title: Commission Recommendation (EU) 2016/2123 of 30 November 2016 on the harmonisation of the scope of and conditions for general transfer licences for armed forces and contracting authorities as referred to in point (a) of Article 5(2) of Directive 2009/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (notified under document C(2016) 7711)

text:
               3.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 329/101

         COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION (EU) 2016/2123
   of 30 November 2016
   on the harmonisation of the scope of and conditions for general transfer licences for armed forces and contracting authorities as referred to in point (a) of Article 5(2) of Directive 2009/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council

         (notified under document C(2016) 7711)

   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 292 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Pursuant to Article 5 of Directive 2009/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) Member States are obliged to publish at least four general transfer licences.

               (2)

               General transfer licences are a key element of the simplified licensing system introduced by Directive 2009/43/EC.

               (3)

               Differences in the scope of general transfer licences published by Member States in terms of defence-related products covered and diverging conditions applied to transfers of these products could hamper the implementation of Directive 2009/43/EC and the achievement of its simplification objective. Harmonisation of the scope of and conditions for transfers under the general transfer licences published by Member States are important to ensure the attractiveness and use of those licenses.

               (4)

               Representatives of the Member States in the Committee established by Article 14 of Directive 2009/43/EC have suggested that harmonisation of the scope of and conditions for transfers under the general transfer licences published by Member States could be achieved by the adoption of a Recommendation by the Commission.

               (5)

               The guidelines set out in this Recommendation represent the result of negotiations with Member States concerning the harmonisation of the scope of and conditions for transfers under the general transfer licence for armed forces and contracting authorities as referred to in point (a) of Article 5(2) of Directive 2009/43/EC (‘GTL-AF’).

               (6)

               This Recommendation is considered as a basis for Member States' GTL-AF. The defence-related products listed under point 1.1 of this Recommendation are a minimum and non-exhaustive list of products, for which Member States allow transfer under their GTL-AF. This means that the GTL-AF published by a Member State may also allow for transfer of other defence-related products included in the Annex of Directive 2009/43/EC not listed in this Recommendation.

               (7)

               Member States recall that they are bound by commitments under European law, such as Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP (2), as well as by international commitments in the area of export control.

               (8)

               This Recommendation applies to the Common Military List of the European Union as laid down in the Annex to Directive 2009/43/EC. This Recommendation will be updated when necessary to reflect future updates of the Common Military List of the European Union.

         HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:
   1.   GENERAL TRANSFER LICENCES FOR ARMED FORCES AND CONTRACTING AUTHORITIES AS REFERRED TO IN POINT (A) OF ARTICLE 5(2) OF DIRECTIVE 2009/43/EC
   1.1.   Defence-related products eligible for transfer under the general transfer licence for armed forces and contracting authorities as referred to in point (a) of Article 5(2) of Directive 2009/43/EC

   The following ML categories with sub points are a subset of the list of defence-related products laid down in the Annex to Directive 2009/43/EC. The general transfer licence for armed forces and contracting authorities as referred to in point (a) of Article 5(2) of that Directive (‘GTL-AF’) shall, as a minimum, allow for the transfer of defence-related products specified through the ML categories hereunder. Member States may choose to include more ML categories with corresponding defence-related products in their GTL-AF.
   List of ML categories to be covered as a minimum:

               —

               ML 4. Sub points (a) and (b). All goods are included, except:

                           —

                           Mines

                           —

                           Cluster munitions, explosive bomblets and submunitions and their specially designed components

                           —

                           Rifle grenades and hand grenades

                           —

                           Torpedoes, torpedoes without warheads and torpedoes bodies

                           —

                           Bombs

                           —

                           Guided, unguided and other projectiles (ie. rockets, missiles, MANPADS, …)

                           —

                           Infantry explosive devices, adhesive and hollow charges.

                     Are also excluded for these weapons:

                           —

                           War heads and explosives charges

                           —

                           Ignition charges

                           —

                           Target detection heads, guidance systems, homing devices

                           —

                           Individual rocket stages

                           —

                           Re-entry vehicles

                           —

                           Engines

                           —

                           Thrust vector control systems

                           —

                           Launchers and launching devices

                           —

                           Laying, decoying, jamming or disrupting systems

                           —

                           Specially designed components for MANPADS.

               —

               ML 5. All goods are included, except:

                           —

                           Countermeasure products

                           —

                           Equipment and components excluded from other categories in the same general transfer licence.

               —

               ML 6. All goods are included, except:

                           —

                           Complete vehicles

                           —

                           Chassis and turrets

                           —

                           Equipment and components excluded from other categories in the same general transfer licence.

               —

               ML 7. Sub point (g).

               —

               ML 9. All goods, except:

                           —

                           Complete vessels and submarines

                           —

                           Underwater detection devices and their specially designed components

                           —

                           Air Independent Propulsion systems for submarine and their specially designed components

                           —

                           Complete hulls

                           —

                           Countermeasures

                           —

                           Equipment and components excluded from other categories in the same general transfer license.

               —

               ML 10. All goods, except:

                           —

                           Complete aircraft

                           —

                           Complete UAVs and components specially designed or modified for UAVs

                           —

                           Fuselage for combat aircraft and combat helicopter

                           —

                           Engines for combat aircraft

                           —

                           Equipment and components excluded from other categories in the same general transfer licence.

               —

               ML 11. Sub point (a). Only the following goods:

                           —

                           Guidance and navigation equipment, except systems for MANPADS or as defined by MTCR I

                           —

                           Automated command and control systems.

               —

               ML 13. Sub points (c) and (d).

               —

               ML 14. All goods, except MANDPADS trainers.

               —

               ML 15. Sub points (b), (c), (d) and (e).

               —

               ML 16. All goods, except:

                           —

                           MANPADS related goods

                           —

                           Any items relating to goods the export of which is not allowed in the same general transfer licence

               —

               ML 17. Sub points (a), (b), (d), (e), (j), (k), (l), (m), (n), (o) and (p). All goods, except:

                           —

                           Sub point (n): Test models are excluded if specially designed for the development of items specified by ML4, 6, 9 or 10 as well as components specially designed for these test models.

               —

               ML 21. sub point (a) and (b). Only the following goods and only if authorised from other categories in the present general licence:

                           (a)

                           ‘Software’ specially designed or modified for any of the following:

                                       1.

                                       Operation or maintenance of equipment laid down in the Annex to Directive 2009/43/EC;

                           (b)

                           Specific ‘software’, other than the software specified by ML21.a., as follows:

                                       1.

                                       ‘Software’ specially designed for military use and specially designed for modelling, simulating or evaluating military weapon systems;

                                       4.

                                       ‘Software’ specially designed for military use and specially designed for Command, Communications, Control and Intelligence (C3I) or Command, Communications, Control, Computer and Intelligence (C4I) applications

               —

               ML 22. Sub point (a). All technologies except those required for development and production and only if authorised from other categories in the same general transfer licence.

         1.2.   Conditions which shall be incorporated into the general transfer licence for armed forces

   The following list of conditions is not exhaustive. However, other conditions added by a Member State in a GTL-AR shall not contradict or undermine the conditions listed below.

               —

               Geographic validity: European Economic Area (EU 28 + Iceland and Norway (3)).

               —

               Re-transfers within the EEA are allowed without ex ante controls; only ex post reporting could be required.

               —

               The GTL-AF is intended for the end use of eligible recipients as referred to in point (a) of Article 5(2) of Directive 2009/43/EC. Subsequent sales not known at the time of transfer are considered new exports. For new exports, it is the responsibility of the competent authority of the receiving Member State to control exports or transfers initiated by a subsequent sale not known at the time of transfer.

               —

               For the purpose of ex-post verification under the GTL-AF, Member States should ensure that suppliers report on the use of the GTL-AF in accordance with reporting minimum requirements as specified in Article 8(3) of Directive 2009/43/EC.

         2.   FOLLOW UP
   Member States are invited to give effect to this Recommendation by 1 July 2017 at the latest.
   Member States are encouraged to inform the Commission of the measures taken to give effect to this Recommendation.
   3.   ADDRESSEES
   This Recommendation is addressed to the Member States.

      Done at Brussels, 30 November 2016.

            For the Commission

         Elżbieta BIEŃKOWSKA

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  Directive 2009/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 simplifying terms and conditions of transfers of defence-related products within the Community (OJ L 146, 10.6.2009, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP of 8 December 2008 defining common rules governing control of exports of military technology and equipment (OJ L 335, 13.12.2008, p. 99).

      (3)  The EEA Joint Committee Decision No 111/2013 of 14 June 2013 (OJ L 318, 28.11.2013, p. 12), which incorporated Directive 2009/43/EC into the EEA Agreement included an explicit adaptation text: ‘This Directive shall not apply to Liechtenstein’.


title: Recommendation for a Council opinion in accordance with the third paragraph of Art. 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the updated stability programme of Germany, 2005-2009

text:
Important legal notice

|

52006SC0284

Recommendation for a Council opinion in accordance with the third paragraph of Art. 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 On the updated stability programme of Germany, 2005-2009  /* SEC/2006/0284 final */

	[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |Brussels, 1.3.2006SEC(2006) 284 finalRecommendation for aCOUNCIL OPINIONin accordance with the third paragraph of Art. 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 On the updated stability programme of Germany, 2005-2009(presented by the Commission)EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUMBackgroundThe Stability and Growth Pact, which entered into force on 1 July 1998, is based on the objective of sound government finances as a means of strengthening the conditions for price stability and for strong sustainable growth conducive to employment creation. In 2005, the Pact was amended for the first time. The reform acknowledged the Pact’s usefulness in anchoring fiscal discipline but sought to strengthen its effectiveness and economic underpinnings as well as to safeguard the sustainability of the public finances in the long run.Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies[1], which is part of the Pact, stipulates that Member States have to submit, to the Council and the Commission, stability or convergence programmes and annual updates thereof (Member States that have already adopted the single currency submit (updated) stability programmes and Member States that have not yet adopted it submit (updated) convergence programmes). The first stability programme of Germany was submitted in January 1999. In accordance with the Regulation, the Council delivered an opinion on it on 15 March 1999 on the basis of a recommendation from the Commission and after having consulted the Economic and Financial Committee. In accordance with the same procedure, updated stability and convergence programmes are assessed by the Commission and examined by the Committee mentioned above, while the Council may examine them.In these programmes, Member States need to specify their medium-term objective for the budgetary position and set out the policy measures to achieve and maintain it, including the accompanying economic assumptions. Following the reform of the Pact, the medium-term objective should be differentiated for individual Member States in the light of the economic and budgetary heterogeneity in the Union, including as regards the fiscal risk to sustainability. Other elements of the reform are that a more symmetrical approach to fiscal policy over the cycle through enhanced budgetary discipline in economic good times should be achieved, while “major structural reforms” with a verifiable impact on long-term sustainability should be taken into account for a temporary deviation from the medium-term objective or the adjustment path towards it.Taking into account the Commission services’ autumn 2005 forecast, the code of conduct[2], the commonly agreed methodology for the estimation of potential output and cyclically-adjusted balances and the broad economic policy guidelines included in the integrated guidelines for the period 2005-2008, the Commission has examined the recently submitted update of the stability programme of Germany and, based on its assessment below, has adopted a recommendation for a Council opinion on it.Assessment1.  The most recent update of the German stability programme was adopted by the German government and submitted to the Council and the Commission on 22 February 2006, i.e. 12 weeks after the deadline of 1 December as specified in the code of conduct. On 22 February 2006, the German government, which had taken office in late 2005, adopted the draft federal budget for 2006 and, notably, also adopted the draft law to raise the central VAT rate from 16% to 19% as from 1 January 2007. The programme covers the period from 2005 to 2009. The programme broadly follows the model structure for stability and convergence programmes specified in the new code of conduct[3].2.  On 21 January 2003, the Council decided that an excessive deficit existed in Germany, and recommended, based on Article 104(7), that the excessive deficit be corrected by 2004. In its Communication to the Council of December 2004 on “the situation of Germany and France in relation to their obligations under the excessive deficit procedure following the judgement of the Court of Justice”, the Commission concluded that 2005 should be considered as the relevant deadline for the correction. In January 2005, the Council concurred with this view. On 1 March 2006, the Commission has recommended to the Council to give notice to Germany in accordance with Article 104(9) to take measures to correct the excessive deficit by 2007. In its opinion of 17 February 2005 on the December 2004 update of the stability programme, covering the period 2004-2008, the Council invited Germany to do the necessary to ensure the correction of the excessive deficit in 2005; to implement budgetary adjustments in the years beyond 2005 and make the necessary effort in structural terms to achieve a budgetary position of close to balance by the end of the period covered by the programme; and to continue with structural reforms in order to further improve the long-term sustainability of public finances in particular as regards the health care system.3.  GDP growth in Germany over the last ten years was 1.4% p.a., trailing the euro-area average by more than half a percentage point. The growth potential has been steadily declining throughout this period. Activity, while being driven by buoyant exports, was held back by sluggish domestic demand. From an extended stagnation in the early part of the decade, demand and output picked up in 2004, but weakened again thereafter. With employment creation also subdued, the unemployment rate rose to 9½% of the labour force. The general government deficit breached the 3%-of-GDP Treaty reference value for the fourth consecutive year in 2005. Public debt, having been close to 40% of GDP in 1991, has been exceeding the 60%-of-GDP Treaty reference value since 2002.4.  The macroeconomic scenario underlying the programme envisages that real GDP growth will pick up from 0.9% in 2005 to 1.4% in 2006, with domestic demand gaining momentum. After a slowdown to 1% in 2007, growth is set to resume thereafter, yielding an average growth rate of 1½% for the period from 2005 to 2009. Potential growth is projected to accelerate slightly towards the outer years of the programme, while the output gap would be gradually narrowing but still remain negative in the final year of the programme. This growth profile is influenced by the policy settings agreed by the new coalition government. Judging from currently available information, the reference scenario appears plausible for 2006. Going forward, however, the central scenario appears to be on the high side. The programme’s projections for inflation appear realistic for 2006, but may also be on the high side for the remainder of the period.5.  According to data provided by Eurostat, the general government deficit in Germany amounted to 3.3% of GDP in 2005. These data, pending a further assessment of their quality, are based upon a provisional notification from Germany pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 3605/93, which Germany submitted to the Commission on 24 February 2006. The previous update of the stability programme had set a target of 2.9% of GDP for 2005.6.  The main goal of the medium-term budgetary strategy indicated in the programme is to ensure the long-term sustainability of public finances. To achieve this, the programme proposes to continue budgetary consolidation, while improving the conditions for growth and employment. The programme envisages correcting the excessive deficit by 2007. Specifically, for 2006 and 2007 the projections in the update are for nominal deficits of 3.3% and 2½% of GDP, respectively. Thereafter, the deficit is projected to decline by 0.5 percentage point of GDP per year to reach a level of 1½% of GDP in 2009. The budgetary adjustment is both revenue- and expenditure-based. From 2006 on, several additional expenditure measures, among them funds for R&D, softer depreciation rules for companies and investment in transport infrastructure, are intended to foster growth. Against this, cutbacks in tax allowances, for example the abolition of the tax subsidy on owner-occupied housing, contribute to consolidation. Most importantly, the programme identifies the restraint in social expenditure as the crucial element of the consolidation strategy. The resulting savings are to be partially used for funding a reduction in the social contribution rate by 2007. The decrease in the share of social contributions, which also results from the subdued growth in the contribution base, is projected to be broadly offset by an increase in the VAT rate in 2007. The share of public investment in GDP is projected to remain constant. Compared with the previous update, the adjustment path has remained broadly the same; however, the deficit ratio is planned to be higher for each year by a rounded 0.5 percentage point, and for 2006 by even more.7.  The correction of the excessive deficit by 2007 entails, according to the programme, an improvement in the structural balance (i.e. the cyclically-adjusted balance net of one-off and other temporary measures) by more than one percentage point of GDP cumulatively in the years 2006 and 2007. Over the programme period, the structural balance calculated according to the commonly agreed methodology is planned to improve on average by about 0.5% of GDP per year, although slightly less in 2008 and 2009. The programme sets the medium-term objective (MTO) for the budgetary position as balance in structural terms, which, however, it does not aim to achieve within the programme period. As the MTO is more demanding than the minimum benchmark (estimated at a deficit of around 1¾% of GDP), its achievement should fulfil the aim of providing a safety margin against the occurrence of an excessive deficit. The programme’s MTO lies within the range indicated for euro area and ERM II Member States in the Stability and Growth Pact and the code of conduct and is slightly more demanding than implied by the debt ratio and average potential output growth in the long term.8.  Concerning 2006, the risks to the budgetary outcome are considered to be balanced. However, as from 2007, the budgetary outcome could be worse than projected in the programme. The restraint in social spending, which is not laid out in full detail in the programme but is supposed to provide a key contribution to the budgetary adjustment, hinges on the rigorous implementation of the plans, as past experience shows. Social expenditure has been one of the main drivers behind the overshooting of the budgetary targets compared with previous programmes. The budgetary targets would be jeopardised if the planned exoneration on social contributions was fully carried out without achieving the corresponding expenditure targets. Moreover, shortfalls in growth might imply shortfalls in revenues, which might prove difficult to compensate by further reduction in expenditure in order to maintain the planned path of the deficit ratio. The programme further announces reforms of the corporate tax system by 2008 and to the health and long-term care insurance, which, while potentially having positive effects on the economy and the budget, may entail a negative impact on the deficit in the short-term.9.  In view of this risk assessment, the budgetary stance in the programme seems consistent with a correction of the excessive deficit by 2007. However, it does not seem to provide a sufficient safety margin against breaching the 3% of GDP deficit threshold with normal macroeconomic fluctuations until the penultimate year of the programme period. In the years following the correction of the excessive deficit, the pace of the adjustment towards the programme’s MTO implied by the programme is broadly in line with the Stability and Growth Pact, which specifies that, for euro area and ERM II Member States, the annual improvement in the structural balance should be 0.5% of GDP as a benchmark and that the adjustment should be higher in good economic times and could be lower in bad economic times.10.  The debt ratio is estimated to have reached 67½% of GDP in 2005, above the 60% of GDP reference value of the Treaty. The programme projects the debt ratio to increase to a rounded 69% of GDP in 2006 and to decline thereafter to reach 67% at the end of the programme period. The evolution of the debt ratio might be less favourable than projected in the programme, given the risks to the budgetary targets mentioned above. In view of this risk assessment, the debt ratio may not be sufficiently diminishing towards the reference value.11.  With regard to the sustainability of public finances, Germany appears to be at medium risk on grounds of the projected budgetary costs of ageing populations[4]. The structural reforms carried out in previous years, and in particular the pension reform, have helped to contain future rises in public expenditure. In addition, the programme mentions the plan to increase the statutory retirement age by two years to 67 years of age, in a stepwise manner between 2012 and 2029. It is also intended to adjust the pension algorithm in force to lower expenditure over time; however no implementation plan is specified. Structural reforms to the health and long-term care systems are announced but not detailed. In view of the current level of government gross debt exceeding the Treaty reference value of 60% of GDP and the currently high structural deficit, implementing rigorously a strong budgetary consolidation over the programme period is necessary so as to reduce the risks to long-term sustainability.12.  The envisaged measures in the area of public finances are broadly consistent with the broad economic policy guidelines included in the integrated guidelines for the period 2005-2008. In particular, Germany plans to implement a number of structural reforms in order to improve the sustainability of government finances in the medium to long run. If the expenditure restraint in the social security systems was implemented as planned, the composition of public expenditure would be more favourable towards growth-enhancing categories in line with the Lisbon strategy.13.  Germany’s national reform programme (NRP), submitted on 7 December 2005 within the context of the renewed Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs, identifies six key challenges: the knowledge society; market functioning and competitiveness; business environment; the sustainability of public finances (including sustainable growth and social security); ecological innovation; and the re-orientation of the labour market. Overall, the measures in the area of public finances envisaged in the stability programme are in line with the actions foreseen in the National Reform Programme. The budgetary implications of the actions outlined in the NRP are broadly reflected in the budgetary projections of the stability programme. In addition to the content of the NRP, the stability programme envisages, as part of the reform of the federal system, that potential sanctions, which might arise from the Stability and Growth Pact, would be allocated according to a rule across levels of government. This would be inserted into the German Constitution.In view of the above assessment, the priority attributed by the government to budgetary consolidation as laid out in the programme is welcome, but there are risks linked to the achievement of the budgetary targets and to long-term sustainability of public finances. Also in the light of the Commission recommendation of 1 March 2006 for a Council decision in accordance with Article 104(9), it would be appropriate for Germany to:-  ensure the planned structural adjustment of cumulatively at least one percentage point in the years 2006 and 2007 to bring the general government deficit below 3% of GDP as rapidly as possible and at the latest by 2007 in a credible and sustainable manner;-  rapidly achieve the medium-term objective through a reduction in the structural balance of at least 0.5 percentage point per year after the excessive deficit has been corrected, notably by implementing the planned expenditure restraint rigorously so as to be able to provide the planned relief on social contributions, and by ensuring that the announced reform on corporate taxation does not jeopardise the fiscal consolidation;-  implement the plans to strengthen national budgetary institutions to secure that budgetary targets are achieved at all levels of government.Recommendation for aCOUNCIL OPINIONin accordance with the third paragraph of Art. 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 On the updated stability programme of Germany, 2005-2009THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies[5], and in particular Article 5(3) thereof,Having regard to the recommendation of the Commission,After consulting the Economic and Financial Committee,HAS DELIVERED THIS OPINION:14.  On [14 March 2006] the Council examined the updated stability programme of Germany.15.  GDP growth in the last ten years was 1.4% p.a., trailing the euro-area average by more than half a percentage point. The growth potential has been steadily declining throughout this period. Activity, while being driven by buoyant exports, was held back by sluggish domestic demand. From an extended stagnation in the early part of the decade, demand and real GDP peaked shortly in 2000 and also in 2004, but weakened again thereafter. With employment creation also subdued, the unemployment rate rose to 9½% of the labour force. The general government deficit breached the 3% of GDP Treaty reference value the fourth consecutive year in 2005. Public debt, having been close to 40% of GDP in 1991, has been exceeding the 60% of GDP Treaty reference value since 2002.16.  On 21 January 2003, the Council decided that an excessive deficit existed in Germany, and recommended, based on Article 104(7), that the excessive deficit be corrected by 2004. In its Communication to the Council of December 2004 on “the situation of Germany and France in relation to their obligations under the excessive deficit procedure following the judgement of the Court of Justice”, the Commission concluded that 2005 should be considered as the relevant deadline for the correction. In January 2005, the Council concurred with this view. On [14 March 2006], the Council decided to give notice to Germany in accordance with Article 104(9) to take measures to remedy the situation of excessive deficit by 2007. In its opinion of 17 February 2005 on the December 2004 update of the stability programme, covering the period 2004-2008, the Council invited Germany do the necessary to ensure the correction of the excessive deficit in 2005; to implement budgetary adjustments in the years beyond 2005 and make the necessary effort in structural terms to achieve a budgetary position of close to balance by the end of the period covered by the programme; and to continue with structural reforms in order to further improve the long-term sustainability of public finances in particular as regards the health care system.17.  According to data provided by Eurostat, the general government deficit in Germany amounted to 3.3% of GDP in 2005. These data, pending a further assessment of their quality, are based upon a provisional notification from Germany pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 3605/93, which Germany submitted to the Commission on 24 February 2006. The previous update of the stability programme had set a target of 2.9% of GDP for 2005.18.  The German stability programme update was submitted on 22 February 2006. The programme covers the period from 2005 to 2009. The programme broadly follows the model structure for stability and convergence programmes specified in the new code of conduct[6].19.  The macroeconomic scenario underlying the programme envisages that real GDP growth will pick up from 0.9% in 2005 to 1.4% in 2006, with domestic demand gaining momentum. After a slowdown to 1% in 2007, growth is set to resume thereafter, yielding an average growth rate of 1½% for the period from 2005 to 2009. This growth profile is influenced by the policy settings agreed by the new coalition government. The reference scenario for 2006, considered against currently available information, appears plausible. Going forward, however, the central scenario appears to be on the high side. The programme’s projections for inflation appear realistic for 2006, but may be on the high side for the remainder of the period.20.  The main goal of the medium-term budgetary strategy indicated in the programme is to ensure the long-term sustainability of public finances. To achieve this, the programme proposes to continue budgetary consolidation, while improving the conditions for growth and employment. The programme envisages correcting the excessive deficit by 2007. Specifically, for 2006 and 2007 the projections in the update are for nominal deficits of 3.3% and 2½% of GDP, respectively. Thereafter, the deficit is projected to decline by 0.5 percentage point of GDP per year to reach a level of 1½ % of GDP in 2009. The budgetary adjustment is both revenue- and expenditure-based. The programme identifies the restraint in social expenditure as the crucial element of the consolidation strategy. On the revenue side, an increase in the tax share is broadly offset by a decrease in the share of social contributions. The share of public investment in GDP is projected to remain constant. Compared with the previous update, the adjustment path has remained broadly the same. However, the deficit ratio is planned to be higher for each year by a rounded 0.5 percentage point, and for 2006 by even more, than foreseen in the previous update.21.  The correction of the excessive deficit by 2007 entails, according to the programme, an improvement in the structural balance (i.e. the cyclically-adjusted balance net of one-off and other temporary measures) by more than one percentage point cumulatively between 2005 and 2007. Over the programme period, the structural balance calculated according to the commonly agreed methodology is planned to improve on average by about 0.5 % of GDP per year, although slightly less in 2008 and 2009. The programme sets the medium-term objective (MTO) for the budgetary position as balance in structural terms, which, however, it does not aim to achieve within the programme period. As it is more demanding than the minimum benchmark (estimated at a deficit of around 1¾% of GDP), its achievement should fulfil the aim of providing a safety margin against the occurrence of an excessive deficit. The programme’s MTO lies within the range indicated for euro area and ERM II Member States in the Stability and Growth Pact and the code of conduct and is slightly more demanding than implied by the debt ratio and average potential output growth in the long term.22.  Concerning 2006, the risks to the budgetary outcome are considered to be balanced. However, as from 2007, the budgetary outcome could be worse than projected in the programme. The restraint in social spending, which is not laid out in full detail in the programme but is supposed to provide a key contribution to the budgetary adjustment, hinges on the rigorous implementation of the plans, as past experience shows. Social expenditure has been one of the main drivers behind the overshooting of the budgetary targets compared with previous programmes. The budgetary targets would be jeopardised if the planned exoneration on social contributions was fully carried out without achieving the corresponding expenditure targets. Moreover, shortfalls in growth might imply shortfalls in revenues, which might prove difficult to compensate by further reduction in expenditure in order to maintain the planned path of the deficit ratio. The programme further announces reforms of the corporate tax system by 2008 and to the health and long-term care insurance, which, while potentially having positive effects on the economy and the budget, may entail a negative impact on the deficit in the short-term.23.  In view of this risk assessment, the budgetary stance in the programme seems consistent with a correction of the excessive deficit by 2007. However, it does not seem to provide a sufficient safety margin against breaching the 3% of GDP deficit threshold with normal macroeconomic fluctuations until the penultimate year of the programme period. In the years following the correction of the excessive deficit, the pace of the adjustment towards the programme’s MTO implied by the programme is broadly in line with the Stability and Growth Pact, which specifies that, for euro area and ERM II Member States, the annual improvement in the structural balance should be 0.5% of GDP as a benchmark and that the adjustment should be higher in good economic times and could be lower in bad economic times.24.  The debt ratio is estimated to have reached 67½% of GDP in 2005, above the 60% of GDP reference value of the Treaty. The programme projects the debt ratio to increase to a rounded 69% of GDP in 2006 and to decline thereafter to reach 67% at the end of the programme period. The evolution of the debt ratio might be less favourable than projected in the programme, given the risks to the budgetary targets mentioned above. In view of this risk assessment, the debt ratio may not be sufficiently diminishing towards the reference value.25.  With regard to the sustainability of public finances, Germany appears to be at medium risk on grounds of the projected budgetary costs of ageing populations[7]. The structural reforms carried out in previous years, and in particular the pension reform, have helped to contain future rises in public expenditure. In view of the current level of government gross debt exceeding the Treaty reference value of 60% of GDP and the currently high structural deficit, implementing rigorously a strong budgetary consolidation over the programme period is necessary so as to reduce the risks to long-term sustainability.26.  The envisaged measures in the area of public finances are broadly consistent with the broad economic policy guidelines included in the integrated guidelines for the period 2005-2008. In particular, Germany plans to implement a number of structural reforms in order to improve the sustainability of government finances in the medium to long run. If the expenditure restraint in the social security systems was implemented as planned, the composition of public expenditure would be more favourable towards growth-enhancing categories in line with the Lisbon strategy.27.  Germany’s national reform programme (NRP), submitted on 7 December 2005 within the context of the renewed Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs, identifies six key challenges: the knowledge society; market functioning and competitiveness; business environment; the sustainability of public finances (including sustainable growth and social security); ecological innovation; and the re-orientation of the labour market. Overall, the measures in the area of public finances envisaged in the stability programme are in line with the actions foreseen in the National Reform Programme. The budgetary implications of the actions outlined in the NRP are broadly reflected in the budgetary projections of the stability programme. In addition to the content of the NRP, the stability programme envisages, as part of the reform of the federal system, that potential sanctions, which might arise from the Stability and Growth Pact, would be allocated according to a rule across levels of government. This would be inserted into the German Constitution.In view of the above assessment, the Council welcomes the priority attributed by the government to budgetary consolidation as laid out in the programme, but notes that there are risks linked to the achievement of the budgetary targets and to long-term sustainability of public finances. Also in the light of the Council decision of [14 March 2006] in accordance with Article 104(9) of the Treaty, the Council invites Germany to:-  ensure the planned structural adjustment of cumulatively at least one percentage point in the years 2006 and 2007 to bring the general government deficit below 3% of GDP as rapidly as possible and at the latest by 2007 in a credible and sustainable manner;-  rapidly achieve the medium-term budgetary objective through a reduction in the structural balance of at least 0.5 percentage point after the excessive deficit has been corrected, notably by implementing the planned expenditure restraint rigorously so as to be able to provide the planned relief on social contributions, and by ensuring that the announced reform on corporate taxation does not jeopardise the fiscal consolidation;-  implement the plans to strengthen national budgetary institutions to secure that budgetary targets are achieved at all levels of government.Comparison of key macroeconomic and budgetary projections2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 |Real GDP (% change) | SP Feb 2006 | 1.6 | 0.9 | 1½ | 1 | 1¾ | 1¾ |COM Nov 20056 | 1.6 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 1.6 | -- | -- |SP Dec 2004 | 1.8 | 1.7 | 1¾ | 2 | 2 | -- |HICP inflation (%) | SP Feb 2006 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |COM Nov 2005 | 1.8 | 2.0 | 1.6 | 1.1 | -- | -- |SP Dec 2004 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |COM Nov 2005 | -0.8 | -0.9 | -0.9 | -0.4 | -- | -- |SP Dec 2004 | -0.5 | 0 | 0.5 | 1½ | 2 | -- |Cyclically-adjusted balance (% of GDP) | SP Feb 20061 | -3.4 | -2.9 | -2.9 | -1.8 | -1.5 | -1.1 |COM Nov 2005 | -3.3 | -3.2 | -3.2 | -3.0 | -- | -- |SP Dec 20041 | -3.0 | -2.4 | -1.9 | -1.6 | -1.3 | -- |Structural balance2 (% of GDP) | SP Feb 20063 | -3.4 | -3.0 | -2.9 | -1.8 | -1.5 | -1.1 |COM Nov 20054 | -3.3 | -3.2 | -3.2 | -3.0 | -- | -- |SP Dec 2004 | --. | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |Government gross debt (% of GDP) | SP Feb 2006 | 65.5 | 67½ | 69 | 68½ | 68 | 67 |COM Nov 20057 | 66.4 | 68.6 | 70.0 | 71.4 | -- | -- |SP Dec 20047 | 65½ | 66 | 66 | 65½ | 65 | -- |Notes: 1 Commission services calculations on the basis of the information in the programme. 2 Cyclically-adjusted balance (as in the previous rows) excluding one-off and other temporary measures. 3 One-off and other temporary measures taken from the programme (0.1% of GDP in 2005). 4 One-off and other temporary measures taken from the Commission services’ autumn 2005 forecast 5 Based on estimated potential growth of 1.1%, 1.1%, 1.1% and 1.2% respectively in the period 2004-2007. 6 According to first estimates, growth was 0.9% in 2005. The Commission services’ interim forecast of 21 February 2006 projects growth at 1.5% in 2006. 7 The ratio was calculated using the GDP series with the old method of allocating FISIM (financial intermediation services indirectly measured) to users, so data are not directly comparable. Source: Stability programme (SP); Commission services’ autumn 2005 economic forecasts (COM) on the basis of unchanged policies before the new government took office in November 2005; Commission services’ calculations. |[1] OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1055/2005 (OJ L 174, 7.7.2005, p. 1). All the documents referred to in this text can be found at the following website:http://europa.eu.int/comm/economy_finance/about/activities/sgp/main_en.htm[2] “Specifications on the implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact and guidelines on the format and content of stability and convergence programmes”, endorsed by the ECOFIN Council of 11 October 2005.[3] As in previous years, the update contains only rounded data and sometimes period averages for the outer years of the programme period. It has gaps in the compulsory and optional data prescribed by the new code of conduct (especially data on unemployment, sectoral balances and a breakdown of tax revenues are missing).[4] Details on long-term sustainability are provided in the technical assessment of the programme by the Commission services (http://europa.eu.int/comm/economy_finance/about/activities/sgp/main_en.htm).[5] OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1055/2005 (OJ L 174, 7.7.2005, p. 1). The documents referred to in this text can be found at the following website:http://europa.eu.int/comm/economy_finance/about/activities/sgp/main_en.htm[6] As in previous years, the update contains only rounded data and sometimes period averages for the outer years of the programme period. It has gaps in the compulsory and optional data prescribed by the new code of conduct (especially data on unemployment, sectoral balances and a breakdown of tax revenues are missing).[7] Details on long-term sustainability are provided in the technical assessment of the programme by the Commission services (http://europa.eu.int/comm/economy_finance/about/activities/sgp/main_en.htm).


title: Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on transnational mobility within the Community for education and training purposes: European Quality Charter for Mobility   (Text with EEA relevance)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 394/5

      RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

   of 18 December 2006
   on transnational mobility within the Community for education and training purposes: European Quality Charter for Mobility
   (2006/961/EC)
   (Τext with EEA relevance)
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 149(4) and Article 150(4) thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
   Having regard to the Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),
   Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions (2),
   Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty (3),
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Mobility in education and training is an integral part of the freedom of movement of persons — a fundamental freedom protected by the Treaty — and one of the main objectives of the European Union's action in the field of education and training, based both on common values and on respect for diversity. It is an essential tool for creating a genuine European area of lifelong learning, for promoting employment and reducing poverty, and for helping to promote active European citizenship.

               (2)

               Mobility brings citizens closer to one another and improves mutual understanding. It promotes solidarity, the exchange of ideas and a better knowledge of the different cultures which make up Europe; thus, mobility furthers economic, social and regional cohesion.

               (3)

               Intensifying European mobility and exchanges for education and training purposes, and events such as the 2006 European Year of Workers' Mobility, have a key role to play in achieving the Lisbon goal of making Europe the most innovative and competitive knowledge-based economy by 2010.

               (4)

               Providing a better framework for mobility for education and training purposes within the EU will help to contribute towards the achievement of a knowledge-based economy central to the creation of employment, sustainable development, research and innovation in the Member States.

               (5)

               Increased support from all stakeholders, including public authorities, for mobility within the EU is needed to improve the quality and effectiveness of education and training systems in Europe.

               (6)

               Recommendation 2001/613/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 July 2001 on mobility within the Community for students, persons undergoing training, volunteers, teachers and trainers (4) was the first recommendation adopted with the aim of facilitating Community action to encourage mobility.

               (7)

               The work of the group of experts set up by the Commission in accordance with point III(a) of that Recommendation, and the first follow-up report, while showing the progress made both at national and at European level as regards mobility for education and training purposes, demonstrate the need to focus not only on increasing mobility in quantitative terms but, above all, on improving its quality.

               (8)

               This objective may be pursued, inter alia, by adopting, in the form of a Recommendation, a Quality Charter for Mobility, laying down a set of principles in this field, to be implemented on a voluntary basis.

               (9)

               The European Quality Charter for Mobility (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Charter’) should also allow for the specific needs of people with disabilities and for disadvantaged groups.

               (10)

               The Charter should help increase exchanges, facilitate the recognition of periods dedicated to education or training, and the recognition of titles and qualifications, and establish mutual trust so as to improve and strengthen cooperation between the relevant authorities, organisations and all the stakeholders in mobility. Attention should be paid to the issue of the portability of loans, grants and social security benefits.

               (11)

               The Charter is intended to complement, but not replace, the specific provisions outlined in the Erasmus Student Charter.

               (12)

               The Charter, in the respective languages of the recipients, should be made readily available by the authorities to all students and persons undergoing training, organisations and other stakeholders in mobility in countries of origin and host countries, and should be treated as a basic reference framework.

               (13)

               The advantages of mobility strongly depend on the quality of the practical provisions: information, preparation, support and recognition of the experience and qualifications acquired by participants during the study and training periods. The people and organisations involved can considerably improve its value by careful planning and suitable evaluation.

               (14)

               Europass (5) is a particularly useful instrument for developing transparency and recognition in order to aid mobility.

               (15)

               It is desirable that the principles laid down in the Charter apply not only to the period of mobility itself but also to the periods preceding and following it.

               (16)

               A learning plan should be drawn up in advance. General preparation of the participants is also necessary, taking account of linguistic preparation. In this regard, the competent authorities and organisations should provide assistance.

               (17)

               All administrative and financial questions, such as what financial support is available, who bears the costs, and insurance cover in the host country, should be solved before departure.

               (18)

               For the period spent abroad, the quality of mobility can be enhanced by the provision of schemes such as mentoring for participants.

               (19)

               A detailed and clear description of any courses or training followed in the host country, including the duration of the course or training, should help to facilitate their recognition on returning to the home country.

               (20)

               Transparency and good administration call for a clear definition of the stakeholders responsible for each stage and action of the mobility programme.

               (21)

               In order to ensure the overall quality of mobility, it is desirable to ensure freedom of movement for all EU citizens and to apply as far as possible the principles laid down in the Charter and the relevant recommendations to all types of mobility for learning or professional development purposes: education or training; formal or non-formal learning, including voluntary work and projects; short or long mobility periods; school, higher education or job-related learning; measures in connection with lifelong learning.

               (22)

               In view of the diversity of the nature and duration of mobility activities, Member States may adjust the implementation of the Charter according to circumstances, namely to adapt it to specific situations and programmes. Member States may make some of the points compulsory and consider others as optional.

               (23)

               Since the objectives of this Recommendation cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale and effects of this Recommendation, be better achieved at Community level, the Community may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, the present Recommendation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives,

         HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE MEMBER STATES:

               1.

               adopt and promote the use of the attached Charter as a means to enhance personal and professional development;

               2.

               report on their implementation of this Recommendation and any complementary measures they may choose to take in favour of mobility, particularly in relation to the quality aspects thereof, in their national contributions to the Education and Training 2010 work programme, as from the second year following the adoption of this Recommendation;

               3.

               continue to cooperate closely and coordinate their actions with a view to eliminating obstacles which directly or indirectly impede the mobility of EU citizens;

               4.

               provide appropriate support and suitable infrastructures for mobility for education and training purposes in order to enhance the education and training levels of their citizens;

               5.

               take any necessary steps to promote mobility, to ensure that all relevant information is easily understandable and accessible to all, for instance by means of an introductory guide to mobility or a list of supporting organisations, and to improve the conditions for mobility,

         HEREBY INVITE THE COMMISSION TO:

               1.

               encourage the use of the Charter by national agencies and other organisations working in the field of education and training and mobility;

               2.

               continue to cooperate with the Member States and the social partners, so that useful information and experience concerning the implementation of the measures advocated in this Recommendation may be exchanged;

               3.

               improve or develop in close cooperation with the relevant authorities gender-specific statistical data on mobility for education and training purposes;

               4.

               consider the present Recommendation as forming a whole with Recommendation 2001/613/EC and therefore to include the biennial reports requested therein in the general reports of the Education and Training 2010 work programme.

      Done at Brussels, 18 December 2006.

            For the European Parliament

            The President

         J. BORRELL FONTELLES

            For the Council

            The President

         J.-E. ENESTAM

      (1)  OJ C 88, 11.4.2006, p. 20.

      (2)  OJ C 206, 29.8.2006, p. 40.

      (3)  Opinion of the European Parliament of 26 September 2006 (not yet published in the Official Journal) and Council Decision of 18 December 2006.

      (4)  OJ L 215, 9.8.2001, p. 30.

      (5)  Decision No 2241/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 on a single Community framework for the transparency of qualifications and competences (Europass) (OJ L 390, 31.12.2004, p. 6).

      ANNEX
      EUROPEAN QUALITY CHARTER FOR MOBILITY
      INTRODUCTION
      Strengthened by the Mobility Action Plan of 2000 (1) and by Recommendation 2001/613/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 10 July 2001 on mobility within the Community for students, persons undergoing training, volunteers, teachers and trainers (2), mobility has always been of considerable interest to stakeholders. That Recommendation was broad in scope, addressed a range of important questions associated with mobility and was targeted at anyone who might benefit from a period of learning abroad (formal and non-formal), including students, teachers, trainers, volunteers and people undergoing training. Recommendation 2006/961/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 18 December 2006 on transnational mobility within the Community for education and training purposes: European Quality Charter for Mobility (3), of which this Charter constitutes an integral part, has the same scope but focuses on the quality aspects of mobility, as proposed by an expert group established following the first Recommendation. It should help to ensure that participants have a positive experience, both in the host country and in their country of origin once they return.
      This Charter offers guidance for mobility undertaken by individual young people or adults, for the purposes of formal and non-formal learning and for their personal and professional development. It has been designed as a basic reference document, which takes account of national situations and respects Member States' competences. Its scope and content may be adapted to suit the duration of the mobility and the particularities of the various educational, training and youth activities as well as the needs of the participants. Although primarily addressing mobility for learning purposes, it is felt that this guidance could also be useful for other types of mobility, such as mobility for work.
      1.   Information and guidance
      Potential candidates for mobility should have equal access, at all levels, to reliable sources of information and guidance for mobility and the conditions in which it can be taken up. Among other things, clear information should be provided on each of the points contained in this Charter, about the role and tasks of the sending and hosting organisations and about the various education and training systems.
      2.   Learning plan
      Before undertaking mobility for education or training purposes, a learning plan, taking account of linguistic preparation, should be drawn up and agreed by the sending and hosting organisations and the participants. A learning plan is particularly important in the case of long-term mobility and may also be useful in the case of short-term mobility. The plan should outline the objectives and expected learning outcomes, as well as how these should be achieved and implemented. Any significant modification of the learning plan should be agreed by all parties. When drawing up the learning plan, the issues of reintegration into the home country and evaluation should be borne in mind.
      3.   Personalisation
      Mobility undertaken for education or training purposes should fit in as much as possible with the personal learning pathways, skills and motivation of the participants, and should develop or supplement them.
      4.   General preparation
      Prior preparation of the participants is advisable, and should be tailored to their specific needs. It should include linguistic, pedagogical, administrative, legal, personal and cultural aspects, and information on financial aspects, as necessary.
      5.   Linguistic aspects
      Language skills are important for effective learning, intercultural communication and a better understanding of the host country's culture. Participants, and their sending and hosting organisations, should pay special attention to appropriate linguistic preparation. Wherever possible, mobility arrangements should include:

                  —

                  language assessment before departure and an opportunity to follow courses in the language of the host country and/or the language of instruction, if different;

                  —

                  in the host country, linguistic support and advice.

            6.   Logistical support
      Where necessary, adequate logistical support should be provided to the participants. This could include information and assistance concerning travel arrangements, insurance, residence or work permits, social security, the portability of government grants and loans from the country of origin to the host country, accommodation, and any other practical aspects, including safety issues relevant to their stay, as appropriate.
      7.   Mentoring
      The hosting organisation (educational establishment, youth organisation, company, etc.) should provide schemes such as mentoring to advise participants and help with their effective integration into the host environment, and should act as a contact point for obtaining ongoing assistance.
      8.   Recognition
      If a study or placement period abroad is an integral part of a formal study or training programme, this fact should be stated in the learning plan, and participants should be provided with assistance to facilitate recognition and certification, where appropriate. In the learning plan, the sending organisation should undertake to recognise successful periods of mobility. For other types of mobility, and particularly those in the context of non-formal education and training, an appropriate document should be issued so that the participant is able to demonstrate his or her active participation and learning outcomes in a satisfactory and credible way. In this context, the use of the Europass (4) should be encouraged.
      9.   Reintegration and evaluation
      On return to the home country, particularly after long-term mobility, participants should be given guidance on how to make use of competences and skills acquired during the stay. Where necessary, help with reintegration into the social, educational or professional environment of the home country should be made available to people returning after long-term mobility. The experience gained should be properly evaluated by participants, together with the organisations responsible, to assess whether the aims of the learning plan have been met.
      10.   Commitments and responsibilities
      The responsibilities arising from these quality criteria should be agreed by the sending and hosting organisations and the participants. They should preferably be confirmed in writing, so that responsibilities are clear to all concerned.

         (1)  Resolution of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, of 14 December 2000, concerning an action plan for mobility (OJ C 371, 23.12.2000, p. 4).

         (2)  OJ L 215, 9.8.2001, p. 30.

         (3)  See page 5 of this Official Journal

         (4)  Decision No 2241/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 on a single Community framework for the transparency of qualifications and competences (Europass) (OJ L 390, 31.12.2004, p. 6).


Avis juridique important

|

32001H0459

Commission Recommendation of 5 June 2001 on the coordinated inspection programme in animal nutrition for the year 2001 according to Council Directive 95/53/EC (notified under document number C(2001) 1541)

Official Journal L 161 , 16/06/2001 P. 0042 - 0044

Commission Recommendationof 5 June 2001on the coordinated inspection programme in animal nutrition for the year 2001 according to Council Directive 95/53/EC(notified under document number C(2001) 1541)(2001/459/EC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Directive 95/53/EC of 25 October 1995 fixing the principles governing the organisation of the official inspections in the field of animal nutrition(1) and in particular Article 22(3) thereof,Whereas:(1) The overall summary report on inspection activities carried out in the field of animal nutrition based on the information provided by the Member States concerning the implementation of the inspection programmes for 1999 does not allow definitive conclusions to be drawn. However, four issues have been identified as worthy of a coordinated programme to be carried out in 2001. In particular reference is made to the need to monitor certain chemical contaminations, certain microbiological contaminations, the respect of Community legislation on anti-microbial growth promoters and the feed ban on certain mammalian proteins (intended to provide protection from transmissible spongiform encephalopathies).(2) In 1999 and 2000, Member States' inspection services frequently detected contamination of products to be used in animal nutrition with dioxins, PCBs and heavy metals. The above findings, when not included in the control programmes, have been reported to the Standing Committee for Feeding stuffs for discussion and appropriate follow-up.(3) A salmonella monitoring programme in proteins of vegetable origin was carried out in the period July 1999 to July 2000. While a full assessment of the results is not yet available, the results of only one year of checks may not be a scientifically sound basis on which to present further measures.(4) A certain number of feed additives can only be used safely when the maximum limits are respected. In addition the use of certain feed additives previously authorised as anti-microbial growth promoters is no longer permitted. However, there is insufficient information on the respect of the maximum limits and on the use of anti-microbial growth promoters.(5) Each of these matters should therefore be subject to coordinated inspection in 2001.(6) The deficiencies and failures in the implementation of the ban on feeding ruminants with certain proteins of mammalian origin which led to the adoption of Council Decision 2000/766/EC(2) require a coordinated approach to provide the results of the checks concerning the feeding restrictions for protection from transmissible spongiform encephalopathies.(7) The measures provided for in this recommendation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee for Feeding stuffs,HEREBY RECOMMENDS:1. Member States should during the year carry out a coordinated monitoring programme aiming to check:(a) the frequency of occurrence, and concentrations, of the specified contaminants in the specified categories of products to be used in animal nutrition set out in Annex I;(b) the frequency of occurrence, and levels, of salmonella contamination in feed materials of vegetable origin;(c) whether conditions for the correct use of substances authorised as feed additives for which maximum levels have been set have been respected;(d) whether the ban on the use of certain antibiotics as growth promoters has been effectively enforced;(e) whether all restrictions concerning the production and use of feed materials of animal origin have been respected.2. In reporting the results of the monitoring programmes, figures on the products concerned should be provided as outlined in Annex II detailing the amounts of national production and imports from third countries.3. Data on production and imports should be provided even when samples have not been taken and tested.When laboratory testing is carried out, the methods used and their respective specificity and sensitivity shall be mentioned.The criteria used in deciding on the compliance upon testing should be reported.4. The results concerning the feeding restrictions of products of animal origin should be summarised as outlined in Annex III.5. Member States should include the results of the abovementioned coordinated monitoring programme as a specific chapter in the report on the yearly control activities foreseen by 1 April 2002 in accordance with Article 22 of Directive 95/53/EC.Done at Brussels, 5 June 2001.For the CommissionDavid ByrneMember of the Commission(1) OJ L 265, 8.11.1995, p. 17.(2) OJ L 306, 7.12.2000, p. 32.ANNEX ISpecific items- Dioxins (PCDD/F and dioxin-like PCBs) in fish oil, fish meal and fish feed.- Dioxins (PCDD/F and dioxin-like PCBs) in artificially dried feed materials (hay, alfalfa meal, etc.).- Dioxins (PCDD/F) in trace elements (zinc oxide, copper oxide, manganese, zinc sulphate, etc.).- Dioxins (PCDD/F) in minerals (magnesium oxide, phosphates, etc.).- Heavy metals (Pb, Cd, As, Hg) in trace elements and minerals.- Heavy metals (Pb, Cd, As, Hg) in fish oil, fish meal and fish feed.General itemsRandom monitoring on the presence of dioxins (PCDD/F and dioxin-like PCBs) and heavy metals (Pb, Cd, As, Hg) in feed materials and feedingstuffs.ANNEX II>PIC FILE= "L_2001161EN.004403.TIF">ANNEX III>PIC FILE= "L_2001161EN.004405.TIF">