council opinion in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the updated convergence programme of the United Kingdom, 2001-02 to 2007-08

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