title: 2004/705/EC: Commission Recommendation of 11 October 2004 on the monitoring of background levels of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs in foodstuffs (notified under document number C(2004) 3462)Text with EEA relevance

text:
               22.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 321/45

      COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION

   of 11 October 2004
   on the monitoring of background levels of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs in foodstuffs
   (notified under document number C(2004) 3462)
   (Text with EEA relevance)
   (2004/705/EC)
   THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular the second indent of Article 211 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Commission Regulation (EC) No 466/2001 of 8 March 2001 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs (1), establishes maximum levels for dioxins in foodstuffs.

               (2)

               Although, from a toxicological point of view, the maximum level should include dioxins, furans and dioxin-like PCBs, maximum levels have been set only for dioxins and furans and not for dioxin-like PCBs, given the very limited data available on the prevalence of the latter. The aforementioned Regulation provides for a review of the maximum levels for the first time, by 31 December 2004 at the latest, in the light of new data on the presence of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs, in particular with a view to the inclusion of dioxin-like PCBs in the levels to be set.

               (3)

               Regulation (EC) No 466/2001 provides for a further review of the maximum levels for dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs by 31 December 2006 at the latest with the aim of significantly reducing the maximum levels.

               (4)

               It is necessary to generate reliable data across the European Community on the presence of dioxins, furans and dioxin-like PCBs in the widest range of foodstuffs in order to have a clear picture of the time trends in background presence of these substances in foodstuffs.

               (5)

               The relationship between the presence of dioxins, furans, dioxin-like PCBs and non-dioxin-like PCBs is important but to a certain extent unknown. It is therefore appropriate to analyse the selected samples also for non-dioxin-like PCBs where possible.

               (6)

               Commission Recommendation 2002/201/EC of 4 March 2002 on the reduction of the presence of dioxins, furans and PCBs in feedingstuffs and foodstuffs (2), recommends that Member States perform random monitoring of the presence of dioxins, furans and dioxin-like PCBs in foodstuffs, proportionate to their production and consumption of foodstuffs. This monitoring should be carried out following detailed guidelines established by the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health. These guidelines should contain, in order to ensure a high degree of uniformity across the European Community, provisions, inter alia, concerning the minimum frequency and the format of reporting of the results.

               (7)

               It is important that these data are reported on a regular basis to the Commission. The Commission will ensure the compilation of these data into a database which will be publicly available for consultation.

               (8)

               The Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia joined the European Community on 1 May 2004. It is appropriate that the new Member States participate in the monitoring programme as soon as possible. It is however acknowledged that it is appropriate to provide a transitional arrangement for the new Member States and that for the time being no detailed minimum frequency for the random monitoring of the presence of dioxins, furans and dioxin-like PCBs in foodstuffs is recommended for the new Member States,

         HEREBY RECOMMENDS:

               1.

               That Member States perform, from the year 2004 onwards until 31 December 2006, the monitoring of the background presence of dioxins, furans and dioxin-like PCBs in foodstuffs using the recommended minimum frequency of samples to be analysed yearly, as foreseen in the table of Annex I as guidance. The frequency of the samples should be reviewed each year in the light of the experience gained.

               2.

               That the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia participate as soon as possible in the monitoring programme on the presence of dioxins, furans and dioxin-like PCBs in foodstuffs. The frequency of the samples to be analysed yearly by the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia will be established from the year 2005 onwards.

               3.

               That Member States provide, on a regular basis to the Commission, the monitoring data with the information and in the format as provided for in Annex II for compilation into one database. It is appropriate that data from recent years obtained by making use of a method of analysis complying with the requirements laid down by Commission Directive 2002/69/EC of 26 July 2002 laying down the sampling methods and the methods of analysis for the official control of dioxins and the determination of dioxin-like PCBs in foodstuffs (3) and reflecting background levels are also provided.

               4.

               That Member States, if possible, also perform the analysis on non-dioxin-like PCBs in the same samples.

      Done at Brussels, 11 October 2004.

            For the Commission

         David BYRNE

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  OJ L 77, 16.3.2001, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 684/2004 (OJ L 106, 15.4.2004, p. 6).

      (2)  OJ L 67, 9.3.2002, p. 69.

      (3)  OJ L 209, 6.8.2002, p. 5. Directive as amended by Directive 2004/44/EC (OJ L 113, 20.4.2004, p. 17).

      ANNEX I

         Table: Overview of the recommended minimum number of food samples to analyse yearly. Distribution of samples is based on production in each country. Particular attention is paid to foodstuffs expected to have a large variation in background levels of dioxins, furans and dioxin-like PCBs. This is particularly the case for fish.

                  Country (1)

                  N (2)

                  Meat and meat products (3)

                  Fish and fishery products (4)

                  Milk and milk products (5)

                  Eggs (6)

                  Oils and fats (7)

                  Fruit, vegetables and cereals (8)

                  Beef

                  Pigs

                  Sheep

                  Poultry

                  Liver

                  Fish

                  Aquaculture products

                  Milk

                  Butter/cheese/ yoghurt

                  Cage eggs

                  Free-range eggs

                  Animal

                  Vegetable

                  Fish oils/ food supplements

                  Vegetables

                  Fruit

                  Cereals

                  Belgium

                  53

                  4

                  4

                  2

                  4

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  4

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  4

                  3

                  3

                  2

                  2

                  Denmark

                  66

                  3

                  5

                  2

                  3

                  3

                  15

                  5

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  2

                  3

                  6

                  3

                  2

                  2

                  Germany

                  147

                  13

                  13

                  3

                  6

                  7

                  7

                  5

                  14

                  14

                  10

                  11

                  12

                  14

                  4

                  4

                  2

                  8

                  Greece

                  55

                  2

                  2

                  7

                  3

                  2

                  4

                  7

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  2

                  3

                  3

                  4

                  2

                  2

                  Spain

                  151

                  7

                  9

                  11

                  7

                  6

                  33

                  16

                  3

                  3

                  7

                  7

                  4

                  10

                  5

                  9

                  10

                  4

                  France

                  168

                  14

                  8

                  5

                  15

                  11

                  18

                  16

                  12

                  14

                  12

                  6

                  6

                  6

                  3

                  6

                  4

                  12

                  Ireland

                  61

                  7

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  9

                  3

                  3

                  5

                  3

                  3

                  2

                  3

                  4

                  3

                  2

                  2

                  Italy

                  126

                  10

                  5

                  5

                  8

                  5

                  8

                  14

                  6

                  3

                  8

                  15

                  3

                  7

                  3

                  12

                  10

                  4

                  Luxembourg

                  30

                  2

                  2

                  1

                  2

                  1

                  3

                  1

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  2

                  1

                  1

                  2

                  1

                  1

                  1

                  Netherlands

                  88

                  6

                  6

                  3

                  6

                  4

                  14

                  7

                  5

                  6

                  7

                  3

                  3

                  7

                  3

                  4

                  2

                  2

                  Austria

                  52

                  4

                  4

                  2

                  3

                  2

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  7

                  2

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  2

                  2

                  Portugal

                  51

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  4

                  2

                  6

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  2

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  2

                  2

                  Finland

                  45

                  3

                  3

                  2

                  2

                  1

                  4

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  2

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  2

                  2

                  Sweden

                  54

                  3

                  3

                  2

                  3

                  2

                  10

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  2

                  3

                  4

                  3

                  2

                  2

                  United Kingdom

                  113

                  7

                  4

                  10

                  10

                  4

                  24

                  12

                  7

                  4

                  7

                  3

                  3

                  5

                  4

                  3

                  2

                  4

                  Total EU

                  1 260

                  88

                  74

                  59

                  79

                  56

                  161

                  101

                  74

                  74

                  78

                  75

                  49

                  75

                  53

                  64

                  47

                  53

                  Iceland

                  67

                  2

                  2

                  1

                  2

                  1

                  29

                  2

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  2

                  1

                  1

                  12

                  1

                  1

                  1

                  Norway

                  125

                  3

                  3

                  2

                  3

                  3

                  46

                  28

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  10

                  3

                  3

                  3

                  Total EEA

                  1 452

                  93

                  79

                  62

                  84

                  60

                  236

                  131

                  80

                  80

                  84

                  80

                  53

                  79

                  75

                  68

                  51

                  57

                      ()

                      ()

                      ()

                      ()

                      ()

                      ()

                      ()

         (1)  The Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia joined the European Community on 1 May 2004. It is appropriate that the new Member States participate in the monitoring programme as soon as possible. It is however acknowledged that it is appropriate to provide a transitional arrangement for these new Member States and therefore no detailed minimum frequency for the random monitoring of the presence of dioxins, furans and dioxin-like PCBs in foodstuffs is recommended for these countries.
      Remarks on the table

          ()

          ()

          ()

          ()

          ()

          ()

          ()

         (2)  The figures mentioned in the table are minimum figures. Member States are invited to take more samples. The additional samples should be preferably taken from the categories of foodstuffs contributing significantly to the exposure: i.e. meat and meat products, fish and dairy products (farm milk).

         (3)  Meat and meat products: in addition to the mentioned categories, a number of samples should be taken from horsemeat, goatmeat, rabbitmeat and, to a limited extent, game.

         (4)  Fish and fishery products: the samples for wild fish and aquaculture should be divided over the species proportionate to the catch or production (for aquaculture). As guidance, the species-specific data on catch and production of fish and fishery products available in the brochure ‘Facts and figures on the CFP – basic data on the Common Fisheries Policy’, European Communities, 2004 can be used.
      Using these data following numbers of samples to be taken for different fish species and fishery products can be given as guidance
      Catches for Member States ≥ 10 samples recommended
      Denmark: 15 samples  4 herring, 4 blue mussel, 7 other
      Spain: 33 samples  7 skipjack tuna, 4 pilchard, 5 yellowfin tuna, 2 horse mackerel, 2 short-fin squid, 13 other
      France: 18 samples  3 skipjack tuna, 3 yellowfin tuna, 2 pilchard, 2 saithe, 2 herring, 6 other
      Netherlands: 14 samples  4 sardinellas, 2 horse mackerel, 3 herring, 2 mackerel and 3 other
      Sweden: 10 samples  5 herring, 4 sprat and 1 cod
      United Kingdom: 24 samples  6 mackerel, 4 herring, 3 haddock, 2 cod and 9 other
      Aquaculture products for Member States ≥ 5 samples recommended
      Denmark: 5 samples  4 trout and 1 eel
      Germany: 5 samples  2 mussels, 2 trout and 1 carp
      Greece: 7 samples  3 seabream, 2 seabass, 1 mussels and 1 other
      Spain: 16 samples  8 mussels, 3 trout, 1 seabream, 1 oyster, 1 tuna and 2 other
      France: 16 samples  8 oysters, 4 mussels, 3 trout and 1 carp
      Italy: 14 samples  6 mussels, 3 clam, 3 trout, 1 seabass, 1 seabream
      Netherlands: 7 samples  4 mussels, 1 eel, 1 oyster and 1 catfish
      United Kingdom: 12 samples  9 salmon, 2 trout and 1 mussel

         (5)  Milk and milk products: at least four fifths of the milk samples should be taken from farm milk (mainly cow’s milk). It is also appropriate to take some additional samples of milk and milk products other than cow’s milk (goat milk etc.).

         (6)  Eggs: in addition to hen eggs, eggs of ducks, geese and quail should also be sampled.

         (7)  Oils and fats: it is appropriate that in addition to fish oil, also food supplements on the basis of fish oil (fish body oils and fish liver oils) are sampled.

         (8)  Vegetables: mainly leafy vegetables but also potatoes and other root and tuber vegetables.

         Fruit: including berries and strawberries.

      ANNEX II
      A.   Explanatory notes to the form for analytical results of dioxins, furans and dioxin-like PCBs and other PCBs in food
      1.   General information about the samples analysed
      Country: name of the Member State where the monitoring has been carried out
      Year: the year the monitoring was carried out
      Product: food item analysed — describe the food item as precise as possible
      Stage of marketing: place where the product (sample) was collected
      Tissue: part of product analysed, for example, fat or muscle
      Expression of results: the results are to be expressed on the basis on which the maximum levels have been established (Council Regulation (EC) No 2375/2001). In case of the analysis of non-dioxin-like PCBs, it is highly recommended to express the levels on the same basis.
      Type of sampling: random sampling — analytical results from targeted sampling can also be reported but it must be clearly indicated that the sampling was targeted and does not necessarily reflect normal background levels
      Methods: refer to the method used
      Accredited: specify if the analytical method is accredited or not
      Uncertainty (%): the percentage of the measurement uncertainty embodied in the analytical method.
      2.   Specific information about the samples analysed
      Sample No: number of samples of same kind of product analysed. If you have results of more samples than there are marked columns, just add new columns with the number at the end of the form.
      Method of production: conventional/organic (as detailed as possible)
      Area: insofar as relevant, district or region where the sample was collected, if possible with indication if it concerns rural area, urban area, industrial zone, harbour, open sea, etc. For example, Brussels — urban area, Mediterranean — open sea.
      Number of subsamples: if the analysed sample is a pooled sample, the number of subsamples (number of individuals) should be notified. If the analytical result is just based on one sample, one should be notified. Number of subsamples in a pooled sample could vary, so please specify this for every sample.
      Fat content (%): the percentage of fat content in the sample
      Moisture content (%): the percentage of moisture content in the sample (if available).
      3.   Results
      Dioxins, furans, dioxin-like PCBs: results of every congener should be reported in ppt — picogram/gram (pg/g).
      Non-dioxin-like PCBs: results of every congener should be reported in ppb — microgram/kilo (μg/kg).
      LOQ: limit of quantification in pg/g or μg/kg (for non dioxin-like PCBs)
      LOD: limit of detection in pg/g or μg/kg (for non dioxin-like PCBs)
      For congeners determined but below the LOD (limit of detection) the case of results should be filled in as < LOD (the LOD should be reported as a value).
      For congeners determined but being below LOQ (limit of quantification) the case should be filled in as < LOQ (the LOQ should be reported as a value).
      For PCB congeners analysed in addition to the PCB-7 and dioxin-like PCBs the number of the PCB congener need to be added to the form, for example, 31, 99, 110, etc. If the sample is analysed for more PCB congeners than there are marked rows, just add new rows at the bottom of the form.
      4.   Remarks
      Besides the lipid extraction method used, additional relevant remarks to the submitted data can be mentioned.
      B.   Form for reporting of congener specific analytical results of dioxins, furans, dioxin-like PCBs and other PCBs in food


Avis juridique important

|

31976H0002

76/2/EEC: Commission Recommendation of 5 December 1975 to the Member States concerning the taxation of wine

Official Journal L 002 , 07/01/1976 P. 0013 - 0013 Greek special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 14 P. 0141  Spanish special edition: Chapter 09 Volume 1 P. 0052  Portuguese special edition Chapter 09 Volume 1 P. 0052

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION  of 5 December 1975  to the Member States concerning the taxation of wine  (76/2/EEC) Certain Member States have high excise duties on wine.  Moreover it has come to the Commission's knowledge that certain Member States are intending to introduce, or have recently introduced, a substantial increase in the rate of these excise duties.  It is clear that, in the present situation in the wine sector, high excise duties and, even more so, any increase in these duties, have harmful repercussions on the marketing of wines in the Community.  Pending the adoption by the Council of the proposal from the Commission for a Directive introducing harmonized excise duties on wine at a minimum level of one unit of account per hectolitre, Member States retain the right to modify the rate of the excise duties which they apply on wines.  In the light of the foregoing, and pursuant to Article 155 of the Treaty establishing the EEC, the Commission recommends that the Member States concerned should:    1. reduce appreciably the rate of excise duties levied by them on products falling within subheadings 22.05 C I and II of the Common Customs Tariff;       2. forgo any planned or recently introduced increase in the rate of these excise duties;       3. inform the Commission of the measures taken pursuant to this recommendation.         Done at Brussels, 5 December 1975.  For the Commission  P.J. LARDINOIS  Member of the Commission


Avis juridique important

|

31975H0436

75/436/Euratom, ECSC, EEC: Council Recommendation of 3 March 1975 regarding cost allocation and action by public authorities on environmental matters

Official Journal L 194 , 25/07/1975 P. 0001 - 0004 Spanish special edition: Chapter 15 Volume 1 P. 0094  Portuguese special edition Chapter 15 Volume 1 P. 0094

COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION  of 3 March 1975  regarding cost allocation and action by public authorities on environmental matters  (75/436/Euratom, ECSC, EEC) THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community;  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community;  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community;  Having regard to the draft recommendation submitted by the Commission;  Having regard to the Opinion of the European Parliament (1);  Having regard to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (2);  Whereas in the framework of the declaration of the Council of the European Communities and of the representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting with the Council of 22 November 1973 (3) on the programme of action of the European Communities on the environment, the "polluter pays" principle was adopted;  Whereas the costs associated with the protection of the environment against pollution should be allocated according to the same principles throughout the Community, in order to avoid distortions in trade and competition incompatible with the proper functioning of the common market and with the aim of balanced economic expansion pursued by the Community and in order to further the aims set out in the programme of action of the European Communities on the environment;  Whereas in order to facilitate application of the said principle, the European Communities and the Member States must define it more clearly by laying down procedures for its application, and by making provision for certain exceptions to be made to it such as may he made on grounds of difficulties encountered in its application and because of the interplay between other policies and the environmental protection policy;  RECOMMENDS, within the meaning of the EEC Treaty, that in respect of allocation of costs and of action by public authorities in the field of environmental protection, the Member States conform to the principles and the rules governing their application which are contained in the Commission communication annexed to this recommendation.  Done at Brussels, 3 March 1975.  For the Council  The President  J. KEATING  (1)OJ No C 76, 3.7.1974, p. 31. (2)OJ No C 116, 30.9.1974, p. 35. (3)OJ No C 112, 20.12.1973, p. 1.   ANNEX Communication from the Commission to the Council regarding cost allocation and action by public authorities on environmental matters  Principles and detailed rules governing their application    1. In the framework of the declaration of the Council of the European Communities and of the representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting within the Council of 22 November 1973 on the programme of action of the European Communities on the environment, the "polluter pays" principle was adopted. The programme of action provides that the Commission submit to the Council a proposal concerning the application of this principle, including possible exceptions thereto.  Charging to polluters the costs of action taken to combat the pollution which they cause encourages them to reduce that pollution and to endeavour to find less polluting products or technologies thereby enabling a more rational use to be made of the resources of the environment. Moreover, it satisfies the criteria of effectiveness and equitable practice.  In order to avoid distortions of competition affecting trade and the location of investments which would be incompatible with the proper functioning of the common market, the costs connected with the protection of the environment against pollution should be allocated according to the same principles throughout the Community.       2. To achieve this, the European Communities at Community level and the Member States in their national legislation on environmental protection must apply the "polluter pays" principle, under which natural or legal persons governed by public or private law who are responsible for pollution must pay the costs of such measures as are necessary to eliminate that pollution or to reduce it so as to comply with the standards or equivalent measures which enable quality objectives to be met or, where there are no such objectives, so as to comply with the standards or equivalent measures laid down by the public authorities (1).  Consequently, environmental protection should not in principle depend on policies which rely on grants of aid and place the burden of combating pollution on the Community.       3. A polluter is someone who directly or indirectly damages the environment or who creates conditions leading to such damage (2).  If identifying the polluter proves impossible or too difficult, and hence arbitrary, particularly where environmental pollution arises from several simultaneous causes ("cumulative pollution") (3) or from several consecutive causes ("pollution chain") (4), the cost of combating pollution should be borne at the point in the pollution chain or in the cumulative pollution process, and by the legal or administrative means which offer the best solution from the administrative and economic points of view and which make the most effective contribution towards improving the environment.  Thus, in the case of pollution chains, costs could be charged at the point at which the number of economic operators is least and control is easiest or else at the point where the most effective contribution is made towards improving the environment, and where distortions to competition are avoided.       4. Under the "polluter pays" principle, standards and charges, or a possible combination of the two, are the major instruments of action available to public authorities for the avoidance of pollution.  (a) Standards include:      (i) "environmental quality standards" which, with legally binding force, prescribe the levels of pollution or nuisance not to be exceeded in a given environment or part thereof;           (ii) "product standards" (the term product is used here in its broadest meaning) which:        - set levels for pollutants or nuisance which are not to be exceeded in the composition or the emissions of a product,  or               - specify properties or characteristics of design of a product,  or               - are concerned with the way in which products are used (5).                 Where appropriate, product standards include specifications for testing, packaging, marking and labelling products;           (iii) standards for fixed installations, sometimes called "process standards", such as:       (a) "emission standards", which set levels for pollutants or nuisances not to be exceeded in emissions from fixed installations;  (1)As long as such a level has not been laid down by the public authorities, measures taken by such authorities to avoid pollution should also be paid for by the polluters, in accordance with the "polluter pays" principle. (2)The concept of polluter, as defined in this sentence, does not affect provisions concerning third-party liability. (3)Where, in a built-up area, for example, several polluters, such as householders users of motor vehicles and industrial plants, are simultaneously responsible for polluting the atmosphere with SO2. (4)For example, in cases of environmental pollution by motor vehicle exhaust fumes, not only the user of the vehicle but also the manufacturers of the vehicle and of the fuel are responsible for causing atmospheric pollution. (5)Such methods of use and specifications may be issued in the form of "codes of practice".            (b) "installation design standards", which determine the requirements to be met in the design and construction of fixed installations in order to protect the environment;           (c) "operating standards", which determine the requirements (1) to be met in the operation of fixed installations in order to protect the environment.            (b) The purpose of charges shall be to encourage the polluter to take the necessary measures to reduce the pollution he is causing as cheaply as possible (incentive function) and/or to make him pay his share of the costs of collective measures, for example purification costs (redistribution function). The charges should be applied, according to the extent of pollution emitted, on the basis of an appropriate administrative procedure.  Charges should be fixed so that primarily they fulfil their incentive function.  In so far as the main function of charges is redistribution, they should at least be fixed within the context of the abovementioned measures so that, for a given region and/or qualitative objective, the aggregate amount of the charges is equal to the total cost to the Community of eliminating nuisances.  Income from charges may be used to finance either measures taken by public authorities or to help finance installations set up by an individual polluter, provided that the latter, at the specific request of the public authorities, is seen to render a particular service to the Community, by reducing his pollution level to below that set by the competent authorities. In the latter instance, the financial aid granted must be limited to compensating for the services thus rendered by the polluter to the Community.  In line with Article 92 et seq. of the EEC Treaty, income from charges may also be used to finance the installations of individual polluters for protecting the environment, in order actively to reduce existing pollution. In this case, the measures for financing should be incorporated in an official multi-annual finance programme by the competent authorities.  Where the overall revenue exceeds the total expenditure by the public authorities when applying the two preceding paragraphs, the surplus should preferably be used by each government for its national environmental policies ; however, the surplus may be used for granting aid only under the conditions specified in paragraphs 6 and 7 below.  As far as possible, the Community should endeavour to standardize the methods of calculation used by the Member States to set charges.  (c) In order to avoid distortions of competition affecting trade and the location of investment in the Community, it will undoubtedly be necessary to harmonize more and more closely at Community level the various instruments where they are applied in similar cases.  Until this is achieved, the question of the allocation of anti-pollution costs will never be entirely resolved at Community level. This Commission communication therefore constitutes merely a first step in the application of the "polluter pays" principle. The first step must be followed up as quickly as possible by the harmonization within the Community of the instruments for implementing the said principle when they are applied to similar cases, as stated in the third subparagraph of paragraph 8 of this document.        5. Depending on the instruments used and without prejudice to any compensation due under national law or international law, and/or regulations to be drawn up within the Community, polluters will be obliged to bear:      (a) expenditure on pollution control measures (investment in anti-pollution installations and equipment, introduction of new processes, cost of running anti-pollution installations, etc.), even when these go beyond the standards laid down by the public authorities;           (b) the charges.             The costs to be borne by the polluter (under the "polluter pays" principle) should include all the expenditure necessary to achieve an environmental quality objective, including the administrative costs directly linked to the implementation of anti-pollution measures.  The cost to the public authorities of constructing, buying and operating pollution monitoring and supervision installations may, however, be borne by those authorities.       6. Exceptions to the "polluter pays" principle may be justified in limited cases:      (a) Where the immediate application of very stringent standards or the imposition of substantial charges is likely to lead to serious economic disturbances, the rapid incorporation of pollution control costs into production costs may give rise to greater social costs. It may then prove necessary:        - to allow some polluters time to adapt their products or production processes to the new standards;               - and/or to grant aid for a limited period and possibly of a degressive nature.                 Such measures may, in any case, apply only to existing production plants (2) and existing products.           (b) Where, in the context of other policies (e.g. regional, industrial, social, and agricultural policies or scientific research and development policy), investment affecting environmental protection benefit from aid intended to solve certain industrial, agricultural or regional structural problems.  Aids referred to under (a) and (b) may, of course, only be granted by Member States in compliance with the provisions on State aid set out in the Treaties establishing the European Communities, and in particular Articles 92 et seq. of the EEC Treaty. In applying Articles 92 et seq. of the EEC Treaty to these aids, account will be taken of the requirements  (1)Such methods of use and specifications may be issued in the form of "codes of practice". (2)The enlargement or the transfer of existing production plants will be considered as the creation of new plants where this represents an increase in productive capacity.   which such aids satisfy as regards environmental protection.       7. The following shall not be considered contrary to the "polluter pays" principle (1):      (a) financial contributions which might be granted to local authorities for the construction and operation of public installations for the protection of the environment, the cost of which could not be wholly covered in the short term from the charges paid by polluters using them. In so far as other effluent as well as household waste is treated in these installations, the service thus rendered to undertakings should be charged to them on the basis of the actual cost of the treatment concerned;           (b) financing designed to compensate for the particularly heavy costs which some polluters would be obliged to meet in order to achieve an exceptional degree of environmental cleanliness;           (c) contributions granted to foster activities concerning research and development with a view to implementing techniques, manufacturing processes and products causing less pollution.                  8. In carrying out its tasks within the framework of the Community environment policy, the Commission will comply particularly with the abovementioned definitions and methods of application of the abovementioned "polluter pays" principle.  The Commission asks the Council to take note of these definitions and conditions of application and to recommend that the Member States conform to them in their legislation and administrative measures involving the allocation of costs in the environmental field.  The Commission will submit all the necessary proposals in this field to the Council in due course, particularly as regards the harmonization of instruments for administering the "polluter pays" principle, and its specific application to the problems of transfrontier pollution.  Each Member State should apply the "polluter pays" principle to all forms of pollution within its own country and without making any distinction as to whether the pollution affects that country or another.  (1)This list may be modified by the Council, on a proposal from the Commission.


Avis juridique important

|

31999Y1223(01)

Council recommendation of 9 December 1999 on cooperation in combating the financing of terrorist groups

Official Journal C 373 , 23/12/1999 P. 0001 - 0001

COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONof 9 December 1999on cooperation in combating the financing of terrorist groups(1999/C 373/01)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty on European Union,Considering the need to intensify the cooperation between Member States in combating the financing of terrorist groups,Considering that to this end an enhanced exchange of information should take place,Considering that Europol should, as far as possible, be involved in this cooperation,HEREBY RECOMMENDS:1. Member States to intensify their cooperation in combating the financing of terrorist groups.2. To this end they should exchange information on the structures and modus operandi used for financing terrorist groups operating in more than one Member State, which is available to their security authorities. The information exchanged should be updated without delay as soon as new intelligence is gathered in a Member State.3. The competent Council Working Party should deal with those terrorist groups presenting a specific threat and which should be closer examined by the Member States' security authorities. To this end:(a) the central authorities of the Member States responsible for investigations against the terrorist groups should share intelligence on these groups, especially on their links with groups in other Member States;(b) the competent authorities should match this information with the national intelligence in hand and examine whether executive measures against the terrorist group may be taken against this background on a national level;(c) on the basis of the respective national assessments, the Council Working Party will consider proposals for a joint initiative against a particular terrorist group or terrorist groups present in more than one State, involving those Member States that wish to participate, in so far as such participation would be consistent with their national laws.4. Upon completion of such action, the intelligence for importance for more than one Member State should be exchanged and evaluated. The Member State holding the office of President of the Council, or another Member State concerned, should report on the measures taken and the newly gained intelligence.5. Member States should participate in this procedure only to the extent admissible pursuant to national law and in so far as the organisation identified has violated the law in force in the respective Member State. Therefore, no Member State should feel obliged to take part in these measures.6. All Member States involved should ensure that the information transmitted is handled absolutely confidentially. The facts transmitted should be used exclusively for the purposes of combating the financing of terrorist organisations. It should not be permitted to share this information with third countries without the consent of the sending Member State. National procedures on confidentiality and data protection are not affected by this recommendation.7. The information should be transmitted through the Bureau de Liaison channels.8. As far as possible and within the framework of the applicable law, Europol should participate in this cooperation.9. This Recommendation is without prejudice to existing procedures of police cooperation between Member States.Done at Brussels, 9 December 1999.For the CouncilO. HEINONENThe President


Avis juridique important

|

31976H0051

76/51/EEC: Commission Recommendation to the Member States invited to attend the intergovernmental meeting in Barcelona (Only the French and Italian texts are authentic)

Official Journal L 009 , 16/01/1976 P. 0035 - 0035 Spanish special edition: Chapter 15 Volume 1 P. 0132  Portuguese special edition Chapter 15 Volume 1 P. 0132

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION  to the Member States invited to attend the intergovernmental meeting in Barcelona  (Only the French and Italian texts are authentic)  (76/51/EEC)  THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 155 thereof,  Whereas the declaration by the Council of the European Communities and the representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting in the Council of 22 November 1973, on the programme of action of the European Communities on the environment (1), stresses the importance which the Community attaches to the prevention of marine pollution in general and provides, among other things, for Community measures to combat marine pollution from land-based sources;  Whereas the Paris Convention on the prevention of marine pollution from land-based sources of 21 February 1974 provides for the drawing-up and implementation of programmes for eliminating or reducing this type of pollution in the north-east Atlantic;  Whereas the Member States which take part in the intergovernmental meeting in Barcelona must ensure that the measures taken for the prevention of marine pollution from land-based sources are as consistent and rational as possible,  RECOMMENDS THAT THESE MEMBER STATES (2):    propose that on the agenda for the next session of the abovementioned intergovernmental meeting should be the preparation of a Protocol for the protection of the Mediterranean against marine pollution from land-based sources, the clauses of which shall be modelled, mutatis mutandis, on those of the Paris Convention of 21 February 1974.    Done at Brussels, 19 December 1975.  For the Commission  Carlo SCARASCIA MUGNOZZA  Vice-President  (1)OJ No C 112, 20.12.1973. (2)The French Republic and the Italian Republic.


Avis juridique important

|

32001H0193

Commission Recommendation of 1 March 2001 on pre-contractual information to be given to consumers by lenders offering home loans (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2001) 477)

Official Journal L 069 , 10/03/2001 P. 0025 - 0029

Commission Recommendationof 1 March 2001on pre-contractual information to be given to consumers by lenders offering home loans(notified under document number C(2001) 477)(Text with EEA relevance)(2001/193/EC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular the second indent of Article 211 thereof,Whereas:(1) Achieving a single market for financial services offering consumers a high level of protection is a priority for the Community. Signing a home loan contract is often the most important financial commitment that a consumer enters into. Home lending is an area of financial services where consumers could gain substantial benefit from increased corss-border activity provided that adequate protective measures are in place.(2) It is essential in that contex that the pre-contractual information as to the terms and conditions on which home loans are offered throughout the Community are transparent and comparable. To that end, lenders should be invited to provide consumers with two sets of harmonised information, namely one containing general information and the other containing personalised information. The personalised information should be provided in a standard written format, known as a European Standardised Information Sheet.(3) The elements of information - both general and personalised - to be given to consumers by lenders, have been negotiated under the auspices of the Commission by the associations and federations representing lenders, on the one hand, and consumers, on the other. These negotiations have resulted in a Voluntary Code of Conduct on pre-contractual information for home loans (the "Code"), a copy of which can be obtained from the adhering lenders. Adherence to the Code is open to all home loan lenders, regardless of whether they are members of one of the negotiating associations and federations.(4) In certain Member States national requirements on additional pre-contractual consumer information for home loans already exist. It is desirable that these additional information elements be merged with those in the European Standardised Information Sheet and that this be done in a manner that ensures comparability across borders for the consumer at European level. Where a Member State imposes on lenders from other Member States an obligation to give additional pre-contractual information to consumers above and beyond what is set out in the Annexes, it is invited to ensure that this information is in conformity with Community law.(5) Both domestic and cross-border home loans should be subject to this recommendation, excluding credit agreements which are covered by Council Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit(1), as last amended by Directive 98/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(2).(6) The Commission will establish a central register of lenders offering home loans, indicating whether or not those lenders adhere to the Code, as well as the date on which those lenders notified their adherence to the Commission. The Commission will, by all appropriate means, ensure that the public at large can consult this central register.(7) The Commission will monitor compliance with this recommendation and assess its effectiveness. The Commission will consider presenting binding legislation, should the terms of this recommendation not be fully complied with,HEREBY RECOMMENDS:Article 1ScopeThis recommendation covers pre-contractual consumer information for domestic and cross-border home loans.Credit agreements covered by Directive 87/102/EEC are excluded from the scope of this recommendation.Article 2DefinitionFor the purposes of this recommendation, a home loan means a credit to a consumer for the purchase or transformation of the private immovable property he owns or aims to acquire, secured either by a mortage on immovable property or by a surety commonly used in a Member State for that purpose.Article 3PrinciplesThe lender should supply to the consumer in the course of the pre-contractual phase:(a) general information as set out in Annex I;(b) personalised information to be presented in a European Standardised Information Sheet as set out in Annex II.In addition, the lender should supply to the consumer information on the identification, address and telephone number of the competent body to which the consumer can refer in the event of difficulties in relation to the application of the Code on pre-contractual information for home loans.The final decision to acept a credit offer from a lender lies with the consumer.Article 4National requirements on additional pre-contractual consumer informationShould pre-existing national requirements provide that additional pre-contractual consumer information is to be given to the consumer, Member States are invited to take all necessary steps in order that this additional information may be merged with the information included in the European Standardised Information Sheet in a manner that does not impair comparability across borders.Each Member State is moreover invited to ensure that those additional nation requirements are imposed on lenders from other Member States offering home loans in the territory of that Member State only if those additional requirements are in conformity with Community law.In this case, the host Member State is invited to notify the requirements to the Commission so that the latter can consider them in the framework of its monitoring activity set out in Article 6.Article 5Establishment of a register by the CommissionThe Commission will establish a central register of lenders offering home loans, indicating whether or not those lenders adhere to the Code.Article 6Monitoring by the CommissionThe Commission will monitor compliance with this recommendation.Two years after adoption of this recommendation, the Commission will assess its effectiveness: the assessment will be based on its own monitoring, on annual progress reports to be drawn up by the European Credit Sector Associations, and on any other information available.Article 7Final provisionMember States and lenders offering home loans in the Community, regardless of whether they are members of the associations and federations who negotiated the Code, are invited to comply with this recommendation by no later than 30 September 2002.Article 8AddresseesThis recommendation is addressed to the Member States.Done at Brussels, 1 March 2001.For the CommissionFrederik BolkesteinMember of the Commission(1) OJ L 42, 12.2.1987, p. 48.(2) OJ L 101, 1.4.1998, p. 17.ANNEX IInitial information about home loans should include or be accompanied by the following information in the same format as that initial information is itself provided:A. Lender1. Identification and address of the lender.2. Where appropriate, identification and address of the intermediary.B. Home loan1. Purposes for which the home loan may be used.2. Form of surety.3. Description of the types of home loans available with short description of the differences between fixed and variable rate products, including related implications for the consumer.4. Types of interest rate - fixed, variable, and combination thereof.5. An indication of the cost of a typical home loan for the consumer.6. A list of related cost elements, such as, administrative costs, insurance costs, legal costs, intermediaries costs.7. The different options available for reimbursing the credit to the lender (including the number, frequency, amount of repayment instalments if any).8. Whether there is a possibility of early repayment (if so, its conditions).9. Whether a valuation of the property is necessary and, if so, by whom it has to be carried out.10. General information on tax relief on home loan interest or other public subsidies prevailing, or information on where one can obtain further advice.11. The duration of the reflection period, where relevant.12. Confirmation that the institution subscribes to the Code, and indication that a copy of the Code is available in the institution.ANNEX II>PIC FILE= "L_2001069EN.002802.EPS">>PIC FILE= "L_2001069EN.002901.EPS">


				|

		52012DC0307

			Recommendation for a COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION on Greece's 2012 national reform programme /* COM/2012/0307 final */

			   	Recommendation for a
COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
on Greece's 2012 national reform programme
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 the recommendation of the
European Commission[2],
Having regard to the resolutions of the
European Parliament,[3]
Having regard to the conclusions of the
European Council,
Having regard to the opinion of the
Employment Committee,
After consulting the Economic and Financial
Committee,
Whereas:
(1)       On 26 March 2010, the
European Council agreed to the European Commission’s proposal to launch a new
strategy for jobs and growth, Europe 2020, based on enhanced coordination of
economic policies, which will focus on the key areas where action is needed to
boost Europe’s potential for sustainable growth and competitiveness.
(2)       On 13 July 2010, the
Council adopted a recommendation on the broad guidelines for the economic
policies of the Member States and the Union (2010 to 2014) and, on 21 October
2010, adopted a decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the
Member States[4], which together form the ‘integrated
guidelines’. Member States were invited to take the integrated guidelines into
account in their national economic and employment policies.
(3)       On 12 July 2011, the
Council adopted a recommendation on Greece’s national reform programme for 2011.
(4)       On 23 November 2011, the
Commission adopted the second Annual Growth Survey, marking the start of the second
European Semester of ex-ante and integrated policy coordination, which is
anchored in the Europe 2020 strategy.
(5)       On 2 March 2012, the
European Council endorsed the priorities for ensuring financial stability,
fiscal consolidation and action to foster growth. It underscored the need to pursue
differentiated, growth-friendly fiscal consolidation, to restore normal lending
conditions to the economy, to promote growth and competitiveness, to tackle
unemployment and the social consequences of the crisis, and to modernise public
administration.
(6)       On 2 March 2012, the
European Council also invited the Member States participating in the Euro Plus
Pact to present their commitments in time for inclusion in their stability or convergence
programmes and their national reform programmes.
(7)       On 12 April 2012, Greece submitted
its 2012 national reform programme and incomplete information regarding their
budgetary plans. Greek authorities are invited to submit the full set of
standard tables required under the preventive arm of the Stability and Growth
Pact.
(8)       On 21 February 2012, the
Eurogroup agreed on a second economic adjustment programme for Greece. The
implementation of the economic policies outlined in the Memorandum of
Understanding on Specific Policy Conditionality will contribute to reduce the
Greek public debt to 117% of GDP by 2020. It was agreed that the official
sector financing of the programme would amount to EUR 130 billion until
2014, additional to the amounts committed in the first financing programme.
(9)       The release of the
tranches is based on compliance with quantitative performance criteria and a
positive evaluation of progress made with respect to the policy criteria laid
down in Council Decision 2011/734/EU of 12 July 2011 (as amended on
8 November 2011 and 13 March 2012) and the Memorandum of Understanding
setting the economic policy conditionality, which was signed on 14 March 2012.
(10)     On 19 March 2012, the first
instalment (EUR 5.9 billion) of the first tranche (EUR 14.5 billion) of
the new financing programme was paid by the EFSF to Greece. Greece also
received EUR 1.6 billion from the IMF. By May 2012, Greece has received EUR
147.5 billion from official financing under the first and the second programme.
(11)     In 2010 and 2011, Greece
made partial progress towards the ambitious objectives of the adjustment
programme. Several factors hampered implementation: political instability,
social unrest and issues of administrative capacity and, more fundamentally, a
recession that was much deeper than previously projected. Important fiscal
targets were missed, which led to the adoption of additional consolidation
measures throughout 2010 and 2011. However, Greece achieved a substantial
reduction in the general government deficit: from 15.8 per cent of GDP in 2009 to
9.1 percent in 2011.
(12)     On 18 April 2012, the
Commission adopted a communication on ‘Growth for Greece’ highlighting the
positive impact that full and effective implementation of the economic
adjustment programme can have by laying the foundations for growth, investment
and social renewal. This Communication recalls that Greece can draw strength
and concrete support from its membership of the EU and of the euro area. It
underlines that the reforms set out in the second economic adjustment programme
are designed to restore the growth and job creation potential of the Greek
economy and to create a more equitable society. It outlines the extensive
financial support being made available to Greece and emphasises the readiness
of Greece's partners, and in particular the Commission to identify ways to
maximise the impact of early deliverables through swift actions and EU support.
(13)     The economic crisis and
subsequent fiscal consolidation measures have had an impact on the ability of
Greece to achieve the Europe 2020 goals, especially the socially oriented ones.
Nevertheless, the structural reforms, particularly those in the labour market,
the liberalisation of several sectors and a number of measures to improve the
business environment, will help promote competition, spur productivity,
increase employment and reduce production costs, thus contributing to an
increase in employment and limiting poverty and social exclusion in the medium
term. Despite the economic crisis, Greece has continued to work towards achieving
the environmental goals of Europe 2020.
(14)     A strategic re-programming
of the Structural Funds is underway, with a focus on support to youth
employment and competitiveness (in particular SME's). The new measures
strengthen actions in the areas of employment passport, training and
professional qualifications and access to finance for Small and Medium
Enterprises.
(15)     Greece has made a number of
commitments under the Euro Plus Pact. The commitments, and the implementation
of the commitments presented in 2011, relate to fostering employment, improving
competitiveness, enhancing sustainability of public finances and reinforcing
financial stability.
HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Greece should:
Implement the measures laid down in Council Decision 2011/734/EU of 12
July 2011, as amended on 8 November 2011 and 13 March 2012, and the Memorandum
of Understanding on specific economic
policy conditionality, which was signed on 14 March 2012.
Done at Brussels,
                                                                       For
the Council
                                                                       The
President
[1]               OJ L 209, 002.08.1997, p. 1
[2]               COM(2012)307 final
[3]               P7_TA(2012)0048 and P7_TA(2012)0047
[4]               Council Decision 2012/238/EU of
26 April 2012


Avis juridique important

|

52004SC0799

Recommendation for a Council opinion in accordance with the third paragraph of Art. 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the convergence programme of Cyprus, 2004-2007  /* SEC/2004/0799 final */

Recommendation for a COUNCIL OPINION in accordance with the third paragraph of Art. 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the convergence programme of Cyprus, 2004-2007(presented by the Commission)EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUMCouncil Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies [1] stipulates that non-participating Member States, that is, those which have not adopted the single currency, have to submit convergence programmes to the Council and the Commission for the purpose of multilateral surveillance at regular intervals under Article 99 of the Treaty.[1]  OJ L209, 2.8.1997. All the documents referred to in this text can be found at the following websitehttp://europa.eu.int/comm/economy_finance/about/activities/sgp/main_en.htmIn accordance with Article 9 of this Regulation, the Council has to examine each convergence programme based on assessments prepared by the Commission and the Committee set up by Article 114 of the Treaty (the Economic and Financial Committee). On the basis of a recommendation from the Commission and after consulting the Economic and Financial Committee, the Council is required to deliver an opinion, following its examination of the programme. According to the Regulation, Member States need to submit annual updates of their convergence programmes, which may also be examined by the Council in accordance with these same procedures.The ten countries that joined the EU on 1 May 2004 have a derogation and thus do not yet participate in the single currency. They committed themselves to submitting their convergence programmes by 15 May 2004 and a first update thereof towards the end of 2004.Cyprus's convergence programme covering the period 2004-2007 was submitted on 24 May 2004. The Commission services have carried out a technical evaluation of this programme, taking into account the results of the Spring 2004 forecasts and having regard to the "code of conduct on the content and format of stability and convergence programmes" [2] and the principles laid down in the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament of 27 November 2002 on strengthening the co-ordination of budgetary policies [3]. This evaluation warrants the following assessment:[2]  Revised Opinion of the Economic and Financial Committee on the content and format of stability and convergence programmes, endorsed by the ECOFIN Council on 10.7.2001.[3]  COM (2002) 668 final, 27.11.2002.The first Cypriot convergence programme covering the period 2004-2007 was submitted on 24 May 2004. The programme indicates the intention to adopt the euro by 2007 and for early participation in ERMII, and hence to meet the convergence criteria on deficit and debt as of 2005.It should be noted at the outset that future economic developments in Cyprus remain subject to unusual uncertainty. In case of future reunification, the economic situation of the entire island would fundamentally shift. The convergence programme briefly discusses some of the outstanding complex issues surrounding the economic-institutional aspects of the Annan Plan for reunification and provides a brief assessment of the macroeconomic budgetary impact.The programme largely complies with the data requirements of the Code of Conduct" [4].[4]  The text model structure provided in Annex 2 of the Code of Conduct is not strictly adhered to in the Cyprus convergence programme text structure. The latter consists of four chapters instead of seven, combining elements of the model structure of Chapters 3, 5 and 7, and elements of Chapters 4 and 6. Also, the tables indicate only data on CPI inflation and not HICP inflation.The general government deficit increased to 6.3% of GDP in 2003, above the 3% of GDP Treaty reference value, while the debt ratio increased to 72.6% of GDP, above the 60% of GDP Treaty reference value. The Commission initiated the excessive deficit procedure for Cyprus on 12 May 2004, with the adoption of a report in accordance with Article 104(3) of the Treaty. The Economic and Financial Committee issued its opinion on this report on 25 May. On [5 July 2004], the Council is expected, on the basis of two Commission recommendations, to decide that an excessive deficit exists in Cyprus and to make recommendations to Cyprus to bring this situation to an end.The convergence programme provides the fiscal consolidation path and macro-economic scenario for the period 2004-2007. Projected GDP growth and inflation for 2004-2005 are close to the Commission Spring 2004 forecast. Medium term projected GDP growth is based on a rebound in exports (especially tourism, a mainstay of the economy) and a strengthening of domestic private demand. At 4.4% on average, forecast GDP growth appears plausible, also given historical growth rates and previous recoveries in tourism following international crisis.Other than the projected scenario discussed above (the so-called "central scenario"), the programme contains three alternative scenarios for the macroeconomic and budgetary projections: an "upper" scenario, a "lower" scenario and a "higher interest rates" scenario, with different assumptions on average GDP growth (+- 0.5% points) and higher interest rates (+0.5% points). The programme projections given in the so-called "central" scenario is considered as the reference scenario for assessing budgetary projections because, on the basis of currently available information, it seems to reflect plausible growth assumptions.The spike in inflation from 2.8% in 2002 to 4.0% in 2003 was mainly due to one-off factors such as higher VAT rates related to harmonisation with the acquis. Despite a growth rebound from 2004 onward, inflationary pressures are expected to remain subdued with inflation projected to fall to 2% in 2004 and remain at such levels until 2007. The programme envisages keeping the current monetary policy framework of an ERMII-type peg to the euro in place until the eventual adoption of the euro.The primary objectives of the fiscal consolidation programme are to reduce the general government deficit from a projected 5.2% of GDP in 2004 to 2.9% of GDP by 2005 and then below 2% of GDP by 2007; reach a strong improvement in the primary balance which would rise from a projected deficit of 1.6% of GDP in 2004 to a surplus of 2% of GDP by 2007; and to reverse significantly the upward trend of the debt-to-GDP ratio from 75.2% of GDP in 2004 to below 69% by the end of the programme period. Compared to the 2003 pre-accession economic programme (PEP), the fiscal consolidation path postpones the front-loaded adjustment from 2004 to 2005 and makes it larger. The deficit path for 2005-2006 would then be much in line with that set out in the PEP. To this end, the convergence programme envisages a series of mostly structural measures to contain expenditure, which is where most of the slippage occurred in past years, and to increase revenue. Revenues and expenditures contribute in broadly equal measure to the overall deficit reduction by almost 5 percentage points of GDP over the period 2004-2007.The adjustment path presented in the programme reflects the government commitment to improve public finances with the intention to adopt the euro by 2007; this is the main factor behind the strong frontloading of the fiscal adjustment to decrease the general government budget deficit by 2.3 percentage points of GDP in 2005. Given the size of this adjustment and the mixed record on fiscal consolidation of Cyprus, reducing the deficit below 3% of GDP by 2005 is a challenging target. The number of envisaged measures is relatively large, each measure with relatively small savings or revenues. This can be regarded as a form of 'risk spreading', yet to introduce many measures simultaneously might complicate implementation, both practically and politically. The convergence programme also notes that the government remains committed to take 'additional measures if deemed necessary' to reach the deficit targets. Following this strong adjustment, the adjustments that follow for 2006-7 are much smaller at about 0.6 percentage points annually, and hence should be relatively unproblematic to attain.The programme indicates a peak in the debt-to-GDP ratio of 75.2% in 2004 which then turns downward to reach 68.4% of GDP by 2007. This strong decrease is mainly driven by increasingly positive primary balances and an annual nominal GDP growth above the average nominal interest rate on government debt in 2005-2007. As indicated, the underlying GDP growth scenario is not implausible but the projected debt-ratio path also depends on the rather ambitious front-loaded fiscal consolidation for 2005.The programme briefly reviews the government's structural reform programme which focuses on labour, product and capital market policies, as well as policies aiming at diversifying the Cypriot economy towards higher value added activities and a knowledge-based economy. It additionally notes, but does not further give any details on, the intention to improve public administration efficiency. However, no budgetary assessments are given for these policies (in the 2003 PEP, the indicated budgetary costs of structural reforms were not significant, amounting to around 0.4% of GDP over the period 2003-2006). As the programme notes, these policies are mostly a continuation of the reform strategy outlined in previous pre-accession economic programmes, and the programme justifiably considers the various structural policies as interconnected and mutually supportive. Overall, therefore, the policies outlined in the programme in this area seem reasonable although the record has sometimes shown some delays in liberalisation, notably in some product markets.Cyprus faces risks of budgetary imbalances in meeting the costs of an ageing population. While the health care system reform is to be implemented in 2006, measures to reform the pension scheme are only in the initial stage. A timely and effective implementation of such reforms, together with the others measures necessary to secure an adequate primary surplus is essential to put public finances on a sustainable footingTable: Comparison of key macroeconomic and budgetary projections>TABLE POSITION>Based on this assessment, the Commission has adopted the attached recommendation for a Council Opinion on the convergence programme of Cyprus and is forwarding it to the Council.Recommendation for a COUNCIL OPINION in accordance with the third paragraph of Art. 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the convergence programme of Cyprus, 2004-2007THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,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 [5], and in particular Article 9(3) thereof,[5]  OJ L209, 2.8.1997, p.1. The documents referred to in this text can be found at the following websitehttp://europa.eu.int/comm/economy_finance/about/activities/sgp/main_en.htmHaving regard to the recommendation of the Commission,After consulting the Economic and Financial Committee,HAS DELIVERED THIS OPINION:On [5 July 2004] the Council examined the convergence programme of Cyprus, which covers the period 2004 to 2007. The programme largely complies with the data requirements of the revised "code of conduct on the content and format of stability and convergence programmes"The budgetary strategy underlying the programme aims at reducing the general government deficit from 6.3% of GDP in 2003 to 2.9% of GDP by 2005 to comply with the Maastricht deficit criterion by 2005 and further reduce the deficit to 2.2% of GDP in 2006 and 1.6% of GDP by 2007. To this end, the convergence programme envisages creating a rising primary balance surplus from a projected -1.6% of GDP in 2004 to 2% of GDP by 2007; and to reverse significantly the upward trend of the debt-to-GDP ratio from 75.2% of GDP in 2004 to below 69% by the end of the projection period. This is underpinned by a package of mostly structural measures to contain expenditure and to increase revenue, to about an equal degree. The measures are mostly implemented from 2005 onward.The programme focuses on revenue enhancement and on expenditure control, which is where historically most of the slippage occurred. The particular adjustment path presented in the programme reflects the government commitment to improve public finances with the intention to adopt the euro by 2007; this is the main factor behind the strong frontloading of the fiscal adjustment to decrease the general government budget deficit by 2.3 percentage points of GDP in 2005. Given the mixed record on fiscal consolidation, this looks rather ambitious.The macro-economic scenario underlying the programme, which projects real GDP growth to accelerate from 3.5% in 2004 to 4.5% in 2007, seems to reflect plausible growth assumptions. The projection for inflation also appears realistic. The programme contains four different scenarios for the macroeconomic and budgetary projections: a "central" scenario, an "upper" scenario, a "lower" scenario and a "higher interest rate" scenario. The so-called "central" scenario is considered as the reference scenario for assessing budgetary projections because, on the basis of currently available information, it seems to reflect plausible growth assumptions.The programme foresees the deficit to be reduced to (below) the 3% of GDP reference value in 2005 and to fall further thereafter, although these targets are not consistent with a position of close-to-balance during the programme period.The budgetary outcome could be worse than projected. In particular, the size of the targeted decrease in 2005 of the general government deficit and the fiscal consolidation history of Cyprus makes the task particularly ambitious. Therefore, the budgetary stance in the programme may not be sufficient to reduce the deficit to (below) the 3% of GDP deficit threshold by 2005. It also may not provide a sufficient safety margin against breaching this threshold with normal macroeconomic fluctuations,In the programme, the debt ratio peaks at 75.2% in 2004 and then declines by almost 7 percentage points to reach 68.4% of GDP by 2007. This strong decrease is mainly driven by increasingly positive primary balances and nominal GDP growth exceeding interest payments on government debt in 2005-2007. The evolution of the debt ratio may be less favourable than projected given the risks to the deficit outcomes mentioned above.Cyprus faces risks of budgetary imbalances in meeting the costs of an ageing population. While the health care system reform is to be implemented in 2006, measures to reform the pension scheme are only in the initial stage. A timely and effective implementation of such reforms, together with the others measures necessary to secure an adequate primary surplus is essential to put public finances on a sustainable footingOn [5 July 2004], on the basis of recommendations from the Commission, the Council decided that an excessive deficit existed in Cyprus in accordance with Article 104(6) of the Treaty and made recommendations under Article 104(7) to Cyprus with a view to bringing that situation to an end, in which the Council expresses its policy advice.Key projections from the convergence programme of Cyprus>TABLE POSITION>