Avis juridique important

|

32004H0002

Commission Recommendation of 18 December 2003 on standardised information on radioactive airborne and liquid discharges into the environment from nuclear power reactors and reprocessing plants in normal operation (notified under document number C(2003) 4832)

Official Journal L 002 , 06/01/2004 P. 0036 - 0046

Commission Recommendationof 18 December 2003on standardised information on radioactive airborne and liquid discharges into the environment from nuclear power reactors and reprocessing plants in normal operation(notified under document number C(2003) 4832)(2004/2/Euratom)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 124 thereof,Having consulted the group of persons appointed in accordance with Article 31 of the Treaty by the Scientific and Technical Committee,Whereas:(1) Under Title II, Chapter 3, of the Euratom Treaty, Member States regularly report to the Commission on assessed levels of environmental radioactivity.(2) Article 35 of the Euratom Treaty requires each Member State to establish the facilities necessary to carry out continuous monitoring of the level of radioactivity in the air, water and soil and to ensure compliance with the basic standards.(3) Article 36 of the Euratom Treaty requires the appropriate authorities to periodically communicate to the Commission information on the environmental checks referred to in Article 35, so that it is kept informed on the level of radioactivity to which the public is exposed. The information on the checks referred to in Article 35 also concerns information on levels of radioactivity in discharges as this is necessary for the assessment of the environmental impact of such discharges. This aspect was not within the scope of Commission Recommendation 2000/473/Euratom of 8 June 2000 on the application of Article 36 of the Euratom Treaty concerning the monitoring of the levels of radioactivity in the environment for the purpose of assessing the exposure of the population as a whole(1). It is appropriate to define and specify such information.(4) Following Commission Recommendation 1999/829/Euratom of 6 December 1999 on the application of Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty(2), Member States regularly communicate to the Commission a statement on radioactive liquid and airborne discharges into the environment from nuclear power reactors and reprocessing plants. However, Recommendation 1999/829/Euratom does not specify the content of the information to be provided in the statement. This Recommendation defines and specifies that information.(5) Article 45 of Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers of ionising radiation(3) requires the competent authorities of Member States to ensure that estimates of doses to the population from practices subject to prior authorisation are made as realistic as possible; nuclide-specific information on radioactive discharges into the environment is needed for the assessment of such doses.(6) Standardised information on radionuclides discharged into the environment from nuclear power reactors and reprocessing plants during normal operation is needed to achieve comparable measurement results of radioactive discharges on a Community scale and to ensure that minimum standards for the analysis methods are met across the Community. For this purpose, for each category of radioactive discharges and each type of nuclear installation considered, it is appropriate to identify key nuclides to which requirements for detection limits should apply. These key nuclides should represent categories of radionuclides or a specific type of radiation, be significant in terms of radiological impact and be suitable measurement sensitivity indicators.(7) The Commission regularly publishes reports on annual radioactive effluents from nuclear power stations and nuclear fuel reprocessing plants in the European Community and on assessment of the radiological impact on the population of the European Union from European Union nuclear sites. The significance and transparency of the Commission's reports would be enhanced if they were based on standardised information.(8) It is important to ensure at this stage, as a first step towards harmonisation at Community level, the comparability of the information provided on levels of radioactivity in discharges from nuclear power reactors and nuclear fuel reprocessing plants in normal operation. Dismantling operations should not be covered by this Recommendation, as these are of a different nature and give rise to different types of waste,HEREBY RECOMMENDS:1. This Recommendation defines information selected for monitoring and reporting to the European Commission on radionuclides discharged or liable to be discharged from nuclear power reactors and reprocessing plants in normal operation.2. For the purpose of this Recommendation, the following definition apply:(a) "normal operation": normal activities relating to the operation of a nuclear power reactor or reprocessing plant, including the decommissioning phase (shutdown and containment and surveillance operations), but not the dismantling phase;(b) "key nuclide": suitable measurement sensitivity indicator, selected for each radionuclide category;(c) "detection limit": smallest true value of the measurand that is detectable, with a given probability of error, by the measuring method;(d) "decision threshold": the fixed value of the decision quantity (random variable for the decision whether the physical effect to be measured is present or not) by which, when exceeded by the result of an actual measurement of a measurand quantifying a physical effect, it is decided that the physical effect is present.3. For airborne and liquid discharges from nuclear power reactors and reprocessing plants, Member States should assess the discharged activity of all radionuclides considered in column 1 of Annex I.4. In situations where measured values are below detection limits, for key nuclides identified in column 2 of Annex I, the detection limits achieved should not exceed the corresponding requirements defined in column 3 of Annex I.5. In situations where a similar accuracy can be achieved by the calculation of discharges for specific radionuclides on the basis of operational data, or on the basis of measurement results for other radionuclides, such calculated discharge values may be used as a substitute for direct measurements.6. The determination of detection limits, decision thresholds, and the expression of results should comply with international standard ISO/IS 11929-7. For practical reasons, even though technically the decision threshold is below half the detection limit actually achieved for a measurement, the decision threshold may conservatively be taken to be equal to one half of the detection limit.7. Where measurement outcomes are below the decision threshold, these outcomes should conservatively be substituted by one half of the decision threshold. However, if repeated measurement outcomes in the period considered are all below the decision threshold, then it is reasonable to assume that the true value is zero, i.e. that the radionuclide is not present in the discharge.8. Member States should report the following information on radioactive discharges to the Commission in the format of the compilation sheets outlined in Annex II:(a) annual discharge values for each radionuclide listed in column 1 of Annex I for which there is at least one measurement outcome above the decision threshold in the period considered, or for which a calculated assessment has been made in the same period;(b) for each key nuclide, the highest value of the detection limit that has been obtained among all the measurements for the period considered;(c) estimates of radionuclide discharges based on calculation, as a substitute for measurement, when measurement is technically not feasible;(d) as far as available, the chemical/physical form of tritium, carbon-14 and iodine discharges to the atmosphere;(e) the time basis for the reported values, and where appropriate information on the summation method used, including the substitutes for values below decision threshold, which have been used in estimating summation results;(f) the sampling method for the effluent streams.The information referred to in (d), (e) and (f) should be provided in the commentaries. Estimated values as referred to in (c) should be identified as such in a commentary together with an indication of the method used and, where appropriate, any relevant detection limit9. The period of reporting information on radioactive discharges should be one calendar year. Information on radioactive discharges should be submitted no later than 30 September of the following year.10. This Recommendation is addressed to the Member States.Done at Brussels, 18 December 2003.For the CommissionLoyola De PalacioVice-President(1) OJ L 191, 27.7.2000, p. 37.(2) OJ L 324, 16.12.1999, p. 23.(3) OJ L 159, 29.6.1996, p. 1.ANNEX IStandardised information on radionuclides discharged from nuclear power reactors and reprocessing plants during normal operationA. Nuclear power reactorsA.1 Discharges to atmosphere>TABLE>A.2 Liquid discharges>TABLE>B. Reprocessing plantsB.1 Discharges to atmosphere>TABLE>B.2 Liquid discharges(1)>TABLE>(1) Liquid effluents of reprocessing plants are normally treated together with liquids of other facilities on the same site.ANNEX II>PIC FILE= "L_2004002EN.004302.TIF">>PIC FILE= "L_2004002EN.004401.TIF">>PIC FILE= "L_2004002EN.004501.TIF">>PIC FILE= "L_2004002EN.004601.TIF">


Avis juridique important

|

31975H0465

75/465/EEC: Council recommendation of 22 July 1975 on wheat unsuitable for making bread

Official Journal L 209 , 07/08/1975 P. 0029 - 0029 Greek special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 13 P. 0079  Spanish special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 8 P. 0220  Portuguese special edition Chapter 03 Volume 8 P. 0220

COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION  of 22 July 1975  on wheat unsuitable for making bread  (75/465/EEC) THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community;  Having regard to the draft from the Commission,  HAS DRAWN UP THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION:  The Council asks those concerned to bear in mind that, as from the next price fixing operation, prices will be fixed within the framework of the common organization of the markets in such a way that manufacturers of wheat unsuitable for making bread may not expect their products to be valued at more than the equivalent in terms of feed grain value.  Done at Brussels, 22 July 1975.  For the Council  The President  G. MARCORA


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

text:
               9.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/26

         COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
   of 11 July 2017
   on the 2017 National Reform Programme of Ireland and delivering a Council opinion on the 2017 Stability Programme of Ireland
   (2017/C 261/07)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 121(2) and 148(4) thereof,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies (1), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,
   Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 on the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances (2), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,
   Having regard to the recommendation of the European Commission,
   Having regard to the resolutions of the European Parliament,
   Having regard to the conclusions of the European Council,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Employment Committee,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Financial Committee,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Social Protection Committee,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Economic Policy Committee,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 16 November 2016, the Commission adopted the Annual Growth Survey, marking the start of the 2017 European Semester for economic policy coordination. The priorities of the Annual Growth Survey were endorsed by the European Council on 9-10 March 2017. On 16 November 2016, on the basis of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011, the Commission adopted the Alert Mechanism Report, in which it identified Ireland as one of the Member States for which an in-depth review would be carried out. On the same date, the Commission also adopted a recommendation for a Council Recommendation on the economic policy of the euro area, which was endorsed by the European Council on 9-10 March 2017. On 21 March 2017, the Council adopted the Recommendation on the economic policy of the euro area (‘Recommendation for the euro area’) (3).

               (2)

               As a Member State whose currency is the euro and in view of the close interlinkages between the economies in the economic and monetary union, Ireland should ensure the full and timely implementation of the Recommendation for the euro area, as reflected in recommendations (1) to (3) below.

               (3)

               The 2017 country report for Ireland was published on 22 February 2017. It assessed Ireland’s progress in addressing the country-specific recommendations adopted by the Council on 12 July 2016, the follow-up given to the country-specific recommendations adopted in previous years and Ireland’s progress towards its national Europe 2020 targets. It also included an in-depth review under Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011, the results of which were also published on 22 February 2017.

               (4)

               The Commission’s analysis led it to conclude that Ireland is experiencing macroeconomic imbalances. In particular, these imbalances are characterised by a large stock of external, public and private debt (of both households and non-financial corporations), which makes Ireland vulnerable to adverse shocks. Banks are still facing a high level of non-performing loans but are well capitalised and their profitability, although still low, is improving gradually. Housing prices are increasing and supply constraints persist. Non-financial corporations’ debt stock decreased over 2015, but was still higher than it was at the end of 2014. Household debt stock decreased in 2015 and public debt is on a firm downward trajectory. Ireland’s negative net international investment position had been falling at a fast pace before 2015, but it then reversed, partly due to a level shift in 2015. However, the external sustainability of the domestic sector does not seem to be at risk. The stock of non-performing loans has been declining over the last year but the pace of reduction was slowing down somewhat by the end of 2016. Property prices continued to increase in 2015, but as of now there is no significant evidence of overvaluation. Policy measures have been taken in recent years to address all imbalances highlighted, including in the banking sector (improved regulatory framework, measures to address the high level of non-performing loans). The Government has taken several relevant measures to address the undersupply in the housing market, but it will take time for them to generate effects.

               (5)

               Ireland submitted its 2017 National Reform Programme on 13 April 2017 and its 2017 Stability Programme on 2 May 2017. In order to take account of their interlinkages, the two programmes have been assessed at the same time.

               (6)

               Relevant country-specific recommendations have been addressed in the programming of the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds) for the 2014-2020 period. As provided for in Article 23 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4), where it is necessary to support the implementation of relevant Council recommendations, the Commission may request a Member State to review and propose amendments to its Partnership Agreement and relevant programmes. The Commission has provided further details on how it would make use of that provision in guidelines on the application of the measures linking effectiveness of the ESI Funds to sound economic governance.

               (7)

               Ireland is currently in the preventive arm of the Stability and Growth Pact and subject to the transitional debt rule. In its 2017 Stability Programme, the Government expects the headline deficit to decline slightly to 0,4 % of GDP in 2017 and to continue to gradually decrease thereafter, turning into a surplus of 1,0 % of GDP in 2021. The medium-term budgetary objective — a structural deficit of 0,5 % of GDP — is expected to be met from 2018 onwards. According to the Stability Programme, the general government debt-to-GDP ratio is expected to fall to 72,9 % in 2017 and to continue declining to 65,2 % in 2020. The macroeconomic scenario underpinning those budgetary projections is plausible. At the same time, the measures needed to support the planned deficit targets from 2018 onwards have not been sufficiently specified.

               (8)

               On 12 July 2016, the Council recommended Ireland to achieve an annual fiscal adjustment of 0,6 % of GDP towards the medium-term budgetary objective in 2017. Based on the Commission 2017 spring forecast, there is a risk of a significant deviation from the recommended fiscal adjustment over 2016 and 2017 taken together.

               (9)

               In 2018, in light of its fiscal situation and, in particular, of its debt level, Ireland is expected to further adjust towards its medium-term budgetary objective of a structural deficit of 0,5 % of GDP. According to the commonly agreed adjustment matrix under the Stability and Growth Pact, that adjustment translates into a requirement of a nominal growth rate of net primary government expenditure (5) which does not exceed 2,4 % in 2018. It would correspond to an annual structural adjustment of 0,6 % of GDP. The expenditure benchmark reflects an adjustment to correct for a distortion to the 10-year reference rate of potential growth caused by the exceptionally high surge in real GDP growth in 2015. Following the approach taken by the Irish authorities in their Budget 2017 calculations, the Commission has taken the average of potential growth rates in 2014 and 2016. Under unchanged policies, there is a risk of some deviation from the requirement over 2017 and 2018 taken together. At the same time, Ireland is forecast to comply with the transitional debt rule in 2017 and 2018. Overall, the Council is of the opinion that further measures will be needed, in particular in 2017, to comply with the provisions of the Stability and Growth Pact. In view of Ireland’s current cyclical conditions and the heightened external risks, the use of any windfall gains to further reduce the general government debt ratio would be prudent. However, as foreseen in Regulation (EC) No 1466/97, the assessment of the budgetary plans and outcomes should take account of the Member State’s budgetary balance in light of the cyclical conditions. As recalled in the Commission Communication accompanying these country-specific recommendations, the assessment of the 2018 Draft Budgetary Plan and subsequent assessment of 2018 budget outcomes will need to take due account of the goal of achieving a fiscal stance that contributes to both strengthening the ongoing recovery and ensuring the sustainability of Ireland’s public finances. In that context, the Council notes that the Commission intends to carry out an overall assessment in line with Regulation (EC) No 1466/97, in particular in light of the cyclical situation of Ireland.

               (10)

               Although the economic recovery is robust and output is expected to grow at a solid pace in the years ahead, the outlook has become more uncertain, creating risks for the still fragile public finances. Therefore, more efforts should be taken to make revenue more resilient to economic fluctuations and adverse shocks. To this end, the proposal to introduce a Rainy-Day Fund should be advanced and reliance on highly concentrated and volatile revenue sources should be reduced. A balanced composition of different tax sources and broader tax bases improve revenue stability in the face of economic volatility. However, efforts to broaden the tax base have been limited in recent years and recent tax measures have focused on cuts and reliefs. The announced systematic evaluation of the costs and benefits of reduced VAT rates, which apply to an extensive range of sales, is pending. Recurrent property taxation is considered to be one of the most growth-friendly revenue sources. However, Irish revenues from immovable property only amounted to 1,0 % of GDP in 2014, compared to the Union average of 1,6 %. A gradual indexation of property values would help to smooth the local property tax profile by preventing a sudden increase in tax liabilities when properties are revalued in 2019. The differences in the taxation of diesel and gasoline for road users are environmentally unjustified.

               (11)

               In the past, comprehensive expenditure reviews have focused primarily on reducing government spending to meet overall fiscal targets. There has been little evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of expenditure programmes, which has ultimately weakened the reliability of multi-annual spending plans. An appropriately designed spending review, in line with the common Eurogroup principles, would improve expenditure control and could free up resources for much needed public investment to boost growth. The spending review should, in particular, address the cost-effectiveness of the health sector. Ireland has introduced some important efficiency measures, such as a cost-saving agreement with the pharmaceutical industry, a financial management system, eHealth and activity-based funding. However, more could be done, for example by strengthening the role of primary care as a gatekeeper for Ireland’s overburdened hospitals. Steps towards a universal single-tier health service are fragmented and lack an overarching vision.

               (12)

               Promoting sustainable and inclusive growth that benefits all groups in society remains a challenge. Unemployment was below the Union average at 6,4 % in April 2017. However, the low work intensity of many households creates concerns that some people are left behind as the recovery continues. From 2013 to 2015, the percentage of the population living in low- or very low-work-intensity households fell by 15 %; the overall unemployment rate over the same period dropped by 28 %. Overall, the welfare system has worked well to contain poverty and inequality and Ireland has taken measures to incentivise employment by tapering the withdrawal of benefits and supplementary payments. However, barriers to inclusive growth still exist. The disparities between the employment rates of low-, medium- and highly-skilled workers are among the highest in the Union. Skills mismatches and skills shortages have emerged in certain areas, while upskilling and reskilling opportunities are insufficient. The labour market and social challenges point to the importance of an integrated approach to training and labour market activation for those furthest from the labour market. Moreover, concerns remain over the quality of childcare provisions, including the availability of full-time services. As a percentage of wages, net childcare costs in Ireland are among the highest in the Union. The availability and cost of quality full-time childcare present barriers to female labour market participation and hinder efforts to reduce child poverty, which has fallen slightly but remains higher than the Union average.

               (13)

               Infrastructure needs should be addressed in order to promote durable and balanced growth. The economic crisis led to a shift in the composition of general government expenditure away from investment and towards current spending. Years of sharply reduced government investment have had a negative impact on the adequacy and quality of infrastructure. The shift in government expenditure has also affected public-sector support for research and development with possible implications for the competitiveness of SMEs. Ireland ranks 25th in the Union in public research and development investment as a percentage of GDP. The most severe infrastructure shortcomings are in transport, water services and housing. Demand for new housing currently exceeds supply by a wide margin in the country’s main urban areas. As a result, residential property prices and rents continue to increase rapidly, in turn resulting in a recent high increase in housing exclusion and homelessness. There is currently no evidence of overvaluation, but constraints limiting the supply of housing could generate macro-financial risks if they are not resolved. A coherent and timely spatial plan would help to deliver new homes in the right areas.

               (14)

               The Irish economy presents a division between the mostly small and medium-sized Irish-owned firms and large multinational companies operating in Ireland. Linkages between multinational companies and Irish-owned firms remain limited. Their export performances and profiles are significantly different, while the productivity gap between them is growing wider. Irish-owned firms present a weaker exporting profile than multinationals established in Ireland. Their exports are heavily concentrated by sector and destination, making them more vulnerable to shocks. Investing in innovation would foster the productivity and exporting potential of Irish firms at a time when diversifying exports and export destinations could help stabilise the performance of Irish firms. Public research and development expenditure remains low. Fully implementing measures to increase public research and development, in particular measures to support the innovation capacity of SMEs, depends on the return to a trend of sustained investment. To stimulate innovation by SMEs, innovation policies could be rebalanced towards more direct forms of funding. Support from the Government for business research and development has increasingly relied on research and development tax credits. More targeted policy mixes with more direct funding may better address the needs of Irish young innovative firms and exploit opportunities from the strong investing power of multinational companies. This would serve to facilitate access to global value chains and accelerate knowledge spillovers.

               (15)

               In an environment of heightened external uncertainty, further progress in reducing non-performing loans is important to ensure the stability of the financial sector. Although progress has been made, high non-performing loans ratios remain a drag on banks’ profitability and an obstacle to the full economic recovery of households and firms. The deleveraging of households and domestic firms continues, but their indebtedness remains one of the highest in the Union at 276,8 % of GDP (September 2016). High corporate debt may hinder firms from borrowing for investment, which in turn also limits banks’ ability to improve their own profitability.

               (16)

               According to the Central Bank of Ireland, the average non-performing loans ratio of the domestic Irish banks was 14,2 % in September 2016. This is substantially above the Union average of 5,3 %. Non-performing loans of the domestic Irish banks fell by EUR 12,7 billion or 32,7 % year-on-year in September 2016. The pace of resolution of arrears has slowed down somewhat as the remaining long-term arrears are also the most difficult to restructure. The momentum should not be lost: arrears restructuring should be sustainable in the long term and different forms of debt reduction need to be considered. 14 % of the mortgage stock was in arrears at the end of September 2016, while accounts in arrears of over 2 years represented around 70 % of the total mortgage loan balances in arrears greater than 90 days. Commercial real estate loans held by domestic banks and business loans also remain areas of concern, with non-performing loans ratios of 32,6 % and 11,8 % respectively in September 2016. The use of personal insolvency, bankruptcy, examinership and out-of-court arrangements intended to restore households and business to viability remains low and should be better incentivised. After several delays, the central credit register is expected to enter the final phase of its implementation. Its finalisation should be a priority as it will serve as the basis for adequate credit risk assessment of borrowers and ensure prudent future lending.

               (17)

               Implementation of the 2015 Legal Services Regulation Act (‘the 2015 Act’) started in late 2016. The full implementation of the 2015 Act will be crucial in Ireland’s efforts to increase competition in the sector because it will allow barristers direct access to the profession, as well as the creation of corporate groups by multidisciplinary practices and the operation in Ireland of alternative business models used in other Member States. Independent legal services are an input to all sectors of the economy and their cost has a bearing on Ireland’s competitiveness. Therefore, it is paramount that the implementation of the 2015 Act introduces competition-enhancing and cost-reducing provisions following public consultation processes, or incorporates such provisions in regulations to be issued by the Legal Services Regulatory Authority so as to boost competition and reduce costs.

               (18)

               In the context of the 2017 European Semester, the Commission has carried out a comprehensive analysis of Ireland’s economic policy and published it in the 2017 country report. It has also assessed the 2017 Stability Programme, the 2017 National Reform Programme and the follow-up given to the recommendations addressed to Ireland in previous years. It has taken into account not only their relevance for sustainable fiscal and socioeconomic policy in Ireland, but also their compliance with Union rules and guidance, given the need to strengthen the Union’s overall economic governance by providing Union-level input into future national decisions.

               (19)

               In the light of this assessment, the Council has examined the 2017 Stability Programme and its opinion (6) is reflected in particular in recommendation (1) below.

               (20)

               In the light of the Commission’s in-depth review and this assessment, the Council has examined the 2017 National Reform Programme and the 2017 Stability Programme. Its recommendations made under Article 6 of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 are reflected in recommendations (1) and (3) below,

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

               1.

               Pursue a substantial fiscal effort in 2018 in line with the requirements of the preventive arm of the Stability and Growth Pact. Use any windfall gains arising from the strong economic and financial conditions, including proceeds from asset sales, to accelerate the reduction of the general government debt ratio. Limit the scope and the number of tax expenditures and broaden the tax base.

               2.

               Better target government expenditure, by prioritising public investment in transport, water services, and innovation in particular in support of SMEs. Enhance social infrastructure, including social housing and quality childcare; deliver an integrated package of activation policies to increase employment prospects of low-skilled people and to address low work intensity of households.

               3.

               Encourage a continued and more durable reduction in non-performing loans through resolution strategies that involve write-offs for viable businesses and households, with a special emphasis on resolving long-term arrears.

      Done at Brussels, 11 July 2017.

            For the Council

            The President

         T. TÕNISTE

      (1)  OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 306, 23.11.2011, p. 25.

      (3)  OJ C 92, 24.3.2017, p. 1.

      (4)  Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 320).

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

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


title: Council Recommendation of 14 July 2015 on the 2015 National Reform Programme of Latvia and delivering a Council opinion on the 2015 Stability Programme of Latvia

text:
               18.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/66

         COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
   of 14 July 2015
   on the 2015 National Reform Programme of Latvia and delivering a Council opinion on the 2015 Stability Programme of Latvia
   (2015/C 272/17)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 121(2) and 148(4) thereof,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies (1), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,
   Having regard to the recommendation of the European Commission,
   Having regard to the resolutions of the European Parliament,
   Having regard to the conclusions of the European Council,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Employment Committee,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Financial Committee,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Social Protection Committee,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Economic Policy Committee,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 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. The strategy focuses on the key areas where action is needed to boost Europe's potential for sustainable growth and competitiveness.

               (2)

               On 14 July 2015, 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 and, on 21 October 2010, it adopted a decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States (2). Together these form the ‘integrated guidelines’ which Member States were invited to take into account in their national economic and employment policies.

               (3)

               On 8 July 2014, the Council adopted a Recommendation (3) on Latvia's National Reform Programme for 2014 and delivered its opinion on Latvia's updated Stability Programme for 2014.

               (4)

               On 28 November 2014, the Commission adopted the Annual Growth Survey, marking the start of the 2015 European Semester for economic policy coordination. On the same day, on the basis of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4), the Commission adopted the Alert Mechanism Report, in which Latvia was not identified as one of the Member States for which an in-depth review would be carried out.

               (5)

               On 18 December 2014, the European Council endorsed the priorities for fostering investment, intensifying structural reforms and pursuing responsible growth-friendly fiscal consolidation.

               (6)

               On 26 February 2015, the Commission published its 2015 country report for Latvia. This assessed Latvia's progress in addressing the country-specific recommendations adopted on 8 July 2014.

               (7)

               On 15 April 2015, Latvia submitted its 2015 National Reform Programme and its 2015 Stability Programme. In order to take account of their interlinkages, the two programmes have been assessed at the same time.

               (8)

               Latvia is currently in the preventive arm of the Stability and Growth Pact and benefits from the implementation of the systemic pension reform clause as confirmed by Eurostat. In its 2015 Stability Programme, Latvia has requested a temporary deviation from the required adjustment path towards the medium-term objective, because it continues to implement a major structural reform in the health sector. The budgetary costs of the health sector reform amount to 0,2 % of GDP in 2016. The reform is estimated to increase employment by 0,6 % and the GDP level by 2,2 % by 2023. The positive impact on growth and the long-term sustainability of public finances is assessed as plausible. However, based on the Commission's 2015 spring forecast, the projected structural deficit of 2,2 % of GDP in 2016 exceeds the appropriate safety margin with respect to the 3 %-of-GDP Treaty reference value which should be respected in order to be eligible for the structural reform clause. Therefore, and while recognising that the ongoing health sector reform is warranted, the Council is of the opinion that Latvia does not fulfil the requirements to benefit from the requested temporary deviation in 2016

               (9)

               In its 2015 Stability Programme, the Government plans a broadly stable headline deficit at 1,4 % of GDP in 2016 and 1,3 % in 2017, rising to 1,7 % in 2018. To achieve these targets, the Government intends to reach a structural deficit of 1,8 % of GDP in 2016, and of 1,4 % of GDP as from 2017. The adjustment path in the Stability Programme incorporates a deviation based on the structural reform clause for which Latvia does not appear to be eligible and classifies planned additional defence spending over 2016-2019 as one-off operations. According to the Stability Programme, the government debt-to-GDP ratio is expected to decline from 37 % of GDP in 2015 to 34 % of GDP by 2018, with some annual fluctuations in between due to the accumulation of liquid assets for debt management purposes. The macroeconomic scenario underpinning these budgetary projections is plausible. Measures for 2015 have largely been implemented as budgeted. However, measures to support the planned deficit targets from 2016 onwards have not been sufficiently specified. Based on the Commission's 2015 spring forecast, Latvia complies with the requirement in 2015, taking into account the application of the systemic pension reform clause. For 2016, there is a risk of a significant deviation. The structural balance is required to improve by 0,3 % of GDP taking into account the allowance for the systemic pension reform. Based on the Commission forecast, it deteriorates by 0,3 % of GDP, which is also linked to the fact that the defence spending cannot be classified as one-off measures. Based on its assessment of the Stability Programme and taking into account the Commission's 2015 spring forecast, the Council is of the opinion that there is a risk that Latvia will not comply with the provisions of the Stability and Growth Pact.

               (10)

               A national independent accreditation agency is being set up and a new quality-targeting financing model is being developed for Latvia's higher education. Despite some progress in reforming the research and innovation system, in line with the Smart Specialisation Framework, inadequate public funding in a fragmented research and innovation system is leading to poor scientific outcomes. Latvia invested only around 0,6 % of GDP in R & D in 2013 — the third lowest level in the Union. Public R & D intensity reached only 0,4 3 % of GDP in 2013. Lack of innovation and private investment in higher-value-added and knowledge-intensive sectors hampers competitiveness.

               (11)

               Notwithstanding the progress made to tackle unemployment, further action is needed to prevent youth unemployment and its negative long-term consequences, given the shrinking labour force. Latvia has made some progress to reform vocational education and training and its apprenticeship component; however, its lack of attractiveness remains a challenge, due to the limited engagement of SMEs.

               (12)

               Even if a significant amount of analytical and planning work has been carried out, the social assistance reforms have not advanced and are not backed by sufficient budgetary plans. Low coverage and adequacy of unemployment and social assistance benefits prevents effective action on reducing poverty, social exclusion and the high degree of inequality. Under these conditions, social expenditure has little impact on poverty reduction. In 2014, around 32,7 % of Latvia's population were at risk of poverty or social exclusion and income inequality remains among the highest in the Union. The financing and coverage of active labour market policies remains low in comparison with other Member States. The high tax wedge for low- income earners remains a disincentive for formal employment and reduces demand for low-skilled workers; whereas environmental and effective property taxation have significant, unexploited potential. Low public healthcare financing and high out-of-pocket payments, inadequate focus on performance incentives and efficiency and lack of care coordination result in reduced access for a large proportion of the population to the healthcare system. It is necessary to continue actions to improve accessibility, cost-effectiveness and quality of the healthcare system and to link hospital financing to performance-based mechanisms.

               (13)

               Latvia has made significant progress in reforming the judicial system. However, the rate of resolving civil and commercial cases remains low creating an additional burden for business. The role of the Judicial Council and court chairpersons in implementing judicial reforms should be strengthened. The fight against tax evasion and appropriate tax collection is insufficient and the level of tax avoidance is still high. While an insolvency law has been adopted, challenges remain with respect to proper insolvency policy and an effective insolvency administrators' supervision system. The business climate and the quality of public services would benefit from stronger measures against conflict of interest and corruption, especially in vulnerable sectors such as public procurement, construction and healthcare. There has been no progress on the Competition Council's proposals for amendments to the Competition Law to give it greater institutional and financial independence to take effective action against public bodies.The Public Service Law has not been adopted by the Parliament. It will be important that the local government be included.

               (14)

               In the context of the European Semester, the Commission has carried out a comprehensive analysis of Latvia's economic policy and published it in the 2015 country report. It has also assessed the Stability Programme and the National Reform Programme and the follow-up given to the recommendations addressed to Latvia in previous years. It has taken into account not only their relevance for sustainable fiscal and socioeconomic policy in Latvia but also their compliance with EU rules and guidance, given the need to strengthen the overall economic governance of the Union by providing EU-level input into future national decisions. The recommendations under the European Semester are reflected in recommendations (1) to (4) below.

               (15)

               In the light of this assessment, the Council has examined the Stability Programme, and its opinion (5) is reflected in particular in recommendation (1) below.

               (16)

               In the context of the European Semester, the Commission has also carried out an analysis of the economic policy of the euro area as a whole. On the basis of this analysis, the Council has issued specific recommendations addressed to the Member States whose currency is the euro (6). As a country whose currency is the euro, Latvia should also ensure the full and timely implementation of those recommendations,

         HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Latvia take action in 2015 and 2016 to:

               1.

               Ensure that the deviation from the medium-term budgetary objective in 2015 and 2016 is limited to the allowance linked to the systemic pension reform.

               2.

               Improve vocational education and training, speed up the curricula reform and increase the offer for work-based learning. Ensure that the new financing model of the higher education system rewards quality. Better target research financing and incentivise private investment in innovation on the basis of the Smart Specialisation Framework.

               3.

               Take concrete steps to reform social assistance, ensuring adequacy of benefits, and take measures to increase employability. Reduce the high tax wedge for low-income earners by shifting the tax burden to other sources less detrimental to growth. Take action to improve the accessibility, cost-effectiveness and quality of the healthcare system and link hospital financing to performance mechanisms.

               4.

               Improve efficiency of the judicial system, by increasing accountability of all parties (including insolvency administrators), by providing adequate means to fight tax evasion and by strengthening the role of the Judicial Council. Improve the public service legislation to strengthen the conflict of interest regime and link remuneration to responsibilities.

      Done at Brussels, 14 July 2015.

            For the Council

            The President

         P. GRAMEGNA

      (1)  OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 1.

      (2)  Maintained by Council Decision 2014/322/EU of 6 May 2014 on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States for 2014 (OJ L 165, 4.6.2014, p. 49).

      (3)  Council Recommendation of 8 July 2014 on the National Reform Programme 2014 of Latvia and delivering a Council opinion on the Stability Programme of Latvia, 2014 (OJ C 247, 29.7.2014, p. 63).

      (4)  Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 on the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances (OJ L 306, 23.11.2011, p. 25).

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

      (6)  OJ C 272, 18.8.2015, p. 98.


title: Council Recommendation of 14 July 2015 on the 2015 National Reform Programme of Ireland and delivering a Council opinion the 2015 Stability Programme of Ireland

text:
               18.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/42

         COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
   of 14 July 2015
   on the 2015 National Reform Programme of Ireland and delivering a Council opinion the 2015 Stability Programme of Ireland
   (2015/C 272/12)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 121(2) and 148(4) thereof,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies (1), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,
   Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 on the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances (2), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,
   Having regard to the recommendation of the European Commission,
   Having regard to the resolutions of the European Parliament,
   Having regard to the conclusions of the European Council,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Employment Committee,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Financial Committee,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Social Protection Committee,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Economic Policy Committee,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 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. The strategy focuses on the key areas where action is needed to boost Europe's potential for sustainable growth and competitiveness.

               (2)

               On 14 July 2015, 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 and, on 21 October 2010, it adopted a decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States (3). Together these form the ‘integrated guidelines’ which Member States were invited to take into account in their national economic and employment policies.

               (3)

               On 8 July 2014, the Council adopted a Recommendation (4) on Ireland's National Reform Programme for 2014 and delivered its opinion on Ireland's updated Stability Programme for 2014. On 28 November 2014, in line with Regulation (EU) No 473/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5), the Commission presented its opinion on Ireland's draft budgetary plan for 2015.

               (4)

               On 28 November 2014, the Commission adopted the Annual Growth Survey, marking the start of the 2015 European Semester for economic policy coordination. On the same day, on the basis of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011, the Commission adopted the Alert Mechanism Report, in which Ireland was identified as one of the Member States for which an in-depth review would be carried out.

               (5)

               On 18 December 2014, the European Council endorsed the priorities for fostering investment, intensifying structural reforms and pursuing responsible growth-friendly fiscal consolidation.

               (6)

               On 26 February 2015, the Commission published its 2015 country report for Ireland. This assessed Ireland's progress in addressing the country-specific recommendations adopted on 8 July 2014. The country report also includes the results of the in-depth review under Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011. The Commission's analysis leads it to conclude that Ireland is experiencing macroeconomic imbalances which require decisive policy action and specific monitoring. In particular, Ireland completed the EU-IMF financial assistance programme in 2013 and is currently subject to post-programme surveillance and European Semester surveillance. Despite a marked improvement in the economic outlook, some risks continue to deserve close attention: the high levels of private- and public-sector indebtedness; remaining financial sector challenges, in particular with regard to banks' profitability; and labour market adjustment marked by high structural unemployment.

               (7)

               On 29 April 2015, Ireland submitted its 2015 National Reform Programme and, on 30 April 2015, its 2015 Stability Programme. To take account of their interlinkages, the two programmes have been assessed at the same time.

               (8)

               Ireland is currently in the corrective arm of the Stability and Growth Pact. In its 2015 Stability Programme, the Government plans to correct the excessive deficit by 2015, in line with the deadline set by the Council. Thereafter, it plans to reach the medium-term objective — a balanced budget in structural terms — by 2019. The Government plans to reduce the headline deficit to 2,3 % of GDP in 2015 and to turn it into a surplus of 0,7 % of GDP in 2019. According to the Stability Programme, the government debt-to-GDP ratio is expected to be brought down from 109,7 % in 2014 to 105,0 % of GDP in 2015 and gradually to 89,4 % of GDP in 2019. The macroeconomic scenario underpinning these budgetary projections is favourable in 2015 and plausible in 2016. Based on the Commission's 2015 spring forecast, a timely and durable correction of the excessive deficit by 2015 is foreseen. The fiscal effort for 2011-15 is estimated to be below the recommended effort, but the amount of discretionary measures taken under the Programme and thereafter is in line with what was required. Assuming a timely and durable correction of the excessive deficit as planned, Ireland will be subject to the preventive arm of the Pact as of 2016. Measures to support the planned deficit targets and progress towards the medium-term objective from 2016 onwards have not been specified in sufficient detail. Therefore, in the light of the Commission's 2015 spring forecast, there appears to be a risk of a significant deviation from the required adjustment towards the medium-term objective in 2016, and further structural measures will be needed in that year. Based on its assessment of the Stability Programme and taking to account the Commission's 2015 spring forecast, the Council is of the opinion that there is a risk that Ireland will not comply with the provisions of the Stability and Growth Pact.

               (9)

               Tax reforms have contributed to the fiscal adjustment, but there is further scope to reduce distortions, improve the efficiency of the tax system and raise its growth and environmental friendliness. Property taxation has been turned into a recurrent tax, but the base is still relatively narrow as certain non-residential properties remain outside the tax net. Labour taxation lacks simplicity due to complex social contributions. The tax bases for consumption and environment taxes are limited by reduced rates and exemptions. Zero and reduced rates for value-added tax make it less efficient than the EU average and there seems to be no systematic evaluation of such tax expenditures. There is scope to improve the effectiveness of environmental tax instruments and remove environmentally harmful subsidies. Recent changes to tax residency rules are welcome, even if their effect may take time to assess. Major reforms to the fiscal framework have been undertaken in recent years. New rules and procedures, in particular the medium-term expenditure framework, are expected to provide a safeguard against pro-cyclical fiscal policy and are crucial for fiscal sustainability. However, under current rules, the Government has considerable discretion to change expenditure ceilings beyond pre-defined contingencies, which weakens medium-term budgetary plans.

               (10)

               Public expenditure on healthcare is comparatively high even though population health status indicators are generally no better than in the rest of the EU. Efficiency gains have been achieved in recent years. However, the health system needs deeper structural reforms to contain expected cost increases and maintain favourable health outcomes in the face of an ageing population. Ireland aims to introduce a single-tier universal health insurance scheme in the medium term and is implementing reforms under the Future Health strategy. Intermediate steps are being pursued in the introduction of universal health insurance to address some of the pressing challenges and improve cost-effectiveness. Effectively rolling out e-health tools, activity-based funding and improved prescription practices have significant potential to increase cost-effectiveness. At the same time, the potential remains to reduce public spending on pharmaceuticals, in particular patented medicines, which is well above the EU average.

               (11)

               Ireland has one of the highest proportions of people living in ‘low work-intensity’ households in the Union. This generates serious social challenges and raises the risk of child poverty. As low work-intensity is particularly severe among single-parent households, the proportion of children living in households with low work-intensity is nearly three times the EU average. Some progress has been made in addressing pockets of inactivity traps by altering the operation of some welfare payments. Nevertheless, access to full-time childcare remains limited and expensive, which is a barrier to female and single-parent participation in the labour market.

               (12)

               With the stronger macroeconomic environment, the overall situation of SMEs has improved but they face very contrasting financial positions; a relatively small proportion is still suffering from legacy issues and concentrating the sector's further deleveraging needs. Credit demand is also showing signs of recovery. SMEs continue to rely heavily on bank financing for investment and non-bank sources of finance are relatively underdeveloped. As the recovery gathers momentum and domestic demand recovers, supply constraints are likely to increase unless credit channels are repaired adequately and financing sources are diversified; this is crucial for investment and the growth outlook. Significant policy initiatives have been taken to support SMEs' access to finance and to offer new products with longer duration. These include the establishment of the Strategic Banking Corporation of Ireland (SBCI), the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund (ISIF) and other schemes. However, while still in the early stages, the uptake on some of these schemes has so far been low and the effectiveness and impact of the SBCI and ISIF can be judged only in the light of experience.

               (13)

               Ireland has made good progress in restructuring, downsizing and recapitalising its domestic banks. Banks' funding profiles have returned to normal and profitability continues to improve. However, legacy challenges remain critical. The high stock of non-performing loans is declining only slowly and continues to weigh on the capacity of banks to support the economic recovery. Such loans represented 23,2 % of total loans in the three main domestic banks in the fourth quarter of 2014, one of the highest rates in the Union. While banks continue to meet their mortgage arrears resolution targets, the longest-term arrears (over 720 days) continue to build up, increasing to 9,8 % of total loan balances in the fourth quarter of 2014. Progress is being made in implementing sustainable restructuring solutions; in April, the Central Bank of Ireland required banks to have solutions in place for the vast majority of borrowers by end-2015. However, banks have relied significantly on standard self-restraint techniques involving the rescheduling of principal or interest payments rather than lowering both. Banks also continue to rely heavily on legal proceedings as a way of convincing customers in arrears to engage. The planned introduction of a central credit register has progressed only slowly even though it is key to improving supervision, credit underwriting and risk management.

               (14)

               The situation in the labour market has improved since 2013, with renewed job creation in the private sector and a steady fall in unemployment. Nevertheless, the unemployment rate is still high and long-term unemployment remains a serious concern. The risk exists that some cyclical unemployment could become structural as skills mismatches have emerged with the rebalancing of the economy. Youth unemployment is still much higher than in the pre-crisis period. Activation reforms have made significant progress in recent years, but some concerns remain about the effectiveness of existing activation policies and training programmes, and of the ability of employment services to deliver on the scale required. The recently launched Job Path initiative is a positive development; its effectiveness will need to be tested. In the past, the further education and training system has been ineffective in providing the type of skills that the rebalanced economy needs, and reforms have started only recently.

               (15)

               Costs for legal services remain high and still have to adjust in line with other professional services. Adjustment is important, as legal services are an input to all sectors of the economy and their cost has a bearing on Ireland's competitiveness. Reform of the regulatory framework for legal services with a view to increasing competition and reducing costs is a long-standing project to which the authorities are committed. However, the Legal Services Regulation Bill, published in 2011, has not been adopted. In addition, an actual reduction in costs can be achieved only if the competition-enhancing and cost-reducing provisions of the planned regulatory framework are preserved and incorporated into the regulations to be issued by the Legal Services Regulatory Authority that is about to be set up. Therefore, the Commission will continue to monitor progress in this area in the context of the European Semester.

               (16)

               In the context of the European Semester, the Commission has carried out a comprehensive analysis of Ireland's economic policy and published it in the 2015 country report. It has also assessed the Stability Programme and the National Reform Programme and the follow-up given to the recommendations addressed to Ireland in previous years. It has taken into account not only their relevance for sustainable fiscal and socioeconomic policy in Ireland but also their compliance with EU rules and guidance, given the need to strengthen the overall economic governance of the Union by providing EU-level input into future national decisions. The recommendations under the European Semester are reflected in recommendations (1) to (4) below.

               (17)

               In the light of this assessment, the Council has examined the Stability Programme, and its opinion (6) is reflected in particular in recommendations (1) and (2) below.

               (18)

               In the light of the Commission's in-depth review and this assessment, the Council has examined the National Reform Programme and the Stability Programme. Its recommendations under Article 6 of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 are reflected in recommendations (1) and (4) below.

               (19)

               In the context of the European Semester, the Commission has also carried out an analysis of the economic policy of the euro area as a whole. On the basis of this analysis, the Council has issued specific recommendations addressed to the Member States whose currency is the euro (7). As a country whose currency is the euro, Ireland should also ensure the full and timely implementation of those recommendations,

         HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Ireland take action in 2015 and 2016 to:

               1.

               Ensure a durable correction of the excessive deficit in 2015. Achieve a fiscal adjustment of 0,6 % of GDP towards the medium-term budgetary objective in 2016. Use windfall gains from better-than-expected economic and financial conditions to accelerate the deficit reduction and debt reduction. Limit the existing discretionary powers to change expenditure ceilings beyond specific and predefined contingencies. Broaden the tax base and review tax expenditures, including on value-added taxes.

               2.

               Take measures to increase the cost-effectiveness of the healthcare system, including by reducing spending on patented medicines and gradually implementing adequate prescription practices. Roll out activity-based funding throughout the public hospital system.

               3.

               Take steps to increase the work-intensity of households and to address the poverty risk of children by tapering the withdrawal of benefits and supplementary payments upon return to employment and through better access to affordable full-time childcare.

               4.

               Finalise durable restructuring solutions for a vast majority of mortgages in arrears by end-2015 and strengthen the monitoring arrangements by the Central Bank of Ireland. Ensure that restructuring solutions for loans to distressed SMEs and residual commercial real-estate loans are sustainable by further assessing banks' performance against own targets. Take the necessary steps to ensure that a central credit registry is operational by 2016.

      Done at Brussels, 14 July 2015.

            For the Council

            The President

         P. GRAMEGNA

      (1)  OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 306, 23.11.2011, p. 25.

      (3)  Maintained by Council Decision 2014/322/EU of 6 May 2014 on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States for 2014 (OJ L 165, 4.6.2014, p. 49).

      (4)  Council Recommendation of 8 July 2014 on the National Reform Programme 2014 of Ireland and delivering a Council opinion on the Stability Programme of Ireland, 2014 (OJ C 247, 29.7.2014, p. 29).

      (5)  Regulation (EU) No 473/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on common provisions for monitoring and assessing draft budgetary plans and ensuring the correction of excessive deficit of the Member States in the euro area (OJ L 140, 27.5.2013, p. 11).

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

      (7)  OJ C 272, 18.8.2015, p. 98.


title: Recommendation of the European Central Bank of 27 March 2014 concerning the common rules and minimum standards to protect the confidentiality of the statistical information collected by the European Central Bank assisted by the national central banks (ECB/2014/14)

text:
               18.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/1

         RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK
   of 27 March 2014
   concerning the common rules and minimum standards to protect the confidentiality of the statistical information collected by the European Central Bank assisted by the national central banks
   (ECB/2014/14)
   2014/C 186/01
   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 to Article 5, Article 12.1, Article 14.3 and Article 38 thereof,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2533/98 of 23 November 1998 concerning the collection of statistical information by the European Central Bank (1), and in particular to Articles 8, 8a and 8b thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Guideline ECB/1998/NP28 (2) establishes the common rules and minimum standards required by Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2533/98, which ensure a basic level of protection of confidential statistical information collected by the European Central Bank (ECB) assisted by the national central banks of the Eurosystem.

               (2)

               In this respect, while it is recognised that the statistical information needed to fulfil the ECB’s statistical reporting requirements is not the same in respect of Member States whose currency is the euro as of the Member States with a derogation, Article 5 of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank applies with respect to all Member States; whereas this fact, together with Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union, implies an obligation to design and implement at national level all the measures that Member States consider appropriate in order to carry out the collection of the statistical information needed to fulfil the ECB’s statistical reporting requirements, and the timely preparations in the field of statistics in order for Member States with a derogation to adopt the euro (3).

               (3)

               There is an increased need to exchange confidential statistical information among the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) members for the exercise of the tasks of the ESCB,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:
   I.

      Application of Guideline ECB/1998/NP28

   The addressees of this Recommendation should apply the provisions laid down in Guideline ECB/1998/NP28 in relation to confidential statistical information received from another ESCB member, and should confirm this by way of an agreement entered into with the other ESCB members.
   II.

      Final provisions

               1.

               This Recommendation is addressed to the national central banks of Member States whose currency is not the euro, in so far as applicable and in so far as such national central banks participate in the transmission of confidential statistical information within the ESCB.

               2.

               This Recommendation shall apply from 1 April 2014.

      Done at Frankfurt am Main, 27 March 2014.

            The President of the ECB

         Mario DRAGHI

      (1)  OJ L 318, 27.11.1998, p. 8.

      (2)  Guideline ECB/1998/NP28 of 22 December 1998 concerning the common rules and minimum standards to protect the confidentiality of the individual statistical information collected by the European Central Bank assisted by the national central banks (OJ L 55, 24.2.2001, p. 72).

      (3)  See recital 17 of Regulation (EC) No 2533/98.


Avis juridique important

|

32003H0361

Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2003) 1422)

Official Journal L 124 , 20/05/2003 P. 0036 - 0041

Commission Recommendationof 6 May 2003concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises(notified under document number C(2003) 1422)(Text with EEA relevance)(2003/361/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) In a report submitted to the Council in 1992 at the request of the "Industry" Council held on 28 May 1990, the Commission had proposed limiting the proliferation of definitions of small and medium-sized enterprises in use at Community level. Commission Recommendation 96/280/EC of 3 April 1996 concerning the definition of small and medium-sized enterprises(1) was based on the idea that the existence of different definitions at Community level and at national level could create inconsistencies. Following the logic of a single market without internal frontiers, the treatment of enterprises should be based on a set of common rules. The pursuit of such an approach is all the more necessary in view of the extensive interaction between national and Community measures assisting micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (SME), for example in connection with Structural Funds or research. It means that situations in which the Community focuses its action on a given category of SMEs and the Member States on another must be avoided. In addition, it was considered that the application of the same definition by the Commission, the Member States, the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Investment Fund (EIF) would improve the consistency and effectiveness of policies targeting SMEs and would, therefore, limit the risk of distortion of competition.(2) Recommendation 96/280/EC has been applied widely by the Member States, and the definition contained in the Annex thereto has been taken over in Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises(2). Apart from the need to adapt Recommendation 96/280/EC to economic developments, pursuant to Article 2 of the Annex thereto, consideration must be given to a number of difficulties of interpretation which have emerged in its application, as well as the observations received from enterprises. In view of the number of amendments now requiring to be made to Recommendation 96/280/EC, and for the sake of clarity, it is appropriate to replace the Recommendation.(3) It should also be made clear that, in accordance with Articles 48, 81 and 82 of the Treaty, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Communities, an enterprise should be considered to be any entity, regardless of its legal form, engaged in economic activities, including in particular entities engaged in a craft activity and other activities on an individual or family basis, partnerships or associations regularly engaged in economic activities.(4) The criterion of staff numbers (the "staff headcount criterion") remains undoubtedly one of the most important, and must be observed as the main criterion; introducing a financial criterion is nonetheless a necessary adjunct in order to grasp the real scale and performance of an enterprise and its position compared to its competitors. However, it would not be desirable to use turnover as the sole financial criterion, in particular because enterprises in the trade and distribution sector have by their nature higher turnover figures than those in the manufacturing sector. Thus the turnover criterion should be combined with that of the balance sheet total, a criterion which reflects the overall wealth of a business, with the possibility of either of these two criteria being exceeded.(5) The turnover ceiling refers to enterprises engaged in very different types of economic activity. In order not to restrict unduly the usefulness of applying the definition, it should be updated to take account of changes in both prices and productivity.(6) As regards the ceiling for the balance sheet total, in the absence of any new element, it is justified to maintain the approach whereby the turnover ceilings are subjected to a coefficient based on the statistical ratio between the two variables. The statistical trend requires a greater increase to be made to the turnover ceiling. Since the trend differs according to the size-category of the enterprise, it is also appropriate to adjust the coefficient in order to reflect the economic trend as closely as possible and not to penalise microenterprises and small enterprises as opposed to medium-sized enterprises. This coefficient is very close to 1 in the case of microenterprises and small enterprises. To simplify matters, therefore, a single value must be chosen for those categories for the turnover ceiling and balance sheet total ceiling.(7) As in Recommendation 96/280/EC, the financial ceilings and the staff ceilings represent maximum limits and the Member States, the EIB and the EIF may fix ceilings lower than the Community ceilings if they wish to direct their measures towards a specific category of SME. In the interests of administrative simplification, the Member States, the EIB and the EIF may use only one criterion - the staff headcount - for the implementation of some of their policies. However, this does not apply to the various rules in competition law where the financial criteria must also be used and adhered to.(8) Following the endorsement of the European Charter for Small Enterprises by the European Council of Santa Maria da Feira in June 2000, microenterprises - a category of small enterprises particularly important for the development of entrepreneurship and job creation - should also be better defined.(9) To gain a better understanding of the real economic position of SMEs and to remove from that category groups of enterprises whose economic power may exceed that of genuine SMEs, a distinction should be made between various types of enterprises, depending on whether they are autonomous, whether they have holdings which do not entail a controlling position (partner enterprises), or whether they are linked to other enterprises. The current limit shown in Recommendation 96/280/EC, of a 25 % holding below which an enterprise is considered autonomous, is maintained.(10) In order to encourage the creation of enterprises, equity financing of SMEs and rural and local development, enterprises can be considered autonomous despite a holding of 25 % or more by certain categories of investors who have a positive role in business financing and creation. However, conditions for these investors have not previously been specified. The case of "business angels" (individuals or groups of individuals pursuing a regular business of investing venture capital) deserves special mention because - compared to other venture capital investors - their ability to give relevant advice to new entrepreneurs is extremely valuable. Their investment in equity capital also complements the activity of venture capital companies, as they provide smaller amounts at an earlier stage of the enterprise's life.(11) To simplify matters, in particular for Member States and enterprises, use should be made when defining linked enterprises of the conditions laid down in Article 1 of Council Directive 83/349/EEC of 13 June 1983 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on consolidated accounts(3), as last amended by Directive 2001/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(4), in so far as these conditions are suitable for the purposes of this Recommendation. To strengthen the incentives for investing in the equity funding of an SME, the presumption of absence of dominant influence on the enterprise in question was introduced, in pursuance of the criteria of Article 5(3), of Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain types of companies(5), as last amended by Directive 2001/65/EC.(12) Account should also be taken, in suitable cases, of relations between enterprises which pass through natural persons, with a view to ensuring that only those enterprises which really need the advantages accruing to SMEs from the different rules or measures in their favour actually benefit from them. In order to limit the examination of these situations to the strict minimum, the account taken of such relationships has been restricted to the relevant market or to adjacent markets - reference being had, where necessary, to the Commission's definition of "relevant markets" in the Commission notice on the definition of relevant market for the purposes of Community competition law(6).(13) In order to avoid arbitrary distinctions between different public bodies of a Member State, and given the need for legal certainty, it is considered necessary to confirm that an enterprise with 25 % or more of its capital or voting rights controlled by a public body is not an SME.(14) In order to ease the administrative burden for enterprises, and to simplify and speed up the administrative handling of cases for which SME status is required, it is appropriate to allow enterprises to use solemn declarations to certify certain of their characteristics.(15) It is necessary to establish in detail the composition of the staff headcount for SME definition purposes. In order to promote the development of vocational training and sandwich courses, it is desirable, when calculating staff numbers, to disregard apprentices and students with a vocational training contract. Similarly, maternity or parental leave periods should not be counted.(16) The various types of enterprise defined according to their relationship with other enterprises correspond to objectively differing degrees of integration. It is therefore appropriate to apply distinct procedures to each of those types of enterprise when calculating the quantities representing their activities and economic power,HEREBY RECOMMENDS:Article 11. This Recommendation concerns the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises used in Community policies applied within the Community and the European Economic Area.2. Member States, the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Investment Fund (EIF), are invited:(a) to comply with Title I of the Annex for their programmes directed towards medium-sized enterprises, small enterprises or microenterprises;(b) to take the necessary steps with a view to using the size classes set out in Article 7 of the Annex, especially where the monitoring of their use of Community financial instruments is concerned.Article 2The ceilings shown in Article 2 of the Annex are to be regarded as maximum values. Member States, the EIB and the EIF may fix lower ceilings. In implementing certain of their policies, they may also choose to apply only the criterion of number of employees, except in fields governed by the various rules on State aid.Article 3This Recommendation will replace Recommendation 96/280/EC as from 1 January 2005.Article 4This Recommendation is addressed to the Member States, the EIB and the EIF.They are requested to inform the Commission by 31 December 2004 of any measures they have taken further to it and, no later than 30 September 2005, to inform it of the first results of its implementation.Done at Brussels, 6 May 2003.For the CommissionErkki LiikanenMember of the Commission(1) OJ L 107, 30.4.1996, p. 4.(2) OJ L 10, 13.1.2001, p. 33.(3) OJ L 193, 18.7.1983, p. 1.(4) OJ L 283, 27.10.2001, p. 28.(5) OJ L 222, 14.8.1978, p. 11.(6) OJ C 372, 9.12.1997, p. 5.ANNEXTITLE IDEFINITION OF MICRO, SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSIONArticle 1EnterpriseAn enterprise is considered to be any entity engaged in an economic activity, irrespective of its legal form. This includes, in particular, self-employed persons and family businesses engaged in craft or other activities, and partnerships or associations regularly engaged in an economic activity.Article 2Staff headcount and financial ceilings determining enterprise categories1. The category of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) is made up of enterprises which employ fewer than 250 persons and which have an annual turnover not exceeding EUR 50 million, and/or an annual balance sheet total not exceeding EUR 43 million.2. Within the SME category, a small enterprise is defined as an enterprise which employs fewer than 50 persons and whose annual turnover and/or annual balance sheet total does not exceed EUR 10 million.3. Within the SME category, a microenterprise is defined as an enterprise which employs fewer than 10 persons and whose annual turnover and/or annual balance sheet total does not exceed EUR 2 million.Article 3Types of enterprise taken into consideration in calculating staff numbers and financial amounts1. An "autonomous enterprise" is any enterprise which is not classified as a partner enterprise within the meaning of paragraph 2 or as a linked enterprise within the meaning of paragraph 3.2. "Partner enterprises" are all enterprises which are not classified as linked enterprises within the meaning of paragraph 3 and between which there is the following relationship: an enterprise (upstream enterprise) holds, either solely or jointly with one or more linked enterprises within the meaning of paragraph 3, 25 % or more of the capital or voting rights of another enterprise (downstream enterprise).However, an enterprise may be ranked as autonomous, and thus as not having any partner enterprises, even if this 25 % threshold is reached or exceeded by the following investors, provided that those investors are not linked, within the meaning of paragraph 3, either individually or jointly to the enterprise in question:(a) public investment corporations, venture capital companies, individuals or groups of individuals with a regular venture capital investment activity who invest equity capital in unquoted businesses ("business angels"), provided the total investment of those business angels in the same enterprise is less than EUR 1250000;(b) universities or non-profit research centres;(c) institutional investors, including regional development funds;(d) autonomous local authorities with an annual budget of less than EUR 10 million and fewer than 5000 inhabitants.3. "Linked enterprises" are enterprises which have any of the following relationships with each other:(a) an enterprise has a majority of the shareholders' or members' voting rights in another enterprise;(b) an enterprise has the right to appoint or remove a majority of the members of the administrative, management or supervisory body of another enterprise;(c) an enterprise has the right to exercise a dominant influence over another enterprise pursuant to a contract entered into with that enterprise or to a provision in its memorandum or articles of association;(d) an enterprise, which is a shareholder in or member of another enterprise, controls alone, pursuant to an agreement with other shareholders in or members of that enterprise, a majority of shareholders' or members' voting rights in that enterprise.There is a presumption that no dominant influence exists if the investors listed in the second subparagraph of paragraph 2 are not involving themselves directly or indirectly in the management of the enterprise in question, without prejudice to their rights as stakeholders.Enterprises having any of the relationships described in the first subparagraph through one or more other enterprises, or any one of the investors mentioned in paragraph 2, are also considered to be linked.Enterprises which have one or other of such relationships through a natural person or group of natural persons acting jointly are also considered linked enterprises if they engage in their activity or in part of their activity in the same relevant market or in adjacent markets.An "adjacent market" is considered to be the market for a product or service situated directly upstream or downstream of the relevant market.4. Except in the cases set out in paragraph 2, second subparagraph, an enterprise cannot be considered an SME if 25 % or more of the capital or voting rights are directly or indirectly controlled, jointly or individually, by one or more public bodies.5. Enterprises may make a declaration of status as an autonomous enterprise, partner enterprise or linked enterprise, including the data regarding the ceilings set out in Article 2. The declaration may be made even if the capital is spread in such a way that it is not possible to determine exactly by whom it is held, in which case the enterprise may declare in good faith that it can legitimately presume that it is not owned as to 25 % or more by one enterprise or jointly by enterprises linked to one another. Such declarations are made without prejudice to the checks and investigations provided for by national or Community rules.Article 4Data used for the staff headcount and the financial amounts and reference period1. The data to apply to the headcount of staff and the financial amounts are those relating to the latest approved accounting period and calculated on an annual basis. They are taken into account from the date of closure of the accounts. The amount selected for the turnover is calculated excluding value added tax (VAT) and other indirect taxes.2. Where, at the date of closure of the accounts, an enterprise finds that, on an annual basis, it has exceeded or fallen below the headcount or financial ceilings stated in Article 2, this will not result in the loss or acquisition of the status of medium-sized, small or microenterprise unless those ceilings are exceeded over two consecutive accounting periods.3. In the case of newly established enterprises whose accounts have not yet been approved, the data to apply is to be derived from a bona fide estimate made in the course of the financial year.Article 5Staff headcountThe headcount corresponds to the number of annual work units (AWU), i.e. the number of persons who worked full-time within the enterprise in question or on its behalf during the entire reference year under consideration. The work of persons who have not worked the full year, the work of those who have worked part-time, regardless of duration, and the work of seasonal workers are counted as fractions of AWU. The staff consists of:(a) employees;(b) persons working for the enterprise being subordinated to it and deemed to be employees under national law;(c) owner-managers;(d) partners engaging in a regular activity in the enterprise and benefiting from financial advantages from the enterprise.Apprentices or students engaged in vocational training with an apprenticeship or vocational training contract are not included as staff. The duration of maternity or parental leaves is not counted.Article 6Establishing the data of an enterprise1. In the case of an autonomous enterprise, the data, including the number of staff, are determined exclusively on the basis of the accounts of that enterprise.2. The data, including the headcount, of an enterprise having partner enterprises or linked enterprises are determined on the basis of the accounts and other data of the enterprise or, where they exist, the consolidated accounts of the enterprise, or the consolidated accounts in which the enterprise is included through consolidation.To the data referred to in the first subparagraph are added the data of any partner enterprise of the enterprise in question situated immediately upstream or downstream from it. Aggregation is proportional to the percentage interest in the capital or voting rights (whichever is greater). In the case of cross-holdings, the greater percentage applies.To the data referred to in the first and second subparagraph is added 100 % of the data of any enterprise, which is linked directly or indirectly to the enterprise in question, where the data were not already included through consolidation in the accounts.3. For the application of paragraph 2, the data of the partner enterprises of the enterprise in question are derived from their accounts and their other data, consolidated if they exist. To these is added 100 % of the data of enterprises which are linked to these partner enterprises, unless their accounts data are already included through consolidation.For the application of the same paragraph 2, the data of the enterprises which are linked to the enterprise in question are to be derived from their accounts and their other data, consolidated if they exist. To these is added, pro rata, the data of any possible partner enterprise of that linked enterprise, situated immediately upstream or downstream from it, unless it has already been included in the consolidated accounts with a percentage at least proportional to the percentage identified under the second subparagraph of paragraph 2.4. Where in the consolidated accounts no staff data appear for a given enterprise, staff figures are calculated by aggregating proportionally the data from its partner enterprises and by adding the data from the enterprises to which the enterprise in question is linked.TITLE IISUNDRY PROVISIONSArticle 7StatisticsThe Commission will take the necessary measures to present the statistics that it produces in accordance with the following size-classes of enterprises:(a) 0 to 1 person;(b) 2 to 9 persons;(c) 10 to 49 persons;(d) 50 to 249 persons.Article 8References1. Any Community legislation or any Community programme to be amended or adopted and in which the term "SME", "microenterprise", "small enterprise" or "medium-sized enterprise", or any other similar term occurs, should refer to the definition contained in this Recommendation.2. As a transitional measure, current Community programmes using the SME definition in Recommendation 96/280/EC will continue to be implemented for the benefit of the enterprises which were considered SMEs when those programmes were adopted. Legally binding commitments entered into by the Commission on the basis of such programmes will remain unaffected.Without prejudice to the first subparagraph, any amendment of the SME definition within the programmes can be made only by adopting the definition contained in this Recommendation in accordance with paragraph 1.Article 9RevisionOn the basis of a review of the application of the definition contained in this Recommendation, to be drawn up by 31 March 2006, and taking account of any amendments to Article 1 of Directive 83/349/EEC on the definition of linked enterprises within the meaning of that Directive, the Commission will, if necessary, adapt the definition contained in this Recommendation, and in particular the ceilings for turnover and the balance-sheet total in order to take account of experience and economic developments in the Community.