title: Commission Recommendation of 27 November 2013 on procedural safeguards for vulnerable persons suspected or accused in criminal proceedings

text:
               24.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 378/8

         COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
   of 27 November 2013
   on procedural safeguards for vulnerable persons suspected or accused in criminal proceedings
   2013/C 378/02
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 292 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The aim of this Recommendation is to encourage Member States to strengthen the procedural rights of all suspects or accused persons who are not able to understand and to effectively participate in criminal proceedings due to age, their mental or physical condition or disabilities (‘vulnerable persons’).

               (2)

               By establishing minimum rules on the protection of procedural rights of suspects or accused persons, this Recommendation should strengthen the trust of Member States in criminal justice systems of other Member States and can thus help improve the mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters.

               (3)

               The Stockholm Programme (1) put a strong focus on the strengthening of the rights of individuals in criminal proceedings. In its point 2.4, the European Council invited the Commission to put forward proposals setting out a step by step approach (2) to strengthening the rights of suspects or accused persons.

               (4)

               Three measures have been adopted to date, namely Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (3), Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) and Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (5).

               (5)

               References in this Recommendation to suspects or accused persons who are deprived of liberty should be understood to refer to any situation where, in the course of criminal proceedings, suspects or accused persons are deprived of liberty within the meaning of Article 5(1)(c) of the ECHR, as interpreted by the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.

               (6)

               It is essential that the vulnerability of a person suspected or accused in criminal proceedings is promptly identified and recognised. For that purpose, an initial assessment should be carried out by police officers, law enforcement or judicial authorities. The competent authorities should also be able to ask an independent expert to examine the degree of vulnerability, the needs of the vulnerable person and the appropriateness of any measures taken or envisaged against the vulnerable person.

               (7)

               Suspects or accused persons or their lawyers should have the right to challenge, in accordance with national law, the assessment of their potential vulnerability in criminal proceedings, in particular if this would significantly impede or restrict the exercise of their fundamental rights. That right does not entail the obligation for Member States to provide for a specific appeal procedure, a separate mechanism, or a complaint procedure in which such failure or refusal may be challenged.

               (8)

               The term ‘legal representative’ means a person who represents the interests and oversees the legal affairs of a vulnerable person. An example is notably a court appointed guardian of a vulnerable person.

               (9)

               The term ‘appropriate adult’ means a relative or a person with a social relationship with the vulnerable person who is likely to interact with the authorities and to enable the vulnerable person to exercise his or her procedural rights.

               (10)

               Vulnerable persons need appropriate assistance and support during criminal proceedings. For that purpose, the legal representative of a vulnerable suspect or accused person or an appropriate adult should be informed as soon as possible of the criminal proceedings against him, of the nature of the accusation, the procedural rights and the available remedies. The legal representative or an appropriate adult should be notified as soon as possible of the deprivation of liberty and be informed about the reasons for it, unless it is contrary to the person's best interests.

               (11)

               Persons who are recognised as particularly vulnerable are not able to follow and understand the criminal proceedings. In order to ensure that their fair trial rights are ensured, they should not be able to waive their right to a lawyer.

               (12)

               In order to ensure the personal integrity of a vulnerable person who is deprived of liberty, vulnerable persons should have access to medical examination assessing their general condition and compatibility of possible measures taken against them with their condition.

               (13)

               Vulnerable persons are not always able to understand the content of police interviews to which they are subject. In order to avoid any contestation of the content of an interview and thereby undue repetition of questioning, these interviews should be audio-visually recorded.

               (14)

               Subject to the specific circumstances of each case, the state of vulnerability should not constitute an obstacle for the suspected or accused person to have access to material evidence held by the competent authorities with regard to the criminal case in question in the exercise of their procedural rights and with a view to the right to effective remedies.

               (15)

               This Recommendation applies to vulnerable persons who are subject to surrender procedure pursuant to Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (6) (European arrest warrant proceedings). The competent authorities in the executing Member State should apply the specific procedural rights of this Recommendation to European arrest warrant proceedings.

               (16)

               References in this Recommendation to appropriate measures to ensure effective access to justice for persons with disabilities should be understood in light of the objectives defined in the 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and in particular in Article 13 thereof.

               (17)

               In order to ensure that professionals in contact with vulnerable persons are aware of the specific needs of these persons, they should receive adequate training.

               (18)

               This Recommendation respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In particular, this Recommendation seeks to promote the right to liberty, the right to a fair trial and the rights of defence.

               (19)

               Member States should inform the Commission on the follow up on this Recommendation within [36 months] of its notification. Based on this information, the Commission should monitor and assess the measures taken by Member States,

         RECOMMENDS:
   SECTION 1

      SUBJECT-MATTER AND SCOPE

               1.

               This Recommendation calls upon Member States to strengthen certain procedural rights of vulnerable suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings and of vulnerable persons who are subject to European arrest warrant proceedings.

               2.

               The specific procedural rights of vulnerable persons should apply from the time they are suspected of having committed an offence. Such rights should apply until the conclusion of the proceedings.

               3.

               Vulnerable persons should be associated in accordance with their best interests to the exercise of procedural rights taking into account their ability to understand and effectively participate in the proceedings.

         SECTION 2

      IDENTIFICATION OF VULNERABLE PERSONS

               4.

               Vulnerable persons should be promptly identified and recognised as such. Member States should ensure that all competent authorities may have recourse to a medical examination by an independent expert to identify vulnerable persons, and to determine the degree of their vulnerability and their specific needs. This expert may give a reasoned opinion on the appropriateness of the measures taken or envisaged against the vulnerable person.

         SECTION 3

      RIGHTS OF VULNERABLE PERSONS

      Non-discrimination

               5.

               Vulnerable persons should not be subject to any discrimination under national law in the exercise of the procedural rights referred to in this Recommendation.

               6.

               The procedural rights granted to vulnerable persons should be respected throughout the criminal proceedings taking into account the nature and degree of their vulnerability.

      Presumption of vulnerability

               7.

               Member States should foresee a presumption of vulnerability in particular for persons with serious psychological, intellectual, physical or sensory impairments, or mental illness or cognitive disorders, hindering them to understand and effectively participate in the proceedings.

      Right to information

               8.

               Persons with disabilities should receive upon request information concerning their procedural rights in a format accessible to them.

               9.

               Vulnerable persons and, if necessary, their legal representative or an appropriate adult should be informed of the specific procedural rights referred to in this Recommendation, in particular those relating to the right to information, the right to medical assistance, the right to a lawyer, the respect of privacy and, where appropriate, the rights related to pre-trial detention.

               10.

               The legal representative or an appropriate adult who is nominated by the vulnerable person or by the competent authorities to assist that person should be present at the police station and during court hearings.

      Right of access to a lawyer

               11.

               If a vulnerable person is unable to understand and follow the proceedings, the right to access to a lawyer in accordance with Directive 2013/48/EU should not be waived.

      Right to medical assistance

               12.

               Vulnerable persons should have access to systematic and regular medical assistance throughout criminal proceedings if they are deprived of liberty.

      Recording of questioning

               13.

               Any questioning of vulnerable persons during the pre-trial investigation phase should be audio-visually recorded.

      Deprivation of liberty

               14.

               Member States should take all steps to ensure that deprivation of liberty of vulnerable persons before their conviction is a measure of last resort, proportionate and taking place under conditions suited to the needs of the vulnerable person. Appropriate measures should be taken to ensure that vulnerable persons have access to reasonable accommodations taking into account their particular needs when they are deprived of liberty.

      Privacy

               15.

               Competent authorities should take appropriate measures to protect the privacy, personal integrity and personal data of vulnerable persons, including medical data, throughout the criminal proceedings.

      European arrest warrant proceedings

               16.

               The executing Member State should ensure that a vulnerable person who is subject to European arrest warrant proceedings has the specific procedural rights referred to in this Recommendation upon arrest.

      Training

               17.

               Police officers, law enforcement and judicial authorities competent in criminal proceedings conducted against vulnerable persons should receive specific training.

         SECTION 4

      MONITORING

               18.

               Member States should inform the Commission on the measures taken to give effect to this Recommendation, by [36 months after notification].

         SECTION 5

      FINAL PROVISIONS

               19.

               This Recommendation is addressed to the Member States.

      Done at Brussels, 27 November 2013.

            For the Commission

         Viviane REDING

            Vice-President

      (1)  OJ C 115, 4.5.2010, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ C 295, 4.12.2009, p. 1.

      (3)  Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings (OJ L 280, 26.10.2010, p. 1).

      (4)  Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (OJ L 142, 1.6.2012, p. 1).

      (5)  Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and European arrest warrant proceedings and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities (OJ L 294, 6.11.2013, p. 1).

      (6)  Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1).


title: Commission Recommendation of 21 October 2011 on the research joint programming initiative Urban Europe — global urban challenges, joint European solutions

text:
               25.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/1

         COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
   of 21 October 2011
   on the research joint programming initiative ‘Urban Europe — global urban challenges, joint European solutions’
   2011/C 312/01
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 181 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Sustainable development of European urban areas is a major societal issue while experiencing intensifying global trends such as urbanisation. According to forecasts, by 2050 nearly 70 percent of the global population will live in cities, up from around 50 percent today (1). The figure for Europe is higher: some 83 percent of the population (nearly 557 million) are expected to live in cities by 2050.

               (2)

               Urbanisation involves a wide range of interlinked challenges, including social deprivation and segregation, urban sprawl and congestion, safety and security issues, environmental degradation, pollution and effects of climate change. These developments put pressure on society and pose an unprecedented challenge to resilience, management and governance of urban systems in Europe and in the world.

               (3)

               At the same time, Europe should exploit the advantages of urbanised space. Urban areas are the drivers of growth in the European economy. Urban agglomerations and networked cities have turned into spearheads of development, not only from a socioeconomic perspective, but also from technological and geopolitical perspectives. Cities are ‘innovation hubs’ themselves, where knowledge, policy and practice come together to create innovative ideas, employ new technology and benefit from fresh insights into challenges and drivers of as well as solutions to urban development. There is also increasing evidence that networks of major urban centres, often referred to as ‘global cities’, exert a growing influence at the international scale, while at the same time the importance of small- and medium-sized cities has to be acknowledged because of their impact, notably in terms of regional development. Europe is characterised by a high urban density and by a large number of small- and medium-sized cities, the assets of which must be taken into account from an economic, social and cultural perspective.

               (4)

               The Europe 2020 strategy puts forward three mutually reinforcing priorities: the smart, sustainable and inclusive growth (2). Sustainable urban development could significantly contribute to achieving these aims. In its flagship initiative ‘Innovation Union’, set out in the Commission Communication of 6 October 2010‘Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union’ (3), one of the potential innovation partnerships is ‘smart, liveable cities combining energy efficiency, clean transport and fast Internet’. Cities can contribute to inclusive growth, notably in combating social polarisation and poverty, avoiding social segregation and addressing the issues of ageing. The European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion (4) sets out to reach the EU target of reducing poverty and social exclusion by at least 20 million by 2020. It will help to identify best practices and promote mutual learning between municipalities.

               (5)

               There is an urgent need to strengthen the knowledge base on integrated urban development across its research interfaces of economy, society, mobility and ecology, in order to support evidence-based policy making.

               (6)

               Coordination is needed to address the abovementioned challenges, to capitalise on the opportunities and to facilitate high quality research collaboration aimed at providing research evidence that underpins urban areas as a complex network system with high interdependencies of the related economic, technological, social and ecological subsystems and with a long-term forward-looking perspective.

               (7)

               At its meeting of 26 May 2010 (5), the Competitiveness Council identified and substantiated a set of potential joint programming initiatives (hereinafter JPIs), including ‘Urban Europe — global urban challenges, joint European solutions’, as areas where joint research programming would provide a major added value to the current, fragmented efforts by Member States and to the existing Union initiatives. It therefore adopted conclusions recognising the need to launch a joint programming initiative on the subject and inviting the Commission to contribute to its preparation.

               (8)

               Member States have confirmed their participation in such a JPI by the sending of formal commitment letters.

               (9)

               Joint programming of research on sustainable urban development would provide for coordination of research and innovation in this area, contributing significantly to construction of a fully operational ERA on research and innovation regarding urban development and strengthening Europe’s leadership and competitiveness of research in this field.

               (10)

               Urban development is an important cross-thematic area within the Union funding programmes for research and innovation. Activities within this JPI need to be closely coordinated with the other related activities in the context of existing and future funding programmes and initiatives on research and innovation.

               (11)

               Therefore, and in order to achieve the goals set out by this Recommendation, Member States should cooperate with the Commission in order to ensure coordination and development of synergies with the existing research and innovation schemes by exploring related Commission initiatives, such as the ‘Smart cities and communities’ initiative, as well as other related initiatives, to avoid duplication and overlapping.

               (12)

               In order for the Commission to be able to report to the European Parliament and to the Council, Member States should report regularly to the Commission on the progress made on this JPI,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:

               1.

               Member States are encouraged to develop and maintain a common vision on how cooperation and coordination in the field of research at Union level can contribute to achieving sustainable urban development in all its forms (6).

               2.

               Member States are encouraged to develop a common strategic research agenda establishing medium- to long-term research needs and objectives in the area of urban development in a context of increasing globalisation. The strategic research agenda should contain an implementation plan establishing priorities and timelines and specifying the action, instruments and resources required for its implementation.

               3.

               Member States are encouraged to include the following actions, as part of the strategic research agenda and of the implementation plan:

                           (a)

                           identifying and exchanging information on relevant national programmes and research activities;

                           (b)

                           reinforcing capacities in joint foresight as well as technology assessment;

                           (c)

                           exchanging information, resources, best practices, methodologies and guidelines;

                           (d)

                           identifying areas or research activities that would benefit from coordination and furthering such coordination;

                           (e)

                           identifying areas or research activities that would benefit from joint calls for proposals or pooling of resources;

                           (f)

                           defining the modalities for research to be undertaken jointly in the areas referred to in point (e);

                           (g)

                           ensuring coordination, development of synergies with the existing and future funding programmes and initiatives on research and innovation in the Union and avoiding duplication with existing and future Union initiatives in this area;

                           (h)

                           considering the changing needs of cities and urban population when defining the objectives for research programmes on urban development;

                           (i)

                           sharing, where appropriate, existing research infrastructures or developing new facilities such as coordinated databanks or the inventory and development of models for studying urban processes;

                           (j)

                           encouraging better collaboration within the public sector and between public and private sectors, as well as open innovation between different research activities, education and business sectors related to urban development while ensuring a broad involvement of relevant stakeholders such as local authorities and civil society;

                           (k)

                           exporting and diffusing knowledge, innovation and interdisciplinary methodological approaches, as well as identifying and addressing obstacles in the research and innovation system that prevent innovative solutions with a societal benefit from getting to the market faster;

                           (l)

                           feeding with appropriate scientific information the policy-making level at local, regional, national and Union level;

                           (m)

                           creating networks between centres dedicated to urban research, including centres that are outside the ERA.

               4.

               Member States are encouraged to maintain and further develop an efficient common management structure in the field of research on the urban development challenge, with a mandate to establish common conditions, rules and procedures for cooperation and coordination and to monitor the implementation of the strategic research agenda.

               5.

               Member States are encouraged to jointly implement the strategic research agenda via their national research programmes in accordance with the guidelines for Framework Conditions on Joint Programming developed by the Council High Level Group on Joint Programming (7).

               6.

               Member States are encouraged to cooperate with the Commission with a view to exploring related Commission initiatives to assist Member States in developing and implementing the strategic research agenda and to coordinate the JPI with other Union initiatives in this field, such as R & D supported by the funding programmes for research and innovation, notably in the fields of socioeconomic sciences and humanities, transport, energy, environment, ICT, security, health, as well as other research and innovation initiatives such as other related JPIs, EIT Knowledge and Innovation Communities and European Technology Platforms.

               7.

               Member States are encouraged to liaise closely with the Strategic Forum for International Science and Technology Cooperation (SFIC) (8) in developing and implementing a possible international dimension in the strategic research agenda and ensure coherence with SFIC initiatives with and towards third countries.

               8.

               Member States are encouraged to report regularly to the Commission on the progress made on this JPI through annual progress reports.

      Done at Brussels, 21 October 2011.

            For the Commission

         Máire GEOGHEGAN-QUINN

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  http://www.un.org/esa/population/unpop.htm

      (2)  Communication from the Commission, ‘Europe 2020 — A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’, Brussels, COM(2010) 2020.

      (3)  COM(2010) 546.

      (4)  Communication from the Commission, ‘The European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion: A European framework for social and territorial cohesion’, Brussels, COM(2010) 758 final.

      (5)  10246/10.

      (6)  http://www.jpi-urbaneurope.eu

      (7)  ERC-GPC 1311/10. Joint Programming in research 2008-2010 and beyond — Report of the High Level Group on Joint Programming to the Council of 12 November 2010 — Annex II.

      (8)  The SFIC has its origins in the Council Conclusions of December 2008, where the Council called upon the Member States and the Commission to form a new partnership for international science and technology cooperation. It is established by the Council as a dedicated configuration of the ERAC.


Avis juridique important

|

31980K0587

Commission Recommendation No 587/80/ECSC of 7 March 1980 on Community surveillance in respect of the importation of certain iron and steel products covered by the ECSC Treaty originating in non-member countries

Official Journal L 065 , 11/03/1980 P. 0005

****( 1 ) OJ NO L 231 , 13 . 9 . 1979 , P . 15 .  ( 1 ) OJ NO L 344 , 31 . 12 . 1979 , P . 15 .  ( 2 ) COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION CONCERNING THE PUBLICATION OF GUIDANCE PRICES FOR CERTAIN STEEL PRODUCTS  ( OJ NO L 344 , 31 . 12 . 1979 , P . 13 ).   THESE PRODUCTS ARE :  //   -  HOT-ROLLED COIL //  CCT HEADING NO 73.08 ; //  -  HOT-ROLLED STRIP //  SUBHEADING 73.12 A . //  //   -  MEDIUM AND HEAVY PLATE , HOT-ROLLED OR CUT FROM HOT-ROLLED COIL , EX CCT SUBHEADING 73.13 B I A ) ( EXCLUDING THICKNESSES BELOW 3 MM ). //  -  COLD-REDUCED SHEET , CCT SUBHEADING 73.13 B II B ) AND C ) //  -  WIRE ROD , CCT SUBHEADING 73.10 A I //  //   -  SMOOTH CONCRETE //  EX CCT SUBHEADING // REINFORCING BARS //  73.10 A II //  -  IMPROVED ADHESION //  ( OMITTING ROUND // CONCRETE REINFORCING //  BILLETS // BARS //  FOR TUBE MAKING ) //  //   -  MERCHANT BARS //  -  SECTIONS , BEAMS //  CCT SUBHEADING 73.11 A I //     COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION NO 587/80/ECSC   OF 7 MARCH 1980   ON COMMUNITY SURVEILLANCE IN RESPECT OF THE IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTS COVERED BY THE ECSC TREATY ORIGINATING IN NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES   THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN   COMMUNITIES ,   HAVING REGARD TO THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY , AND IN PARTICULAR ARTICLE 74 THEREOF ,   WHEREAS BY RECOMMENDATION NO 2002/79/ECSC ( 1 ) THE COMMISSION CONSOLIDATED WITHIN A SINGLE TEXT THE ARRANGEMENTS FOR ADVANCE SURVEILLANCE WHICH HAVE , SINCE 5 MAY 1977 , COVERED IMPORTS INTO THE COMMUNITY OF CERTAIN ECSC IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTS ORIGINATING IN NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES ;   WHEREAS , BEARING IN MIND RECENT TRENDS IN THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH CERTAIN OF THE PRODUCTS CONCERNED HAVE BEEN IMPORTED , IT IS ADVISABLE TO AMEND AND SUPPLEMENT THE TERMS OF THAT RECOMMENDATION ;   WHEREAS THESE ARRANGEMENTS ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE MAINTENANCE BY CERTAIN MEMBER STATES OF QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN OF THE PRODUCTS IN QUESTION IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES ,   MAKES THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION :   ARTICLE 1   1 .  THE IMPORTATION INTO THE COMMUNITY OF THE IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTS COVERED BY THE ECSC TREATY LISTED IN ANNEX III A OR III B AND ORIGINATING IN NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE ISSUE OF AN IMPORT LICENCE .   SUCH LICENCE SHALL BE ISSUED OR ENDORSED BY THE MEMBER STATES , FREE OF CHARGE AND FOR ANY QUANTITIES REQUESTED , WITHIN NOT MORE THAN FIVE WORKING DAYS FROM THE SUBMISSION OF THE COMPLETED APPLICATION AND PRESENTATION OF A PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PURCHASE CONTRACT OR CONTRACTS .   2 .  THE APPLICATION OF PARAGRAPH 1 SHALL BE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE MAINTENANCE OF QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY CERTAIN MEMBER STATES ON CERTAIN IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTS IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES .   3 .  THE PERIOD OF VALIDITY OF THE IMPORT LICENCE IS HEREBY FIXED AT TWO MONTHS , WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO POSSIBLE CHANGES IN THE IMPORT ARRANGEMENTS IN FORCE .   4 .  IMPORT LICENCES NOT USED BEFORE THEIR DATE OF EXPIRY SHALL BE RETURNED TO THE ISSUING OFFICE .   ARTICLE 2   1 .  THE IMPORTER ' S APPLICATION MUST STATE FOR GOODS OF WHATEVER ORIGIN LISTED IN ANNEX III A OR III B :  ( A ) THE COUNTRY OF ORIGIN AND THE COUNTRY OF CONSIGNMENT ;  ( B ) THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF SUBHEADING AND THE NIMEXE CODE ;  ( C ) THE QUANTITY OF THE GOODS IN TONNES , INCLUDING TONNAGE OF INDIVIDUAL LOTS ;  ( D ) THE NAME , ADDRESS , TELEPHONE NUMBER AND TELEX NUMBER OF THE IMPORTER ;  ( E ) THE NAME , ADDRESS , TELEPHONE NUMBER AND TELEX NUMBER OF THE VENDOR ;  ( F )  THE PROPOSED DATE AND PLACE ( CUSTOMS OFFICE ) OF IMPORTATION ;  ( G ) THE POINT OF DELIVERY ;  ( H ) THE DATE OF THE CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE GOODS AND THE CONTRACT NUMBER OR ANY OTHER REFERENCE GIVEN BY THE VENDOR BY WHICH THE DELIVERY IN QUESTION MAY BE IDENTIFIED ;  ( I ) WHERE APPLICABLE , THAT THE GOODS IN QUESTION ARE INTENDED FOR PROCESSING UNDER CONTRACT AND SUBSEQUENT RE-EXPORT OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITY ( COUNTRY OF RE-EXPORT TO BE SPECIFIED ).   2 .  THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SHALL ALSO BE SUPPLIED WHEN A LICENCE TO IMPORT GOODS LISTED IN ANNEX III A IS APPLIED FOR .   A . FOR GOODS ORIGINATING IN AND CONSIGNED DIRECTLY FROM ONE OF THE COUNTRIES LISTED IN ANNEX II ( DIRECT IMPORTATION ):  ( A ) A FULL COMMERCIAL DESCRIPTION OF THE GOODS , INCLUDING EXACT SPECIFICATIONS , SUFFICIENT TO PERMIT CALCULATION OF THE DELIVERED PRICE ACCORDING TO THE PRINTED PRICE LIST SELECTED ;  ( B ) THE DELIVERED PRICE PER TONNE , INCLUDING CUSTOMS DUTIES , TRANSPORT COSTS TO POINT OF DELIVERY AND ALL EXTRAS , REBATES AND ANY OTHER FACTORS RELEVANT TO CALCULATION OF THE DELIVERED PRICE ;  ( C ) DETAILS OF :  ( I ) THE COMMUNITY PRODUCER ' S PRICE LIST CHOSEN FOR CALCULATING THE DELIVERED PRICE ; OR  ( II ) WHERE APPROPRIATE THE NON-MEMBER COUNTRY OFFER ON WHICH THE TERMS OF THE DELIVERY HAVE BEEN ALIGNED , GIVING DETAILS SUFFICIENT TO IDENTIFY THE OFFER ; OR  ( III ) WHERE APPROPRIATE OTHER PRICE ( TO BE JUSTIFIED );  ( D ) THE DATE AND REFERENCE OF THE BILL OF LADING , IF AVAILABLE ;   B . FOR GOODS ORIGINATING IN ONE OF THE COUNTRIES LISTED IN ANNEX II BUT CONSIGNED FROM A NON-MEMBER COUNTRY OTHER THAN THE COUNTRY OF ORIGIN ( INDIRECT IMPORTATION ) AND FOR GOODS ORIGINATING IN A NON-MEMBER COUNTRY NOT LISTED IN ANNEXES I OR II ;  ( A ) A COMPLETE DESCRIPTION CORRESPONDING TO THAT APPEARING IN THE LIST OF PRODUCTS SUBJECT TO BASIC PRICES ( 1 ),  ( B ) THE PRICE FREE AT COMMUNITY FRONTIER , CIF , DUTY-PAID AND UNLOADED , PER TONNE , IN THE CURRENCY OF THE CONTRACT ;   C . FOR GOODS ORIGINATING IN ONE OF THE COUNTRIES LISTED IN ANNEX I :   I . PRODUCTS FOR WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS FIXED GUIDANCE PRICES ( 2 ):  ( A ) A FULL COMMERCIAL DESCRIPTION OF THE GOODS , INCLUDING EXACT SPECIFICATIONS , SUFFICIENT TO PERMIT CALCULATION OF THE DELIVERED PRICE ACCORDING TO THE PRINTED PRICE LIST SELECTED ;  ( B ) THE DELIVERED PRICE PER TONNE , INCLUDING CUSTOMS DUTIES , TRANSPORT COSTS TO POINT OF DELIVERY AND ALL EXTRAS , REBATES AND ANY OTHER FACTORS RELEVANT TO CALCULATION OF THE DELIVERED PRICE ;                     ( C ) DETAILS OF :   ( I ) THE COMMUNITY PRODUCER ' S PRICE LIST CHOSEN FOR CALCULATING THE DELIVERED PRICE ; OR   ( II ) WHERE APPROPRIATE THE NON-MEMBER COUNTRY OFFER ON WHICH THE TERMS OF THE DELIVERY HAVE BEEN ALIGNED , GIVING DETAILS SUFFICIENT TO IDENTIFY THE OFFER ;  ( III ) ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE PRICE ( TO BE JUSTIFIED ).   II . PRODUCTS FOR WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS NOT PUBLISHED GUIDANCE PRICES :   AT THE OPTION OF THE IMPORTER :   EITHER  ( A ) A COMPLETE DESCRIPTION CORRESPONDING TO THAT APPEARING IN THE LIST OF PRODUCTS SUBJECT TO BASIC PRICES ( 1 ); AND  ( B ) THE PRICE FREE AT COMMUNITY FRONTIER , CIF , DUTY-PAID AND UNLOADED , PER TONNE , IN THE CURRENCY OF THE CONTRACT ;   OR   THE DETAILS REQUIRED UNDER PARAGRAPH 2 C I .   3 .  IN ADDITION , THE IMPORTER SHALL DECLARE THAT NO REBATE WILL BE GRANTED THAT IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE PURCHASE CONTRACT OR CONTRACTS .   4 .  THE IMPORTER SHALL CERTIFY THAT HIS APPLICATION FOR AN IMPORT DOCUMENT IS ACCURATE .   5 .  THE IMPORTER SHALL STATE WHETHER HIS APPLICATION IS A REPEAT OF A PREVIOUS APPLICATION CONCERNING THE SAME DELIVERY .   ARTICLE 3   1 .  THE MEMBER STATES SHALL COMMUNICATE TO THE COMMISSION , AS SOON AS SUCH INFORMATION IS ESTABLISHED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITIES , ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BASIC PRICE PLUS ANY EXTRAS , AS PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND THE PRICE FREE AT COMMUNITY FRONTIER , CIF , DUTY PAID AND UNLOADED , IN EUROPEAN UNITS OF ACCOUNT PER TONNE , FOR THE FOLLOWING GOODS :  ( I ) GOODS ORIGINATING IN ONE OF THE COUNTRIES LISTED IN ANNEX II , BUT CONSIGNED FROM A NON-MEMBER COUNTRY OTHER THAN THE COUNTRY OF ORIGIN ;  ( II ) GOODS ORIGINATING IN NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES , OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN ANNEXES I AND II .   2 .  WITHIN THE FIRST 10 DAYS OF EACH MONTH MEMBER STATES SHALL NOTIFY THE COMMISSION OF THE TONNAGE AND AMOUNTS  ( CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF THE BASIC CIF PRICES ) FOR WHICH IMPORT DOCUMENTS WERE ISSUED DURING THE PRECEDING MONTH .   3 .  THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY MEMBER STATES SHALL INCLUDE :  ( A ) A BREAKDOWN BY PRODUCT ( CCT SUBHEADING AND NIMEXE CODE );  ( B ) A BREAKDOWN BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN ;  ( C ) WITHIN THE TOTAL OF ANY ONE PRODUCT ORIGINATING IN ANY ONE COUNTRY , THE QUANTITIES NOT IMPORTED DIRECTLY FROM THAT COUNTRY , AND , WHERE APPROPRIATE , A BREAKDOWN BY COUNTRY OR COUNTRIES OF CONSIGNMENT ;  ( D ) THE QUANTITIES OF EACH PRODUCT RE-EXPORTED OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITY AFTER INWARD PROCESSING .   ARTICLE 4   FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS RECOMMENDATION , THE COUNTRY OF CONSIGNMENT IS DEEMED TO BE THE LAST INTERMEDIATE NON-MEMBER COUNTRY IN WHICH THE PRODUCT IN QUESTION WAS THE SUBJECT OF  ' ENTREPOT '  OPERATIONS OR LEGAL TRANSACTIONS NOT CONNECTED WITH ITS TRANSPORTATION .   ARTICLE 5   RECOMMENDATION NO 2002/79/ECSC IS HEREBY REPEALED .   ARTICLE 6   THIS RECOMMENDATION SHALL BE NOTIFIED TO THE MEMBER STATES AND PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES .   IT SHALL ENTER INTO FORCE FOR EACH MEMBER STATE ON THE DATE OF ITS PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES . IT SHALL APPLY UNTIL 31 DECEMBER 1980 .   DONE AT BRUSSELS , 7 MARCH 1980 .   FOR THE COMMISSION   WILHELM HAFERKAMP   VICE-PRESIDENT ****    ANNEX I   AUSTRIA   FINLAND   NORWAY   SWEDEN   ANNEX II    //  AUSTRALIA //  JAPAN // BULGARIA //  POLAND // CZECHOSLOVAKIA //  ROMANIA // HUNGARY //  SPAIN // ****    ANNEX III A   LIST OF PRODUCTS THE IMPORTATION OF WHICH IS SUBJECT TO THE ISSUE OF AN IMPORT DOCUMENT  ( QUANTITY AND PRICE SURVEILLANCE )   //   // CCT  // HEADING  //  NIMEXE CODE  //  DESCRIPTION  // NO  //  // 73.01 B //  73.01-21 ; 23 ; 25 ; 27 //  HAEMATITE PIG IRON AND CAST IRON // 73.01 C //  73.01-31 ; 35 //  PHOSPHORIC PIG IRON AND CAST IRON // 73.01 D //  73.01-41 ; 49 //  PIG IRON AND CAST IRON OTHER THAN SPIEGELEISEN , HAEMATITE AND PHOSPHORIC PIG IRON AND CAST IRON // 73.02 A I //  73.02-11 //  FERRO-MANGANESE CONTAINING MORE THAN 2 % BY WEIGHT OF CARBON ( HIGH CARBON FERRO-MANGANESE ) // 73.07 A I //  73.07-12 //  BLOOMS AND BILLETS , OF IRON OR STEEL , ROLLED ( 1 ) // 73.07 B I //  73.07-21 ; 24 //  SLABS AND SHEET BARS , OF IRON OR STEEL , ROLLED ( 1 ) // 73.08 //  73.08-01 ; 03 ; 05 ; 07 ; 21 ; 25 ; 29 ; 41 ; 45 ; 49 //  IRON OR STEEL COILS FOR RE-ROLLING // 73.10 A I //  73.10-11 //  WIRE ROD OF IRON OF STEEL // 73.10 A II //  73.10-13 //  CONCRETE REINFORCING BARS OF IRON OR STEEL WITH MINOR INDENTATIONS , FLANGES , GROOVES OR OTHER DEFORMATIONS PRODUCED DURING THE ROLLING PROCESS , WHETHER OR NOT TWISTED AFTER ROLLING //  //  73.10-16 //  CONCRETE REINFORCING BARS OF IRON OR STEEL OTHER THAN THOSE WITH MINOR INDENTATIONS , FLANGES , GROOVES OR OTHER DEFORMATIONS PRODUCED DURING THE ROLLING PROCESS //  //  //  BARS AND RODS OF IRON OR STEEL , NOT FURTHER WORKED THAN HOT-ROLLED OR EXTRUDED OTHER THAN CONCRETE REINFORCING BARS // 73.11 A I //  73.11-11 ; 12 ; 14 ; 16 ; 19 //  ANGLES , SHAPES AND SECTIONS OF IRON OR STEEL , NOT FURTHER WORKED THAN HOT-ROLLED OR EXTRUDED // 73.12 A II //  73.12-19 //  HOOP AND STRIP OF IRON OR STEEL , OTHER THAN ELECTRICAL , NOT FURTHER WORKED THAN HOT-ROLLED // 73.13 A II //  73.13-16 //  ' ELECTRICAL '  SHEETS AND PLATES OF IRON OR STEEL , OTHER THAN WITH A WATT-LOSS , REGARDLESS OF THICKNESS , OF 0.75 WATT OR LESS // 73.13 B I A ) //  73.13-17 ; 19 ; 21 ; 23 ; 26 //  SHEETS AND PLATES , OTHER THAN ' ELECTRICAL ' , NOT FURTHER WORKED THAN HOT-ROLLED , OF A THICKNESS OF 2 MM OR MORE // 73.13 B II B ) //  73.13-43 ; 45 //  SHEETS AND PLATES , OTHER THAN  ' ELECTRICAL ' , NOT FURTHER WORKED THAN COLD-ROLLED , OF A THICKNESS OF MORE THAN 1 MM BUT LESS THAN 3 MM // 73.13 B II C ) //  73.13-47 ; 49 //  SHEETS AND PLATES , OTHER THAN  ' ELECTRICAL ' , NOT FURTHER WORKED THAN COLD-ROLLED , OF A THICKNESS OF 1 MM OR LESS // 73.13 B IV C ) 1+2 //  73.13-67 ; 68 ; 72 //  SHEETS AND PLATES , OTHER THAN ' ELECTRICAL ' , ZINC-COATED // 73.15 B I B ) 2 ( AA ) //  73.71-53 //  BLOOMS , BILLETS , SLABS , SHEET BARS , OTHER THAN FORGED ( 1 ): //  //  //   -  STAINLESS OR HEAT-RESISTING STEEL // 73.15 B V B ) 1 ( AA ) //  73.73-23 //  WIRE ROD : //  //  //   -  STAINLESS OR HEAT-RESISTING STEEL // 73.15 B V B ) 1 ( CC ) //  73.73-25 //  WIRE ROD : //  //  //   -  S , PB AND P STEELS // 73.15 B V B ) 1 ( DD ) //  73.73-26 //  WIRE ROD : //  //  //   -  MANGANO-SILICON // 73.15 B V B ) 1 ( EE ) //  73.73-29 //  WIRE ROD : //  //  //   -  OTHER ( EXCLUDING HIGH SPEED ) //   ( 1 ) INCLUDES PRODUCTS OF THE SAME FORM IN CONTINUOUS CASTING .  //  73.15 B V B ) 2 ( AA ) //  73.73-33 //  HOT-ROLLED OR EXTRUDED BARS , RODS , ANGLES , SHAPES AND SECTIONS : //  //  //   -  STAINLESS OR HEAT-RESISTING STEEL // 73.15 B V B ) 2 ( CC ) //  73.73-35 //  HOT-ROLLED OR EXTRUDED BARS , RODS , ANGLES , SHAPES AND SECTIONS : //  //  //   -  S , PB AND P STEELS // 73.15 B V B ) 2 ( DD ) //  73.73-36 //  HOT-ROLLED OR EXTRUDED BARS , RODS , ANGLES , SHAPES AND SECTIONS : //  //  //   -  MANGANO-SILICON // 73.15 B V B ) 2 ( EE ) //  73.73-39 //  HOT-ROLLED OR EXTRUDED BARS , RODS , ANGLES , SHAPES AND SECTIONS : //  //  //   -  OTHER ALLOY ( EXCLUDING HIGH SPEED ) // 73.15 B VII A ) 2 //  73.75-19 //  ELECTRICAL SHEET AND PLATE IN ALLOY STEEL WITH A WATT LOSS , REGARDLESS OF THICKNESS OF GREATER THAN 0.75 WATT // 73.15 B VII B ) 1 ( AA ) 11 //  73.75-23 //  HOT-ROLLED SHEETS AND PLATES OF A THICKNESS MORE THAN 4.75 MM : //  //  //   -  STAINLESS OR HEAT-RESISTING // 73.15 B VII B ) 1 ( BB ) 11 //  73.75-33 //  HOT-ROLLED SHEETS AND PLATES OF A THICKNESS NOT LESS THAN 3 MM BUT NOT MORE THAN 4.75 MM : //  //  //   -  STAINLESS OR HEAT-RESISTING // 73.15 B VII B ) 1 ( CC ) 11 //  73.75-43 //  HOT-ROLLED SHEETS AND PLATES OF A THICKNESS LESS THAN 3 MM : //  //  //   -  STAINLESS OR HEAT-RESISTING // 73.15 B VII B ) 2 ( BB ) 11 //  73.75-63 //  COLD-ROLLED SHEET OF A THICKNESS LESS THAN 3 MM : //  //  //   -  STAINLESS OR HEAT-RESISTING // ****    ANNEX III B    LIST OF PRODUCTS FOR WHICH IMPORT IS SUBJECT TO ISSUE OF AN IMPORT DOCUMENT ( QUANTITY MONITORING )    //   // CCT HEADING NO  //  NIMEXE CODE  //  DESCRIPTION  //  // 73.15 A I B ) 2 //  73.61-50 //  BLOOMS , BILLETS , SLABS AND SHEET BARS OF HIGH CARBON STEEL , OTHER THAN FORGED ( 1 ): // 73.15 A V B ) 1 //  73.63-21 //  WIRE ROD OF HIGH CARBON STEEL // 73.15 B I B ) 2 ( BB ) //  73.71-54 //  BLOOMS , BILLETS , SLABS AND SHEET BARS : //  //  //   -  HIGH SPEED STEEL ( 1 ) // 73.15 B I B ) 2 ( CC ) //  73.71-55 //  BLOOMS , BILLETS , SLABS AND SHEET BARS : //  //  //   -  S , PB AND P STEELS ( 1 ) // 73.15 B I B ) 2 ( DD ) //  73.71-56 //  BLOOMS , BILLETS , SLABS AND SHEET BARS : //  //  //   -  MANGANO-SILICON STEEL ( 1 ) // 73.15 B I B ) 2 ( EE ) //  73.71-59 //  BLOOMS , BILLETS , SLABS AND SHEET BARS : //  //  //   -  OTHER ALLOY STEEL ( 1 ) // 73.15 B V B ) 1 ( BB ) //  73.73-24 //  WIRE ROD OF HIGH SPEED STEEL // 73.15 B V B ) 2 ( BB ) //  73.73-34 //  HOT-ROLLED OR EXTRUDED BAR , ROD , ANGLES , SHAPES AND SECTIONS OF HIGH SPEED STEEL // 73.15 B VII B ) 1 ( AA ) 22 //  73.75-24 //  HOT-ROLLED PLATE AND SHEET OF A THICKNESS MORE THAN 4.75 MM : //  //  //   -  HIGH SPEED STEEL // 73.15 B VII B ) 1 ( AA ) 33 //  73.75-29 //  HOT-ROLLED PLATE AND SHEET OF A THICKNESS MORE THAN 4.75 MM : //  //  //   -  OTHER ALLOY ( EXCLUDING STAINLESS ) // 73.15 B VII B ) 1 ( BB ) 22 //  73.75-34 //  HOT-ROLLED PLATE AND SHEET OF A THICKNESS NOT LESS THAN 3 MM BUT NOT MORE THAN 4.75 MM : //  //  //   -  HIGH SPEED STEEL // 73.15 B VII B ) 1 ( BB ) 33 //  73.75-39 //  HOT-ROLLED PLATE AND SHEET OF A THICKNESS NOT LESS THAN 3 MM BUT NOT MORE THAN 4.75 MM : //  //  //   -  OTHER ALLOY ( EXCLUDING STAINLESS ) // 73.15 B VII B ) 1 ( CC ) 22 //  73.75-44 //  HOT-ROLLED SHEET OF A THICKNESS LESS THAN 3 MM ; //  //  //   -  HIGH SPEED STEEL // 73.15 B VII B ) 1 ( CC ) 33 //  73.75-49 //  HOT-ROLLED SHEET OF A THICKNESS LESS THAN 3 MM ; //  //  //   -  OTHER ALLOY ( EXCLUDING STAINLESS ) // 73.15 B VII B ) 2 ( BB ) 22 //  73.75-64 //  COLD-ROLLED SHEET OF A THICKNESS LESS THAN 3 MM : //  //  //   -  HIGH SPEED STEEL // 73.15 B VII B ) 2 ( BB ) 33 //  73.75-69 //  COLD-ROLLED SHEET OF A THICKNESS LESS THAN 3 MM : //  //  //   -  OTHER ALLOY ( EXCLUDING STAINLESS ) //  ( 1 ) INCLUDES PRODUCTS OF THE SAME FORM IN CONTINUOUS CASTING


|

52011DC0324

/* COM/2011/0324 final - */  RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL to authorise the Commission to negotiate on behalf of the European Union amendments to the Energy Community Treaty  RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL to authorise the Commission to negotiate on behalf of the European Union amendments to the Energy Community Treaty

	RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCILto authorise the Commission to negotiate on behalf of the European Union amendments to the Energy Community TreatyEXPLANATORY MEMORANDUMARTICLE 11 OF THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE ENERGY COMMUNITY DEFINE s the "acquis communautaire on energy" as meaning:- Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC;- Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC; and- Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity.Under Decision No 2007/06/MC-EnC of the Ministerial Council of the Energy Community of 18 December 2007, Contracting Parties are also under an obligation to implement Regulation (EC) No 1775/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 September 2005 on conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks.In the European Union, the four above-mentioned acts have been repealed with effect from 3 March 2011 and replaced by Directive 2009/72/EC, Directive 2009/73/EC, Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 and Regulation (EC) No 715/2009, all adopted on 13 July 2009. Together with Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing an Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER), these new pieces of EU legislation form the ‘third package’ of legislative measures on the EU internal energy market.Under Article 20 of the Energy Community Treaty: "Each Contracting Party shall provide to the European Commission within one year of the date of entry into force of this Treaty a plan to implement Directive 2001/77/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market and Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport. The European Commission shall present the plan of each Contracting Party to the Ministerial Council for adoption."Both Directives, identified as the Energy Community "acquis on renewables", were amended by Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 23 April 2009, on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC.In its report on the Energy Community under Article 7 of Decision 2006/500/EC, adopted on 10 March 2011, the Commission identified adoption and implementation of the third package and of Directive 2009/28 as one of the priorities for the Energy Community, as a means to speed up integration of the region into the single European energy market.Under Article 59 of the Energy Community Treaty, on the composition of the Energy Community Regulatory Board, the European Union shall be represented "by the European Commission, assisted by one regulator of each Participant, and one representative of the European Regulators Group for Electricity and Gas (ERGEG)."The activities performed in the past by the European Regulators Group for Electricity and Gas (ERGEG) have been taken over by ACER and ERGEG will cease to exist as from 1st July 2011.On 6th May 2011, the Commission adopted a Decision establishing the Commission Proposal to the Ministerial Council of the Energy Community on the implementation of Directive 2009/72/EC, Directive 2009/73/EC, Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 and Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 and amending Articles 11 and 59 of the Energy Community Treaty.Article 5(2) of Council Decision 2006/500 of 29 May 2006, on the conclusion by the European Community of the Energy Community Treaty, sets out the procedure to be applied before a position can be taken at the Energy Community Institutions on amendments to the Energy Community Treaty (Article 100(i)).In the above context, the Commission therefore recommends that the Council authorise it to deliberate within the institutions of the Energy Community on necessary adaptations of the Energy Community Treaty.RECOMMENDATIONIn the light of the above, the Commission recommends:-  that the Council authorises the Commission to negotiate on behalf of the European Union necessary amendments to of the Treaty establishing the Energy Community-  in accordance with the Treaty, the Commission shall be the negotiator for the European Union and shall negotiate the amendments to the Energy Community Treaty as set out in the negotiating directives; and-  that, the Council designates a committee in consultation with which the negotiation must be conducted; and-  that the Council issues the negotiating directives annexed to this Recommendation.ANNEXDirectives for the negotiation of amendments to the Treaty establishing the Energy Community."ACQUIS COMMUNAUTAIRE ON ENERGY"Amendments to be agreed on behalf of the European Union should be in line with those proposed in the Commission's decision of 6th May 2011."ACQUIS FOR RENEWABLES"Amendments to be agreed on behalf of the European Union should refer to the obligation of Contracting Parties to adopt Directive 2009/28, on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC.ENERGY COMMUNITY REGULATORY BOARDAmendments to be agreed on behalf of the European Union should be in line with those proposed in the Commission's decision of 6th May 2011.


Avis juridique important

|

31997H0190

97/190/EC: Council Recommendation of 17 March 1997 concerning the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Development Fund (1984) (Sixth EDF) for the financial year 1995

Official Journal L 080 , 21/03/1997 P. 0021 - 0021

COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION of 17 March 1997 concerning the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Development Fund (1984) (Sixth EDF) for the financial year 1995 (97/190/EC)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 206 thereof,Having regard to the Third ACP-EEC Convention, signed at Lomé on 8 December 1984,Having regard to Council Decision 86/283/EEC of 30 June 1986 on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Economic Community (1),Having regard to the Internal Agreement on the financing and administration of Community aid (2), signed in Brussels on 19 February 1985, as amended by Decision 86/281/EEC (3), and in particular Article 29 (3) thereof,Having regard to the Financial Regulation of 11 November 1986 applicable to the Sixth European Development Fund (4), and in particular Articles 66 to 73 thereof,Having examined the revenue and expenditure account and the balance sheet relating to the operations of the European Development Fund (1984) (Sixth EDF) as at 31 December 1995 and the Court of Auditors' report relating to the financial year 1995 together with the Commission's replies (5),Whereas, pursuant to Article 29 (3) of the Internal Agreement, the discharge for the management of the European Development Fund (1984) (Sixth EDF) must be given to the Commission by the European Parliament on a recommendation from the Council;Whereas the overall implementation by the Commission of the operations of the European Development Fund (1984) (Sixth EDF) during the financial year 1995 has been satisfactory,HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the European Parliament give the Commission a discharge in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Development Fund (1984) (Sixth EDF) for the financial year 1995.Done at Brussels, 17 March 1997.For the CouncilThe PresidentG. ZALM(1) OJ No L 175, 1. 7. 1986, p. 1.(2) OJ No L 86, 31. 3. 1986, p. 210.(3) OJ No L 178, 2. 7. 1986, p. 13.(4) OJ No L 325, 20. 11. 1986, p. 42.(5) OJ No C 340, 12. 11. 1996, pp. 290 to 333.


Avis juridique important

|

31998H0195

98/195/EC: Commission Recommendation of 8 January 1998 on interconnection in a liberalised telecommunications market (Part 1 - Interconnection pricing) (Text with EEA relevance)

Official Journal L 073 , 12/03/1998 P. 0042 - 0050

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION of 8 January 1998 on interconnection in a liberalised telecommunications market (Part 1 - Interconnection pricing) (Text with EEA relevance) (98/195/EC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Directive 97/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 on interconnection in telecommunications with regard to ensuring universal service and interoperability through the application of the principles of open network provision (ONP) (1), and in particular Article 7(5) thereof,Whereas Commission Directive 96/19/EC of 13 March 1996 amending Directive 90/388/EEC with regard to the implementation of full competition in telecommunications markets (2), abolishes special and exclusive rights as regards the provision of telecommunications networks and services;Whereas it is Community policy to create an open and competitive market in the telecommunications sector; whereas for new entrants in the telecommunications market seeking to compete with the incumbent operators, interconnection to the existing public switched telecommunications networks is essential, and interconnection charges represent one of the biggest items of expenditure for new market entrants; whereas the Community has agreed a regulatory framework for interconnection as set out in Directive 97/33/EC;Whereas Directive 97/33/EC gives national regulatory authorities for telecommunications (NRAs) an important role in securing adequate interconnection of networks, in accordance with Community law, taking into account recommendations defined by the Commission so as to facilitate the development of a genuine European home market (recital 12); whereas, in particular, Article 7(5) of Directive 97/33/EC calls upon the Commission to draw up recommendations on cost accounting systems and accounting separation; whereas, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the setting of tariffs for interconnection is a responsibility of the Member States;Whereas Article 7(2) of Directive 97/33/EC requires that certain organisations notified by their NRA as having significant market power (hereinafter referred to as 'notified operators`) follow the principles of transparency and cost orientation for interconnection charges, and states that the burden of proof that charges are cost-oriented lies with the organisation providing interconnection to its network;Whereas the Commission considers that that most appropriate approach to interconnection pricing is one based on forward-looking long-run average incremental costs, since this is most compatible with a competitive market; whereas this approach does not preclude the use of justified 'mark-ups` as a means of recovering the forward-looking joint and common costs of an efficient operator as would arise under competitive conditions;Whereas until interconnection charges based on forward-looking long-run average incremental costs are put in place, it is appropriate to publish international comparisons of interconnection charges as a means of assisting national regulatory authorities in ensuring the implementation of cost-oriented interconnection to the networks of notified operators;Whereas Article 7(5) of Directive 97/33/EC calls for NRAs to ensure that the cost accounting systems used by the organisations concerned are suitable to ensure transparency and cost orientation, but does not specify a particular cost accounting system; whereas an approach to interconnection pricing based on forward-looking long-run average incremental costs implies an accounting system based on current costs rather than historic costs; whereas activity based accounts can be used to build a 'top-down` model of the long-run average incremental cost of interconnection;Whereas the cost of terminating a call from an interconnected network should not depend on the type of network on which the call originated; whereas the principle of non-discrimination means that the interconnection tariffs for call termination services provided by notified operators should not in general discriminate between calls originating from fixed networks and calls originating from mobile networks, nor between calls originating from networks in the same Member State and calls originating from networks in other Member States;Whereas Member State may make the provision of telecommunications services, including the establishment and/or operation of telecommunications networks required for the provision of such services, subject to authorisations in accordance with Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services (3); whereas the general principles of the Treaty and the particular requirements of the Directive 97/33/EC, mean that all points of interconnection open to national operators should also be open to authorised operators in other Member States who wish to deliver cross-border traffic; whereas the established practice that existing network operators can deliver traffic to other Member States without needing authorisations in the destination Member State, or needing to be established in the destination Member State, is consistent with the principle that delivery of traffic to a Member State does not constitute the offering of a service in that Member State;Whereas Directive 97/33/EC allows Member States to establish mechanisms for sharing the net cost of universal service obligations between organisations operating public telecommunications networks and/or publicly available voice telephony services;Whereas Article 12(1) of Directive 95/62/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 13 December 1995 on the application of open network provision to voice telephony (4) requires tariffs for use of the fixed public telephone network and the voice telephony service to follow the basic principles of cost orientation and transparency; whereas contributions by interconnected parties to 'access deficit` type schemes are only permissible when tariff constraints are imposed by NRAs on the grounds of affordability and accessibility of telephone service in accordance with Article 12(2) of Directive 95/62/EC; whereas the Commission has indicated that it believes such schemes should disappear by 1 January 2000 (5);Whereas the application of the principles set out in this recommendation is without prejudice to the duty of the Member States and of undertakings to fully comply with the EU competition rules, taking account of the specific positions set out in the communication from the Commission on the application of the competition rules to access agreements in the telecommunications sector (6);Whereas the advisory committee set up by Article 9(1) of Directive 90/387/EEC on the establishment of the internal market for telecommunications services through the implementation of open network provision (7) ('the ONP Committee`) has given broad support to the principles contained in this recommendation, and the Commission has taken utmost account of the views expressed,MAKES THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION:1. This recommendation concerns the interconnection of telecommunications networks, and in particular the pricing of call termination on the networks of operators designated by their national regulatory authority as having significant market power (hereinafter referred to as 'notified operators`) in accordance with Directive 97/33/EC.2. Article 7(2) of Directive 97/33/EC requires the interconnection charges of notified operators to follow the principles of cost orientation and transparency. The principle of cost orientation when applied to interconnection means that interconnection charges should reflect the way in which the costs of interconnection are actually incurred. Notified operators should be able to recover the one-off incremental cost required to connect the networks, and the incremental capacity costs imposed by the interconnecting traffic.Annex I of this recommendation provides further details on the type of costs associated with call termination.3. Interconnection costs should be calculated on the basis of forward-looking long run average incremental costs, since these costs closely approximate those of an efficient operator employing modern technology. Interconnection charges which are based on such costs may include justified 'mark-ups` to cover a portion of the forward-looking joint and common costs of an efficient operator, as would arise under competitive conditions.4. The interconnection charges based on 'best current practice` given below provide guidance to NRAs when assessing the interconnection charges for call termination proposed by notified operators, until calculated costs for interconnection based on forward-looking, long-run average incremental costs are available.Based on the data given in Annex II of this recommendation, the following 'best current practice` charges are recommended maximum interconnection charges for the period starting 1 January 1998.'Best current practice` interconnection charges 'Best current practice` interconnection charge for call termination at the LOCAL level (i. e. at a local exchange or as near a local exchange as possible)between ECU 0,6 and 1,0/100 per minute (at peak rate)'Best current practice` interconnection charge for SINGLE TRANSIT interconnection (metropolitan level)between ECU 0,9 and 1,8/100 per minute (at peak rate)'Best current practice` interconnection charge for DOUBLE TRANSIT interconnection (national level - more than 200 km)between ECU 1,5 and 2,6/100 per minute (at peak rate)5. It is recommended that where charges lie outside the ranges of 'best current practice` charges given in point 4, national regulatory authorities use their rights under Article 7(2) of the Directive 97/33/EC to request full justification of the proposed charges, and if appropriate, to require retrospective changes to interconnection charges. The ranges of 'best current practice` charges given in point 4 are considered to be wide enough to cover recognised cost differences between Member States.6. The use of forward-looking, long-run average incremental costs implies a cost accounting system using activity-based allocations of current costs, rather than historic costs. It is recommended that national regulatory authorities (NRAs) set deadlines for their notified operators for the implementation of new costs accounting systems based on current costs, where such systems are not already in place. Activity-based costing systems, in which costs are allocated to each product and/or service on the basis of the underlying cost drivers and activities of an efficient operator, are recommended in order to minimise the joint and common costs that cannot be directly allocated.7. In keeping with current practice for cross-border interconnection between operators of established networks, and the principle of non-discrimination, operators authorised in one Member State that merely interconnect to deliver traffic to another Member State, and that do not offer services or operate infrastructure in that other Member State, should not need to be authorised or established in that other Member State.It is recommended that the reference interconnection offer of notified organisations should include - as a discrete unbundled element of the interconnection offer - terms and conditions and tariffs for the transmission link between the actual point of interconnection and the border of the Member State.8. Without prejudice to the principle of non-discrimination, any contributions to access deficits or universal service paid by organisations operating public telecommunications networks and/or voice telephony services operators in a Member State (which in accordance with Community law must be separated from interconnection charges), should not be imposed on organisations which merely interconnect to deliver traffic to a Member State and do not actually offer telecommunications services in that Member State, nor be imposed indirectly on consumers in other Member States.9. This recommendation, and in particular the 'best current practice charges` in point 4 and the data in Annex II, will be reviewed by the Commission by 31 July 1998 at the latest, and updated where necessary.10. This recommendation is addressed to the Member States.Done at Brussels, 8 January 1998.For the CommissionMartin BANGEMANNMember of the Commission(1) OJ L 199, 26. 7. 1997, p. 32.(2) OJ L 74, 22. 3. 1996, p. 13.(3) OJ L 117, 7. 5. 1997, p. 15.(4) OJ L 321, 30. 12. 1995, p. 6.(5) COM(96) 608, 27.11.1996, Commission communication on assessment criteria for national schemes for the costing and financing of universal service in telecommunications and guidelines for the Member States on operation of such schemes.(6) OJ C 76, 11. 3. 1997, p. 9.(7) OJ L 192, 24. 7. 1990, p. 1.ANNEX I COMPONENTS OF INTERCONNECTION CHARGES FOR CALL TERMINATION Directive 97/33/EC requires the interconnection charges of notified operators to follow the principles of cost orientation. This Annex considers the implications of this requirement for the components of an interconnection charge for call termination.1. Pricing the local loop for interconnection purposes The local loop refers to the final links between the customer and the local exchange. In a fixed network using wired or wireless local loops, the cost of an unswitched local loop is largely a one-off cost, with periodic maintenance costs. Where call termination is being purchased, the 'lowest` place in the network where this can occur is on the main network side of the local switch (1). Interconnection at this point may impose additional switch capacity costs, but there is no additional capacity cost or investment requirement relating to those components of the local loop which are dedicated to a particular customer (i.e. the pair of copper wires in a traditional network).It follows from the principle of cost orientation that since the provision of interconnection does not lead to any increase of costs in the dedicated components of the local loop of the terminating network, the calculation of interconnection charges should not include any component relating to the direct cost of the subscriber-dedicated components of the local loop. The cost of those components in the unswitched local loop that are dedicated to a particular customer should therefore be recovered from that customer through a subscriber line charge, or as a combination of this and revenues from other services, to the extent that competition permits.A difficulty arises if the incumbent is prevented from rebalancing its tariffs by regulatory measures and thus cannot charge an economic price to its own customers to cover the cost of the local loop. This gives rise to the so-called 'access deficit`. In a monopoly environment the operator compensates for the deficit in the 'access network` (i.e. the local loop) by charging prices in excess of economic cost for other services, such as international calls. With cost-oriented interconnection, competitors are able to capture some of this long distance and international traffic, and the incumbent's ability to compensate for the access deficit is reduced. An access deficit scheme involves contributions being imposed on other operators to compensate the incumbent for the loss of revenues that would have been used to fund this deficit.Access deficit contribution schemes always provide inefficient investment signals, and raise overall industry costs. They are also administratively cumbersome, and lack transparency. As mentioned in the 'Guidelines on costing and pricing of universal service` published by the Commission in November 1996 (2) it is expected that access deficit type schemes will only be applied on a temporary basis, up to the year 2000, by which time a sufficient level of re-balancing should have been completed in all Member States.In accordance with the Interconnection Directive, any contribution to 'access deficits` paid by interconnecting parties must be clearly separated from the interconnection charges. Payment of 'access deficit contributions` by interconnected parties is only permissible under Community law where Member States impose regulatory constraints on the retail tariffs of notified operators. Where an operator is not prevented by regulatory measures from rebalancing its tariffs, and 'access deficit` charge is not justified.2. Pricing uncompleted calls for interconnection purposes Uncompleted busy hour calls that originate from interconnected networks may impose additional capacity costs on a terminating network. In some cases, however, the reason for call failure could be lack of performance of the incumbent's own network. The Interconnection Directive places the onus of proof regarding costs on the network operator, so any operator seeking to include in its interconnection tariffs a fee for uncompleted calls would have to demonstrate that lack of performance of its own network had not been a reason for call failure.3. Call set-up charges for interconnection purposes In a fixed network, switch costs are mainly driven by two factors - call duration and call events (i.e. signalling and call set-up). A great deal of information is required to determine the proper balance in terms of cost causation between these two types of costs. Partly because of this, it is common for regulatory authorities to allow recovery of switching costs only on the basis of duration of completed calls. A charge for call set-up could only be considered to be a valid component of an interconnection tariff if the operator could demonstrate the extent to which calls originating from interconnected networks imposed incremental costs on the terminating network in terms of additional processing power required to handle the additional call set-up attempts occurring during the peak period. If a call set-up charge is used, the corresponding call duration charges should be lower than when there is no call set-up charge.4. Interconnection charges and retail pricing Some countries have in the past calculated interconnection charges on the basis of discounted retail tariffs. However, current retail tariffs are not necessarily cost-oriented, and this approach would in most cases be incompatible with the requirements of Community law.Even if retail tariffs were cost-oriented, the approach is not desirable because it tends to lock new entrants into the same retail tariff structure as that of the incumbent, thus preventing the development by new entrants of innovative retail tariff schemes targeted at different types of user. The variety and choice of retail tariff schemes currently available on mobile networks in Member States shows there is considerable scope for innovative retail tariffing as a means of providing consumer choice and increasing the market demand for telecommunications services.Where interconnection charges include time of day and day of week variations, they should be applied in a non-discriminatory manner to new entrants and to the incumbent's own traffic.(1) The provision of 'unbundled` local loop, whereby a new entrant takes over and has exclusive use of a local loop installed by an incumbent, for an appropriate fee, is not strictly 'interconnection` in EU terms.(2) COM(96) 608, 27. 11. 1996.ANNEX II 'BEST PRACTICE` INTERCONNECT CHARGES AND THEIR DERIVATION 1. Approach The approach taken is to use the interconnect charges in the three lowest cost Member States (for which data was available at 1 September 1997) as the starting point for a set of 'best current practice` figures at which to aim in the short term.The figure below shows the level of interconnection charges for Member States. The costs in this figure refer to call termination on fixed networks at peak rates. Call set-up charges are included where they exist, but other non-traffic-related charges are in general not included. The figures do not include any 'access deficit` type contributions or universal service contributions. These additional contributions will not be required in many Member States, but where they are required as part of the regulatory environment in a Member State, they must be calculated and shown separately from the interconnection charge, in accordance with the Interconnection Directive.Note that these figures concern one specific element of the cost of interconnection, i.e. the charge for call termination. They do not represent the full interconnection charges that may be payable in a given country.1997/1998 - Interconnection rates >REFERENCE TO A FILM>Figure 1Interconnection charges for local, single transit and double transit levels, at peak rates(rate in ECU/100 per minute, based on a three minute call duration)The tables in section 3 give the data upon which this chart is based.There are factors such as average density of connections, labour costs, geological factors, permitted rate of return on capital employed (1), which vary between EU Member States. While such variations will to some extent affect the cost of interconnection, the differences are not considered to be large enough to invalidate the 'best current practice` charges recommended here (2).It is intended to review the figures in this recommendation during 1998, and it is to be expected that the 'best current practice` interconnection charges will be progressively reduced in the future to reflect both the downward trend in network costs and better estimation of those costs. Currently interconnection charges worldwide are reducing at about 8 % per annum.It must be stressed that these 'best current practice` charges are higher - in some cases considerably higher - than those which would be expected using a bottom-up LRAIC calculation. Nevertheless given the situation in the EU as of January 1998, it is considered that these 'best current practice` charges represent a realistic intermediate goal.2. Derivation of 'best current practice` interconnection charges The price ranges were derived from the tariffs that were available as of 1 September 1997. Changes in interconnection tariffs occurring after that date have not been taken into account.The top price in each range shown above corresponds to the charge that applied at 1 September 97 in the third lowest-cost Member State, rounded up to the nearest ECU/1 000.The bottom price in each range corresponds to the charge that applied at 1 September 97 in the lowest cost Member State, rounded down to the nearest ECU/1 000, and with an adjustment to the 'double transit` rate to take account of the fact that in smaller Member States a distance component of less than 200 km may be appropriate.3. Detailed cost data for Member States >TABLE>(1) Historically, the real cost of capital has been higher in some countries, and some regions of the world compared with other. Rates of return on capital employed may therefore differ between states by several percentage points per annum.(2) The density of connections is largely reflected in access cost, a dedicated cost to the end customer, rather than imposing great differences in interconnection rates. A similar argument can be made regarding differences in geological factors.


				|

		52012PC0104

			Recommendation for a COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION with a view to bringing an end to the situation of an excessive government deficit in Hungary /* COM/2012/0104 final  */

			   	EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
On 5 July 2004, the Council decided in
accordance with Article 104(6) of the Treaty establishing the European
Community (TEC) that an excessive deficit exists in Hungary. On 24 January
2012, the Council decided in accordance with Article 126(8) of the Treaty on
the Functioning of the EU (TFEU), that Hungary has not taken effective action
in response to the latest Council Recommendation according to Article 104(7) of
the Treaty of 7 July 2009.
As a follow-up to the Council Decision of
24 January 2012 and in accordance with Article 126(7) TFEU and Article 3 of
Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97, on [6 March 2012] the Commission should
adopt a recommendation for a new Council Recommendation with a view to bringing
an end to the situation of an excessive government deficit in Hungary.
Recommendation for a
COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
with a view to bringing an end to the
situation of an excessive government deficit in Hungary
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and in particular Article 126(7)
thereof,
Having regard to the recommendation from
the European Commission,
Whereas:
(1)
According to Article 126 TFEU Member States shall
avoid excessive government deficits.
(2)
The Stability and Growth Pact is based on the
objective of sound government finances as a means of strengthening the
conditions for price stability and for strong sustainable growth conducive to
employment creation.
(3)
The Council has decided on 5 July 2004, in accordance
with Article 104(6) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC),
that an excessive deficit exists in Hungary and made recommendations under
Article 104(7) TEC with a view to bringing the excessive deficit situation to
an end by 2008.
(4)
In January 2005, in accordance with Article
104(8) TEC, the Council considered that Hungary had not taken effective action
in response to its recommendation and issued another recommendation based on
Article 104(7) TEC in March 2005, confirming the 2008 deadline for the
correction of the excessive deficit. In November 2005, the Council decided that
Hungary had for the second time failed to comply with the recommendations under
Article 104(7) TEC. Accordingly, it addressed a third recommendation under
Article 104(7) TEC to Hungary in October 2006, postponing the deadline for the
correction of the excessive deficit to 2009. In July 2009 the Council concluded
that the Hungarian authorities could be considered to have taken effective
action in response to the recommendations from October 2006 and, against the
background of the severe economic downturn issued revised recommendations under
Article 104(7) TEC, setting once more a new deadline for correction, i.e. 2011.
On 27 January 2010 the Commission concluded that Hungary had taken effective
action in response to the latest Council recommendations, but alerted about
considerable risks.
(5)
According to the provisions of Article 126(8)
TFEU, the Council decided on 24 January 2012 that Hungary did not take
effective action in response to the July 2009 Council recommendation within the
period laid down in this recommendation. While the nominal 3% of GDP reference
value was not breached in 2011, this was not based on a structural and
sustainable correction and hinged upon substantial one-off revenues. This was accompanied
by a structural deterioration in 2010 and 2011 of over 2% of GDP compared to a
recommended cumulative fiscal improvement of 0.5% of GDP. Moreover, while the
authorities were implementing structural measures in 2012 which were expected
to largely offset the previous deterioration, the 3% of GDP Treaty reference
value would again be respected in 2012 only thanks to one-off measures of close
to 1% of GDP and it would be breached in 2013. [Following this Council
decision, the Council decided [on 13 March] to suspend a part of the Cohesion
Fund commitment appropriations for the year 2013 for Hungary (in line with
Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006).]
(6)
In accordance with Article 126(7) TFEU and Article
3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 on speeding up and clarifying the
implementation of the excessive deficit procedure (which is part of the
Stability and Growth Pact), the Council is required to make recommendations to
the Member State concerned with a view to bringing the situation of excessive
deficit to an end within a given period. The recommendation has to establish a
deadline of six months at the most for effective action to be taken by the
Member State concerned to correct the excessive deficit as well as a deadline
for the correction of the excessive deficit, which should be completed in the
year following its identification unless there are special circumstances. In
deciding whether special circumstances exist, “relevant factors” as clarified
in Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 should be taken into account.
Furthermore, in a recommendation to correct an excessive deficit the Council
should request the achievement of annual budgetary targets which, on the basis
of the forecast underpinning the recommendation, are consistent with a minimum
annual improvement in the structural balance, i.e. the cyclically-adjusted
balance excluding one-off and other temporary measures, of 0.5% of GDP as a
benchmark.
(7)
The Hungarian economy emerged from recession in
2010 as GDP grew by 1.3%. The recovery was considerably faster in 2010 than the
Commission services' projection in spring 2009 of -0.3% (i.e. at the time of
the Council recommendation). In 2011, GDP is expected to have continued
expanding at a moderate rate of 1.7%, still driven exclusively by the external
balance. However, the growth outlook deteriorated over the course of 2011 due
to the overall weakening of the international environment, which played out
over several channels, as well as to the further contraction in domestic demand
linked also to policy uncertainties. In this vein, the
Commission services' February 2012 Interim Forecast projects GDP to contract slightly,
by 0.1%, before it would resume growing again.
(8)
Following a deficit of 4.2% of GDP in 2010, the
general government balance is expected to turn into a surplus in 2011, but only
thanks to substantial one-off revenues of almost 10% of GDP linked to the transfer
of pension assets from private pension schemes. The official estimate for the 2011
budget surplus is 3.9% of GDP as specified in the December 2011 EDP progress
report. Taking into account the recent information about better-than-expected
cash-flow budgetary developments for some revenue items as well as for the
local government subsector, the surplus may even be slightly higher (at around
4.1% of GDP based on the Commission services updated assessment).
(9)
Regarding 2012, the adopted budget targets a
deficit of 2.5% of GDP to be achieved on the back of a number of consolidation
packages – to a large extent these were announced in the Széll Kálmán Plan
and the 2011 update of the Convergence Programme (CP) –
in part intended to correct the effect of the sizeable tax cuts decided in the
second half of 2010, that amounted to somewhat over 2% of GDP, while setting
aside an extraordinary reserve buffer (contingent expenditure cuts) of 1.1% of
GDP. The achievement of the target is also supported by net one-off revenues of
0.7% of GDP from the temporary extraordinary taxes. Based on recent
economic and budgetary developments the updated Commission services' forecast currently
expects the deficit to be at 3% of GDP, i.e. above the authorities' official
target. Compared to the adopted budget, this higher deficit forecast reflects,
among others, lower economic growth by half a percentage point as well as a
more prudent assessment of revenue and expenditure developments. At the same
time, it assumes that the extraordinary reserves will not be used (i.e.
contingent expenditure cuts will be carried out). The updated Commission
services' forecast of 3% of GDP is 0.2% of GDP higher than the projection at
the time of the adoption of the recommendation for a Council decision under
Article 126(8). This is explained by the fact the better-than-expected base
effect (from 2011) is not sufficient to counterbalance the budgetary impacts of
the further downward revision in the 2012 economic outlook and the impact of the
higher bond yields. In line with established practice in EU fiscal
surveillance, the new consolidation plans of 0.4% of GDP published by the
authorities on 21 February 2012 cannot be incorporated in the Commission
services' forecast since they have not been sufficiently substantiated yet.
(10)
In 2013, the deficit is expected to rise again
to around 3.6% of GDP (up from 3% of GDP), which exceeds the Commission
services' forecast of 3¼% of GDP at the time of the adoption of the Council
decision that Hungary has not taken effective action based on Article 126(8)
TFEU. This higher deficit number is mainly due to deficit increasing
developments of 0.4% of GDP (such as lower tax revenues due to the lower growth
forecast in 2012) that also contributed to the higher 2012 deficit forecast.
Moreover, interest expenditures will increase more in 2013 than in 2012 (by
0.1% of GDP). These effects are expected to be only partly offset by other
effects such as the lower than earlier expected financing need of the central
bank in 2013 (by ¼% of GDP). When compared to 2012, the deficit increase to
3.6% in 2013 stems essentially from the phasing out of sectoral levies with a
net budgetary effect of 0.7% of GDP in 2013, the higher debt service
expenditures of ½% of GDP as well as the tightening of the tax base of the PIT
with a budgetary effect of 0.3% of GDP. These deficit increasing effects,
totalling some 1½% of GDP of GDP are expected to be only partly counterbalanced
by the further implementation of the Széll Kálmán structural reform programme
resulting in savings of 0.4% of GDP and other savings of 0.4% of GDP, such as
the nominal freezing of the wages in the public sector. Finally, the budget is expected
to benefit somewhat from the foreseen economic recovery.
(11)
According to the latest Commission services' estimates,
after a deterioration by 1½% in 2010 and by ½% in 2011, the structural balance
is expected to improve by close to 2% in 2012 before deteriorating again by ½%
of GDP in 2013. If the government would take the
necessary measures to achieve its fiscal targets in 2012 and 2013, the
structural improvement would amount to broadly 2½% of GDP in 2012 and ½% of GDP
in 2013.
(12)
The budgetary outlook described above could be
improved by more than ½% of GDP in 2013 if reforms foreseen in the Széll Kálmán
Plan would be sufficiently specified and implemented. Further expenditure
savings published on 21 February 2012 need to be substantiated, in particular
in the areas of reduction of the subsidy of the public transport companies and pharmaceuticals,
whereas additional revenues could be expected from the planned introduction of
the electronic road tolls. Beyond these measures, in order to achieve a durable
correction of the excessive deficit, Hungary could benefit from better targeting
the universal child benefit (possibly in connection with the recently
introduced generous family tax allowances), introducing a centralised, value-based
property tax and from enhancing the progressive nature of the flat income tax
scheme; the latter issue was covered by the Council Recommendation to Hungary
of July 2011 in the context of the European Semester.
(13)
After having increased from 79.7% of GDP in 2009
to 81.3% in 2010, the government gross debt slightly decreased to 80.3% of GDP,
in 2011. This slight improvement reflects the significant primary surplus of 8%
of GDP, generated by the one-off revenue from the takeover of the private
pension assets, which is largely offset by the exchange rate depreciation.
Looking further, given the anticipated deficit numbers and based on a stronger
technical exchange rate assumption compared to the level at the end of 2011 as
well as assuming a further sale of the former private pension fund assets of 1%
of GDP, government gross debt is expected to be around 76% of GDP in 2012 but
it is expected to increase again from 2013.
(14)
Past fiscal developments point to a weakness in
fiscal governance and the transparency of budgetary planning and implementation.
After effectively weakening the previous fiscal governance framework that was
still in its infancy in the second half of 2010, the authorities introduced the
key elements of a changed set-up in the new Constitution (in effect as of 1
January 2012). Most notably, a nominal debt ceiling was set at 50% of GDP (to
be achieved through a continous debt reduction from the current high level), and
a veto right over the budget was granted to a rearranged Fiscal Council (FC). Follow-up
legislation to establish the new operational numerical rules both at the
central and the local level as well as the stipulation on the governing
arrangements of the FC was adopted late 2011 in a 'cardinal law'. The adopted
new annual numerical rule still appears to focus too much on the annual
budgetary cycle and does not seem to be conducive to medium-term budgetary
planning, which was recommended to be strengthened by the Council in its recommendation
of July 2011 in the context of the European semester. In that same
country-specific recommendation the Council also asked Hungary to broaden the
analytical remit of the Fiscal Council (e.g. through the preparation of regular
macro-fiscal baseline projections), which is not yet ensured, also after the
adoption of the Economic Stability law in December 2011.
(15)
Regular and timely monitoring of the progress
made in the implementation of the fiscal consolidation strategy for correcting
the excessive deficit is supported by Article 10a of Council Regulation (EC) No
1497/67, which foresees that the Member State concerned shall provide all
necessary information. In this context, a separate chapter in the update of Hungary's
Convergence Programme should be prepared in 2012 and subsequently as well as in
the regular bi-annual reporting on progress until the end of the Excessive
Deficit Procedure, in line with the Hungarian authorities' commitment.
(16)
Budgetary consolidation measures should secure a
lasting improvement in the general government balance, while being geared
towards enhancing the quality of the public finances and reinforcing the growth
potential of the economy,
HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:
(1)
The Hungarian authorities should put an end to the
present excessive deficit situation by 2012.
(2)
The Hungarian authorities should bring the
general government deficit below the 3% of GDP reference value in a credible
and sustainable manner in accordance with the multi-annual path outlined in
Hungary's updated convergence programme of 15 April 2011 as endorsed by the opinion
expressed by the Council on 12 July 2011. Specifically to this end, the
Hungarian authorities should:
(a)
Ensure the attainment of the 2012 defict target
of 2.5% of GDP compared to the expected outcome of 3% of GDP based on the
macroeconomic framework after the 2012 February Interim Forecast of the
Commission services, which would require an additional fiscal effort of at
least ½% of GDP on top of the 1.9% of GDP that is already foreseen; in particular,
this should be done through a further specification and rigorous implementation
of the deficit-decreasing measures included in the Széll Kálmán Plan and
the 2011 update of the Convergence Programme as well as the adoption of further
consolidation measures of a structural nature as necessary. Allocate possible
windfall gains for improving the headline balance, including possible one-off
revenues stemming from the step back of beneficiaries from the private to the
public pension pillar.
(b)
Take necessary additional measures of a
structural nature as needed to ensure that the deficit in 2013, estimated to
exceed the 3% of GDP threshold of the Treaty by 0.6% of GDP based on the
macroeconomic framework after the 2012 February Interim Forecast of the Commission
services, remains well below the threshold even after the expected and
recommended full phasing out of one-off revenues of close to 1% of GDP. These measures
could include a further specification and implementation of the planned
structural reforms included in the Széll Kálmán Plan.
(c)
Incorporate sufficient reserve provisions in the
forthcoming budget laws (on top of the general reserve prescribed by the Public
Finance Act), to ensure the achievement of the budgetary targets even in case
of unforeseen events.
(3)
The above-mentioned budgetary adjustment should
contribute to bringing the government gross debt ratio on a declining path. In
particular, sufficient progress toward compliance with the debt reduction benchmark
should be ensured throughout the three years following the correction of the
excessive deficit, in accordance with Article 2 (1a) of Regulation 1467/97.
(4)
As recommended by the Council in July 2011, the
Hungarian authorities should operationalise the key constitutional fiscal rules
by adapting the cardinal law on economic stability. The numerical rules should
ensure that the budget process is embedded into a binding medium-term framework
and the analytical remit of the Fiscal Council should be broadened .
(5)
The Council establishes the deadline of [13 September
2012] for the Hungarian government to take effective action and to specify the
measures that will be necessary to progress towards ensuring a durable
correction of the excessive deficit. The assessment of effective action will
take into account economic developments compared to the updated outlook presented
in the Staff Working Document accompanying the Commission recommendation for
this Council recommendation.
The Hungarian authorities should report on
progress made in the implementation of these recommendations in a separate
chapter in the update of the Convergence Programme, which will be prepared in
2012 and subsequently, as well as in the regular bi-annual reporting on
progress until the end of the Excessive Deficit Procedure, in line with Hungary's
commitment.
In addition, the Council highlights the
importance of achieving the medium-term objective (MTO) for ensuring the
sustainability of public finances or a rapid progress towards such
sustainability. It therefore invites the Hungarian authorities to take the
necessary structural effort to reach its budget target of a deficit of 2.2% of
GDP for 2013 in a way that ensures that the MTO – currently a structural
balance of -1.5% of GDP – is sustained alongside the durable correction of the
excessive deficit.
This recommendation is
addressed to Hungary.
Done at Brussels,
                                                                       For
the Council
                                                                       The
President