title: 2004/645/EC: Commission Recommendation of 16 September 2004 on the implementation by the consular offices of the Member States of the Memorandum of Understanding between the European Community and the National Tourism Administration of the People’s Republic of China on visa and related issues concerning tourist groups from the People’s Republic of China (ADS) (notified under document number C(2004) 2886)

text:
               21.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 296/23

      COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION

   of 16 September 2004
   on the implementation by the consular offices of the Member States of the Memorandum of Understanding between the European Community and the National Tourism Administration of the People’s Republic of China on visa and related issues concerning tourist groups from the People’s Republic of China (ADS)
   (notified under document number C(2004) 2886)
   (2004/645/EC)
   THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 211, second indent, thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The Memorandum of Understanding between the European Community and the National Tourism Administration of the People’s Republic of China on visa and related issues concerning tourist groups from the People’s Republic of China (1) (PRC) provides a specific application process, derogating from the common rules on visas as established in the Common Consular Instructions (CCI), to facilitate issuing of short term visas to groups of Chinese citizens who wish to travel to the territory of the Community. The Memorandum of Understanding (ADS MoU) has entered into force on 1 May 2004.

               (2)

               With a view to ensure a high level of security, particularly as regards the prevention of clandestine immigration and avoid any risk of visa shopping between the Member States Consular offices in the PRC, a harmonised implementation by all Member States of the ADS MoU is appropriate and thus it is necessary to set up common implementing procedures for the consular offices of the Member States in the PRC.

               (3)

               The common procedures are based on the provisions included in the ADS MoU, setting up a harmonised approach covering the different issues from the visa application procedure to the withdrawal of accreditation in case of breach of EU and/or Chinese regulations.

               (4)

               The basic rules for visa applications described in the CCI and in particular the rules related to the local consular offices have been used, where appropriate, as a reference for the definition of the common procedures.

               (5)

               Within this framework, Member States should follow a common approach for the accreditation of the travel agencies designated by the PRC and the establishment of the list of couriers appointed by the Chinese travel agencies.

               (6)

               Member States should apply common harmonised sanctions in case of violation by the Chinese accredited travel agency of the Community rules, in compliance with the rules of the CCI on visa applications processed by private administrative agencies, travel agencies and package tour operators.

               (7)

               Member States should apply a common list of supporting documents and information needed for lodging a visa application, clarifying where necessary the content of the required documentation. Additional information may be requested, based on a case-by-case verification of each individual visa application.

               (8)

               Member States involved with the implementation of the ADS MoU should reinforce their cooperation in the PRC and develop exchange of information mechanisms for irregularities and other detected suspect behaviour committed by appointed couriers or accredited travel agencies and facilitate the processing of information.

               (9)

               The Commission represents the Community in the ADS Committee set up by the ADS MoU, and transmits relevant information on the implementation of the ADS MoU to the Chinese authorities (CNTA). Member States should therefore associate the Commission, as the European Community representative on the ADS Committee, with the local cooperation mechanism ensuring regular and fluid information on the implementation of the ADS MoU.

               (10)

               Member States which do not participate in the ADS MoU, but have concluded similar bilateral agreements with the PRC should also be able to participate in the local cooperation mechanism. Norway and Iceland should also be invited to take part in the local consular cooperation mechanism as soon as they sign similar bilateral Agreements with the PRC,

         HEREBY RECOMMENDS:
   In order to facilitate the effective implementation of the ADS MoU, the following common implementation procedures should be applied by the Member States:

               1.

               Consular offices of Member States in the PRC should issue an accreditation certificate for each designated travel agency. Such accreditation certificates should have an identical format, indicating inter alia the serial number, business licence number, name and other relevant data of the travel agency. The validity of the certificate should not exceed one year.
               Accreditation certificates issued by a Member State should be recognised by the other Member States.
               When the designated travel agency presents itself for the first time to the consular office of a Member State, the consular office should register the date and time of the representative’s visit and transmit to the Commission all relevant information. This consular office should issue the accreditation certificate if the Commission confirms that it is the first consular office approached by the designated travel agency.

               2.

               Each courier appointed by the accredited travel agencies should receive an identity badge with his/her photo and indicating, inter alia, his/her name, date of birth, identity card number as well as the name, address and telephone number of the accredited travel agency.
               The badge should have general validity of a maximum of one year, should be issued by the Member States consular offices in the PRC and should be identical in format.
               The Commission, on the basis of the information submitted by the PRC and after verification by the Member States, shall establish a common list of couriers and notifies it to all Member States. The Commission shall update the common list of couriers each time it receives communication of a change and notifies changes to the consular offices of all Member States in the PRC.

               3.

               In case of a breach of EU and/or Chinese regulations, in particular in case of facilitation of illegal immigration, a consular office of a Member State in the PRC should withdraw the accreditation of a Chinese travel agency. The withdrawal imposed by a consular office of a Member State has immediate effect for all Member States. In order to ensure the uniform application by all Member States of the sanction imposed, the consular office should notify the withdrawal to the Commission and the other Member States consular offices in the PRC. In appropriate circumstances, the withdrawal of accreditation can be reviewed, if for instance the accredited travel agency proves that the violation of EU and/or Chinese regulations was limited to one of its employees, who no longer works for the Agency.
               Consular offices of Member States in the PRC can address warnings to the accredited travel agencies in case they suspect the agency is involved in minor violations. The Commission and other local consular offices of Member States should be informed immediately.
               The Commission shall inform the CNTA of any withdrawals and warnings addressed to accredited travel agencies.

               4.

               Member States should request that an ADS visa application be supported by the documents listed in the Annex to this recommendation. If necessary, Member States should request additional information. In particular they may require the applicant to undergo an interview in person or by telephone, to provide proof of financial means (bank statement), supply a document confirmation of working relationship or the written consent of both parents in case of minors.

               5.

               In order to facilitate the smooth implementation of the ADS MoU, Member States should provide specific training sessions in the PRC to the staff of accredited travel agencies involved in the implementation of the ADS MoU.

               6.

               Member States and the Commission should cooperate closely in the PRC and meet periodically to ensure regular and fluid transmission and treatment of information, exchange of experiences concerning the detection of irregularities or other suspect behaviour of accredited travel agencies and the development of best practices on the practical application of the ADS MoU.

               7.

               The recommendation is addressed to the Member States which participate in the ADS MoU between the EC and the PRC.

      Done at Brussels, 16 September 2004.

            For the Commission

         António VITORINO

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  OJ L 83, 20.3.2004, p. 14.

      ANNEX
      General information concerning the group

                  1.

                  A name list of all group members, with passport numbers, a copy of the identity page of the passport and copies of ID cards.

                  2.

                  A communication signed by the representative of the accredited travel agency in which is included a detailed itinerary including flight details for the round trip from the PRC, names, addresses, telephone numbers and fax numbers of the hotels to be used by the group during the tour with the dates of stay in each hotel and details of how the group is to travel between locations during the tour; in addition, any change in the travel itinerary which intervenes at any stage of the examination of the visa application.

                  3.

                  Flight reservation with confirmation for the PRC-Europe-PRC round trip from the airlines (with list of the tourists’ names).

                  4.

                  Payment of the travel costs.

                  5.

                  Travel group (or individual for each member of the group) insurance policy valid throughout the territory of the Member States visited on the basis of the established itinerary. The insurance must cover the entire period of the journey. The insurance policy must have a value of at least EUR 30 000 and must cover any expenses which might arise in connection with repatriation for medical reasons, urgent medical attention and/or emergency hospital treatment.

                  6.

                  Name of the tour leader.

                  7.

                  Name and contact details of the designated partner tour operator in Europe.

                  8.

                  Confirmation from the designated partner tour operator in Europe that accommodation and transport within Europe as specified in the group’s itinerary will be provided to all members of the group.

            For each member of the group

                  9.

                  A duly completed visa application form signed by each applicant, together with a recent photo.

                  10.

                  Passport valid at least 90 days after the expiration of the visa.


Avis juridique important

|

32001Y0214(01)

Commission recommendation of 17 January 2001 on the maximum permitted blood alcohol content (BAC) for drivers of motorised vehicles (Text with EEA relevance)

Official Journal C 048 , 14/02/2001 P. 0002 - 0010

Commission recommendationof 17 January 2001on the maximum permitted blood alcohol content (BAC) for drivers of motorised vehicles(2001/C 48/02)(Text with EEA relevance)EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM1. INTRODUCTION1.1. Background1.1.1. Article 71(1)(c) of the Treaty on European Union requires that common transport policy in the EU should include measures to improve transport safety. In April 1997, the Commission adopted a programme of measures to improve road safety(1). This programme included a specific reference (pages 20 and 41) to the effectiveness of reducing inappropriate drinking and driving as an accident and casualty reduction measure. A follow up Communication was adopted on 17 March 2000(2) which reassessed the priorities in the EU for improving road safety. In this, inappropriate drinking and driving is once again identified as a key road safety priority.1.1.2. Inappropriate drinking and driving is defined normally as driver impairment in terms of:- a driver with a blood alcohol content (BAC) above a prescribed legal limit which is punishable as a criminal offence,- or as a driver with a (BAC) above a prescribed limit which is punishable by some form of administrative sanction such as a fine,- or as a driver with a (BAC) below a prescribed limit but where the driver is judged to be impaired.1.1.3. Since the mid-1960's, a substantial body of research has analysed the driver impairment effect of alcohol consumption, and has conclusively demonstrated the direct correlation between BAC and the risk of accident involvement. Policies to reduce inappropriate drinking and driving, sometimes constructed around reduced BAC limits, have consistently been regarded in all motorised countries as a priority to reduce accidents and their consequent casualities(3)(4)(5). These policies are normally based upon a mixture of BAC limits, police enforcement, publicity, rehabilitation, and legal or administrative sanctions, with the mix varying according to Member State.1.1.4. In 1988, the Commission brought forward a proposal for a Directive on harmonised BAC levels, the aim of which was to set a maximum BAC limit of 0,5 mg/ml throughout the Community(6)(7). This proposal was not adopted because of the objections of some Member States on the grounds of subsidiarity. In July 1999, the Transport Committee of the European Parliament decided not to reconfirm its first reading of COM(88) 707 final, and requested that a new proposal be drawn up to better reflect advances in the assessment of the measures required to reduce inappropriate drinking and driving.1.1.5. The Commission considers that both national and European action to reduce inappropriate drinking and driving within the EU is best served by a more harmonised regime of legal maximum BAC limits. This will provide a clearer and more consistent message to drivers in the EU that drinking and driving is a dangerous activity wherever they are driving in the EU. However it accepts that there are long standing national political objections on the grounds of subsidiarity to such a measure, and therefore does not intend to renew the original proposal for a Directive in line with the commitment made in the Communication on road safety priorities. The Commission therefore proposes to bring forward a Commission Recommendation which sets out the Commission's view on a number of actions relating to:- BAC limits- random breath testing- harmonisation of measurement standards for breath testing equipment- information exchange concerning best practices- support for research and development- support for Europe-wide publicity campaigns- coordinating the use of alcohol-related road accident data recordsFor the time being, the Commission does not intend to withdraw the original proposal for a Directive in case Member States wish to reactivate it as a consequence of the Communication.1.2. The Magnitude of the drinking and driving problem1.2.1. There have been many assessments of the road safety problem of inappropriate drinking and driving and what should be done to reduce it(8). In some Member States it has been estimated that between 1 % and 5 % of drivers in traffice have BAC levels above their respective maximum national BAC limits. Furthermore, such drivers are proportionately much more likely to be involved in road accidents, accounting for up to 20 % of fatal and serious injuries, and up to 25 % of driver fatalities. They are still a significant road safety problem despite large reductions in drinking and driving road accidents during the past twenty years.1.2.2. The Commission estimates that at least 10000 road users still die annually in road accidents involving inappropriate drinking and driving, and that this is a reasonable benchmark to focus on the loss to society in the EU. The social value of this lost life using the EUR 1 million rule formulated in the EU Road Safety Programme amounts to EUR 10 billion per annum.2. JUSTIFICATION FOR A MAXIMUM BAC LIMIT OF 0,5 MG/ML2.1. The benefit of more harmonised BAC limits within the EU2.1.1. The main benefit of more uniform legal maximum BAC limits within the EU is to provide a clearer and more consistent message to drivers of passenger and freight vehicles that, above a certain limit, drinking and driving is a dangerous activity. From a driver perspective more uniform limits will also provide a standard reference for national enforcement, and Europe-wide publicity campaigns. Where drivers are driving within the EU, they should be more aware of a more uniform limit above which, if they are caught, they will know they have commited a drink driving offence.2.2. The determination of an appropriate maximum BAC limit for the EU2.2.1. The European Commission is of the view that the complete detachment of drinking from driving would significantly reduce road accidents, and particularly fatalities in road accidents. Available statistics indicate that at least 10000 lives could be saved annually if drink driving was eliminated. However, the extent to which this ideal state could be achieved depends critically upon the level of enforcement (both roadside testing and technological driver restriction) and driver compliance with the law. Logically the legal BAC limit (and breath equivalent) required to support this goal should be zero, which implies in practice a BAC measurement of between 0,1 mg/ml and 0,2 mg/ml, depending on the tolerance level that is allowed for.2.2.2. From a road safety perspective, the complete elimination of inappropriate drinking and driving is the optimum goal. But it has to be accepted that without public acceptance and credible enforcement, setting a BAC limit that is too low will not be effective. The Commission view is that when determining a legal maximum BAC limit, or regime of limits, in the EU, the following issues need to be taken into account:- the level above which the risk of accident involvement, and especially fatal accident involvement, starts to increase significantly,- the higher risk of accident involvement of some road user groups, such as inexperienced drivers and riders of motorised two wheel vehicles,- the need to contribute to driver training and education schemes, especially for younger drivers, and,- the potentially greater levels of death, injury, damage, disruption, congestion and delay following an accident which larger vehicles can cause.2.2.3. The Commission view is that, in general, consideration should be made to the fact that public attitudes towards BAC limits seem to indicate support for lower limits in the EU(9). On the basis of accumulative research evidence and analysis, the maximum BAC limit of 0,5 mg/ml, first proposed on 5 December 1988, should be the recommended maximum legal limit within the EU.3. BAC LIMITS IN MEMBER STATES3.1. Legal basis3.1.1. Most Member States have already invoked a BAC limit of 0,5 mg/ml in their national legislation either as a legal limit, above which a driver is deemed to have committed a criminal offence, or as a BAC limit above which an administrative fine or additional sanction is incurred. The Commission recommends that all Member States should adopt this maximum limit, and move towards even lower limits in the interest of increasing road safety. However, the Commission believes the choice of BAC limit, together with its consequential enforcement and penalties, is a matter for national authorities.3.2. Reductions in BAC limits by Member States3.2.1. The following Member States have already lowered their BAC limit since they introduced their first legal limit:>TABLE>3.2.2. However, the following Member States have not reduced their BAC limits since they were first introduced into their national legislation:>TABLE>3.2.3. In addition, Spain has adopted a lower BAC limit of 0,3 mg/ml for inexperienced drivers, for drivers of heavy goods vehicles and buses, and drivers of vehicles carrying dangerous goods. Austria has adopted a lower limit of 0,1 mg/ml for the same broad categories, and also motorcyclists under 18 years of age. The Netherlands are considering whether to adopt a lower BAC limit of 0,2 mg/ml for inexperienced drivers.4. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MEASURES IN REDUCING INAPPROPRIATE DRINKING AND DRIVING4.1. Available evidence4.1.1. Research and statistical analyses indicate that there are certain categories of drivers who constitute the core of the drinking and driving problem. They are typically:- relatively young and inexperienced male drivers,- drivers who habitually drive with very high BAC levels, and,- occasional drinkers with low BAC levels (sometimes even below the maximum allowed limit) who are relatively less tolerant to alcohol.4.1.2. It is difficult to assess the effect of a reduction in any BAC limit because the specific effect is often, but not always, obscured by simultaneous changes in enforcement, penalties and publicity. However, there is ample evidence from Australia, Japan, the United States of America and some EU Member States that, generally, reductions in a BAC limit supported by effective enforcement, penalties and publicity, can significantly reduce drinking and driving, even among high risk offenders. However, the role of rehabilitation is particularly significant for tackling high risk offenders. There is also some evidence to show that reductions in BAC levels alone, without any supporting enforcement and publicity, can also significantly reduce drinking and driving, but this probably implies an unrealistic degree of compliance with the law. A summary of some of the evidence is set out in Annex 1. On balance, the available evidence indicates that a BAC reduction to 0,5 mg/ml for those Member States still at 0,8 mg/ml could not only reduce casualties among young male drinkers, but also among the hard core of problem drivers who habitually drive after drinking excessively, as long as the reduction is also accompanied by effective targeted and random enforcement.4.2. The need to support legal maximum BAC limits with effective enforcement4.2.1. Only four Member States (United Kingdom, Ireland, Italy and Luxembourg) still retain a maximum legal BAC limit of 0,8 mg/ml. In the case of the United Kingdom this legal limit has remained unchanged since it was first set in 1967. The very significant reductions in inappropriate drinking and driving in the United Kingdom in the last two decades, where fatal accidents have been reduced by 70 %, have been achieved against a background of unchanged BAC legislation but effective enforcement and publicity campaigns which have modified drinking and driving behaviour. The Commission believes that even in Member States such as the United Kingdom, which have been very successful in reducing fatal drink-drive accidents, further reductions are possible by moving towards a lower maximum legal limit of 0,5 mg/ml and extending other measures. Furthermore, significant reductions are also possible in those Member States who have already adopted aa legal maximum limit of 0,5 mg/ml, of lower, by expanding enforcement activity and adopting more rigorous penalties for drivers convicted of inappropriate drinking and driving. In particular, the Commission endorses the view that extensive and regular random breath testing is a very cost effective deterrent to combat drinking and driving.5. A LOWER MAXIMUM LEGAL BAC LIMIT OF 0,2 MG/ML FOR SPECIFIC GROUPS OF ROAD USER5.1. Inexperienced drivers5.1.1. It is clear that inexperienced (mainly young) drivers are disproportionately involved in drink-drive accidents. Since the risk of involvement in a drink-drive accident by inexperienced drivers is relatively high compared to more experienced drivers, the Commission believes that a lower BAC limit of 0,2 mg/ml is appropriate while drivers are learning to drive, or have only been in possession of a full driving licence for less than two years, and recommends that Member States adopt this lower limit for this vulnerable group of drivers. Some States may wish to impose a longer period of possession of the full driving licence before permitting BAC limits greater than 0,2 mg/ml.5.2. Riders of two-wheel motor vehicles5.2.1. Riders of two-wheel motor vehicles have a risk of being killed or seriously injured in a road accident which statistically is many times higher than for a car driver. Riders, especially young inexperienced riders, who drink and drive could be particularly at risk from alcohol impairment. Although available statistics at a European level are far from conclusive, some national fatality statistics indicate that riders of two-wheel motor vehicles do not mix drinking and driving to the same extent as car drivers, and that they already adopt a more responsible attitude to their greater risk of accident involvement. However, because in some States very young riders (as young as 14) are allowed to drive low-powered two-wheel motor vehicles, and the age profile of riders is relatively low in the EU, a lower limit would seem appropriate to reinforce good riding habits instilled during training. The Commission believes that the relatively high risk of road accident involvements by this road user group should be reflected by a lower maximum BAC limit of 0,2 mg/ml for riders, and recommends that Member States adopt this lower limit.5.3. Drivers of goods vehicles (up to 3,5 tonnes GVW) and buses (more than eight passenger seats)5.3.1. Available statistics indicate that the risk of a large bus being involved in a fatal or serious injury road accident is greater than for a car, per vehicle kilometre, reflecting the much greater passenger occupancy of buses and their operational characteristics. For a large goods vehicle the risk is about the same as for a car, per vehicle kilometre. These relative risks also apply for the total casualty risks in accidents involving these vehicles. However, because buses carry many more passengers than cars their associated occupant casualty risk per occupant kilometre is very much lower. Nevertheless EU statistics show that fatal accidents involving large goods vehicles and buses account for about 18 % of all fatal accidents in the EU.5.3.2. Although road accident statistics are not yet comprehensive enough to make a detailed evaluation of relative risk across the EU, there are factors other than risk which also need to be considered in relation to determining appropriate BAC limits for drivers of large vehicles. Once involved in a road accident, large vehicles have the potential to cause severe property damage, disruption, delay, and traffic congestion especially in tunnels, on bridges, on main arterial roads, or in densely populated urban areas. The Commission believes that, considering the growth in Community freight and bus passenger traffic during the past decade, a uniform maximum BAC limit of 0,2 mg/ml is appropriate for all drivers of large goods vehicles and buses and recommends that Member States should adopt such a lower limit. Indeed, the Commission notes that some operators already adopt a no alcohol policy for their professional drivers.5.4. Drivers of vehicles carrying dangerous goods5.4.1. There is no evidence to suggest that vehicles carrying dangerous goods are any more likely to be involved in a road accident than vehicles not carrying dangerous goods, or cars. However, accidents involving vehicles carrying dangerous goods have the potential to be very serious. The Commission believes that a lower maximum limit of 0,2 mg/ml is appropriate for drivers of vehicles carrying dangerous goods and recommends that such a limit shoud be adopted. Most vehicles carrying dangerous goods will be greater than 3,5 tonnes GVW.6. THE ESTIMATION OF A FATALITY REDUCTION EFFECT FROM MEASURES TO REDUCE INAPPROPRIATE DRINKING AND DRIVING6.1. The available evidence6.1.1. Estimation of the magnitude of the fatality reduction effect of reductions in BAC limits, supported by national enforcement and publicity, is an extremely complex task. Available estimates from Europe, the United States of America, Japan and Australia of the degree of accident and casualty reduction from lowering BAC limits, combined with parallel measures to reduce inappropriate drinking and driving, vary widely, but they indicate that such action is very effective. The effects can be cumulative, but will be heavily influenced by changes in driver attitudes and behaviour. The available evidence (summarised in Annex 1) suggests that a concerted effort to reduce inappropriate drinking and driving in the EU, based around a regime of uniform EU-wide BAC limits supported by national enforcement and publicity, could realistically reduce fatalities in road accidents involving inappropriate drinking and driving by about 10 %. This is not a scientifically based calculation but represents a reasonable minimum target based upon international evidence.6.1.2. It should be recognised that the relationship between the maximum legal BAC limit and the incidence of inappropriate drinking and driving is not clear because many other factors influence drinking and driving behaviour. The proportion of drivers killed who were found to be over their relevant BAC limit varies widely between Member States, although the Commission estimates it to be approximately 25 % for the EU as a whole. The proportion of killed drivers found to be over the national BAC limit is reported to be higher in North America where the legal BAC limit varies between 1,0 and 0,8 mg/ml, and much lower in Japan where the limit has been fixed at 0,5 mg/ml since 1970. On the other hand the United Kingdom has significantly reduced inappropriate drinking and driving over the last twenty years by a mixture of enforcement and penalties linked to regular publicity campaigns, all coordinated around a limit of 0,8 mg/ml which has not been reduced since it was first set in 1967.6.1.3. Different approaches have been used to reduce inappropriate drinking and driving in response to national circumstances with different degrees of success. The Commission takes the view that the appropriate mix of the many measures available to reduce inappropriate drinking and driving should be decided by Member States, but that in the context of a common transport policy these are best arranged around a more uniform regime of BAC limits.6.2. The Distribution of fatality reduction effects6.2.1. A 10 % reduction in all EU fatalities in accidents involving inappropriate drinking and driving would save some 1000 lives annually. This represents 2,5 % of the total fatality toll in road accidents in the EU. Available evidence indicates that about two thirds of the lives saved annually would be drivers over the relevant BAC limit and the remaining third would be sober drivers and vehicle occupants and other road users. However, the proportions of fatalities saved will vary between Member States. Greater reductions are possible but depend mostly upon the level of enforcement, especially in those Member States where current levels of enforcement are relatively low. In particular, the use of extensive breath-testing strategies, in which drivers will perceive that they have a significant chance of being tested, are a cost-effective deterrent despite the concomitant requirement to increase funding for this activity.6.2.2. The recommended general limit of 0,5 mg/ml, with 0,2 mg/ml for certain categories of driver, will affect some Member States more than others because 10 Member States already arrange their national drink-drive policies around a BAC maximum limit of 0,5 mg/ml. Sweden adopted a lower BAC maximum limit of 0,2 mg/ml in 1990 and two Member States already invoke lower limits for special categories of driver. Consequently accident and casualty reduction effects arising from reduced maximum BAC limits will vary between Member States, but they will be mostly determined by the effectiveness of national enforcement and driver compliance.7. ECONOMIC IMPACT7.1. The "economic problem" in remote rural areas7.1.1. For those Member States who still have a maximum BAC limit of 0,8 mg/ml (particularly the United Kingdom and Ireland), it is argued that a reduction to 0,5 mg/ml could, under certain assumptions concerning drinking behaviour and driving practices, lead to a reduction in alcohol sales and economic loss. This could arise for retailers (pubs) in remote rural areas to which the only means of transport is by private car, and where drivers reduce either their consumption of alcohol, or the frequency of pub visits, or both.7.1.2. The Commission view is that the social value of accident reduction from lower drink-drive limits throughout the Community, backed up by effective national enforcement, training, and publicity, is more than likely to outweigh possible economic loss in some regions. There is no reason why driving habits, as well as drinking habits, cannot change to adapt to the need to separate driving from drinking above BAC levels proven to be detrimental to driving ability.7.1.3. It should be noted that the Commission does not recommend a total ban on alcohol for drivers. In addition, the use of public transport, car-sharing, nominating a non-drinking driver, moderating drinking behaviour or switching from alcoholic to non-alcoholic drinks, are all available options to maintain social drinking. Inevitably there is a conflict of interest here, but it should be remembered that every road death has an economic cost of EUR 1 million and that failure to reduce inappropriate drinking and driving has a real economic impact too. The purpose of the recommendation is to improve road safety and not to support the alcohol market in some regions.7.2. The need for additional resources to enforce lower BAC limits7.2.1. Any introduction of lower maximum BAC limits will, depending on changes in drinking and driving behaviour, increase the burden upon police enforcement officers for a given level of enforcement resources. The national enforcement effort is critical to force down the number of accidents due to inappropriate drinking and driving. The recent report from the European Working Group on Alcohol, Drugs and Medicines highlighted the importance of enforcement. Currently the level of enforcement throughout the Community varies significantly. The adoption of lower drink-drive BAC limits will inevitably mean that more resources will be required for effective enforcement and deterrence, especially in Member States where enforcement levels are relatively low. Without a meaningful increase in police resources for enforcement activity, lower drink drive limits could be counter productive because limited police resources could be taken up with processing more drivers detected with relatively low BAC levels and reduce the detection rate of more serious offenders more likely to cause serious accidents.7.2.2. Sustained enforcement is essential to generate an effective deterrent effect, but enforcement programmes such as random breath testing are expensive and need resourcing. However, it should be noted that random breath testing is very cost-effective and is clearly worth investing in. Even so, it is not unreasonable to expect that the cost of increased enforcement necessary to bring about a reduction of 1000 fatalities a year in the EU, within a regime of more harmonised BAC limits, will be less than the conservative EUR 1 billion a year valuation of the expected fatalities saved. In addition, it should be recognised that increased liaison between national police forces offers the scope for improving the effectiveness of enforcement within existing enforcement resources.8. THE REQUIREMENT FOR ROAD ACCIDENT STATISTICS8.1. At the national level8.1.1. The report of the European Working Group on Alcohol, Drugs and Medicines highlights the shortcomings of current statistics concerning alcohol-related accidents. Systematic alcohol-testing of drivers following a road accident, and the recording of the results for statistical analysis, is essential to be able to monitor the effectiveness of measures to reduce inappropriate drinking and driving. In some Member States, even though police enforcement is expanding, the results of alcohol tests are not fully recorded in national road accident databases. Complete aclohol test (breath and blood) results would provide the means to compare the incidence of inappropriate drinking and driving between different groups of drivers.8.2. At EU level8.2.1. If all such test results were also provided to the European Community Road Accident Database (CARE)(10) the sample size would be significantly increased for analysis of BAC distributions (and breath equivalents) of different road user groups at a European level. This would provide a unique European data source for informing and monitoring the effects of drinking and driving policies. There is substantial analytical added value to be derived from the pooling of breath and blood alcohol test level results. In addition, within the community action programme(11) on injury prevention in the field of public health, the epidemiological monitoring of injuries by means of a community system for collection of data and information on injuries is being promoted (Euphin: European Union Public Health Information Network). Core injury indicators based upon mutually accepted standards and providing nationally representative information including indicators from other relevant policy areas will be provided (e.g. safety at work, transport and civil protection).9. STANDARDS FOR ALCOHOL TESTING EQUIPMENT9.1. The need for mandatory EU standards9.1.1. The European Working Group on Alcohol, Drugs and Medicines reported broad support from Member States for the setting of mandatory EU measurement standards for evidential breath testing equipment the results of which can be used as evidence in a court of law.9.1.2. The ability to supplement blood test results with those taken from breath testing machines is an important means of expanding police enforcement. Member States with a maximum BAC limit of 0,5 mg/ml use a breath equivalent measurement (BRAC) of either 0,22 or 0,25 microgrammes of alcohol per millilitre of breath. But the various breath-testing devices currently on the market operate to varying degrees of accuracy. This means that Member States have to allow for measurement error in both their BAC and BRAC equivalent levels for tested drivers. The allowance for measurement error varies between Member States.9.1.3. In the context of harmonised maximum BAC limits in the EU the recommended BAC limits of 0,5 mg/ml and 0,2 mg/ml do not include any allowance for measurement error. Setting harmonised measurement standards for testing equipement is a simpler way to reinforce harmonised BAC and BRAC limits based upon the technical capability of approved testing equipment. The allowable statistical limits for measurement error will be more closely harmonised by the development of standards for testing equipment.9.1.4. Some Member States also include a generous tolerance in the measurement of the BAC level to encourage apprehended drivers to opt for a breath test rather than a more expensive and time consuming blood test. In Sweden, even though a relatively low BAC level of 0,2 mg/ml has been operational since 1990, the tolerance level allowable for test results can allow drivers to drink up to 0,34 mg/ml in some circumstances. The purpose of this increased tolerance level is to increase the level of enforcement, since many more evidential breath tests than blood tests can be carried out for a given level of police resources. Such tolerance levels inevitably need to be determined by Member States who have to balance the deterrent effect of the legal BAC limit against the deterrent effect of a slightly higher but allowable BAC level at higher levels of enforcement.9.1.5. A draft proposal for a Measuring Instruments Directive is currently being developed by the Commission which, if adopted, will harmonise the requirement for the measurement accuracy of evidential breath-testing equipment in the EU. Guidelines for international standards are set by the Organisation Internationale Métrologique Légale (OIML) and member countries base their legislation on these standards.10. DRIVER IMPAIRMENT THROUGH THE COMBINED EFFECT OF ALCOHOL AND DRUGS10.1. The problem of illegal drugs10.1.1. Recent research into the effects of marijuana on driving performance(12) concluded that the driver impairment effects of using cannabis alone, which produced doses of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) of 100 to 200 ug/kg, were not very different from the impairment effects attributable to other drugs, or BAC levels above 0,8 mg/ml. However, it was found that the same doses of THC when combined with alcohol sufficient to produce a BAC of 0,4 mg/ml, produced severe driver impairment effects.10.1.2. This evidence of high risk for drivers and riders, and the increasing use of cannabis and detection of THC (as well as other illegal drugs) in drivers involved in accidents(13), is of growing concern for road safety in the EU. However, there are many illegal drugs, and it is unclear how they all interact with alcohol to impair driving ability. Furthermore, the EU action plan on drugs 2000 to 2004, endorsed by the European Council of Feira, asks the Commission and Member States to undertake research into the effects of driving under the influence of illicit drugs and pharmaceuticals. The possession and use of all illegal drugs is, by definition, an offence punishable within the context of national legislation. Since possessing or using an illegal drug is a punishable offence anyway, the question of whether driving whilst under the influence of illegal drugs should be treated as a more serious offence than drink driving needs to be considered by Member States, and consequently this aspect is not addressed in this recommendation.10.2. The problem of legal drugs10.2.1. The use of legal drugs (medicines), by themselves or in combination with alcohol, and their driver impairment effect, is also a very important issue in the context of increased accident risk. But there are a huge number of legal drugs, and their driver impairment effects are by no means as comprehensively researched as the effects of alcohol have been. For example, Benzodiazepines are a widely used group of medicine which, in combination with alcohol, may be at least as driver-impairing as low-dose combinations of alcohol and cannabis.10.2.2. The whole issue of the effects of legal drugs on drivers is, in itself, a very complex topic, of which the specific aspect of alcohol combined with legal drugs is just one part. However, Member States may wish to consider how to deal with this issue in their national legislation. At a European level, there will be obvious benefits to be derived from an exchange of information concerning research results and best practice.(1) Promoting road safety in the EU: the programme for 1997 to 2001 (COM(97) 131 final).(2) Priorities in EU road safety: progress report and ranking of actions (COM(2000) 125).(3) A strategic road safety plan for the European Union: ETSC February 1997.(4) Report of the Working Group on Alcohol, Drugs and Medicines for the High Level Group. October 1999.(5) NHTSA reporter Vol. 10, No 2: Spring 1999, No 3: Summer 1999.(6) COM(88) 707 final.(7) COM(89) 640 final.(8) Reducing traffic injuries resulting from alcohol impairment: ETSC: January 1995. Report of the Working Group on Alcohol, Drugs and Medicines for the High Level Group. October 1999.(9) Sartre 95 and 98 (Social attitudes to road traffic risk in Europe).(10) Council Decision 93/704/EC.(11) Decision 372/99/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 8 February 1999 adopting a programme of Community action on injury prevention in the framework for action in the field of public health (1999 to 2003).(12) Marijuana, alcohol and actual driving performance NHTSA July 1999.(13) Literature review on the relation between drug use, impaired driving and traffic accidents: Section 2.4.2: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction: February 1999.


title: Recommendation of the European Central Bank of 19 April 2013 to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of the European Central Bank (ECB/2013/9)

text:
               27.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 122/1

         RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK
   of 19 April 2013
   to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of the European Central Bank
   (ECB/2013/9)
   2013/C 122/01
   THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,
   Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Article 27.1 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and national central banks of the Member States whose currency is the euro are audited by independent external auditors recommended by the ECB’s Governing Council and approved by the Council of the European Union.

               (2)

               The mandate of the ECB’s current external auditors ended following the audit for the financial year 2012. It is therefore necessary to appoint external auditors from the financial year 2013.

               (3)

               The ECB has selected Ernst & Young GmbH Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft as its external auditors for the financial years 2013 to 2017,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:
   It is recommended that Ernst & Young GmbH Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft should be appointed as the external auditors of the ECB for the financial years 2013 to 2017.

      Done at Frankfurt am Main, 19 April 2013.

            The President of the ECB

         Mario DRAGHI


title: Council Recommendation of 19 March 2007 concerning the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Development Fund (Eighth EDF) for the financial year 2005

text:
               8.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/3

      COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION

   of 19 March 2007
   concerning the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Development Fund (Eighth EDF) for the financial year 2005
   (2007/C 103/03)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
   Having regard to the Fourth ACP-EC Convention, signed at Lomé on 15 December 1989 (1), as amended by the Agreement signed in Mauritius on 4 November 1995 (2),
   Having regard to the Internal Agreement on the financing and administration of the Community aid under the Second Financial Protocol to the fourth ACP-EC Convention (3) setting up, amongst others, the Eighth European Development Fund (Eighth EDF), and in particular Article 33(3) of that Agreement,
   Having regard to the Financial Regulation of 16 June 1998 applicable to development finance cooperation under the Fourth ACP-EC Convention (4), and in particular Articles 66 to 74 thereof,
   Having examined the revenue and expenditure account and the balance sheet relating to the operations of the Eighth EDF as at 31 December 2005, and the Court of Auditors' report concerning the financial year 2005 together with the Commission's replies (5),
   Whereas

               (1)

               Pursuant to Article 33(3) of the said Internal Agreement, the discharge for the financial management of the Eighth EDF is to be given to the Commission by the European Parliament on the recommendation of the Council.

               (2)

               The overall implementation by the Commission of the operations of the Eighth EDF during the financial year 2005 has been satisfactory,

         HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the European Parliament give the Commission a discharge in respect of the implementation of the operations of the Eighth EDF for the financial year 2005.

      Done at Brussels, on 19 March 2007.

            For the Council

            The President

         H. SEEHOFER

      (1)  OJ L 229, 17.8.1991, p. 3.

      (2)  OJ L 156, 29.5.1998, p. 3.

      (3)  OJ L 156, 29.5.1998, p. 108.

      (4)  OJ L 191, 7.7.1998, p. 53.

      (5)  OJ C 263, 31.10.2006, p. 205.


Important legal notice

|

52005PC0508

Recommendation for a Council Decision on the European Capital of Culture event for the year 2009  /* COM/2005/0508 final */

	[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |Brussels, 18.10.2005COM(2005) 508 finalRecommendation for aCOUNCIL DECISIONon the European Capital of Culture event for the year 2009(presented by the Commission)EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUMDecision 1419/1999/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 25 May 1999 establishing a Community action for the European Capital of Culture event for the years 2005 to 2019[1], lays down the procedure of designation of the European Capital of Cultural from 2005 and onwards. Annex 1 of this Decision sets out the list of Member States entitled to propose cities for the title. The ten new Member States, which joined the EU on 1 May 2004, were not included in this list. The Commission, therefore, submitted a proposal to amend Decision 1419/1999/EC to enable the new Member States to propose an ECOC from 2009. This proposal was adopted by the European Parliament and the Council on 13 April 2005 (Decision 649/2005/EC). According to Article 2 of Decision 1419/1999/EC modified by Decision 649/2005/EC, from 2009 onwards, two cities of two Member States (one from the EUR-15, one from the new Member States) will be designated as European Capitals of Culture, in turn, according to the chronological order set out in Annex I to the Decision.The nominations are notified to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the Committee of the Regions by the Member States concerned no later than four years before the event in question is due to begin.The Commission, each year, forms a selection panel which issues a report on the nominations judged against the objectives and characteristics of this action. The selection panel is composed of leading independent figures who are experts on the cultural sector. The selection panel submits its report to the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council.The European Parliament may forward an opinion to the Commission on the nominations no later than 3 months after receipt of the report. For 2009, the European Parliament did not forward any opinion[2]The Council, acting on a recommendation from the Commission drawn up in the light of the selection panel’s report, officially designates the cities in question for the year for which they have been nominated.In accordance with article 2 and Annex I, Austria and Lithuania notified the nomination of Linz and Vilnius respectively.The selection panel met on 14th April 2005 to examine both nominations. This examination included hearings of representatives from Linz and Vilnius. The panel submitted its report to the Commission on the 29th of April 2005 ; on the request of the panel, the Commission forwarded it to the other Institutions.On the basis of an overall evaluation of, and the panel’s recommendations to the applications from both the nominated cities, the panel – while asking for some improvement in the areas commented upon in the report – agreed unanimously to recommend to the Institutions of the European Union that Linz and Vilnius host the European Capitals of Culture in 2009.In conclusion, the Commission, in accordance with Article 2, paragraph 3 of Decision 1419/1999/EC modified by Decision 649/2005/EC submits to the Council the appended recommendation for the official designation of Linz and Vilnius respectively for the European Capital of Culture event 2009.Recommendation for aCOUNCIL DECISIONon the European Capital of Culture event for the year 2009THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Decision n° 1419/1999/EC modified by Decision n° 649/2005/EC of the European Parliament and the Council establishing a Community action for the European Capital of Culture event for the years 2005 to 2019[3], and in particular its article 2.3,Having regard to the Selection Panel report of April 2005 submitted to the Commission, the European Parliament, the Council in accordance with Article 2 paragraph 2 of Decision 1419/1999/EC modified by Decision 649/2005/EC,Considering that the criteria laid down in article 3 and annex II of the Decision 1419/1999/EC modified by Decision n° 649/2005/EC are entirely fulfilled,Having regard to the recommendation from the Commission of the  2005,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 1Linz and Vilnius are designated as “European Capital of Culture 2009” in accordance with Article 2 paragraph 1 of Decision 1419/1999/EC modified by Decision 649/2005/EC.Article 2Both cities designated shall take the necessary measures in order to ensure the effective implementation of Articles 1 and 5 of Decision 1419/1999/EC modified by Decision 649/2005/EC.Done at Brussels,For the CouncilThe President [1] OJ L 166 of 1.7.1999, p. 1.[2] See « Report on the Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision 1419/1999/EC », Rapporteur Michel Rocard, PE 334.052, Explanatory Memorandum, page 10.[3] OJ L 166 of 1.7.1999, p. 1 and OJ L 117 of 4.05.2005, p.20.


				|

		52014DC0424

			Recommendation for a COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION on Romania’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Romania’s 2014 convergence programme /* COM/2014/0424 final - 2014/ () */

Recommendation for a
COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
on Romania’s 2014 national reform
programme
and delivering a Council opinion on Romania’s 2014 convergence programme

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 121(2) and 148(4)
thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No
1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary
positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies[1], and in particular
Article 9(2) thereof,
Having regard to the recommendation of the
European Commission[2],
Having regard to the resolutions of the
European Parliament[3],
Having regard to the conclusions of the
European Council,
Having regard to the opinion of the
Employment Committee,
Having regard to the opinion of the
Economic and Financial Committee,
Having regard to the opinion of the Social
Protection Committee,
Having regard to the opinion of the
Economic Policy Committee,
Whereas:
(1)
On 26 March 2010, the European Council agreed to
the Commission’s proposal to launch a new strategy for growth and jobs, Europe
2020, based on enhanced coordination of economic policies, which will focus on
the key areas where action is needed to boost Europe’s potential for
sustainable growth and competitiveness.
(2)
On 13 July 2010, the Council, on the basis of
the Commission's proposals, adopted a recommendation on the broad guidelines
for the economic policies of the Member States and the Union (2010 to 2014)
and, on 21 October 2010, adopted a decision on guidelines for the employment
policies of the Member States, which together form the ‘integrated guidelines’.
Member States were invited to take the integrated guidelines into account in
their national economic and employment policies.
(3)
On 29 June 2012, the Heads of State or
Government decided on a Compact for Growth and Jobs, providing a coherent
framework for action at national, EU and euro area levels using all possible
levers, instruments and policies. They decided on action to be taken at the
level of the Member States, in particular expressing full commitment to
achieving the objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy and to implementing the
country-specific recommendations.
(4)
On 9 July 2013, the Council adopted a recommendation
on Romania’s 2013 national reform programme and delivered its opinion on Romania’s 2013 convergence programme for 2012-2016.
(5)
On 13 November 2013, the Commission adopted the
Annual Growth Survey[4],
marking the start of the 2014 European Semester of economic policy
coordination. On the same day on the basis of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011, the
Commission adopted the Alert Mechanism Report[5].
(6)
On 20 December 2013, the European Council
endorsed the priorities for ensuring financial stability, fiscal consolidation
and action to foster growth. It underscored the need to pursue differentiated,
growth-friendly fiscal consolidation, to restore normal lending conditions to
the economy, to promote growth and competitiveness, to tackle unemployment and
the social consequences of the crisis, and to modernise public administration.
(7)
On 6 May 2014, Romania submitted its 2014
national reform programme and on 5 May 2014 its 2014 convergence programme. In
order to take account of their interlinkages, the two programmes have been
assessed at the same time.
(8)
On 22 October 2013, the Council adopted Decision
2013/531/EU providing medium-term financial assistance to Romania of up to EUR 2 billion until September 2015. Precautionary medium-term financial
assistance for Romania under the balance-of-payments facility for non euro-area
Member States was considered appropriate due to unstable capital flows
affecting in particular emerging markets, risks to the macroeconomic scenario,
and remaining vulnerabilities in the banking sector. While, under present
market conditions, Romania does not intend to request the disbursement of any
instalment, the precautionary assistance is expected to help consolidate
macroeconomic, budgetary and financial stability and, through the pursuit of
structural reforms, to increase the resilience and the growth potential of the
Romanian economy. The Memorandum of Understanding of 6 November 2013 and its
subsequent supplements laying down the conditions to be fulfilled under the EU
precautionary assistance complement and support the country-specific
recommendations of the European Semester.  The EU precautionary assistance will
be conditional upon the implementation of a comprehensive economic policy
programme, with a particular focus on structural reform measures including
those country-specific recommendations relating to administrative capacity,
product market reforms, the business environment, labour markets, pensions,
state-owned enterprises, and healthcare. This agenda does not exempt the
Romanian government from fully implementing all the country-specific
recommendations. The policy prioritisation, implementation and coordination
necessary for implementing the Memorandum of Understanding and the country specific
recommendations, should be dealt with where priority decisions are made, in a
coherent way.
(9)
The objective of the budgetary strategy outlined
in the 2014 Convergence Programme is to achieve the medium-term objective of a
structural deficit of 1% of GDP in 2015, which reflects the requirement of the
Stability and Growth Pact, and to remain at it thereafter. Romania is benefitting in 2014 from the possibility of a temporary deviation from the
adjustment path towards the medium-term objective allowed for jointly financed
projects. The temporary deviation has to be compensated in the following year.
The programme plans a stabilisation of the (recalculated) structural balance in
2014 and an improvement of 0.8% of GDP in 2015. Expenditure is forecast to grow
at a pace consistent with the expenditure benchmark in both 2014 and 2015. The
debt to GDP ratio is forecast to reach 40% in 2015, and to decrease in
2016-2017. Overall, the budgetary strategy outlined in the programme is in line
with the requirements of the Stability and Growth Pact. The macroeconomic scenario
underpinning the budgetary projections is plausible. It is broadly in line with
the Commission 2014 spring forecast. However the potential GDP estimate underlying
the Convergence Programme is slightly higher, mainly on account of a more
optimistic labour market outlook. There are downside risks to the 2014
budgetary plans related to expenditure control and lower-than-envisaged tax
collection. Moreover, for 2015 and beyond, the measures underpinning the
proposed fiscal path are not yet specified. According to the Commission forecast,
despite a small deterioration in the structural balance in 2014, Romania is compliant with the Stability and Growth Pact requirements in 2014, taking into
account the temporary deviation allowed for jointly financed projects. For
2015, there is a risk of a significant deviation from the required structural adjustment,
taking into account the necessary compensation for the temporary deviation
allowed for jointly financed projects). Moreover, Romania is forecast to
deviate from the expenditure benchmark in 2015. Based on its assessment of the
programme and the Commission forecast, pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No
1466/97, the Council is of the opinion that the programme presents risks of a
significant deviation from the requirements of the preventive arm in 2015.
(10)
Tax fraud and tax avoidance in the areas of VAT,
including cross-border schemes, excises, social security contributions and
income taxation remain a major challenge. Tangible progress in fighting
undeclared work is limited, while the effectiveness of the tax compliance
strategy is hampered by the lack of realistic and binding implementation
measures and insufficient focus on prevention. A reform of the tax
administration to increase its efficiency is ongoing; cross-border
administrative cooperation, in particular in the VAT area, remains weak. The
tax wedge on low and middle-income wage earners remains high and encourages
undeclared work and under-declared earnings. There has been some progress in
the field of environmental taxation, as the vehicle taxation system was
improved and excise duties on fuel were increased and are now automatically
indexed. Romania faces long-term sustainability risks, mainly due to
age-related expenditure. There are concerns as regards the sustainability and
adequacy of the pension system due to the low ratio of employed contributors to
people drawing pensions. Romania has taken steps to equalise the pensionable
age for women and men as of 2035.
(11)
Inefficient use of resources and poor management
increase the fiscal sustainability risk in the health sector. Widespread
informal payments in the public healthcare further hinder the accessibility,
efficiency and quality of the system. Reforms to improve the efficiency of the
healthcare sector and its financial sustainability have begun but continuous
efforts are needed. Some of the measures are incurring delays and suffer from insufficient
funding and the services' low capacity. Reducing the excessive use of hospital
in-patient care and strengthening primary care and referral systems will
increase cost-effectiveness. Further reforms of the healthcare system aimed at
improving the health of the population by promoting, among other things,
equitable access to quality health services has been launched.
(12)
High inactivity, insufficient utilisation of
labour potential and the need to increase the quality and productivity of the
work force remain key challenges of the Romanian labour market. The quality of
public job search and retraining services is still low, despite some
small-scale measures. Limited resources within the public employment service
and a lack of measurement of performance constrain the efficient delivery of
personalised services to jobseekers, employer services and the integration of
active and passive labour market policies. Romania has a high and increasing percentage
of young people not in employment, education or training (17.3% in 2013). A
national Active Ageing Strategy to support an increase in the employment rate
of older workers has been delayed and now is due by the end of 2014.
(13)
There is no transparent guideline for minimum
wage setting involving social partners aiming at supporting employment and
competitiveness and safeguarding labour income in a sustainable way.
(14)
The Education Reform of 2011, which set a
long-term agenda for upgrading the quality of education at all levels, is not
yet fully operational, due to insufficient financial and human resources.
Following sharp decline in vocational education and training in the last twenty
years, several reforms and pilot projects have been initiated in recent years
but the availability of vocational education and training, its relevance to the
labour market and business involvement in work-based learning and
apprenticeships remains low. Important skills mismatches persist for tertiary
graduates and the link between business and academia remains weak, as shown by
a high unemployment rate and many university graduates being employed either in
professions not corresponding to their training or in jobs requiring lower
levels of qualification. Participation in lifelong learning activities
continues to be among the lowest in the EU. The early school leaving rate
continues to be one of the highest in the EU and is now higher than prior to
2010, affecting in particular Roma. Female employment is hindered by low
provision of and limited access to affordable quality childcare facilities, in
particular for the 0-3 years old.
(15)
Poverty reduction remains a major challenge. , Despite
the relatively stable employment situation, gross household incomes have been
declining and income inequalities have been growing. Families with children are
particularly exposed. There was only limited progress in speeding up the
transition from institutional to alternative care for children deprived of
parental care. There is still a high number of persons with disabilities in
large residential institutions, while community services for the disabled are
not sufficiently developed.. The low take-up, coverage and adequacy of social
benefits remain a challenge for the efficiency of social benefits in reducing
poverty. The introduction of the Minimum Insertion Income combining three
existing social benefits (the Guaranteed Minimum Income, the family allowance
and the heating benefits)planned for 2015 has been delayed. The implementation
of the National Roma Integration Strategy started in 2012, but financial
allocation for the implementation of key action plans was insufficient and the
results are modest. The revision of the Strategy and the implementation of the
revised action plans are delayed.
(16)
The weak capacity of the public administration
to develop and implement policies remains a core challenge for Romania, hampering overall development of the country, the business environment and the
capacity for public investment, while not allowing for the provision of public
services of sufficient quality. The structural causes that led to a low
administrative capacity were analysed in 2013. Based on this, a 2014-20 strategy
on strengthening public administration is currently under preparation and is
expected to be finalised by mid-2014.
(17)
Despite important progress, the absorption rate
for EU funds remains one of the lowest in the EU. Continuously weak management
and control systems and public procurement practices may negatively impact the
preparations for and implementation of the next generation of programmes.  Public
procurement legislation suffers from instability and a lack of coherence. The
institutional set-up, with multiple actors and frequently overlapping
responsibilities is not equipped to tackle the shortcomings and provide
appropriate guidance to contracting authorities. Corruption and conflicts of
interests continue to be concerns for contracting authorities. A system for
ex-ante checks for conflicts of interest in the award process of public
procurement contracts is expected to become operational by the end of 2014.
(18)
Poor quality of regulations and the lack of
transparency and predictability of the regulatory framework hinder businesses
and citizens. Procedures for obtaining electricity, dealing with construction
permits and paying taxes are still complex. Unclear land ownership rights
represent a further challenge for Romania's business environment; less than 50
% of real estate are recorded in the land book system and only around 15 % of
real estate records are verified and registered digitally. Romania has made some progress in improving the quality, independence and efficiency of the
Romanian justice system and in the fight against corruption, but these issues remain
a concern for businesses seeking effective redress. Resistance to integrity and
anti-corruption measures at political and administrative levels is still
strong.
(19)
Price regulation in the electricity market for
industrial customers ended in 2013 and phasing-out of gas and electricity price
regulation is ongoing. Efficiency and transparency of governance of the
state-owned enterprises in these sectors represent a major challenge. Energy
price deregulation is expected to bring incentives to enhance energy
efficiency, although concrete measures and resource commitments are needed to
further improve energy efficiency in the housing, district heating, industry
and urban transport sectors. The integration of Romania's electricity and gas
markets in the EU markets remains incomplete and substantial barriers remain
for the implementation of cross-border connections for gas, which would
contribute to enhancing diversification of supply.
(20)
The underdeveloped basic
transport infrastructure continues to be a bottleneck to growth in Romania. High growth of the vehicle fleet and the low quality of the road infrastructure
hamper businesses and the economy. Poor maintenance of the railway network has
affected safety and reliability. Freight transport on inland waterways remains
far below its potential, particularly on the Danube. The inefficiency and
untransparent governance of state-owned enterprises in the transport sector
hinder the development of network infrastructures.
(21)
In the context of the European Semester, the
Commission has carried out a comprehensive analysis of Romania’s economic policy. It has assessed the convergence programme and the national
reform programme. It has taken into account not only their relevance for
sustainable fiscal and socio-economic policy in Romania but also their
compliance with EU rules and guidance, given the need to reinforce the overall
economic governance of the European Union by providing EU-level input into
future national decisions. Its recommendations under the
European Semester are reflected in recommendations (1) to (8) below.
(22)
In the light of this assessment, the Council has
examined Romania’s convergence programme, and its opinion[6] is reflected in
particular in recommendation (2) below.
HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Romania take action within the period 2014-2015 to:
1.           Implement
the EU/IMF financial assistance programme by fully addressing the policy
conditionality included in the Memorandum of Understanding of 6 November 2013
and its subsequent supplements that complements and supports the implementation
of these country specific recommendations.
2.           Implement the budgetary
strategy for 2014, significantly strengthen the budgetary effort to ensure
reaching the medium-term objective in 2015 in line with commitments under the
Balance of Payments programme and as reflected in the 2014 convergence
programme, in particular by specifying the underlying measures, and remain at
the medium-term objective thereafter. Improve tax collection by continuing to
implement a comprehensive tax compliance strategy, stepping up efforts to
reduce VAT fraud. Fight undeclared work. Reduce tax burden for low- and
middle-income earners in a budget-neutral way. Finalise the pension reform
started in 2010 by equalising the pensionable age for men and women.
3.           Step up reforms in the health
sector to increase its efficiency, quality and accessibility, including for
disadvantaged people and remote and isolated communities. Increase efforts to
curb informal payments, including through proper management and control
systems.
4.           Strengthen active
labour-market measures and the capacity of the National Employment Agency. Pay
particular attention to the activation of unregistered young people. Strengthen
measures to promote the employability of older workers. Establish, in
consultation with social partners, clear guidelines for transparent minimum
wage setting, taking into account economic and labour market conditions.
5.           Increase the quality and
access to vocational education and training, apprenticeships, tertiary
education and of lifelong learning and adapt them to labour market needs.
Ensure better access to early childhood education and care.
6.           In order to alleviate
poverty, increase the efficiency and effectiveness of social transfers,
particularly for children, and continue reform of social assistance,
strengthening its links with activation measures. Step up efforts to implement
the envisaged measures to favour the integration of Roma in the labour market,
increase school attendance and reduce early school leaving, through a
partnership approach and a robust monitoring mechanism.
7.           Step up efforts to
strengthen the capacity of public administration, in particular by improving
efficiency, human resource management, the decision-making tools and
coordination within and between different levels of government; and by
improving transparency, integrity and accountability. Accelerate the absorption
of EU funds, strengthen management and control systems, and improve capacity
for strategic planning, including the multi-annual budgetary element. Tackle
persisting shortcomings in public procurement. Continue to improve the
qualityand efficiency of the judicial system, fight corruption at all levels,
and ensure the effective implementation of court decisions.
8.           Promote competition and
efficiency in energy and transport industries. Accelerate the corporate
governance reform of state-owned enterprises in the energy and transport
sectors and increase their efficiency. Improve and streamline energy efficiency
policies. Improve the cross-border integration of energy networks and enable
physical reverse flows in gas interconnections as a matter of priority.
Done at Brussels,
                                                                       For
the Council
                                                                       The
President
[1]               OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 1.
[2]               COM(2014) 424 final.
[3]               P7_TA(2014)0128 and P7_TA(2014)0129.
[4]               COM(2013) 800 final.
[5]               COM(2013) 790 final.
[6]               Under Article 9(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No
1466/97.


Important legal notice

|

52007PC0353

Recommendation from the Commission to the Council for a letter to be signed and sent to the Presidency of the Andean Community to initiate an “exchange of letters amending the Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and the Andean Community signed in 2003"  /* COM/2007/0353 final */

	[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |Brussels, 26.6.2007COM(2007) 353 finalRECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCILfor a letter to be signed and sent to the Presidency of the Andean Community to initiate an “exchange of letters amending the Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and the Andean Community signed in 2003"1 . EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM1. The "Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Andean Community and its member countries (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela), of the other part" was signed in Rome on 15 December 2003. The Agreement has not yet entered into force, as it has not been ratified by certain countries.2. In April 2006 Venezuela, a member country of the Andean Community when the above-mentioned Agreement was signed, declared that it was going to withdraw from the Andean regional bloc. This information has been officially confirmed by the Presidency of the Andean Community (through a letter from the Bolivian Minister for Foreign Affairs of 20 November 2006) and by Venezuela itself (through a letter from the Venezuelan Minister for Foreign Affairs of 18 December 2006); on the same occasion, Venezuela confirmed the withdrawal of its signature from the above-mentioned 2003 Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement.3. In the light of these documents, the Legal Services of the Commission and of the Council of the European Union concluded that Venezuela was no longer signatory to the Agreement, which would need to be formally amended through an exchange of letters. At the meeting on 20 February 2007 of the Latin America Working Group (AMLAT), the Council Presidency therefore called on the Commission to put forward a proposal for such an amendment.2. RECOMMANDATIONIN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDS TO THE COUNCIL TO sign the attached draft letter and send it to the Presidency of the Andean Community in order to initiate the "exchange of letters between the European Community and the Andean Community to agree on the deletion of references to Venezuela from the text of the Agreement".ANNEXDRAFT LETTERTO INITIATE AN EXCHANGE OF LETTERS BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY AND THE ANDEAN COMMUNITY ON VENEZUELA'SWITHDRAWAL FROM THE ANDEAN COMMUNITYAND THE POLITICAL DIALOGUE AND COOOPERATION AGREEMENT SIGNED IN 2003(Letter to the Presidency of the Andean Community)Sir,The European Community thanks the Presidency of the Andean Community for its letter No GM-419/2006-15949 of 20 November 2006 concerning Venezuela's withdrawal from the Andean Community. We would also inform you that we have received Note No 1652 from the Venezuelan Ministry of External Relations dated 18 December 2006 also confirming Venezuela's withdrawal from the Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and the Andean Community signed in Rome on 15 December 2003.In the light of these documents and the legal instruments to which they refer (in particular Case 145-AI-2005 of the Court of Justice of the Andean Community), the European Community considers that Venezuela is no longer a party to Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement signed in 2003.Consequently, the European Community proposes that references to Venezuela in the Agreement be deleted. This will involve the following amendments:Page 1, Title:"POLITICAL DIALOGUE AND COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY AND ITS MEMBER STATES OF THE ONE PART,AND THE ANDEAN COMMUNITY AND ITS MEMBER COUNTRIES (BOLIVIA, COLOMBIA, ECUADOR, PERU AND VENEZUELA), OF THE OTHER PART "should be amended as follows:"POLITICAL DIALOGUE AND COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY AND ITS MEMBER STATES OF THE ONE PART,AND THE ANDEAN COMMUNITY AND ITS MEMBER COUNTRIES (BOLIVIA, COLOMBIA, ECUADOR AND PERU), OF THE OTHER PART "Page 4, the reference to " THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA" should be deleted.Page 65, Article 59:"This Agreement shall apply, on the one hand, to the territories in which the Treaty establishing the European Community is applied and under the conditions laid down in that Treaty, and, on the other hand, to the territories of the Andean Community and its Member countries (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela)."should be amended as follows :"This Agreement shall apply, on the one hand, to the territories in which the Treaty establishing the European Community is applied and under the conditions laid down in that Treaty, and, on the other hand, to the territories of the Andean Community and its Member countries (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru)."»I would be grateful if you would confirm the Andean Community's acceptance of the above amendments. If the Andean Community agrees to the amendments, the European Community proposes that this take the form of an exchange of letters.Yours faithfully,Signature :Presidency of the Council of the European Union


Avis juridique important

|

31996Y0110(01)

Council recommendation of 22 December 1995 on harmonizing means of combating illegal immigration and illegal employment and improving the relevant means of control

Official Journal C 005 , 10/01/1996 P. 0001 - 0003

COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONof 22 December 1995on harmonizing means of combating illegal  immigration and illegal employment and improving the relevant means of control(96/C  5/01) THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular K.3 (2) thereof, Having regard to the initiative submitted by the French Republic on 22 December 1994, Having regard to the recommendation of the Ministers of the Member States of the European  Communities with responsibility for immigration of 1 June 1993 concerning checks on, and expulsion  of, third-country nationals residing or working without authorization, Having regard to the recommendation of the Ministers of the Member States of the European  Communities with responsibility for immigration of 30 November 1992 regarding practices followed by  Member States on expulsion, Whereas, pursuant to Article K.1 (2) and (3) of the EC Treaty, policy regarding nationals of third  countries and in particular combating unauthorized immigration, residence and work are matters of  common interest and therefore fall within the areas for cooperation between Member States referred  to in Title VI of the Treaty; Whereas the Member States, faced with an increase in illegal immigration, have already adopted  specific measures to ensure better control of population flows and to avoid the continued unlawful  presence in their territories of foreign nationals who have entered or are residing without  authorization; Whereas, however, the efficiency of that action implies the implementation of coordinated and  consistent measures; Whereas, although recommendations laying down guiding principles for practice with regard to  expulsion have already been adopted, that effort at alignment needs to be reinforced by  recommending Member States to comply with a number of principles designed to ensure a better check  on the situation of foreign nationals present within their territories; Whereas this recommendation is in keeping with Community legislation, the Convention for the  Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950, and in particular Articles  3 and 14 thereof, and the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees, as  amended by the New York Protocol of 31 January 1967, HEREBY RECOMMENDS Member States to harmonize further the means for checking on foreign nationals to  verify that they fulfil the conditions laid down by the rules applicable to entry, residence and  employment on the basis of the following guidelines: 1. This recommendation does not extend to citizens of the European Union or to  nationals of EFTA member countries party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, or to  members of their families entitled under Community law. 2. Where an identity check is carried out on a foreigner in accordance with national law, at least  where a person appears to be residing in the country unlawfully, his residence situation should be  verified. This may apply in particular in the following cases: - identity checks in connection with the investigation or prosecution of offences, - identity checks to ward off threats to public order or security, - identity checks in order to combat illegal entry or residence in certain areas (e.g. frontier  areas and ports, airports and railways stations handling international traffic), without prejudice  to border controls. 3. Third-country nationals should be in a position, according to national law, to present to the  competent authorities confirmation, for example by way of papers or documents by virtue of which  they are so authorized, of their authority to reside within the territory of the Member State where  they are. 4. Where national law regards the residence or employment situation as a prerequisite for foreign  nationals to qualify for benefits provided by a public service of a Member State in particular in  the area of health, retirement, family or work, that condition cannot be met until it has been  verified that the residence and employment situation of the person concerned and his or her family  does not disqualify them from the benefit. Verification of residence or employment status is not  required where intervention by a public authority is necessary on overriding humanitarian grounds. Such verifications are carried out by the services providing the benefits, with the assistance, if  necessary, of the authorities responsible in particular for issuing residence or work permits, in  accordance with national law relating, in particular, to data protection. Member States should inform the central or local authorities responsible for dispensing benefits to  foreign nationals of the importance of combating illegal immigration in order to encourage them to  report to the competent authorities, in accordance with national law, such cases of breaches of the  residence rules as they may detect in the course of their work. The attention of the authorities responsible for issuing residence permits should also be drawn to  the risk of marriages of convenience. 5. Employers wishing to recruit foreign nationals should be encouraged to verify that their  residence or employment situations are in order by requiring them to present the document(s) by  virtue of which they are authorized to reside and work in the Member State concerned. Member States  could stipulate that employers may, if necessary, under the conditions laid down by national law  relating, in particular, to data protection, check with the authorities responsible in particular  for issuing residence and work permits; the said authorities may communicate the relevant  information under procedures which guarantee confidentiality in the transmission of individual  data. 6. Any person who is considered, under the national law of the Member State concerned, to be  employing a foreign national who does not have authorization should be made subject to appropriate  penalties. 7. The authorities competent to authorize residence should be empowered to take measures to check  that persons who have been refused authorization to reside within the territory of the Member State  have left that territory of their own accord. 8. Each Member State should consider setting up a central file of foreign nationals containing  information on the administrative situation of foreign nationals with regard to residence,  including any refusal of authorization to reside and any expulsion measures. Any file thus set up  will operate in compliance with the standards laid down in Council of Europe Convention 108 of 28  January 1981 for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal  Data. 9. Member States should satisfy themselves that residence documents issued to foreign nationals are  adequately secured against forgery and fraudulent use - particularly by colour photocopying - and,  should, if necessary, amend them accordingly. 10. Member States should take the measures necessary to reinforce and improve means of identifying  foreign nationals who are not in a lawful position and who have no travel documents or other  documents by which they can be identified. Where a foreign national who is not in a lawful position is, or is likely to be, detained under the  circumstances provided for in Chapter II of the recommendation of 30 November 1992 of the Ministers  of the Member States of the European Communities with responsibility for immigration regarding  practices followed by Member States on expulsion, the period of detention should be used in  particular to obtain the necessary travel documents for expelling foreign nationals who have no  documents. The consular authorities of the country of origin or the country of the nationality of  the foreign national concerned should be encouraged to make additional identification efforts to  obtain travel documents. Foreign nationals who have deliberately brought about their illegal position, particularly by  refusing to supply travel documents, should be subject to penalties. In appropriate cases, such  penalties may fall under criminal law. Member States will review the follow-up to Chapter III.2 of the recommendation of 30 November 1992  of the Ministers of the Member States of the European Communities with responsibility for  immigration regarding practices followed by Member States on expulsion. The Council will review regularly, for example once a year, the progress made on harmonization in  the fields covered by this recommendation. Done at Brussels, 22 December 1995. For the CouncilThe PresidentL. ATIENZA SERNA