Important legal notice

|

52007SC0288

Recommendation for a Council opinion in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the updated stability programme of Belgium, 2006-2010  /* SEC/2007/0288 final */

	[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |Brussels, 7.3.2007SEC(2007) 288 finalRecommendation for aCOUNCIL OPINIONin accordance with the third paragraph of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the updated stability programme of Belgium, 2006-2010(presented by the Commission)EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM1. GENERAL BACKGROUNDThe Stability and Growth Pact, which entered into force on 1 July 1998, is based on the objective of sound government finances as a means of strengthening the conditions for price stability and for strong sustainable growth conducive to employment creation. The 2005 reform of the Pact acknowledged its usefulness in anchoring fiscal discipline but sought to strengthen its effectiveness and economic underpinnings as well as to safeguard the sustainability of the public finances in the long run.Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies[1], which is part of the Stability and Growth Pact, stipulates that Member States have to submit, to the Council and the Commission, stability or convergence programmes and annual updates thereof (Member States that have already adopted the single currency submit (updated) stability programmes and Member States that have not yet adopted it submit (updated) convergence programmes). The first stability programme of Belgium was submitted in December 1998. In accordance with the Regulation, the Council delivered an opinion on it on 15 March 1999 on the basis of a recommendation from the Commission and after having consulted the Economic and Financial Committee. In accordance with the same procedure, updated stability and convergence programmes are assessed by the Commission and examined by the Committee mentioned above, while the Council may examine them.2. BACKGROUND FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF THE UPDATED PROGRAMMEThe Commission has examined the most recent update of the stability programme of Belgium, submitted on 13 December 2006, and has adopted a recommendation for a Council opinion on it (see box for the main points covered by the assessment).In order to set the scene against which the budgetary strategy in the updated stability programme is assessed, the following paragraphs summarise:1.  the economic and budgetary performance over the last ten years2.  the most recent assessment of the country’s position under the preventive arm of the Stability and Growth Pact (summary of the Council opinion on the previous update of the stability programme) and3.  the Commission’s assessment of the December 2006 national reform programme.2.1. Recent economic and budgetary performanceBased on the analysis of the last ten years, it can be concluded that overall, the Belgian business cycle is moving very much in line with that of the euro area and shows similar levels in growth. This is all the more important since at the same time there was a fiscal consolidation in Belgium, which went much beyond that undertaken in the euro area as a whole, ending a long period of high budgetary deficits. Since 2000, Belgium has aimed to maintain a balanced budget (or – so far unsuccessfully – to accumulate surpluses), but it also continues to rely on one-off measures to achieve this target. Domestic demand and consumer confidence benefited from a steep reduction of the government debt ratio. Over the last decade, the household savings rate fell from around 20% in 1995 to some 13% in 2005. Net exports also made a positive contribution to economic growth, but Belgium is confronted with a significant loss in market shares which could threaten employment and growth in the long run. Belgium's poor export performance is partially linked to its export structure, but also to the high cost of labour. Unemployment benefits that are unlimited in time, low job search requirements for older unemployed, and the existence of generous early retirement schemes explain why labour market participation is among the lowest in the euro area (especially for older workers).2.2. The assessment in the Council opinion on the previous programmeOn 14 February 2006, the Council adopted its opinion on the previous update of the stability programme, covering the period 2005-2009. The Council was of the opinion that, "overall, the budgetary position is sound and the continued debt reduction from its still high level envisaged in the programme provides an example of fiscal policies conducted in compliance with the Pact. The reliance on one-off measures at the beginning of the period underlines the need for front-loaded structural consolidation". The Council invited Belgium "to consider measures to avoid a deterioration of the structural balance in 2006 and to implement the required measures to reach the ambitious budgetary targets in subsequent years".2.3. The Commission assessment of the national reform programmeThe implementation report of the national reform programme of Belgium, provided in the context of the renewed Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs, was submitted on 16 October 2006. Belgium's national reform programme identifies as key challenges/priorities: the sustainability of public finances; the reduction of labour costs; the creation of a more dynamic labour market; the stimulation of the economy through investment and reforms; strengthening the social security system; and the strengthening of synergies between environmental protection and growth.The Commission’s assessment of this programme (adopted as part of its December 2006 Annual Progress Report[2]) showed that Belgium is making good progress in the implementation and reinforcement of its 2005-2008 National Reform Programme. While there is a certain risk for the sustainability of public finances in the context of an ageing population, overall the policy framework is appropriate. Despite moderate progress on R&D, Belgium is implementing the measures announced in the micro-economic field and reinforcing existing reforms to increase investment. The picture in the employment field is more mixed and steps are needed to achieve the EU-wide employment rate goals, in particular for older people.Against the background of strengths and weaknesses identified, Belgium was recommended to undertake further actions to reduce the tax burden on labour; and to reduce regional disparities in unemployment.Box: Main points covered by the assessment As required by Article 5(1) (for stability programmes) and Article 9(1) (for convergence programmes) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97, the assessment covers the following points: whether the economic assumptions on which the programme is based are plausible; the medium-term budgetary objective (MTO) presented by the Member State and whether the adjustment path towards it is appropriate; whether measures being taken and/or proposed to respect that adjustment path are sufficient to achieve the MTO over the cycle; when assessing the adjustment path towards the MTO, whether a higher adjustment effort is made in economic good times, whereas the effort may be more limited in economic bad times, and, for euro-area and ERM II Member States, whether the Member State pursues an annual improvement of the cyclically-adjusted balance, net of one-off and other temporary measures, of 0.5% of GDP as a benchmark to meet its MTO; when defining the adjustment path to the MTO (for Member States that have not yet reached it) or allowing a temporary deviation from the MTO (for Member States that have), the implementation of major structural reforms which have direct long-term cost-saving effects (including by raising potential growth) and therefore a verifiable impact on the long-term sustainability of public finances (subject to the condition that an appropriate safety margin with respect to the 3% of GDP reference value is preserved and that the budgetary position is expected to return to the MTO within the programme period), with special attention for pension reforms introducing a multi-pillar system that includes a mandatory, fully-funded pillar; whether the economic policies of the Member State are consistent with the broad economic policy guidelines. The plausibility of the programme’s macroeconomic assumptions is assessed by reference to the Commission services’ autumn 2006 forecast, using also the commonly agreed methodology for the estimation of potential output and cyclically-adjusted balances. The assessment of consistency with the broad economic policy guidelines is made against the broad economic policy guidelines in the area of public finances as included in the integrated guidelines for the period 2005-2008. The assessment also examines: the evolution of the debt ratio and the outlook for the long-term sustainability of the public finances, which should be given “sufficient attention in the surveillance of budgetary positions” according to the Council report of 20 March 2005 on “Improving the implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact”. A Commission Communication of 12 October 2006 sets out the approach to the assessment of long-term sustainability[3]; the degree of integration with the national reform programme, submitted by Member States in the context of the Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs. In its cover note of 7 June 2005 to the European Council on the broad economic policy guidelines for the period 2005-2008, the ECOFIN Council stated that the national reform programmes should be consistent with the stability and convergence programmes; compliance with the code of conduct[4], which inter alia prescribes a common structure and set of data tables for the stability and convergence programmes. |-  Recommendation for aCOUNCIL OPINIONin accordance with the third paragraph of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the updated stability programme of Belgium, 2006-2010THE 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 5(3) thereof,Having regard to the recommendation of the Commission,After consulting the Economic and Financial Committee,HAS DELIVERED THIS OPINION:(1) On [27 March 2007] the Council examined the updated stability programme of Belgium, which covers the period 2006 to 2010[6].(2) The macroeconomic scenario underlying the programme envisages that real GDP growth will decrease from 2.7% in 2006 to 2.2% on average over the rest of the programme period. Assessed against currently available information, this scenario appears to be based on plausible growth assumptions. The programme’s projections for inflation also appear realistic.(3) For 2006, the general government deficit is estimated at 0.2% of GDP in the Commission services’ autumn 2006 forecast, against a target of a balanced budget set in the previous update of the stability programme. While cyclical conditions in 2006 turned out to be significantly better than foreseen in the previous update and expenditure developed broadly as expected, revenues were lower than anticipated (notably because of an underestimation of the impact of the final stage of the 2001 direct tax reform, detected in the second half of 2006). In order to (partly) compensate for the revenue shortfall and secure a balanced budget outcome, the use of one-off measures was increased. Therefore the structural balance (i.e. the cyclically-adjusted balance net of one-off and other temporary measures) significantly deteriorated in 2006.(4) The main goal of the medium-term budgetary strategy in the programme is to ensure a continuous reduction of the still high debt ratio (around 90% in 2006) to below 75% of GDP in 2010, through a gradual build-up of nominal budgetary surpluses (from 0.3% of GDP in 2007 to 0.9% in 2010), to prepare for the ageing shock ahead. The primary surplus, which has been decreasing since 2001 (when it was 7% of GDP), is expected to stabilise at around 4.1% of GDP. The adjustment is nearly entirely due to reduced expenditure (by 1¼ percentage point of GDP between 2006 and 2010). The expenditure reduction is mainly in the form of falling interest expenditure (¾ percentage point) which results from the continuous debt reduction and is partly offset by a decrease in government revenue (0.5 percentage point). Beyond 2007 the programme's projections broadly correspond to no-policy change projections, although the programme also (implicitly) seems to rely on further one-offs to achieve the budgetary targets. This strategy is largely similar to the one presented in the previous update of the stability programme against a broadly unchanged macroeconomic scenario.(5) As the programme does not provide information on the use of one-off and other temporary measures after 2007, the structural balance from 2008 onwards cannot be calculated based on the information in the programme. Assuming that the relative impact of one-off measures remains unchanged after 2007, the structural balance calculated according to the commonly agreed methodology is planned to improve from around -0.4% of GDP in 2006 to 0.7% at the end of the programme period. As in the previous update of the stability programme, the medium-term objective (MTO) for the budgetary position presented in the programme is a structural surplus of 0.5% of GDP, which according to the programme "will be achieved by 2008, assuming that the impact of the one-off measures does not exceed 0.4 % of GDP". This is one year later than in the previous update. As the MTO is more demanding than the minimum benchmark (estimated at a deficit of around 1¼% of GDP), achieving it should fulfil the aim of providing a safety margin against the occurrence of an excessive deficit. The MTO lies within the range indicated for euro-area and ERM II Member States in the Stability and Growth Pact and the code of conduct and is more demanding than implied by the debt ratio and average potential output growth in the long term.(6) The budgetary outcomes could be slightly worse than projected in the programme. This is especially the case for 2007, mainly because the budget appears to be somewhat on the optimistic side and sometimes provides insufficient details about the envisaged measures (including the one-off measures in the area of real estate sales or the take-over of pension obligations from public corporations, which are not further specified). Belgium overall has a good track record of achieving the nominal budgetary targets, but additional measures seem necessary to achieve the target for 2007. Although significant intra-year budget amendments are common practice in Belgium, these could be delayed against the background of national elections planned for June 2007. A worse-than-targeted outcome in 2007 would also carry over to the following years. From 2008 onwards there is also a risk that expired one-offs will not be replaced by structural measures.(7) In view of this risk assessment, the budgetary stance in the programme may not be sufficient to ensure that the MTO is achieved by 2008, as envisaged in the programme. However, as stated above, the MTO is more demanding than implied by the debt ratio and average potential output growth in the long term. The budgetary strategy seems sufficient to achieve a budgetary position in structural terms that can be considered appropriate under the Pact from 2008 onwards. In addition, the budgetary stance in the programme seems to provide a sufficient safety margin against breaching the 3% of GDP deficit threshold with normal macroeconomic fluctuations throughout the programme period. The pace of the adjustment towards the MTO implied by the programme should be strengthened to be in line with the Stability and Growth Pact, which specifies that, for euro-area and ERM II Member States, the annual improvement in the structural balance should be 0.5% of GDP as a benchmark and that the adjustment should be higher in good economic times and could be lower in bad economic times. In particular, taking into account risks, the adjustment towards the MTO may fall short of the benchmark already in 2007 and will slow down significantly thereafter although Belgium does not appear to be in bad times.(8) The programme reports a debt of 87.7% of GDP for 2006, but this does not include the debt assumption from the railway corporation SNCB in 2005, which according to Eurostat increases the debt level by 1.7% of GDP in the same year. Therefore the Commission services’ estimate of the government gross debt is 89.4% of GDP in 2006, which is still far above the 60% of GDP Treaty reference value, although substantially decreasing over the last several years. The programme projects the debt ratio to rapidly decline by around 15 percentage points over the programme period. In view of the risk assessment and in particular the risks to the budgetary targets mentioned above, the evolution of the debt ratio is likely to be slightly less favourable than projected in the programme. However, the debt ratio still seems to be sufficiently diminishing towards the reference value over the programme period.(9) The long-term budgetary impact of ageing in Belgium is above the EU average, influenced notably by a large increase in pension expenditure as a share of GDP over the coming decades. The initial budgetary position with a high primary surplus, albeit weaker compared to 2005, contributes to easing the projected long-term budgetary impact of an ageing population, but it is not sufficient to fully cover the substantial increase in expenditure. Moreover, the current level of gross debt, while declining, remains well above the Treaty reference value. The steady reduction of the debt ratio requires sustaining high primary surpluses for a long period of time, which would contribute to reducing risks to the sustainability of public finances. Overall, Belgium appears to be at medium risk with regard to the sustainability of public finances.(10) The stability programme does not contain a qualitative assessment of the overall impact of the October 2006 implementation report of the national reform programme within the medium-term fiscal strategy. In addition, it provides no systematic information on the direct budgetary costs or savings of the main reforms envisaged in the national reform programme but its budgetary projections seem to take into account the public finance implications of the actions outlined in the national reform programme. The measures in the area of public finances envisaged in the stability programme seem consistent with those foreseen in the national reform programme. In particular, both programmes envisage the gradual implementation of the 'generation pact' (a comprehensive plan to increase employment and strengthen the social security), a further gradual reduction of the tax burden on labour and measures to stimulate research and entrepreneurship.(11) The budgetary strategy in the programme is broadly consistent with the broad economic policy guidelines included in the integrated guidelines for the period 2005-2008.(12) As regards the data requirements specified in the code of conduct for stability and convergence programmes, the programme has some gaps in the required and optional data[7].The overall conclusion is that the continued reduction of the still high debt stock provides an example of fiscal policies conducted in compliance with the Pact. However, while the programme foresees a gradual build-up of surpluses (notably through reduced interest expenditure) starting from a balanced position in nominal terms, there are risks to the achievement of the budgetary targets. Nevertheless, the medium-term objective is expected to be reached within the programme period.In view of the above assessment, Belgium is invited to:(i) ensure that the budgetary target for 2007 is met and strengthen the pace of adjustment towards the MTO thereafter, including through a reduction of the recourse to one-off measures.(ii) in the light of the high level of debt and the projected increase in age-related expenditure, to improve the long-term sustainability of public finances by at least achieving the MTO as well as by taking measures to further reduce the cost of ageing.Comparison of key macroeconomic and budgetary projections2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 |Real GDP (% change) | SP Dec 2006 | 1.2 | 2.7 | 2.2 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 2.2 |COM Nov 2006 | 1.1 | 2.7 | 2.3 | 2.2 | n.a. | n.a. |SP Dec 2005 | 1.4 | 2.2 | 2.1 | 2.3 | 2.2 | n.a. |HICP inflation (%) | SP Dec 2006 | 2.5 | 2.4 | 1.9 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 1.9 |COM Nov 2006 | 2.5 | 2.4 | 1.8 | 1.7 | n.a. | n.a. |SP Dec 2005 | 2.9 | 2.8 | 2.0 | 1.9 | 1.7 | n.a. |Output gap (% of potential GDP) | SP Dec 20061 | -0.8 | -0.3 | -0.4 | -0.4 | -0.4 | -0.3 |COM Nov 20065 | -1.0 | -0.6 | -0.6 | -0.7 | n.a. | n.a. |SP Dec 20051 | -0.8 | -0.6 | -0.6 | -0.5 | -0.4 | n.a. |General government balance (% of GDP) | SP Dec 2006 | 0.1 -2.3* | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.9 |COM Nov 2006 | -2.3 | -0.2 | -0.5 | -0.5 | n.a. | n.a. |SP Dec 2005 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.7 | n.a. |Primary balance (% of GDP) | SP Dec 2006 | 4.3 1.9* | 4.1 | 4.2 | 4.1 | 4.1 | 4.2 |COM Nov 2006 | 1.9 | 3.9 | 3.4 | 3.2 | n.a. | n.a. |SP Dec 2005 | 4.3 | 4.1 | 4.2 | 4.1 | 4.1 | n.a. |Cyclically-adjusted balance (% of GDP) | SP Dec 20061 | 0.8 -1.6* | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 1.1 |COM Nov 2006 | -1.7 | 0.1 | -0.1 | -0.1 | n.a. | n.a. |SP Dec 20051 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 0.9 | n.a. |Structural balance2 (% of GDP) | SP Dec 20063 | n.a. | -0.4 | 0.1 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. |COM Nov 20064 | 0.2 | -0.7 | -0.2 | -0.1 | n.a. | n.a. |SP Dec 2005 | 0.0 | -0.3 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 0.9 | n.a. |Government gross debt (% of GDP) | SP Dec 2006 | 91.5 93.2* | 87.7 89.4* | 83.9 85.6* | 80.4 82.1* | 76.6 78.3* | 72.6 74.3* |COM Nov 2006 | 93.2 | 89.4 | 86.3 | 83.2 | n.a. | n.a. |SP Dec 2005 | 94.3 | 90.7 | 87.0 | 83.0 | 79.1 | n.a. |Notes: |1 Commission services calculations on the basis of the information in the programme. |2 Cyclically-adjusted balance (as in the previous rows) excluding one-off and other temporary measures. |3 One-off and other temporary measures taken from the programme (0.6% of GDP in 2006 and 0.4% in 2007; all deficit reducing). The programme does not provide information on the use of one-off measures in other years. |4 One-off and other temporary measures taken from the Commission services’ autumn 2006 forecast (2.0% of GDP in 2005, deficit increasing; 0.8% in 2006 and 0.1 in 2007, both deficit reducing). |5 Based on estimated potential growth of 2.2%, 2.3%, 2.3% and 2.2% respectively in the period 2005-2008. |* The deficit and debt figures in the programme for 2005 are not in line with ESA95. On 23 October 2006 Eurostat amended the deficit and debt data notified by Belgium in relation to the assumption by government (FIF/FSI - Fonds de l'infrastructure ferroviaire / Fonds voor spoorweginfrastructuur) of EUR 7400 million (2.5% of GDP) of the debt of the railway company SNCB/NMBS in 2005 (see Eurostat News Release No 139/2006). According to ESA95 rules, the impact on the 2005 government deficit is of the same amount; the impact on the government debt at the end of 2005 amounts to EUR 5200 million (1.7% of GDP, taking into account a partial reimbursement occurred in that year). Data for 2005 marked with an asterisk are as amended by Eurostat. Debt data marked with an asterisk for years 2006 to 2010 have been 'mechanically' adjusted by the Commission services to comply with ESA95. This adjustment of debt figures is based on the technical assumption that the stock of FIF/FSI’s debts remains unchanged. |Source: |Stability programme (SP); Commission services’ autumn 2006 economic forecasts (COM); Commission services’ calculations |[1] OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1055/2005 (OJ L 174, 7.7.2005, p. 1). All the documents referred to in this text can be found at the following website:http://europa.eu.int/comm/economy_finance/about/activities/sgp/main_en.htm[2] Communication from the Commission to the Spring European Council, “Implementing the renewed Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs - A year of delivery” - COM(2006) 816, 12.12.2006.[3] Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, “The long-term sustainability of public finances in the EU” - COM(2006) 574, 12.10.2006 - and European Commission, Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs (2006), “The long-term sustainability of public finances in the European Union”, European Economy No 4/2006.[4] “Specifications on the implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact and guidelines on the format and content of stability and convergence programmes”, endorsed by the ECOFIN Council of 11 October 2005.[5] OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1055/2005 (OJ L 174, 7.7.2005, p. 1). The documents referred to in this text can be found at the following website:http://europa.eu.int/comm/economy_finance/about/activities/sgp/main_en.htm[6] The update was submitted almost 2 weeks beyond the 1 December deadline set in the code of conduct.[7] The general government deficit and debt projections in the programme do not include the impact of a debt assumption from the railway company SNCB in 2005 as decided by Eurostat on 23 October 2006. Moreover, the programme also does not provide information on the use of one-off and other temporary measures in 2008-2010.


Important legal notice

|

31999H0519

1999/519/EC: Council Recommendation of 12 July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz)

Official Journal L 199 , 30/07/1999 P. 0059 - 0070

COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONof 12 July 1999on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz)(1999/519/EC)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 152(4), second subparagraph,Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament(1),Whereas:(1) In accordance with point (p) of Article 3 of the Treaty, Community action must include a contribution to the attainment of a high level of health protection; the Treaty also makes provision for protecting the health of workers and of consumers;(2) In its resolution of 5 May 1994 on combating the harmful effects of non-ionising radiation(2), the European Parliament called on the Commission to propose legislative measures seeking to limit the exposure of workers and the public to non-ionising electromagnetic radiation;(3) Community minimum requirements for the protection of health and safety of workers in relation to electromagnetic fields exist for work with display screen equipment(3); Community measures were introduced to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding(4) which oblige, inter alia, employers to assess activities which involve a specific risk of exposure to non-ionising radiation; minimum requirements have been proposed for the protection of workers from physical agents(5) which include measures against non-ionising radiation; whereas, therefore, this recommendation does not address the protection of workers against occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields;(4) It is imperative to protect members of the general public within the Community against established adverse health effects that may result as a consequence of exposure to electromagnetic fields;(5) Measures with regard to electromagnetic fields should afford all Community citizens a high level of protection; provisions by Member States in this area should be based on a commonly agreed framework, so as to contribute to ensuring consistency of protection throughout the Community;(6) In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, any new measure taken in an area which does not fall within the exclusive competence of the Community, such as non-ionising radiation protection of the public, may be taken up by the Community only if, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, the objectives proposed can be better achieved by the Community than by Member States;(7) Actions on limiting the exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields should be balanced with the other health, safety and security benefits that devices emitting electromagnetic fields bring to the quality of life, in such areas as telecommunications, energy and public security;(8) There is a need to establish by means of recommendations addressed to Member States a Community framework with regard to exposure to electromagnetic fields with the objective of protecting the public;(9) This recommendation has as its objective the protection of the health of the public and it therefore applies, in particular, to relevant areas where members of the public spend significant time in relation to the effects covered by this recommendation;(10) The Community framework, which draws on the large body of scientific documentation that already exists, must be based on the best available scientific data and advice in this area and should comprise basic restrictions and reference levels on exposure to electromagnetic fields; recalling that only established effects have been used as the basis for the recommended limitation of exposure; advice on this matter has been given by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and has been endorsed by the Commission's Scientific Steering Committee; the framework should be regularly reviewed and reassessed in the light of new knowledge and developments in technology and applications of sources and practices giving rise to exposure to electromagnetic fields;(11) Such basic restrictions and reference levels should apply to all radiations emitted by electromagnetic fields with the exception of optical radiation and ionising radiation; for optical radiation the relevant scientific data and advice still require further consideration, and for ionising radiation Community provisions already exist;(12) In order to assess compliance with the basic restrictions provided in this recommendation, the national and European bodies for standardisation (e.g. Cenelec, CEN) should be encouraged to develop standards within the framework of Community legislation for the purposes of the design and testing of equipment;(13) Adherence to the recommended restrictions and reference levels should provide a high level of protection as regards the established health effects that may result from exposure to electromagnetic fields but such adherence may not necessarily avoid interference problems with, or effects on the functioning of, medical devices such as metallic protheses, cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators, cochlear implants and other implants; interference problems with pacemakers may occur at levels below the recommended reference levels and should therefore be the object of appropriate precautions which, however, are not within the scope of this recommendation and are dealt with in the context of legislation on electromagnetic compatibility and medical devices;(14) In accordance with the principle of proportionality, this recommendation provides general principles and methods for the protection of members of the public while leaving it to the Member States to provide for detailed rules as regards the sources and practices which give rise to exposure to electromagnetic fields and the classification, as work-related or not, of conditions of exposure of individuals, in accordance with Community provisions concerning the safety and health protection of workers;(15) Member States may, in accordance with the Treaty, provide for a higher level of protection than that set out in this recommendation;(16) Measures by the Member States in this area, whether binding or non-binding, and the way in which they have taken account of this recommendation should be the object of reports at national and Community level;(17) In order to increase awareness of the risks of, and measures of protection against, electromagnetic fields, Member States should promote the dissemination of information and rules of practice in this field, in particular with regard to the design, installation and use of equipment, so as to aim at obtaining levels of exposure that do not exceed the recommended restrictions;(18) Attention should be paid to achieving appropriate communication and understanding regarding the risks related to electromagnetic fields, while taking into account public perceptions of such risks;(19) The Member States should take note of progress made in scientific knowledge and technology with respect to non-ionising radiation protection, taking into account the aspect of precaution, and should provide for regular scrutiny and review with an assessment being made at regular intervals in the light of guidance issued by competent international organisations, such as the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection,HEREBY RECOMMENDS THAT:I. For the purpose of this recommendation Member States should assign to the physical quantities listed in Annex I.A the meanings given to them therein.II. Member States, in order to provide for a high level of health protection against exposure to electromagnetic fields, should:(a) adopt a framework of basic restrictions and reference levels using Annex I.B as the basis;(b) implement measures according to this framework, in respect of sources or practices giving rise to electromagnetic exposure of the general public when the time of exposure is significant with the exception of exposure for medical purposes where the risks and benefits of exposure, above the basic restrictions, must be properly weighed;(c) aim to achieve respect of the basic restrictions given in Annex II for public exposure.III. Member States, in order to facilitate and promote respect of the basic restrictions given in Annex II:(a) should take into account the reference levels given in Annex III for exposure assessment purposes or, when they exist, as far as they are recognised by the Member State, European or national standards based on agreed scientifically proven measurement and calculation procedures designed to evaluate compliance with the basic restrictions;(b) should evaluate situations involving sources of more than one frequency in accordance with the formulae set out in Annex IV, both in terms of basic restrictions and reference levels;(c) may take into account criteria, where appropriate, such as duration of the exposure, exposed parts of the body, age and health status of the public.IV. Member States should consider both the risks and benefits in deciding whether action is required or not, pursuant to this recommendation, when deciding on policy or adopting measures on exposure of members of the public to electromagnetic fields.V. Member States, in order to increase understanding of risks and protection against exposure to electromagnetic fields should provide, in an appropriate format, information to the public on the health impact of electromagnetic fields and the measures taken to address them.VI. Member States, in order to enhance knowledge about the health effects of electromagnetic fields, should promote and review research relevant to electromagnetic fields and human health in the context of their national research programmes, taking into account Community and international research recommendations and efforts from the widest possible range of sources.VII. Member States, in order to contribute to the establishment of a consistent system of protection against risks of exposure to electromagnetic fields, should prepare reports on the experience obtained with measures that they take in the field covered by this recommendation and should inform the Commission thereof after a period of three years following the adoption of this recommendation, indicating how it has been taken into account in these measures,HEREBY INVITES the Commission to1. Work towards the establishment of European standards as referred to in section III(a), including methods of calculation and measure.2. Encourage research into long and short-term effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields at all relevant frequencies in the implementation of the current research framework programme.3. Continue to participate in the work of international organisations competent in this field and promote the establishment of an international consensus in guidelines and advice on protective and preventive measures.4. Keep the matters covered by this recommendation under review, with a view to its revision and updating, taking into account also possible effects, which are currently the object of research, including relevant aspects of precaution and to prepare a report, within five years, taking into account the reports of the Member States and the latest scientific data and advice.Done at Brussels, 12 July 1999.For the CouncilThe PresidentS. NIINISTÖ(1) OJC 175, 21.6.1999.(2) OJ C 205, 25.7.1994, p. 439.(3) OJ L 156, 21.6.1990, p. 14.(4) OJ L 348, 28.11.1992, p. 1.(5) OJC 77, 18.3.1993, p. 12 and,OJC 230, 19.8.1994, p.3.ANNEX IDEFINITIONSFor the purposes of this recommendation, the term electromagnetic fields (EMF) includes static fields, extremely low frequency (ELF) fields and radiofrequency (RF) fields, including microwaves, encompassing the frequency range of 0 Hz to 300 GHz.A. Physical quantitiesIn the context of EMF exposure, eight physical quantities are commonly used:Contact current (IC) between a person and an object is expressed in amperes (A). A conductive object in an electric field can be charged by the field.Current density (J) is defined as the current flowing through a unit cross section perpendicular to its direction in a volume conductor such as the human body or part of it, expressed in amperes per square metre (A/m²).Electric field strength is a vector quantity (E) that corresponds to the force exerted on a charged particle regardless of its motion in space. It is expressed in volts per metre (V/m).Magnetic field strength is a vector quantity (H), which, together with the magnetic flux density, specifies a magnetic field at any point in space. It is expressed in amperes per metre (A/m).Magnetic flux density is a vector quantity (B), resulting in a force that acts on moving charges, it is expressed in teslas (T). In free space and in biological materials, magnetic flux density and magnetic field strength can be interchanged using the equivalence 1 A m-1 = 4π 10-7 T.Power density (S) is the appropriate quantity used for very high frequencies, where the depth of penetration in the body is low. It is the radiant power incident perpendicular to a surface, divided by the area of the surface and is expressed in watts per square metre (W/m²).Specific energy absorption (SA) is defined as the energy absorbed per unit mass of biological tissue, expressed in joules per kilogram (J/kg). In this recommendation it is used for limiting non-thermal effects from pulsed microwave radiation.Specific energy absorption rate (SAR) averaged over the whole body or over parts of the body, is defined as the rate at which energy is absorbed per unit mass of body tissue and is expressed in watts per kilogram (W/kg). Whole body SAR is a widely accepted measure for relating adverse thermal effects to RF exposure. Besides the whole body average SAR, local SAR values are necessary to evaluate and limit excessive energy deposition in small parts of the body resulting from special exposure conditions. Examples of such conditions are: a grounded individual exposed to RF in the low MHz range and individuals exposed in the near field of an antenna.Of these quantities, magnetic flux density, contact current, electric and magnetic field strengths and power density can be measured directly.B. Basic restrictions and reference levelsFor the application of restrictions based on the assessment of possible health effects of electromagnetic fields, differentiation should be made between basic restrictions and reference levels.Note:These basic restrictions and reference levels for limiting exposure have been developed following a thorough review of all published scientific literature. The criteria applied in the course of the review were designed to evaluate the credibility of the various reported findings; only established effects were used as a basis for the proposed exposure restrictions. Induction of cancer from long-term EMF exposure was not considered to be established. However, since there are safety factors of about 50 between the threshold values for acute effects and the basis restrictions, this recommendation implicitly covers possible long-term effects in the whole frequency range.Basic restrictions. Restrictions on exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields which are based directly on established health effects and biological considerations are termed "basic restrictions". Depending upon the frequency of the field, the physical quantities used to specify these restrictions are magnetic flux density (B), current density (J), specific energy absorption rate (SAR), and power density (S). Magnetic flux density and power density can be readily measured in exposed individuals.Reference levels. These levels are provided for practical exposure-assessment purposes to determine whether the basic restrictions are likely to be exceeded. Some reference levels are derived from relevant basic restrictions using measurements and/or computational techniques and some reference levels address perception and adverse indirect effects of exposure to EMFs. The derived quantities are electric field strength (E), magnetic field strength (H), magnetic flux density (B), power density (S), and limb current (IL). Quantities that address perception and other indirect effects are (contact) current (IC) and, for pulsed fields, specific energy absorption (SA). In any particular exposure situation, measured or calculated values of any of these quantities can be compared with the appropriate reference level. Respect of the reference level will ensure respect of the relevant basic restriction. If the measured value exceeds the reference level, it does not necessarily follow that the basic restriction will be exceeded. Under such circumstances, however, there is a need to establish whether there is respect of the basic restriction.Quantitative restrictions on static electric fields are not given in this recommendation. However, it is recommended that annoying perception of surface electric charges and spark discharges causing stress or annoyance should be avoided.Some quantities such as magnetic flux density (B) and power density (S) serve both as basic restrictions and reference levels, at certain frequencies (see Annexes II and III).ANNEX IIBASIC RESTRICTIONSDepending on frequency, the following physical quantities (dosimetric/exposimetric quantities) are used to specify the basic restrictions on electromagnetic fields:- between 0 and 1 Hz basic restrictions are provided for magnetic flux density for static magnetic fields (0 Hz) and current density for time-varying fields up to 1 Hz, in order to prevent effects on the cardiovascular and central nervous system,- between 1 Hz and 10 MHz basic restrictions are provided for current density to prevent effects on nervous system functions,- between 100 kHz and 10 GHz basic restrictions on SAR are provided to prevent whole-body heat stress and excessive localised heating of tissues. In the range 100 kHz to 10 MHz, restrictions on both current density and SAR are provided,- between 10 GHz and 300 GHz basic restrictions on power density are provided to prevent heating in tissue at or near the body surface.The basic restrictions, given in Table 1, are set so as to account for uncertainties related to individual sensitivities, environmental conditions, and for the fact that the age and health status of members of the public vary.Table 1Basic restrictions for electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz)>TABLE>Notes:1. [fnof    ] is the frequency in Hz.2. The basic restriction on the current density is intended to protect against acute exposure effects on central nervous system tissues in the head and trunk of the body and includes a safety factor. The basic restrictions for ELF fields are based on established adverse effects on the central nervous system. Such acute effects are essentially instantaneous and there is no scientific justification to modify the basic restrictions for exposure of short duration. However, since the basic restriction refers to adverse effects on the central nervous system, this basic restriction may permit higher current densities in body tissues other than the central nervous system under the same exposure conditions.3. Because of electrical inhomogeneity of the body, current densities should be averaged over a cross section of 1 cm² perpendicular to the current direction.4. For frequencies up to 100 kHz, peak current density values can be obtained by multiplying the rms value by>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>([sim     ]1,414). For pulses of duration tp the equivalent frequency to apply in the basic restrictions should be calculated as [fnof    ] = 1/(2tp).5. For frequencies up to 100 kHz and for pulsed magnetic fields, the maximum current density associated with the pulses can be calculated from the rise/fall times and the maximum rate of change of magnetic flux density. The induced current density can then be compared with the appropriate basic restriction.6. All SAR values are to be averaged over any six-minute period.7. Localised SAR averaging mass is any 10g of contiguous tissue; the maximum SAR so obtained should be the value used for the estimation of exposure. These 10g of tissue are intended to be a mass of contiguous tissue with nearly homogeneous electrical properties. In specifying a contiguous mass of tissue, it is recognised that this concept can be used in computational dosimetry but may present difficulties for direct physical measurements. A simple geometry such as cubic tissue mass can be used provided that the calculated dosimetric quantities have conservative values relative to the exposure guidelines.8. For pulses of duration tp the equivalent frequency to apply in the basic restrictions should be calculated as [fnof    ] = 1/(2tp). Additionally, for pulsed exposures, in the frequency range 0,3 to 10 GHz and for localised exposure of the head, in order to limit and avoid auditory effects caused by thermoelastic expansion, an additional basic restriction is recommended. This is that the SA should not exceed 2mJ kg-1 averaged over 10 g of tissue.ANNEX IIIREFERENCE LEVELSReference levels of exposure are provided for the purpose of comparison with values of measured quantities. Respect of all recommended reference levels will ensure respect of basic restrictions.If the quantities of measured values are greater than the reference levels, it does not necessarily follow that the basic restrictions have been exceeded. In this case, an assessment should be made as to whether exposure levels are below the basic restrictions.The reference levels for limiting exposure are obtained from the basic restrictions for the condition of maximum coupling of the field to the exposed individual, thereby providing maximum protection. A summary of the reference levels is given in Tables 2 and 3. The reference levels are generally intended to be spatially averaged values over the dimension of the body of the exposed individual, but with the important proviso that the localised basic restrictions on exposure are not exceeded.In certain situations where the exposure is highly localised, such as with hand-held telephones and the human head, the use of reference levels is not appropriate. In such cases respect of the localised basic restriction should be assessed directly.Field levelsTable 2Reference levels for electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz, unperturbed rms values)>TABLE>Notes:1. [fnof    ] as indicated in the frequency range column.2. For frequencies between 100 kHz and 10 GHz, Seq, E², H², and B² are to be averaged over any six-minute period.3. For frequencies exceeding 10 GHz, Seq, E², H², and B² are to be averaged over any 68/[fnof    ]1.05 -minute period ([fnof    ] in GHz).4. No E-field value is provided for frequencies <  1 Hz, which are effectively static electric fields. For most people the annoying perception of surface electric charges will not occur at field strengths less than 25 kV/m. Spark discharges causing stress or annoyance should be avoided.Note:No higher reference levels on exposure to ELF fields are provided when exposures are of short duration (see Note 2 of Table 1). In many cases, where the measured values exceed the reference level, it does not necessarily follow that the basic restriction will be exceeded. Provided that adverse health impacts of indirect effects of exposure (such as microshocks) can be avoided, it is recognised that the general-public reference levels can be exceeded provided that the basic restriction on the current density is not surpassed. In many practical exposure situations external ELF fields at the reference levels will induce current densities in central nervous-system tissues that are below the basic restrictions. Also it is recognised that a number of common devices emit localised fields in excess of the reference levels. However, this generally occurs under conditions of exposure where the basic restrictions are not exceeded because of weak coupling between the field and the body.For peak values, the following reference levels apply to the E-field strength (V/m), H-field strength (A/m) and the B-field (ìT):- for frequencies up to 100 kHz, peak reference values are obtained by multiplying the corresponding rms values by>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>([sim     ]1,414). For pulses of duration tp the equivalent frequency to apply should be calculated as [fnof    ] = 1 /(2tp),- for frequencies between 100 kHz and 10 MHz peak reference values are obtained by multiplying the corresponding rms values by 1Oα, where>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>, f in Hz,- for frequencies between 10 MHz and 300 GHz peak reference values are obtained by multiplying the corresponding rms values by 32.Note:Generally, with regard to pulsed and/or transient fields at low frequencies, there are frequency-dependent basic restrictions and reference levels from which a hazard assessment and exposure guidelines on pulsed and/or transient sources can be derived. A conservative approach involves representing a pulsed or transient EMF signal as a Fourier spectrum of its components in each frequency range, which can then be compared with the reference levels for those frequencies. The summation formulae for simultaneous exposure to multiple frequency fields can also be applied for the purposes of determining compliance with the basic restrictions.Although little information is available on the relation between biological effects and peak values of pulsed fields, it is suggested that, for frequencies exceeding 10 MHz, Seq as averaged over the pulse width should not exceed 1000 times the reference levels or that field strengths should not exceed 32 times the fields strength reference levels. For frequencies between about 0,3 GHz and several GHz and for localised exposure of the head, in order to limit or avoid auditory effects caused by thermoelastic expansion, the specific absorption from pulses must be limited. In this frequency range, the threshold SA of 4-16 mJ kg-1 for producing this effect corresponds, for 30-μ.s pulses, to peak SAR values of 130-520 W kg-1 in the brain. Between 100 kHz and 10 MHz, peak values for the fields strengths are obtained by interpolation from the 1,5-fold peak at 100 kHz to the 32-fold peak at 10 MHz.Contact currents and limb currentsFor frequencies up to 110 MHz additional reference levels are recommended in order to avoid hazards due to contact currents. The contact current reference levels are presented in Table 3. The reference levels on contact current were set to account for the fact that the threshold contact currents that elicit biological responses in adult women and children are approximately two-thirds and one-half, respectively, of those for adult men.Table 3Reference levels for contact currents from conductive objects (f in kHz)>TABLE>For the frequency range 10 MHz to 110 MHz, a reference level of 45 mA in terms of current through any limb is recommended. This is intended to limit the localised SAR over any six-minute period.ANNEX IVEXPOSURE FROM SOURCES WITH MULTIPLE FREQUENCESIn situations where simultaneous exposure to fields of different frequencies occurs, the possibility that these exposures will be additive in their effects must be considered. Calculations based on such additivity should be performed separately for each effect; thus separate evaluations shoud be made for thermal and electrical stimulation effects on the body.Basic restrictionsIn the case of simultaneous exposure to fields of different frequencies, the following criteria should be satisfied in terms of the basic restrictions.For electric stimulation, relevant for frequencies from 1 Hz up to 10 MHz, the induced current densities should be added according to:>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>For thermal effects, relevant from 100 kHz, specific energy absorption rates and power densities should be added according to:>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>whereJi is the current density at frequency i;JL, i is the current density basic restriction at frequency i as given in Table 1;SARi is the SAR caused by exposure at frequency i;SARL is the SAR basic restriction given in Table 1;Si is the power density at frequency i;SL is the power density basic restriction given in Table 1.Reference levelsFor application of the basic restrictions, the following criteria regarding reference levels of field strengths should be applied.For induced current densities and electrical stimulation effects, relevant up to 10 MHz, the following two requirements should be applied to the field levels:>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>and>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>whereEi is the electric field strength at frequency i;EL, i is the electric field strength reference level from Table 2;Hj is the magnetic field strength at frequency j;HL, j is the magnetic field strength reference level from Table 2;a is 87 V/m and b is 5 A/m (6,25 μT).Compared to the ICNIRP guidelines(1) which deal with both occupational and general public exposure, cut off points in the summations correspond to exposure conditions for members of the public.The use of the constant values (a and b) above 1 MHz for the electric field and above 150 kHz for the magnetic field is due to the fact that the summation is based on induced current densities, and should not be mixed with thermal effect circumstances. The latter forms the basic for EL, i and HL, j above 1 MHz and 150 kHz respectively, found in Table 2.For thermal effect circumstances, relevant from 100 kHz, the following two requirements should be applied to the field levels:>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>and whereEi is the electric field strengthen at frequency i;EL, i is the electric field reference level from Table 2;Hj is the magnetic field strength at frequency j;HL, j is the magnetic field reference level derived from Table 2;c is 87/f1/2 V/m and d 0,73/f A/m.Again, compared to the ICNIRP guidelines some cut-off points have been adjusted for public exposure only.For limb current and contact current, respectively, the following requirements should be applied:>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>wherelk is the limb current component at frequency k;IL, k is the reference level for limb current, 45 mA;ln is the contact current component at frequency n;IC,n is the reference level for contact current at frequency (see Table 3).The above summation formulae assume worst-case phase conditions among the fields from the multiple sources. As a result, typical exposure situations may in practice result in less restrictive exposure levels than indicated by the above formulae for the reference levels.(1) International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection. Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz). Health Physics 74(4): 494-522(1998). Response to questions and comments on ICNIRP. Health Physics 75(4): 438-439 (1998).


title: Recommendations to national courts and tribunals in relation to the initiation of preliminary ruling proceedings

text:
               1.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/1

      RECOMMENDATIONS

   to national courts and tribunals in relation to the initiation of preliminary ruling proceedings
   2014/C 30/01
   The English version of these recommendations has already been published in Official Journal C 338 of 6 November 2012.


Avis juridique important

|

31999H0063

1999/63/EC: Commission Recommendation of 13 January 1999 concerning collector coins, medals and tokens (notified under number SEC(1999) 24/2)

Official Journal L 020 , 27/01/1999 P. 0061 - 0062

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION of 13 January 1999 concerning collector coins, medals and tokens (notified under number SEC(1999) 24/2) (1999/63/EC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 155 thereof,(1) Whereas the euro will become the currency of the participating Member States as from 1 January 1999; whereas during a transitional period lasting from 1 January 1999 until 31 December 2001, the euro will be introduced as from 1 January 2002; whereas the euro banknote and coin after their introduction in 2002 will circulate throughout the whole euro area;(2) Whereas in order to facilitate the transition to the euro it is necessary to avoid confusion for the citizens; whereas during the three years transitional period people will not be familiar with the new euro coins and banknotes and therefore will more easily be misled or abused; whereas the same level of protection of the euro should exist in all Member States;(3) Whereas in order to reduce the risk of confusion during the transitional period, it is desirable to ban from the territory of the European Union all collector coins in euro or medals and tokens which bear the words 'euro` or 'euro cent` or which show a design which is similar to the design which appears on the common side of the euro coin;(4) Whereas in order to achieve it, during the transitional period, Member States should not issue any collector coin in euro and official minting institutions and private issuers in the Member States should not issue for the purpose of sale or for commercial purposes, medals and tokens of the kind described above; whereas in order to avoid that medals and tokens of the kind described above, issued by third countries, will circulate in the Community territory, the ban should not only concern the issue but also the sale, production, stock, import and distribution for the purpose of sale or for commercial purposes of collector coins and said medals and tokens;(5) Whereas the ban on collector coins in euro during the transitional period has been supported by the Ecofin Council on 23 November; whereas in some Member States, legislation on medals and tokens exist or is being introduced which goes in the direction recommended herein;(6) Whereas it would be desirable that third countries support the efforts made by the European Union to protect its citizens against confusion and fraud, and for that purpose avoid issuing collector coins, medals and tokens of the kind described above in particular during the transitional period,HEREBY RECOMMENDS:Article 1 DefinitionsFor the purpose of this recommendation, the following definitions apply:(a) 'collector coins` refer to commemorative and bullion coins which have legal tender but which are not produced with a view to their entry into circulation;(b) 'medals and tokens` refer to those metallic objects of circular shape which look like a coin but which are neither legal means of payment nor legal tender or are not issued under national or foreign legislative provisions;(c) 'euro` is the lawful currency of the participating Member States as defined in Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 974/98 on the introduction of the euro;(d) 'transitional period` is the period beginning on 1 January 1999 and ending on 31 December 2001.Article 2 Recommended practicesThe following recommended practices should apply during the transitional period:1. Member States should not issue collector coins denominated in euro. This restriction should equally apply to collector coins with a dual denomination in euro and in a national currency unit.2. the sale and the production, issue, stock, import and distribution for the purpose of sale or for commercial purposes, of collector coins, medals and tokens which bear the words 'euro` or 'euro cent` or show a design which is similar to the design which appears on the common side of the euro coin or which has already been officially laid down for the minting of such coins in the future, should not take place.Article 3 Implementation by Member StatesMember States should take as soon as possible all measures deemed necessary including additional national legislation, to ensure the full implementation of the recommended practices during the transitional period.Article 4 AddressesThis recommendation is addressed to the Member States and to all economic agents which may issue, produce, distribute, import or sell medals and tokens.Done at Brussels, 13 January 1999.For the CommissionYves-Thibault DE SILGUYMember of the Commission


title: Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2008 on external quality assurance for statutory auditors and audit firms auditing public interest entities (notified under document number C(2008) 1721)

text:
               7.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 120/20

      COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION

   of 6 May 2008
   on external quality assurance for statutory auditors and audit firms auditing public interest entities
   (notified under document number C(2008) 1721)
   (2008/362/EC)
   THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 211 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               External quality assurance for the statutory audit is fundamental for high audit quality. It adds credibility to published financial information and provides better protection of shareholders, investors, creditors and other interested parties. Any external quality assurance system should therefore be objective and independent from the auditing profession.

               (2)

               Articles 29 and 43 of Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC (1) establishes high-level criteria for quality assurance systems for all statutory auditors and audit firms. It incorporates some of the ideas contained in Commission Recommendation 2001/256/EC of 15 November 2000 on quality assurance for the statutory audit in the European Union: minimum requirements (2).

               (3)

               However, parts of that Recommendation, which are related to statutory audit of public interest entities, have been overtaken by recent international developments and tendencies to introduce, for such audits, external quality assurance systems, which are managed independently from the auditing profession and where quality assurance reviews are performed by persons other than practising auditors.

               (4)

               The criteria laid down in Directive 2006/43/EC still allow for considerable differences in the way external quality assurance systems for statutory auditors and audit firms are currently organised in Member States. It should be avoided that the interested parties perceive audit quality of statutory auditors and audit firms in Member States differently, in particular with respect to Article 34 of Directive 2006/43/EC. Directive 2006/43/EC also encourages public oversight systems of Member States to find a co-ordinated approach to the carrying-out of quality assurance reviews.

               (5)

               Co-operation between Member States is a priority with regard to audits of public interest entities. Further guidance should be given to quality assurance systems for statutory auditors and audit firms performing audit in such entities. Therefore, it is appropriate to provide for a new Recommendation which is more in line with the current state of affairs than Recommendation 2001/256/EC and which takes into account new international trends as well as specific needs of the Member States. However, there is no need to provide detailed guidance with regard to the quality assurance systems for statutory auditors and audit firms auditing entities other than public interest entities.

               (6)

               Inspections should contribute to enhancing audit quality in an inspected statutory auditor or an audit firm and should be of regular and preventive nature. They should aim at building and maintaining confidence in statutory audit and thus ultimately in financial markets. Therefore, this Recommendation should not concern ad-hoc investigations resulting from the possible violations of laws and regulations.

               (7)

               In order to enhance the quality of audits within the Communities, independent oversight bodies should play a more active role in the inspections of audit firms. Guidance should be provided for the independence of the inspection system. With regard to execution of inspections, the possible role of public oversight authorities, professional associations and other appropriate bodies, as well as the role of experts should be clarified. Clarifications with regard to the funding of the quality assurance system are also necessary.

               (8)

               Article 43 of Directive 2006/43/EC requires quality assurance reviews for statutory auditors and audit firms of public interest entities to be carried out at least every three years. A public oversight system could face difficulties in recruiting a sufficient number of inspectors to conduct on-site reviews in each inspection. Therefore, it should be possible that, under certain conditions, experts who are not inspectors also participate in on-site reviews.

               (9)

               In order to ensure that the final report on an inspection is followed by the statutory auditor or audit firm concerned and that it provides them with sufficient guidelines to avoid reported problems in the future, an effective communication should take place between the inspectors and that statutory auditor or audit firm both before the final report is adopted and in the follow-up phase.

               (10)

               To improve accountability of the quality assurance system and comparability within the Community, the annual report on the overall results of inspections should include key performance information that would enable an evaluation to be made of both the resources used and the efficiency and effectiveness of the quality assurance system.

               (11)

               In the light of new international developments, in particular the involvement of appropriate bodies and experts in the execution of inspections, the Commission intends to evaluate the situation in 2011,

         HEREBY RECOMMENDS:
   Subject matter

               1.

               This Recommendation provides guidance for implementing independent quality assurance systems for statutory auditors and audit firms conducting an audit of public interest entities in accordance with Articles 29 and 43 of Directive 2006/43/EC.

               2.

               Where a Member State decided to exempt certain public interest entities in accordance with Article 39 of the Directive 2006/43/EC, the Member State should also exempt such public interest entities from the scope of measures adopted in the light of this Recommendation.

         Definitions

               3.

               The definitions set out in Article 2 of Directive 2006/43/EC apply to this Recommendation. For the purposes of this Recommendation, also the following definitions apply:

                           (a)

                           ‘public oversight authority’ means a competent authority within the meaning of Article 2(10) of Directive 2006/43/EC, which represents a public oversight system that is based on the principles set out in Article 32 of that Directive;

                           (b)

                           ‘inspector’ means a reviewer, who meets the requirements set out in point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 29(1) of Directive 2006/43/EC, is employed by a public oversight authority or another appropriate body to which execution of inspections has been delegated;

                           (c)

                           ‘inspections’ means quality assurance reviews of statutory auditors and audit firms, which are led by an inspector and which do not represent an investigation within the meaning of Article 32(5) of Directive 2006/43/EC;

                           (d)

                           ‘expert’ means a natural person, who has specific expertise in financial markets, financial reporting, auditing or other fields relevant for inspections, including practising statutory auditors.

         Independence of the quality assurance system

               4.

               A public oversight authority should assume ultimate responsibility for the external quality assurance system for statutory auditors and audit firms auditing public interest entities. Member States should not designate as a public oversight authority any association or body affiliated with the accounting or audit profession.

               5.

               Statutory auditors and audit firms auditing public interest entities should be subject to inspections that are executed by a public oversight authority, either exclusively, or together with another appropriate body in accordance with point 6.

               6.

               It should be possible for tasks related to the execution of the inspections to be delegated to another appropriate body provided that the accountability of such body to the public oversight authority is ensured and that the latter retains at least the following responsibilities:

                           (a)

                           approval and, if considered appropriate by the public oversight authority, amendment of the inspection methodologies, including inspection and follow-up manuals, reporting methodologies and periodic inspection programmes;

                           (b)

                           approval and, if considered appropriate by the public oversight authority, amendment of inspection reports and follow up reports;

                           (c)

                           approval and, if considered necessary by the public oversight authority, assignment of inspectors for each inspection;

                           (d)

                           issuance of recommendations and instructions of any form to the body to which the tasks have been delegated.

               7.

               The public oversight authority should have the right to participate in inspections and to get access to inspection files, audit working papers and other documents of relevance.

               8.

               All funding arrangements for the quality assurance system, including those concerning the level of funding and financial control, should not be subject to approval or veto by persons or organisations that are representatives of or otherwise affiliated with the accounting profession, the audit profession or an audit firm. The level of funding should enable the public oversight authority to be sufficiently equipped with staff supporting it in implementing points 6 and 7.

               9.

               If funds for the quality assurance system are provided by statutory auditors or audit firms subject to inspections, any fee or other contribution payable by them should be mandatory and required to be paid in full on a timely basis.

         Independence of inspections

               10.

               A public oversight authority should ensure that appropriate policies and procedures related to the independence and objectivity of the staff, including inspectors, and the management of the inspection system, are put in place.

               11.

               A person, who is a practising statutory auditor or is employed or otherwise associated with a statutory auditor or an audit firm, should not be allowed to act as an inspector.

               12.

               A person should not be allowed to act as an inspector in an inspection of the statutory auditor or audit firm until at least two years have elapsed since that person ceased to be a partner or employee of that auditor or in that audit firm or to be otherwise associated therewith.

               13.

               Inspectors should declare that there are no conflicts of interests between them and the statutory auditor and audit firm to be inspected. Inspectors who make an incomplete or false declaration should be excluded from carrying out inspections and should be subject to effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties.

               14.

               Inspectors should be remunerated in connection with inspections only by the public oversight authority or by the body to which execution of inspections has been delegated. Inspectors should not receive any remuneration from the reviewed statutory auditor, audit firm or their networks.

               15.

               If a public oversight authority considers that specific expertise is essential for the proper conduct of an inspection, inspectors should be assisted by experts. Such experts should act under the direct control of an inspector and should be subject to the requirements referred to in points 10, 12 to 14.

         Methodological guidance for conducting inspections

               16.

               When there is temporarily an insufficient number of inspectors available in a Member State to carry out on-site inspections, a public oversight authority should have the right to decide that experts perform on-site reviews, provided that those experts meet the requirements set out in point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 29(1) of Directive 2006/43/EC, that they are fully accountable to the public oversight authority and that inspectors carry out on-site reviews in the same statutory auditor or audit firm at least every six years.

               17.

               The scope of inspections should cover:

                           (a)

                           an assessment of the design of the internal quality control system of the audit firm;

                           (b)

                           adequate compliance testing of procedures and a review of audit files of public interest entities in order to verify the effectiveness of the internal quality control system;

                           (c)

                           in the light of the inspection findings under points (a) and (b), an assessment of the contents of the most recent annual transparency report published by a statutory auditor or an audit firm in accordance with Article 40 of Directive 2006/43/EC.

               18.

               At least the following internal control policies and procedures of the statutory auditor or the audit firm should be reviewed:

                           (a)

                           compliance by the statutory auditor or the audit firm with applicable auditing and quality control standards, and ethical and independence requirements, including those related to Chapter IV and Article 42 of Directive 2006/43/EC, as well as relevant laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member State concerned;

                           (b)

                           the quantity and quality of resources used, including compliance with continuing education requirements as set out in Article 13 of Directive 2006/43/EC;

                           (c)

                           compliance with the requirements set out in Article 25 of Directive 2006/43/EC on the audit fees charged.

               19.

               For the purposes of testing compliance, at least a significant part of audit files should be selected on the basis of an analysis of the risk of an inadequate execution of the statutory audit.

         Outcome of inspections

               20.

               Inspection findings and conclusions on which recommendations are based, including the findings and conclusions related to a transparency report, should be properly communicated to and discussed with the inspected statutory auditor or audit firm before an inspection report is finalised. The inspected statutory auditor or audit firm should be granted a period not exceeding 12 months from the issuance of the inspection report to take action in respect of recommendations on the internal quality control system of the audit firm. If the inspected statutory auditor or audit firm did not give the appropriate follow up to the recommendations, the public oversight authority should disclose major deficiencies found in the internal quality control system.

               21.

               A public oversight system should have the right, in accordance with the due process of law as provided for in the Member State concerned, to take disciplinary actions or impose penalties in respect of statutory auditors and audit firms.

               22.

               The public oversight authority should at least inform the public in a timely and appropriate manner about any final disciplinary actions taken or penalties imposed in respect of statutory auditors and audit firms in relation to the execution of the statutory audit. It should identify the statutory auditor or audit firm concerned and describe the major deficiencies which have given rise to such actions or penalties.

               23.

               In the cases where it has been established during an inspection that a transparency report published by a statutory auditor or an audit firm in accordance with Article 40 of Directive 2006/43/EC contains information, including that on the effectiveness of the internal quality control system of the audit firm, that a public oversight authority considers significantly misleading, it should ensure that the transparency report is amended accordingly without delay.

         Transparency on the overall results of the quality assurance system

               24.

               Public oversight authorities should report annually on the overall results of the quality assurance system. The report should include information on recommendations issued, follow-up on the recommendations, disciplinary actions taken and penalties imposed. It should also include quantitative information and other key performance information on financial resources and staffing, and the efficiency and effectiveness of the quality assurance system.

         Follow-up

               25.

               Member States are invited to inform the Commission of actions taken in light of this Recommendation by 6 May 2009.

         Addressees

               26.

               This Recommendation is addressed to the Member States.

      Done at Brussels, 6 May 2008.

            For the Commission

         Charlie McCREEVY

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  OJ L 157, 9.6.2006, p. 87. Directive as amended by Directive 2008/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 81, 20.3.2008, p. 53).

      (2)  OJ L 91, 31.3.2001, p. 91.


				|

		52011SC0823

			Recommendation for a COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION on the National Reform Programme 2011 of Lithuaniaand delivering a Council opinionon the updated Convergence Programme of Lithuania, 2011-2014 /* SEC/2011/0823 final */

			   	Recommendation for a
COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
on the National Reform Programme 2011 of
Lithuania
and delivering a Council opinion
on the updated Convergence Programme of Lithuania, 2011-2014
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 121(2) and 148(4)
thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No
1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary
positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies[1],
and in particular Article 9(3) thereof,
Having regard to the recommendation of the European
Commission[2],
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[3],
which together form the “integrated guidelines”. Member States were invited to
take the integrated guidelines into account in their national economic and
employment policies.
(3)
On 12 January 2011, the Commission adopted the
first Annual Growth Survey, marking the start of a new cycle of economic
governance in the EU and the first European semester of ex-ante and integrated
policy coordination, which is anchored in the Europe 2020 strategy.
(4)
On 25 March 2011, the European Council endorsed
the priorities for fiscal consolidation and structural reform (in line with the
Council’s conclusions of 15 February and 7 March 2011 and further to the
Commission’s Annual Growth Survey). It underscored the need to give priority to
restoring sound budgets and fiscal sustainability, reducing unemployment
through labour market reforms and making new efforts to enhance growth. It
requested Member States to translate these priorities into concrete measures to
be included in their Stability or Convergence Programmes and National Reform
Programmes.
(5)
On 25 March 2011, the European Council also
invited the Member States participating in the Euro Plus Pact to present their
commitments in time to be included in their Stability or Convergence Programmes
and their National Reform Programmes.
(6)
On 28 April 2011, Lithuania submitted its
updated 2011 Convergence Programme covering the period 2011-2014 and its 2011
National Reform Programme. In order to take account of the interlinkages, the two programmes have been assessed at the same time.
(7)
The Lithuanian economy is recovering from a
severe economic crisis, during which GDP contracted by 17% from peak to trough
as the collapse in domestic demand was amplified by a slump in global trade. The
labour market reacted rapidly to the crisis, and unemployment rose to a record
high, peaking at 18.3% by mid 2010 from as low as 4.2% at the beginning of
2008. A strong commitment to the currency board arrangement, underpinned by
substantial fiscal consolidation alongside adjustment in private sector wages
and measures aimed at strengthening financial system stability, helped
stabilise the economy. As the global economy recovered, and the economy
benefitted from regained competitiveness, exports surged and economic growth
resumed in 2010. In 2011, the recovery is gathering pace as domestic demand
picks up. However, even though unemployment is expected to decline at a rapid
pace, it will remain at double digit level.
(8)
Based on the assessment of the updated
convergence programme pursuant to Regulation Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97,
the Council is of the opinion that the macroeconomic scenario underlying the 2011
Convergence Programme is plausible. While based on somewhat more favourable
growth assumptions for 2011, it is broadly in line with the latest Commission
forecast for 2012. The programme plans to bring the deficit below the 3%
reference value by 2012, the deadline set by the Council, but is not
sufficiently underpinned by measures for 2012. The accelerating economic
momentum may lead to better 2011 budgetary outcomes than expected in the
programme. However, if temporary consolidation measures that will expire at the
end of 2011 are not renewed and complemented by sizable permanent measures, the
programme's budgetary targets for 2012 risk not being met despite the improving
macro-economic outlook. The average annual fiscal effort over the period of
2010-2012 is well below the 2.25% of GDP recommended by the Council under the excessive
deficit procedure (EDP) adopted on 16 February 2010. As economic growth
and tax revenues are substantially stronger than expected at the time of the
Council EDP Recommendation, implementation of the required fiscal effort should
allow for faster deficit reduction and progress towards the medium term objective
(MTO). The medium-term objective of a structural surplus of 0.5% of GDP is not
foreseen to be achieved within the programme period.
(9)
In view of the sizable adjustment required to
meet the 2012 EDP target and make progress towards the MTO, and the need to secure
the necessary co-financing in order to frontload the absorption of EU
structural funds and increase productive investment in the economy, identifying
further consolidation measures will be a challenge. Improvements in public
sector efficiency could create additional room for expenditure adjustments
without compromising the quality of public services. In the absence of further reform,
age‑related expenditure will increase at a rate above the EU average over
the next few decades. In June 2010, the government approved the broad outline
of a comprehensive social security and pension system reform. The proposal
included significant increases in the pensionable age, changes to the way
pensions are calculated and the integration of state pensions into the general
scheme of social insurance. The approval and successful implementation of all
aspects of these proposals will be critical for long term fiscal sustainability
and could help increase the labour supply by providing stronger incentives to
work for older workers while ensuring the adequacy of pensions. Moreover,
long-term fiscal sustainability would also require a stronger fiscal framework.
In particular, in the run-up to the crisis, the fiscal framework did not
prevent recurrent sizeable revisions of expenditure targets and pro-cyclical
expenditure growth financed by revenue windfalls. Excessive expenditure growth
financed by boom-related revenues was at the origin of the large fiscal
imbalances that emerged during the crisis. They also contributed to overheating
the economy.
(10)
The unemployment rate in Lithuania is one of the
highest in the EU. The immediate concern is to ensure that this rapid increase
does not become structural. Very strict labour regulations and disincentives to
work within the social assistance system are compromising the functioning of
the labour market. When combined with sufficiently funded active labour market
policies, measures taken in these domains, would help reduce
the risk of high unemployment becoming structural, and reduce the sizeable
shadow economy.
(11)
Lithuanian State-Owned Enterprises represent
about 18% of GDP. They remain prone to inefficiencies with unsatisfactory
financial returns. The successful reform of state-owned enterprises would also
enhance competition and improve the business environment. In 2010 Lithuania
began a reform in five major sectors. The reform set out transparency
guidelines for state-owned enterprises, providing a basis for government
accountability. The Government's Resolution on Improvement of Efficiency in
December 2010 provided a further credible framework for the reform.
Nevertheless these remain only frameworks and guidelines, and the Resolution
lacks a number of key measures initially proposed, and which would have ensured
the separation of regulatory and ownership functions.
(12)
The energy intensity of the Lithuanian economy
is one of the highest in the EU. This is to a large extent related to household
heating where poorly maintained multi-apartment buildings account for the bulk
of the problem. Despite the introduction of a strategy to address this dating
back to 2004, few investments have been made. Moreover,
levels of car ownership have increased rapidly, whilst revenues from energy and
transport taxes have fallen relative to GDP and to taxes on labour (considerably
above the EU average). Addressing low energy tax rates, including those for the
registration and ownership of transport vehicles, would support fiscal
consolidation in the short-term, whilst also incentivising more efficient
energy use.
(13)
While Lithuania has a business regulatory
framework that is favourable overall, it scores relatively poorly on start-up
conditions, the time and cost involved in issuing construction permits, and the
protection of investors. Improvements to regulations in these areas would help
stimulate job creation and growth. Competition policy reform would further
improve the environment, but progress is slow, especially in the energy and
food retail sectors. The completion of the revised national energy independence
strategy will help address concerns over security of supply and support greater
competition in electricity generation. The implementation of the Third Package
of EU electricity and gas market legislation would improve retail energy market
competition. Within the food retail sector, Lithuanian passed a law in 2009 on
the prohibition of unfair operations of retail trade undertakings. However, the
food retail sector continues to show an insufficient level of competition, due
partly to its structure and inefficiencies in market regulation. Concentration
in the food retail chains has been on an upward trend, with the share of the
four largest retailers reaching 72% of the total sales in 2008.
(14)
Lithuania has made a number of commitments under
the Euro Plus Pact[4]. To strengthen fiscal
sustainability, Lithuania will adopt laws to facilitate
the accumulation of funds in the State Treasury reserve for difficult economic
periods and promote a responsible anti-inflationary budgetary policy. A number of important measures to reform the pension and social
security system have also been announced. Employment measures focus on fostering
employment, combating illegal and undeclared work, and promoting flexible employment agreements. To improve
the business environment a number of commitments have been made to strengthen business
inspectorates, increase transparency and reduce the administrative burden on
business. These commitments relate to all four areas of the pact. Overall, they reflect the reform agenda outlined in the Convergence
Programme and the National Reform Programme. The range of measures in the
employment domain would, if implemented, provide a welcome contribution to
generating demand for labour. These commitments have
been assessed and taken into account in the recommendations.
(15)
The Commission has assessed the Convergence
Programme and National Reform Programme, including the Euro Plus Pact commitments[5].
It has taken into account not only their relevance for sustainable fiscal and
socio-economic policy in Lithuania but also their conformity with EU rules and
guidance, given the need to reinforce the overall economic governance of the
European Union by providing EU level input into future national decisions. In
this light, the Commission considers that measures to ensure compliance with
the budgetary targets for 2012 will need to be specified. Further steps should
be also taken to reform the pension system in order to improve fiscal
sustainability and to encourage longer working lives, improve the functioning
of the labour market, implement the state-owned-enterprises reform package,
improve energy efficiency and address low taxes on energy, and strengthen
competition in certain sectors.
(16)
In light of this assessment, also taking into
account the Council Recommendation under Article 126(7) Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union of 2 June 2010, the Council has examined the
2011 update of the Convergence Programme of Lithuania and its opinion[6]
is reflected in particular in its recommendation under (1) and (2) set out
below. Taking into account the European Council conclusions of 25 March 2011,
the Council has examined the National Reform Programme of Lithuania,
HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Lithuania
should take action within the period 2011-2012 to:
(1)
Adopt additional fiscal measures of a permanent
nature by the time of the 2012 budget to correct the excessive deficit.
Reinforce tax compliance and take full advantage of the economic recovery to
further accelerate deficit reduction and ensure progress towards the Medium
Term Objective by at least 0.5% of GDP annually.
Strengthen the fiscal framework, in particular by introducing enforceable and
binding expenditure ceilings in the medium-term budgetary framework.
(2)
Adopt the proposed implementing legislation on
Pension System Reform. In order to enhance participation in the labour market,
remove fiscal disincentives to work for people at or
approaching pensionable age.
(3)
Enhance labour market flexibility by amending
the Labour Code to make it more flexible and to allow better use of fixed-term
contracts. Amend the relevant legislation, in particular the Law on Cash Social
Assistance, to ensure that the social assistance system does not contain
disincentives to work.
(4)
Implement all aspects of the State-Owned
Enterprise reform package by the end of 2011, ensuring a separation of
ownership and regulatory functions, clear enterprise objectives, enhanced
transparency and a separation of commercial and non-commercial activities.
(5)
Improve the energy efficiency of buildings
through a rapid implementation of the Holding Fund and take steps to shift
taxation towards energy use, starting with taxes on
registration and ownership of passenger transport vehicles.
(6)
Take steps to improve start-up conditions, the
delivery of construction permits, and to strengthen competition in the energy
and retail sectors.
Done at Brussels,
                                                                       For
the Council
                                                                       The
President
[1]               OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 1.
[2]               OJ C , p. .
[3]               Maintained for 2011 by Council Decision 2011/308/EU
of 19 May 2011.
[4]               More details on the commitments made under the Euro
Plus Pact can be found in SEC(2011) 723.
[5]               SEC(2011) 723.
[6]               Foreseen in Article 9(3) of Council Regulation (EC)
No 1466/97.