title: Commission Recommendation of 28 April 2010 on the research joint programming initiative on Agriculture, food security and climate change

text:
               4.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 111/27

         COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
   of 28 April 2010
   on the research joint programming initiative on ‘Agriculture, food security and climate change’
   (2010/253/EU)
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 181 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The sectors of agriculture and forestry are highly exposed to climate change since they directly depend on climatic conditions while emissions from agriculture in the Union account for 14 % of global greenhouse gas emissions.

               (2)

               Climate change is one of the main challenges to agriculture in feeding the world’s population, which is expected to reach 9 billion by 2050.

               (3)

               Global demand for food is expected to have increased by 50 % by 2030 and to have doubled by 2050, in a time when demand for biomass for non-food purposes is predicted to grow strongly.

               (4)

               Agriculture and forestry face strongly increasing non-food demand for biomass, driven by mitigation efforts in other sectors and by the need to switch to a low-carbon economy.

               (5)

               Global stocks of some staple foods have declined, and peaks in food prices, such as those seen during 2008, may become more frequent if rising demand cannot be consistently matched by supply.

               (6)

               Climate change can affect crop yields, livestock management and the location of production, and can have important consequences for farm income, land use and rural economies in certain parts of the Union.

               (7)

               The agricultural sector of tropical and sub-tropical countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, is extremely vulnerable to climate change and any major food crisis in those regions would have an impact on Europe.

               (8)

               Concerted actions are needed to prevent that those combined risks lead to irreversible damage and to achieve a sustainable food supply under changing climate conditions.

               (9)

               This joint programming initiative is also relevant to the development of the common agricultural policy.

               (10)

               At its meeting on 3 December 2009, the Competitiveness Council recognised ‘Agriculture, food security and climate change’ as an area where joint programming would provide a major added value to the current, fragmented research efforts by Member States. It therefore adopted conclusions recognising the need to launch a joint programming initiative on the subject and inviting the Commission to contribute to the preparation of that initiative. The Council also reaffirmed that joint programming is a process led by Member States, with the Commission acting as a facilitator.

               (11)

               Joint programming in research in the area of agriculture, food security and climate change would encourage the pooling of skills, knowledge and resources, with a view to advancing research to address the challenge of food security and the threat brought by climate change, global population growth, and food and non-food demand.

               (12)

               In order to achieve the goals set by this Recommendation, Member States should cooperate with the Commission in exploring possible Commission initiatives to assist Member States in developing and implementing the strategic research agenda. Member States should also cooperate with the Standing Committee on Agricultural Research to ensure that the joint programming activities are coordinated with the wider agricultural research agenda.

               (13)

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

         HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:

               1.

               Member States are encouraged to develop a common vision on how cooperation and coordination in the field of research at Union level can address the challenge of food security and the threat of climate change, global population growth, and food and non-food demand.

               2.

               Member States are encouraged to develop a common strategic research agenda establishing medium to long-term research needs and objectives in the area of food security through adaptation to, and mitigation of the effects of, climate change in agriculture. The strategic research agenda should contain an implementation plan establishing priorities and timelines and specifying the actions, instruments and resources required for the implementation of the strategic research agenda.

               3.

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

                           (a)

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

                           (b)

                           reinforcing joint foresight exercises and technology assessment capacities, in order to ensure that emerging and new threats are constantly monitored and regularly reported;

                           (c)

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

                           (d)

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

                           (e)

                           defining the procedures for research to be undertaken jointly in the areas referred to in point (d);

                           (f)

                           sharing, where appropriate, existing research infrastructures or developing new facilities;

                           (g)

                           exporting and disseminating knowledge, innovation and interdisciplinary approaches to other parts of Europe and worldwide and ensuring the effective use of research outputs to enhance European competitiveness and policy making;

                           (h)

                           encouraging better collaboration between the public and private sectors, together with open innovation between different business sectors;

                           (i)

                           considering the changing needs of consumers and those of the agri-food industry in the Union when setting the objectives for related programmes.

               4.

               Member States are encouraged to set up a common management structure in the field of agriculture, food security and climate change, with a mandate to establish common conditions, rules and procedures for cooperation and coordination and to monitor the implementation of the strategic research agenda.

               5.

               Member States are encouraged to jointly implement the strategic research agenda, including via their national research programmes or other national research activities.

               6.

               Member States are encouraged to cooperate with the Commission with a view to exploring possible Commission initiatives to assist Member States in developing and implementing the strategic research agenda, and with a view to coordinating joint programmes with other Union initiatives in this field.

               7.

               Member States are encouraged to cooperate with the Commission in looking into possible forms of engaging the farming community and other stakeholders in the application of the results obtained and in considering how best to integrate the joint programming initiative into the development of the common agricultural policy.

               8.

               Member States are encouraged to cooperate with the Commission in using all the relevant innovation policy instruments to facilitate transforming research results into products and services, and in particular making all forms of innovation accessible to small and medium-sized enterprises, including farmers.

               9.

               Member States are encouraged to cooperate with the Commission in looking into possible forms of consultation and cooperation on this subject with appropriate bodies or groups at international level.

               10.

               Member States are encouraged to cooperate with the Standing Committee on Agricultural Research to ensure that joint programming activities are coordinated with the wider agricultural research agenda.

               11.

               Member States are encouraged to report regularly to the Commission on the progress made on this joint programming initiative.

      Done at Brussels, 28 April 2010.

            For the Commission

         Máire GEOGHEGAN-QUINN

            Member of the Commission


Avis juridique important

|

31999H0028

1999/28/EC: Commission Recommendation of 14 December 1998 concerning the improvement of authorisation procedures for trans-European energy networks (notified under document number C(1998) 4063) (Text with EEA relevance)

Official Journal L 008 , 14/01/1999 P. 0027 - 0028

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION of 14 December 1998 concerning the improvement of authorisation procedures for trans-European energy networks (notified under document number C(1998) 4063) (Text with EEA relevance) (1999/28/EC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Decision 96/391/EC of the Council of 28 March 1996 laying down a series of measures aimed at creating a more favourable context for the development of trans-European networks in the energy sector (1), and in particular Article 2 thereof,(1) Whereas Article 2(1) of Decision 96/391/EC provides that the Community shall promote cooperation between Member States through mutual consultations with a view to facilitating implementation of the authorisation procedures for projects on trans-European energy networks in order to reduce delays;(2) Whereas Decision No 1254/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 1996 laying down a series of guidelines for trans-European energy networks (2), as amended by Decision No 1047/97/EC (3), has identified projects of common interest; whereas such identification is without prejudice to the assessment procedure for the environmental impact of the projects;(3) Whereas the realisation of some of these projects of common interest is continuing to be confronted with difficulties of an administrative nature resulting primarily from delays in the granting of construction authorisations;(4) Whereas there is concern among those affected about delays due to the duration, complexity and variety across the European Community of procedures for the authorisation of the construction of electricity and gas lines, gas storage and liquefied natural gas terminals;(5) Whereas delay may result from a lack of transparency in procedures for the granting of authorisations; whereas the establishing of clear and predictable procedures would go far to correct this, while clearly identifying the bodies by whom decisions are taken;(6) Whereas the complexity of authorisation procedures is another cause of delay; whereas the establishing of a more coordinated approach to authorisations would go far towards mitigating that complexity;(7) Whereas there is scope for improving authorisation procedures by early consultation and association of the competent authorities and by the parallel undertaking, where possible, of assessment processes which form part of the administrative authorisation procedure each with the documentation appropriate to it;(8) Whereas delays arising from misapprehensions by the public and other interested parties of the need for energy projects could be reduced by the wide provision of information, including the recognition of common interest;(9) Whereas, in the implementation of the measures concerning the improvement of authorisation procedures for trans-European energy networks, particularly in the case of cross-border projects, there should be the requisite degree of collaboration between the Member States, without prejudice to the principles and implementation of Community or national provisions for the environment and the internal markets in gas and electricity, or to the principle of subsidiarity;(10) Whereas Council Directive 85/337/EEC (4), as amended by Directive 97/11/EC (5), calls for harmonisation of the main principles of the assessment of environmental effects and identifies the need for introducing provisions designed to clarify, supplement and improve the rules on the assessment procedure as well as the desire to strengthen provisions for environmental impact assessment in a transboundary context;(11) Whereas the measures provided for in this recommendation are in accordance with the opinion delivered by the Committee referred to in Article 4 of Decision 96/391/EC,HEREBY RECOMMENDS THE MEMBER STATES:(a) to pursue collaboration with each other and, where appropriate, with third countries with a view to facilitating the implementation of the authorisation procedures for cross-border, trans-European energy network projects;(b) to take as appropriate, and as far as possible using a common and coordinated approach, the following measures to improve authorisation procedures for cross-border trans-European energy network projects:1. increasing the transparency of authorisation by means of clear and predictable procedures simplified and streamlined where possible and by clearly identifying the appropriate decision-making bodies;2. ensuring closer coordination between the various authorisation procedures with, where relevant, appropriate deadlines and by setting up national contact points;3. improving communication explaining the need for projects of common interest; providing all relevant information early in the planning phase and the decision-making process;4. requesting from project proposers the presentation, in an integrated manner, of documentation both on the need for the project and on the environmental effects of each of the options for its implementation;(c) to collaborate with the Commission on the periodic monitoring of the implementation of this recommendation.This recommendation is addressed to the Member States.Done at Brussels, 14 December 1998.For the CommissionChristos PAPOUTSISMember of the Commission(1) OJ L 161, 29. 6. 1996, p. 154.(2) OJ L 161, 29. 6. 1996, p. 147.(3) OJ L 152, 11. 6. 1997, p. 12.(4) OJ L 175, 5. 7. 1985, p. 40.(5) OJ L 73, 14. 3. 1997, p. 5.


title: Council Recommendation to Greece of 16 February 2010 with a view to ending the inconsistency with the broad guidelines of the economic policies in Greece and removing the risk of jeopardising the proper functioning of the economic and monetary union

text:
               30.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 83/65

         COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION TO GREECE
   of 16 February 2010
   with a view to ending the inconsistency with the broad guidelines of the economic policies in Greece and removing the risk of jeopardising the proper functioning of the economic and monetary union
   (2010/190/EU)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 121(4) thereof,
   Having regard to the recommendation from the Commission,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The macroeconomic and budgetary situation has deteriorated markedly in Greece over the last year and Greek public finances have worsened much beyond what could have been expected as a result of the downturn. These developments are largely due to national factors that have developed over the longer term, resulting in a deterioration of the net lending position of the Greek economy and high and persistent external imbalances, mirroring large competitiveness losses and a marked deterioration of the fiscal position.

               (2)

               National policies in terms of the conduct of fiscal policy, the efficiency of public administration and lack of structural reforms (where indicators show that Greece ranks poorly compared with international benchmarks) have contributed to poor economic and fiscal performance.

               (3)

               The current situation poses major challenges for the long-term sustainability of the Greek economy, and the economic and fiscal situation may have negative spill-over on other euro-area members, as evidenced by movements in the financial spreads of a number of Member States. The current situation also risks jeopardising the proper functioning of the economic and monetary union.

               (4)

               The Council and Commission have repeatedly pointed to the longer-term structural problems of the Greek economy in various multilateral surveillance exercises. These include budgetary surveillance in the framework of the Stability and Growth Pact and the Lisbon Strategy in which the Broad Guidelines of the Economic Policies (1), provide a general reference framework for structural reform in the Union and in the euro area. These include recommendations to Member States to respect their medium-term budgetary objectives and to take effective action in order to ensure a prompt correction of excessive deficits, as well as to aim at correcting the current account deficit by implementing structural reforms, boosting external competitiveness and contributing to their correction via fiscal policies.

               (5)

               In this context, reflecting the deep structural problems in the Greek economy covering fiscal, labour and product market issues, the Council, in its Recommendation of 25 June 2009 (2), noted that for Greece it is ‘imperative to intensify efforts to address the macro-economic imbalances and structural weaknesses of the Greek economy’ and directed country-specific recommendations to Greece, including that it should continue with fiscal consolidation; increase competition in professional services; reform to increase investments in R&D; use structural funds more efficiently; reform public administration and take a broad range of labour market measures within an integrated flexicurity approach. At the same time, the Council recommended that Greece, as a member of the euro area, secure the sustainability and improve the quality of public finances, modernise public administration and implement the Union’s common principles of flexicurity.

               (6)

               Greece's economic and budgetary policies are not in line with the country-specific recommendations issued under the Broad Guidelines of the Economic Policies, nor the recommendations addressed to Member States forming part of the euro area, set out in the Council Recommendation of 14 May 2008 on the broad economic policy guidelines for the Member States and the Community.

               (7)

               On 15 January 2010, Greece submitted the 2010 update of its stability programme, which contains objectives in the budgetary area for the period up to 2013 and which should be read in conjunction with the budget for 2010 adopted by the Greek Parliament on 23 December 2009; the Council delivered an opinion on 16 February 2010 on the 2010 update of the Greek stability programme in accordance with Article 5(3) of 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 (3). On 16 February 2010, the Council also adopted a Decision under Article 126(9) TFEU giving notice to Greece to take measures for the deficit reduction judged necessary in order to remedy the situation of excessive deficit (4) (hereinafter ‘the Council Decision of 16 February 2010’).

               (8)

               The proper functioning of the coordination of economic policies in the euro area requires a timely use of instruments available under Article 121 TFEU. Article 121(4) TFEU establishes that the Commission may address a warning to the Member State concerned and may recommend the Council to make the necessary recommendations to that Member State. Given the gravity of the situation and in order to ensure consistency with the Council Decision of 16 February 2010, it is appropriate that the Council adopt the necessary recommendations. In addition, the Council may, acting on a proposal from the Commission, decide to make its recommendations public.

               (9)

               Although the deterioration in macroeconomic conditions in 2009 has been more pronounced than anticipated by the authorities, public finances have worsened much beyond what could have been expected as a result of the stronger-than-projected downturn. The deterioration is to a large extent the result of budgetary policies implemented by the Greek government. The general government deficit in 2009 is currently estimated at 12,75 % of GDP, compared to a target of 3,75 % of GDP in the January 2009 update of the stability programme.

               (10)

               The 2010 budget was adopted by the Greek Parliament on 23 December 2009 setting a deficit target of 9,1 % of GDP in 2010. In the meantime, the Greek authorities announced the intention to step up fiscal adjustment already in 2010, setting the budgetary target for 2010 at 8,7 % of GDP. The January 2010 update of the stability programme confirmed the revised budgetary target for 2010 at 8,7 % of GDP.

               (11)

               The long-term budgetary impact of ageing on public expenditures is well above the Union average, mainly as a result of a very high projected increase in pension expenditure as a share of GDP over the coming decades. Available indicators, as evidenced in the Commission services’ 2009 sustainability report, point to very high risks to the sustainability of public finances, which, in addition to budgetary consolidation, needs to be addressed through the reform of the pension and health care systems. The Greek pension system suffers from several problems, including the fact that it is fragmented in its coverage. Although Greece has one of the highest average benefit ratios in the Union — with a negative impact on incentives to work, as reflected in particular in the low employment rate among older workers — it has one of the highest poverty rates among the elderly. There are also problems with early retirement schemes that provide alternative, but costly, pathways to retirement. The health care system also needs reform, in particular to significantly improve efficiency and management as these have been a cause of recurrent budgetary overruns. Labour market reforms should support the increased labour supply in order to increase the contribution base.

               (12)

               Greece should recover competitiveness losses and address large external imbalances. In this context, in accordance with the Broad Guidelines of the Economic Policies, Greece should aim at correcting the current account deficit ‘by implementing structural reforms, boosting external competitiveness and (…) contributing to their correction via fiscal policies’. To this end, the Greek authorities should implement permanent measures to control current primary expenditure, including the wage cost in the public sector, and urgently implement labour and product market structural reforms. In particular, the Greek authorities should ensure that fiscal consolidation measures are also geared towards enhancing the quality of public finances within the framework of a comprehensive reform programme, while swiftly implementing policies to further reform the tax administration.

               (13)

               A variety of indicators and analyses confirm that Greece has been losing price competitiveness on a large and sustained basis over the past ten years. The rise in wages in excess of productivity growth is an explanatory factor. Public sector wages relative to private sector wages have risen faster in Greece compared with other euro area economies and have affected overall wage bargaining, underlining the need for the public sector to play a lead role in helping restore wage moderation. In addition, some features of the Greek collective bargaining system (for example, the intermediate level of bargaining) can also explain the misalignment of wage and productivity growth, and require adjustments to be agreed by social partners. Looking forward, the wage bargaining system must support wage changes which more closely reflect competitiveness, productivity developments and local labour market conditions.

               (14)

               Public administration has been a major obstacle in raising efficiency in Greece. Greece ranks poorly as regards the public sector in most international comparisons and many problems are thought to derive from insufficient administrative capacity and efficiency. The authorities have made commitments to improve its functioning. These should translate into reduced staffing, improved human resource management in public entities, reduced costs, increased transparency, increased legal certainty and the effective implementation of policies.

               (15)

               Greece has considerable scope to improve its business environment and product market functioning. Businesses face complex, burdensome and lengthy administrative procedures. Professional services are heavily regulated, barriers to competition are amongst the highest within the Union. Moreover, the liberalisation of network industries (for example, energy) is lagging behind the Union average, as well as the opening of markets in the transport sector, especially in rail. Reforms in these areas could increase private investment and employment at little cost for public finances. Product market reforms could also help the implementation of labour market reforms by reducing cost pressures.

               (16)

               Greece's labour market is also in need of reform in line with the common principles of flexicurity, as noted by the Council in its 2009 recommendations on the implementation of employment policies. Particular attention needs to be paid to young persons, given the difficulties they face in entering formal employment. There is serious scope for supporting labour market transitions including by improving education and training policies, upgrading the skills of the workforce, and improving the efficiency of active labour market policies, drawing also upon the support of the European Social Fund. There is also a need to ease employment protection legislation. Furthermore, policies should encourage active labour market participation. Implementation of these recommendations is of key importance for the Greek economy. The employment effects of the structural actions implemented in the economic area should thus be duly taken into account.

               (17)

               The faster and more effective absorption of the Union's structural and cohesion funds has the potential of playing a critical role in the success of efforts to restore competitiveness and sustainable public finances. Compared to other Member States, progress with the absorption of funds has been lagging. By working with the Commission to take measures to improve absorption capacity and the design of operational programmes, Greece could finance key public investments that support long-term growth potential whilst at the same time allowing budgetary consolidation to proceed. Particular attention should be paid to the operational programme on ‘Administrative Reform’ and ‘Digital Convergence’ as these support essential reforms in the public administration which are central to the reform strategy outlined in the January 2010 update of the stability programme. For example, the Union’s structural funds under these operational programmes could be relied on to support the public sector in reforms of the health care system, public employment services, lifelong learning, fighting undeclared work, and the building up of effective regulatory control and enforcement capacities.

               (18)

               The Greek banks appear relatively sound in terms of profitability and capital adequacy. Furthermore, the resilience of the sector has been confirmed by extensive stress-testing. In addition, the Greek banks maintain a low level of non-performing loans (approximately 7,2 % of total loans) and a relatively low loan-to-deposit ratio. However, the Greek banking sector has experienced difficulties in accessing liquidity on wholesale markets, leaving it substantially reliant on Eurosystem lending. In sum, while the Greek banking system is overall robust and suffered less than some other Member States from the global financial crisis, it is unlikely to remain immune from the difficulties in the Greek public finances. Moreover, the impact of economic and financial problems in some of Greece's neighbouring countries is a concern.

               (19)

               In the light of the impact on the Greek economy of the global economic and financial crisis, the implied re-pricing of risks puts further pressure on debt burden and raises risk premia on government debt,

         HEREBY RECOMMENDS:

               1.

               Taking into account the institutional weaknesses of the Greek public finances and economy at large, Greece should design and implement, starting as soon as possible in 2010, a bold and comprehensive structural reforms package which goes beyond the measures outlined in the January 2010 update of the stability programme. Clear and detailed time plans should be made available for the proposed reforms and followed during implementation. More specifically, taking into account the importance of ensuring the effectiveness of the wage bargaining system and the need for overall wage moderation, against the background of competitiveness losses, Greece should:

                           (a)

                           reduce the public wage bill, so as to ensure that public sector wage policy plays a leading role to the private sector wage formation and contributes to overall wage moderation;

                           (b)

                           streamline the wage payment system for direct public administration employees by providing unified principles in setting and planning wages and streamlining the wage grid; this wage policy should be extended to compensation rules for public enterprise employees;

                           (c)

                           enhance flexibility of the wage-setting system by promoting more decentralised wage bargaining (for example, avoiding the administrative extension of collective agreements to enterprises not involved in the negotiations), including by decoupling from public sector wage developments; improve the implementation of the wage bargaining law to limit the use of the exemption clause.

               2.

               Given the urgent need to reform the pension system, and in view of challenges to the long-term sustainability of public finances, Greece should:

                           (a)

                           proceed with a timely and comprehensive pension reform, which should contribute to public finance sustainability;

                           (b)

                           ensure the alignment of statutory retirement ages between women and men and introduce additional parameters that automatically adjust the pension level and statutory retirement age to changes in underlying economic and demographic factors;

                           (c)

                           ensure that comprehensive labour market reforms support increased labour supply and employment in order to expand the contribution base;

                           (d)

                           adapt the pension award formula by strengthening the link between contributions paid and benefits received, and indexing pensions to prices, instead of the discretionary indexation so far;

                           (e)

                           increase the average exit age from the labour market through stricter eligibility criteria for early retirement; reduce substantially the current excessively long list of occupations allowing for early retirement;

                           (f)

                           simplify the fragmented pension system and introduce universally binding legislation on entitlement, contributions, accumulation and indexing;

                           (g)

                           adopt, already in 2010, the necessary legal acts.

               3.

               In the field of healthcare, reforms should focus on:

                           (a)

                           overhauling the excessively fragmented structure of the health care system and its governance;

                           (b)

                           enhancing the quality and efficiency of public primary health care services;

                           (c)

                           modernising hospital administration and accounting procedures;

                           (d)

                           procurement procedures, by also reviewing the list of medicines purchased.

               4.

               There is a need to enhance the efficiency of public administration. To this end, Greece should:

                           (a)

                           develop, approve and implement the strategic reform needed to ensure a significant improvement in the transparency and effectiveness of its public administration; this would be based on an independent functional review of the overall structure of public administration, in order to increase the effectiveness of public administration in several policy areas, particularly the decision-making structures, the division of responsibilities among institutions, the internal organisation of key ministries, the oversight and accountability for implementation, and the extent of staffing levels and human resource management; the upward trend in public sector employment should be reversed;

                           (b)

                           consolidate the number of municipalities and local councils, inducing sizeable expenditure savings;

                           (c)

                           take measures with a view to ensuring that public procurement is carried out in a cost-effective, transparent and competitive way.

               5.

               Another priority, to be addressed already in 2010, concerns improvements in the functioning of the product market and business environment. To this end, Greece should:

                           (a)

                           achieve the objectives set in the better regulation agenda by simplifying procedures for starting, licensing and operating a business; streamlining and simplifying Greece's regulatory system by creating in each ministry specialised units for better regulation, by strengthening the role of impact assessments and in general, by speeding up the implementation of the administrative burden reduction programme;

                           (b)

                           adopt and implement a clear and action-oriented competition policy framework including a review of priority setting rules and a reform of enforcement practices; strengthen the role and capacity of the Hellenic Competition Commission;

                           (c)

                           swiftly and ambitiously implement the rules of the Services Directive;

                           (d)

                           take effective measures to increase competition in professional services;

                           (e)

                           further promote and monitor deregulation of the transport and energy sector, in particular by lifting price restrictions and barriers to entry in the road freight sector; by fully implementing the first railway package (5) in order to promote the market opening of the railway sector and by stepping up the liberalisation of the electricity sector by unbundling current incumbent operations;

                           (f)

                           ease regulation in the retail sector.

               6.

               With a view to supporting productivity and employment growth, Greece should:

                           (a)

                           take immediate measures to fight undeclared work;

                           (b)

                           review labour market regulations, including employment protection legislation, with a view to increasing labour supply;

                           (c)

                           support labour demand by reinforcing targeted reductions in the cost of labour;

                           (d)

                           enact reforms in the educational system aimed at improving the level of skills of the labour force and enhancing responsiveness to labour market needs.

               7.

               Against the background of the challenge to improve productivity, including through prioritised public investment strategies, Greece should take all necessary measures to improve the efficiency and pace of absorption of EU structural funds. In doing so, particular attention should be paid to the swift and efficient implementation of the operational programmes on ‘Administrative Reform’ and ‘Digital Convergence’, as these support essential reforms in public administration, which is central to the reform strategy outlined in the January 2010 update of the stability programme.

               8.

               Greece is invited to report on measures taken in response to this Recommendation, and on the calendar of the implementation of the structural measures, outlined in the January 2010 update of the stability programme, in the context of the quarterly reports established by Article 4(2) of the Council Decision of 16 February 2010.

      This Recommendation is addressed to the Hellenic Republic.
      Done at Brussels, 16 February 2010.

            For the Council

            The President

         E. SALGADO

      (1)  http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/structural_reforms/growth_jobs/guidelines/index_en.htm

      (2)  Council Recommendation of 25 June 2009 on the 2009 update of the broad guidelines for the economic policies of the Member States and the Community and on the implementation of Member States’ employment policies (OJ L 183, 15.7.2009, p. 1).

      (3)  OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ L 83, 30.3.2010, p. 13.

      (5)  Directives 91/440/EEC (OJ L 237, 24.8.1991, p. 25), 95/18/EC (OJ L 143, 27.6.1995, p. 70) and 2001/14/EC (OJ L 75, 15.3.2001, p. 29).


Avis juridique important

|

31995H0111

95/111/EC: Council Recommendation of 20 March 1995 concerning the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Development Fund (1979) (Fifth EDF) for the financial year 1993

Official Journal L 080 , 08/04/1995 P. 0043 - 0043

COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION of 20 March  1995 concerning the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the  operations of the European Development Fund (1979) (Fifth EDF) for the financial year 1993  (95/111/EC)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 206  thereof, Having regard to the Second ACP-EEC Convention, signed at Lomé on 31 October 1979, Having regard to Council Decision 80/1186/EEC of 16 December 1980 on the association of the  overseas countries and territories with the European Economic Community  (1), Having regard to the 1979 Internal Agreement on the financing and administration of Community aid   (2), signed on 20 November 1979, and in particular Article 29 (3) thereof, Having regard to the Financial Regulation of 17 March 1981 applicable to the Fifth European  Development Fund  (3), and in particular Articles 66 to 70 thereof, Having examined the revenue and expenditure account and the balance sheet relating to the  operations of the European Development Fund (1979) (Fifth EDF) as at 31 December 1993 and the Court  of Auditors' report relating to the financial year 1993 together with the Commission's replies   (4), Whereas, pursuant to Article 29 (3) of the Internal Agreement, the discharge for the management of  the European Development Fund (1979) (Fifth EDF) must be given to the Commission by the European  Parliament on a recommendation from the Council; Whereas the overall implementation by the Commission of the operations of the European Development  Fund (1979) (Fifth EDF) during the financial year 1993 has been satisfactory, HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the European Parliament give the Commission a discharge in respect of the  implementation of the operations of the European Development Fund (1979) (Fifth EDF) for the  financial year 1993. Done at Brussels, 20 March 1995. For the Council The President E. ALPHANDÉRY


Avis juridique important

|

32003H0120

Commission Recommendation of 20 February 2003 on the protection and information of the public with regard to exposure resulting from the continued radioactive caesium contamination of certain wild food products as a consequence of the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power station (notified under document number C(2003) 510)

Official Journal L 047 , 21/02/2003 P. 0053 - 0055

Commission Recommendationof 20 February 2003on the protection and information of the public with regard to exposure resulting from the continued radioactive caesium contamination of certain wild food products as a consequence of the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power station(notified under document number C(2003) 510)(2003/120/EC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 38(1), and the second indent of Article 124 thereof,Having regard to the opinion of the Group of Experts appointed by the Scientific and Technical Committee pursuant to Article 31 of the Treaty,Whereas:(1) Following the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power station on 26 April 1986, considerable quantities of radioactive materials were released into the atmosphere.(2) The fallout of radioactive caesium from the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power station has affected a wide range of third countries.(3) Significant fallout has affected certain parts of the territories of a number of Member States and countries applying for accession to the European Union.(4) Council Regulation (EEC) No 737/90 of 22 March 1990 on the conditions governing imports of agricultural products originating in third countries following the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power-station(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 616/2000(2), fixed for agricultural products in third countries intended for human consumption, maximum permitted levels of radioactive caesium with which imports must comply and in connection with which checks are carried out by Member States.(5) In a statement to the Council, on 12 May 1986 in connection to the adoption of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1707/86 of 30 May 1986 on the conditions governing imports of agricultural products originating in third countries following the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power-station(3), Member States committed themselves to apply the same maximum permitted levels to trade within the Community.(6) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1661/1999 of 27 July 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 737/90 on the conditions governing imports of agricultural products originating in third countries following the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power-station(4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1608/2002(5), has, inter alia, introduced specific conditions strengthening the controls on the imports of non-cultivated mushrooms from a number of third countries.(7) Member States have applied and still apply when necessary, similar checks and conditions for the placing on the market of foodstuffs emanating from their national agro-industrial food supply chains in particular with regard to meat from sheep and reindeer.(8) The measures in situ in the territories of the Member States flow from existing legal obligations set out in Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of the workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation(6) and in Articles 35 and 36 of the Euratom Treaty.(9) Natural and semi-natural ecosystems such as forests and wooded areas generally are the natural habitat of wild game, berries and mushrooms and such ecosystems tend to retain radioactive caesium in a cyclic exchange between upper soil layers (litter), bacteria, microfauna, microflora and vegetation. In addition, the soil of such ecosystems which consists for the most part of organic matter tends to increase the biological availability of radioactive caesium.(10) The forest plants likely to be consumed by man are the edible fruit species, in particular wild berries like bilberries, cloudberries, cranberries, raspberries, blackberries and wild strawberries. Radioactive caesium contamination trends in wild berries show that contamination has decreased slowly or remained stable in particular in perennial species, since the Chernobyl accident.(11) Many species of edible wild mushrooms (chanterelles, bay boletus, hedgehogs and other well-known edible mushrooms), due to the impact of the nature of forest soils on the availability of radioactive caesium, continue to develop levels of radioactive caesium exceeding 600 Bq/kg. Mushrooms of the mycorrhizal species living in symbiosis with trees and having a deep-growing mycelium (Boletus edulis, for example) were affected much later by the fallout and today present very high levels of radioactive caesium contamination.(12) Radioactive caesium contamination also affects animal species such as wild game and carnivorous freshwater fish from lakes in areas with the highest deposition. In particular, the presence of highly contaminated species in the diet (lichen, mosses, and in particular certain species of mushrooms) clearly contributes to increasing the contamination of the wild game consuming them.(13) It is assumed that the duration of radioactive caesium contamination following the Chernobyl accident of a number of products originating from species living and growing in forests and other natural and semi-natural ecosystems essentially relates to the physical half-life of that radionuclide which is some 30 years and that therefore no appreciable change as regards the radioactive caesium contamination of these products will be observed in the next decades.(14) In recent years, data provided by some Member States to the Commission has shown that high levels of radioactive caesium could be found in wild game, berries, mushrooms and carnivorous lake fish.(15) The incidence of wild game meat exceeding 600 Bq/kg of radioactive caesium is slowly decreasing except for wild boar, non-negligible quantities of wild game meat originated in certain parts of the territories of a number of Member States and applicant countries continue to exceed the above limits.(16) In certain regions of the Federal Republic of Germany the radioactive caesium levels in meat of wild boar can be ten or more times higher than levels in roe deer or red deer. For example, the incidence of cases of wild boar exceeding 600 Bq/kg of radioactive caesium has been constantly rising since 1996 and was about 51 % in 1999 with peak values exceeding 10000 Bq/kg.(17) It can be assumed that parts of the territories of a number of other Member States and applicant countries, presenting similar levels of radioactive caesium deposition would have contamination levels in meat from wild game and in particular in wild boar comparable to those in the Federal Republic of Germany.(18) Recent data indicate that radioactive caesium concentrations remain high in carnivorous freshwater fish from lakes in areas with the highest deposition, with peak values exceeding 10000 Bq/kg in pike and 5000 Bq/kg in perch.(19) The placing on the market of edible wild products does not necessarily proceed through the agro-industrial food supply chains, the national statutory monitoring and checks could therefore be bypassed.(20) Member States have informed the population of the health risk resulting from consumption of certain food categories in the aftermath of the Chernobyl accident, public awareness of the continued contamination of wild food products tends to decline.(21) Although the implication of the contamination of wild products for the health of the general public is very low, the health risk to persons who consume large quantities of such products from affected regions cannot be neglected, and it is therefore necessary to strengthen the public awareness of those dangers.(22) Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety(7) has set up a system for the rapid exchange of information. It is necessary to use that system for exchanging information between the Member States on recorded cases of exceedance of the maximum permitted levels,HEREBY RECOMMENDS:1. For the purpose of protecting the health of the consumer, Member States should take appropriate steps to ensure that the maximum permitted levels in terms of caesium-134 and 137 referred to in Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 737/90 are respected in the Community for the placing on the market of wild game, wild berries, wild mushrooms and carnivorous lake fish.2. Member States should inform the population, in regions where there is a potential for such products to exceed the maximum permitted levels, of the health risk involved.3. Member States should inform the Commission and each other of recorded cases of such products placed on the Community market exceeding the maximum permitted levels through the Community Rapid Alert System laid down in Regulation 2002/178/EC.4. Member States should inform the Commission and the other Member States of the action taken in response to this recommendation.Done at Brussels, 20 February 2003.For the CommissionMargot WallströmMember of the Commission(1) OJ L 82, 29.3.1990, p. 1.(2) OJ L 75, 24.3.2000, p. 1.(3) OJ L 146, 31.5.1986, p. 88.(4) OJ L 197, 29.7.1999, p. 17.(5) OJ L 243, 11.9.2002, p. 7.(6) OJ L 159, 29.6.1996, p. 1.(7) OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1.


title: Commission Recommendation of 8 September 2011 on support for an EU-wide eCall service in electronic communication networks for the transmission of in-vehicle emergency calls based on 112 ( eCalls ) Text with EEA relevance

text:
               22.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 303/46

         COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
   of 8 September 2011
   on support for an EU-wide eCall service in electronic communication networks for the transmission of in-vehicle emergency calls based on 112 (‘eCalls’)
   (Text with EEA relevance)
   (2011/750/EU)
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 292 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Council Decision 91/396/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the introduction of a single European emergency call number (1) required Member States to ensure that the number 112 was introduced in public telephone networks as the single European emergency call number.

               (2)

               Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (2) requires Member States to ensure that calls to the number 112 are appropriately answered and handled, and that all end-users are able to call 112 free of charge.

               (3)

               Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on the framework for the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport and for interfaces with other modes of transport (3) included harmonised provision for an interoperable EU-wide eCall service as a priority action. The introduction of such a harmonised service in all vehicles in the European Union has the potential to significantly reduce the number of fatalities and the severity of injuries resulting from road accidents.

               (4)

               It is important for all Member States to develop common technical solutions and practices for the provision of emergency call services. The development of common technical solutions should be pursued through the European standardisation organisations, in order to facilitate the introduction of the eCall service, ensure the interoperability and continuity of the service EU-wide, and reduce the costs of implementation for the European Union.

               (5)

               A harmonised solution across Europe would ensure interoperability for transmitting the voice/audio call and the minimum set of data generated by the in-vehicle eCall system to the public safety answering point, including the accurate location and time of the incident. A harmonised solution would also ensure the continuity of the eCall service across European countries. With the high volume of cross-border traffic in Europe, there is a growing need for a common data transfer protocol for passing such information to public safety answering points and emergency services in order to avoid the risk of confusion or wrong interpretation of the data passed.

               (6)

               The effective implementation of a harmonised EU-wide interoperable eCall service requires that the voice/audio call, along with the minimum set of data generated by the in-vehicle system on the incident, is transmitted automatically to any appropriate public safety answering point that can receive and use the location data provided.

               (7)

               The arrangements for forwarding information by mobile network operators to public safety answering points should be established in a transparent and non-discriminatory way, including, where appropriate, any cost aspects.

               (8)

               A harmonised solution across Europe may also ensure interoperability for advanced eCall applications, such as the provision of additional information, e.g. on crash-sensor indicators, on the type of dangerous goods carried or on the number of occupants of the vehicle.

               (9)

               Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (4) and Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (5) generally require that the privacy and data protection rights of individuals should be fully respected and adequate technical and organisational security measures should be implemented for that purpose. However, it allows the use of location data by emergency services without the consent of the user concerned. In particular, Member States should ensure that there are transparent procedures governing the way in which a provider of a public telecommunications network and/or service may override the absence of consent by a user to the processing of location data, on a per-line basis for organisations that deal with emergency calls and are recognised as such by a Member State.

               (10)

               The eCall service has been designed to follow the recommendations made by the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party and contained in the working document on data protection and privacy implications of the eCall initiative, adopted on 26 September 2006, namely that vehicles equipped with eCall devices should not be traceable in their normal operational status and that the minimum set of data sent by the eCall device should include the minimum information required for the appropriate handling of emergency calls.

               (11)

               This Recommendation will allow Member States to design the eCall response organisation in a way that best suits their emergency response infrastructure.

               (12)

               Actions under the European Union’s action programme in the field of civil protection should aim to integrate civil protection objectives within other Union policies and actions as well as ensure the consistency of the programme with other Union actions. This entitles the Commission to implement actions to increase the preparedness of organisations involved in civil protection in the Member States, by enhancing their ability to respond to emergencies and by improving the techniques and methods of response and immediate aftercare. This may include the handling and use of eCall information by public safety answering points and emergency services.

               (13)

               For the successful implementation of an eCall service throughout the Union, implementation issues must be addressed and timescales for the introduction of new systems coordinated. The European eCall Implementation Platform, established by the Commission in February 2009 as a partnership between the public and private sectors, has allowed all stakeholders to discuss and agree on the principles for harmonised and timely implementation.

               (14)

               To achieve the objectives of this Recommendation, a continued dialogue between mobile network operators and service providers and public authorities, including emergency services, is essential.

               (15)

               Given the continuous evolution of concepts and technologies, Member States are encouraged to foster and support the development of services for emergency assistance, for instance to tourists and travellers and to transporters of dangerous goods by road, and to support the development and implementation of common interface specifications in ensuring Europe-wide interoperability of such services,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:

               1.

               Member States should apply the following harmonised conditions and principles to the making of emergency calls manually or automatically by an in-vehicle telematics terminal to public safety answering points via the single European emergency call number 112.

               2.

               For the purposes of this Recommendation, the following definitions apply:

                           (a)

                           ‘emergency service’ means a service, recognised as such by the Member State, that provides immediate and rapid assistance in situations where there is a direct risk to life or limb, to individual or public health or safety, to private or public property, or to the environment, but not necessarily limited to these situations;

                           (b)

                           ‘public safety answering point’ (PSAP) means the physical location where emergency calls are first received under the responsibility of a public authority or a private organisation recognised by the national government, whereby the ‘most appropriate PSAP’ is the one defined beforehand by authorities to cover emergency calls from a certain area or for emergency calls of a certain type (e.g. eCalls);

                           (c)

                           ‘eCall’ means an in-vehicle emergency call to 112, made either automatically via activation of in-vehicle sensors or manually, which carries, by means of mobile wireless communications networks, a standardised minimum set of data and establishes an audio channel between the occupants of the vehicle and the most appropriate public safety answering point;

                           (d)

                           ‘emergency service category value’ is the 8-bit value used for mobile-originated emergency calls to indicate the particular type of emergency call (1-Police, 2-Ambulance, 3-Fire Brigade, 4-Marine Guard, 5-Mountain Rescue, 6-Manually Initiated eCall, 7-Automatically Initiated eCall, 8-spare), as indicated in Table 10.5.135d of ETSI TS 124.008;

                           (e)

                           ‘eCall discriminator’ or ‘eCall flag’ means the ‘emergency service category value’ allocated to eCalls according to ETSI TS 124.008 (i.e. ‘6-Manually Initiated eCall’ and ‘7-Automatically Initiated eCall’), allowing differentiation between 112 calls from mobile terminals and 112 eCalls from in-vehicle terminals and also between manually and automatically triggered eCalls;

                           (f)

                           ‘minimum set of data’ means the information which must be sent to the PSAP according to the standard EN 15722; and

                           (g)

                           ‘mobile telecommunication network operator’ or ‘mobile network operator’ means a provider of a public mobile wireless communications network.

               3.

               Member States should draw up detailed rules for public mobile network operators operating in their countries on handling eCalls. The rules should fully comply with the data protection provisions enshrined in Directives 95/46/EC and 2002/58/EC. Further, they should indicate the most appropriate public safety answering point to route eCalls.

               4.

               Member States should ensure that mobile network operators implement the mechanism to handle the ‘eCall discriminator’ in their networks. This should be implemented by 31 December 2014.

               5.

               Mobile network operators should handle an eCall like any other call to the single European emergency number 112.

               6.

               Member States should require their national authorities to report to the Commission on the measures taken regarding this Recommendation, and on the state of implementation by the mobile network operators of the mechanism to handle the ‘eCall discriminator’ in their networks, by the end of March 2012, so that the Commission can undertake a review taking into account the emerging requirements for public safety answering points.

      Done at Brussels, 8 September 2011.

            For the Commission

         Neelie KROES

            Vice-President

      (1)  OJ L 217, 6.8.1991, p. 31.

      (2)  OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 51.

      (3)  OJ L 207, 6.8.2010, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31.

      (5)  OJ L 201, 31.7.2002, p. 37.


title: 2014/208/EU: Commission Recommendation of 9 April 2014 on the quality of corporate governance reporting ( ‘comply or explain’ )  Text with EEA relevance

text:
               12.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 109/43

         COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
   of 9 April 2014
   on the quality of corporate governance reporting (‘comply or explain’)
   (Text with EEA relevance)
   (2014/208/EU)
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 292 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               An effective corporate governance framework is of key importance to society, as well-run companies are likely to be more competitive and more sustainable in the long term. Good corporate governance is first and foremost the responsibility of the company concerned, and rules at European and national level are in place to ensure that certain standards are respected. These include legislation and soft law, namely national corporate governance codes.

               (2)

               Corporate governance codes aim to establish principles for good corporate governance in listed companies in Europe based on transparency, accountability and a long-term perspective. They provide standards and best practice for companies, enabling them to perform better and therefore contribute to fostering growth, stability and long-term investment.

               (3)

               Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings (1) requires companies to include a corporate governance statement in their management report if their transferable securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market of any Member State within the meaning of Article 4(1)(14) of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments (2).

               (4)

               The corporate governance statement should provide essential information on the corporate governance arrangements of the company, such as information relating to the relevant corporate governance code(s) applied by that company, the internal control and risk management systems, the shareholder meeting and its powers, shareholders' rights, administrative, management and supervisory bodies and their committees.

               (5)

               High quality disclosure on companies' corporate governance arrangements offers useful information to investors and facilitates their investment decisions. It also gives investors more confidence in the companies they invest in. Increased transparency to the market can also bring, more generally, reputational benefits for companies and more legitimacy in the eyes of stakeholders and society as a whole.

               (6)

               The ‘comply or explain’ principle laid down in Article 20 of Directive 2013/34/EU is a key feature of European corporate governance. According to this principle, companies that depart from the relevant corporate governance code are required to explain in their corporate governance statement which parts of the code they depart from and the reasons for doing so.

               (7)

               While full compliance with a code can send a positive message to the market, it may not always be the best approach for a company from a corporate governance perspective. Departing from a provision in the code could in some cases allow a company to govern itself more effectively. The ‘comply or explain’ approach provides companies with flexibility by allowing them to adapt their corporate governance to their size, shareholding structure or sectoral specificities. At the same time, it promotes a culture of accountability, encouraging companies to reflect more on corporate governance arrangements.

               (8)

               The ‘comply or explain’ principle is widely supported by companies, investors and regulators as an appropriate tool in corporate governance. Yet, as mentioned in the 2011 Green Paper on the EU corporate governance framework (3), it appears that there are some shortcomings in the way the principle is applied in practice, in particular as regards the quality of explanations provided by companies when departing from corporate governance codes. In this respect, a large majority of respondents to the Green Paper were in favour of requiring companies to provide better quality explanations in case of departures.

               (9)

               According to more recent evidence gathered by the Commission, there has been gradual improvement in this area. Several Member States have, for instance, initiated discussions or issued guidelines on the quality of explanations. However, there is still scope for further improvement.

               (10)

               In its resolution of 29 March 2012 (4), the European Parliament considered the ‘comply or explain’ approach a useful tool for corporate governance. In particular, it was in favour of compulsory adherence to a relevant code by the company and requiring meaningful explanations for departures from a code, which should include a description of the alternative measure taken.

               (11)

               The 2012 Action Plan on European company law and corporate governance (5) underlined the importance of high quality explanations, in particular for investors, and announced a Commission initiative to improve the quality of corporate governance reports and the quality of explanations in particular.

               (12)

               The purpose of this Recommendation is to provide guidance for companies and to assist them in improving the quality of their corporate governance reporting. Given the diversity of legal traditions and approaches, these recommendations offer a general framework, which can be further developed and adapted to the specific national context.

               (13)

               This Recommendation applies to companies which are required to submit a corporate governance statement in accordance with Article 20 of Directive 2013/34/EU and which need to provide explanations in case of departure from the recommendations of the corporate governance code(s).

               (14)

               While this Recommendation is intended predominantly for listed companies pursuant to Article 20 of Directive 2013/34/EU, other entities preparing a corporate governance statement might also benefit from enhancing the quality of information they plan to disclose.

               (15)

               In addition to the information that they are required to provide in their corporate governance statement, companies in some Member States are also required to report on how they apply the main principles or recommendations of the code. In order to further improve transparency, all European listed companies are encouraged to report on how they followed the relevant codes regarding aspects which may be most important for shareholders. In addition, in order to facilitate access, companies should consider making this information also available online.

               (16)

               There is no standard format for corporate governance reporting throughout the Union. Presenting information in a general statement or on a provision by provision basis is acceptable as long as it is informative and useful for shareholders, investors and other stakeholders. Companies should avoid making overly general statements, which might not cover important aspects to shareholders but also, box-ticking statements with little informative value. Likewise, they should also avoid providing lengthy information which might not give sufficient insight.

               (17)

               Appropriate disclosure of departures from the relevant codes and of the reasons for such departures is very important to ensure that stakeholders can make informed decisions about companies. Such disclosure reduces the information asymmetry between the company directors and its shareholders, and therefore, decreases the monitoring costs for the latter. Companies should clearly indicate which recommendations of the code they have departed from and, for each instance provide an explanation regarding: the manner in which the company has departed, the reasons for the departure, the way in which the decision to depart from a recommendation has been arrived at, the timeframe of the departure and the measures taken to ensure that the company action remains consistent with the objectives of the recommendation, and of the code.

               (18)

               In providing this information, companies should avoid using standardised language and should focus on the specific company context that explains the departure from a recommendation. The explanations should be structured and presented in such a way that they can be easily understood and used. This will make it easier for shareholders to engage in a constructive dialogue with the company.

               (19)

               An effective ‘comply or explain’ approach requires efficient monitoring to motivate businesses to comply with a corporate governance code or to explain non-compliance. The 2011 Green Paper indicated that the corporate governance statements which companies publish seemed not to be monitored as they should be and few Member States had public or specialised bodies check the completeness of the information provided, and in particular the explanations.

               (20)

               Various actors, such as boards, auditors and shareholders, are involved in monitoring the information disclosed by companies. Boards and shareholders also have an important role to play in encouraging good quality explanations. In particular, more active monitoring by shareholders, as owners of companies, could lead to better corporate governance practices.

               (21)

               Member States and bodies responsible for corporate governance codes are also encouraged to consider how more attention could be paid to the overall quality of explanations for departures submitted by companies in the context of the existing monitoring arrangements in their countries. Additional means of incentivising companies and other parties concerned could also be considered, to further improve the quality of the explanations and of corporate governance reporting in general.

               (22)

               In order to ensure efficient follow-up to this Recommendation, Member States should draw it to the attention of the bodies responsible for the national corporate governance codes, listed companies and other parties concerned. Member States should also inform the Commission about measures taken in accordance with this Recommendation,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:

      SECTION I

      General provisions

               1.

               The purpose of this Recommendation is to provide guidance to Member States, bodies responsible for national corporate governance codes, companies and other parties concerned. The guidance aims to improve the overall quality of corporate governance statements published by companies in accordance with Article 20 of Directive 2013/34/EU and, specifically, the quality of explanations provided by companies in case of departure from the recommendations of the relevant corporate governance code.

               2.

               It is recommended that, where applicable, corporate governance codes make a clear distinction between the parts of the code which cannot be derogated from, the parts which apply on a ‘comply or explain’ basis and those which apply on a purely voluntary basis.

      SECTION II

      Quality of corporate governance statements

               3.

               Article 20(1) of Directive 2013/34/EU requires listed companies to provide information about specific aspects of their corporate governance arrangements in their corporate governance statement.

               4.

               In order to further improve transparency for shareholders, investors and other stakeholders, and in addition to the information on the topics referred to in paragraph 3, companies should describe how they have applied the relevant corporate governance code recommendations on the topics of most importance for shareholders.

               5.

               The information referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 should be sufficiently clear, accurate and comprehensive to enable shareholders, investors and other stakeholders to gain a good understanding of the manner in which the company is governed. In addition, it should refer to the company's specific characteristics and situation, such as size, company structure or ownership or any other relevant features.

               6.

               In order to provide easier access for shareholders, investors and other stakeholders, companies should routinely make the information referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 available on their websites and include a reference to the website in their management report, even if they already provide information by other means specified in Directive 2013/34/EU.

      SECTION III

      Quality of explanations in case of departure from a code

               7.

               Article 20(1) of Directive 2013/34/EU requires listed companies to provide explanations in case of departure from the recommendations of the code to which they are subject or which they have voluntarily decided to apply.

               8.

               For the purpose of paragraph 7, companies should clearly state which specific recommendations they have departed from and, for each departure from an individual recommendation:

                           (a)

                           explain in what manner the company has departed from a recommendation;

                           (b)

                           describe the reasons for the departure;

                           (c)

                           describe how the decision to depart from the recommendation was taken within the company;

                           (d)

                           where the departure is limited in time, explain when the company envisages complying with a particular recommendation;

                           (e)

                           where applicable, describe the measure taken instead of compliance and explain how that measure achieves the underlying objective of the specific recommendation or of the code as a whole, or clarify how it contributes to good corporate governance of the company.

               9.

               The information referred to in paragraph 8 should be sufficiently clear, accurate and comprehensive to enable shareholders, investors and other stakeholders to assess the consequences arising from the departure from a particular recommendation.
               It should also refer to the specific characteristics and situation of the company, such as size, company structure or ownership or any other relevant features.

               10.

               Explanations for departures should be clearly presented in the corporate governance statement in such a way that they are easy to find for shareholders, investors and other stakeholders. This could be done, for example, by following the same order of recommendations as in the relevant code or by grouping all explanations for departure in the same section of the corporate governance statement, as long as the method used is clearly explained.

      SECTION IV

      Final provisions

               11.

               In order to motivate companies to comply with the relevant corporate governance code or to better explain departures from it, efficient monitoring needs to be carried out at national level, within the framework of the existing monitoring arrangements.

               12.

               Member States should draw this Recommendation to the attention of the bodies responsible for national corporate governance codes, listed companies and other parties concerned. Member States are invited to inform the Commission of the measures taken in accordance with this Recommendation by 13 April 2015, in order to enable the Commission to monitor and assess the situation.

               13.

               This Recommendation is addressed to the Member States, bodies responsible for national corporate governance codes, listed companies and other parties concerned.

      Done at Brussels, 9 April 2014.

            For the Commission

         Michel BARNIER

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  OJ L 182, 29.6.2013, p. 19.

      (2)  OJ L 145, 30.4.2004, p. 1.

      (3)  COM(2011) 164 of 5 April 2011.

      (4)  European Parliament resolution of 29 March 2012 on a corporate governance framework for European companies, 2011/2181(INI).

      (5)  COM(2012) 740 of 12 December 2012.


title: Council Recommendation of 10 July 2012 on the National Reform Programme 2012 of Greece

text:
               24.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 219/38

         COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
   of 10 July 2012
   on the National Reform Programme 2012 of Greece
   2012/C 219/11
   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 conclusions of the European Council,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Employment Committee,
   After consulting the Economic and Financial Committee,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 26 March 2010, the European Council agreed to the Commission’s proposal to launch a new strategy for jobs and growth, Europe 2020, based on enhanced coordination of economic policies, which focuses on the key areas where action is needed to boost Europe’s potential for sustainable growth and competitiveness.

               (2)

               On 13 July 2010, the Council adopted a recommendation on the broad guidelines for the economic policies of the Member States and the Union (2010 to 2014) and, on 21 October 2010, adopted a decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States (2), which together form the ‘integrated guidelines’. Member States were invited to take the integrated guidelines into account in their national economic and employment policies.

               (3)

               On 12 July 2011, the Council adopted a recommendation (3) on Greece’s National Reform Programme for 2011.

               (4)

               On 23 November 2011, the Commission adopted the second Annual Growth Survey, marking the start of the second European Semester of ex ante and integrated policy coordination, which is anchored in the Europe 2020 strategy.

               (5)

               The European Parliament has been duly involved in the European Semester, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1466/97, and, on 15 February 2012, adopted a resolution on employment and social aspects in the Annual Growth Survey 2012 and a resolution on the contribution to the Annual Growth Survey 2012.

               (6)

               On 2 March 2012, the European Council endorsed the priorities for ensuring financial stability, fiscal consolidation and action to foster growth. It underscored the need to pursue differentiated, growth-friendly fiscal consolidation, to restore normal lending conditions to the economy, to promote growth and competitiveness, to tackle unemployment and the social consequences of the crisis, and to modernise public administration.

               (7)

               On 2 March 2012, the European Council also invited the Member States participating in the Euro Plus Pact to present their commitments in time to be included in their Stability or Convergence Programmes and their National Reform Programmes.

               (8)

               On 12 April 2012, Greece submitted its 2012 National Reform Programme and incomplete information regarding their budgetary plans due to the ongoing process of updating the Medium-Term Fiscal Strategy (MTFS) which is expected to be finalised soon. The Greek authorities are invited to submit the full set of standard tables required under the preventive arm of the Stability and Growth Pact once the MTFS update is completed.

               (9)

               On 21 February 2012, the Eurogroup agreed on a second economic adjustment programme for Greece. The implementation of the economic policies outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality will contribute to reducing the Greek public debt to 117 % of GDP by 2020. The Eurogroup also agreed that the official sector financing of the programme would amount to EUR 130 billion until 2014, additional to the amounts committed in the first financing programme.

               (10)

               The release of the tranches is based on compliance with quantitative performance criteria and a positive evaluation of progress made with respect to the policy criteria laid down in Council Decision 2011/734/EU of 12 July 2011 addressed to Greece with a view to reinforcing and deepening fiscal surveillance and giving notice to Greece to take measures for the deficit reduction judged necessary to remedy the situation of excessive deficit (4) (as amended on 8 November 2011 (5) and 13 March 2012 (6)) and the Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality, which was signed on 14 March 2012.

               (11)

               On 19 March 2012, the first instalment (EUR 5,9 billion) of the first tranche (EUR 14,5 billion) of the new financing programme was paid by the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) to Greece. Greece also received EUR 1,6 billion from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). By May 2012, Greece had received EUR 147,5 billion from official financing under the first and second programmes.

               (12)

               In 2010 and 2011, Greece made partial progress towards the ambitious objectives of the adjustment programme. Several factors hampered implementation: political instability, social unrest and issues of administrative capacity and, more fundamentally, a recession that was much deeper than had been previously projected. Important fiscal targets were missed, which led to the adoption of additional consolidation measures throughout 2010 and 2011. However, Greece achieved a substantial reduction in the general government deficit: from 15,8 % of GDP in 2009 to 9,1 % in 2011.

               (13)

               On 18 April 2012, the Commission adopted a communication on ‘Growth for Greece’ highlighting the positive impact that full and effective implementation of the economic adjustment programme can have by laying the foundations for growth, investment and social renewal. This Communication recalls that Greece can draw strength and concrete support from its membership of the Union and of the euro area. It underlines that the reforms set out in the second economic adjustment programme are designed to restore the growth and job creation potential of the Greek economy and to create a more equitable society. It outlines the extensive financial support being made available to Greece and emphasises the readiness of Greece’s partners, and in particular the Commission, to identify ways to maximise the impact of early deliverables through swift actions and EU support.

               (14)

               The economic crisis and subsequent fiscal consolidation measures have had an impact on the ability of Greece to achieve the Europe 2020 goals, especially the socially oriented ones. Nevertheless, the structural reforms, particularly those in the labour market, the liberalisation of several sectors and a number of measures to improve the business environment, will help promote competition, spur productivity, increase employment and reduce production costs, thus contributing to an increase in employment and limiting poverty and social exclusion in the medium term. Despite the economic crisis, Greece has continued to work towards achieving the environmental goals of Europe 2020.

               (15)

               A strategic re-programming of the Structural Funds is underway, with a focus on support to youth employment and competitiveness (in particular small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)). The new measures strengthen actions in the areas of employment passport, training and professional qualifications and access to finance for SMEs.

               (16)

               Greece has made a number of commitments under the Euro Plus Pact. The commitments, and the implementation of the commitments presented in 2011, relate to fostering employment, improving competitiveness, enhancing sustainability of public finances and reinforcing financial stability,

         HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Greece:
   Implement the measures laid down in Decision 2011/734/EU, as amended on 8 November 2011 and 13 March 2012, and the Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality, which was signed on 14 March 2012.

      Done at Brussels, 10 July 2012.

            For the Council

            The President

         V. SHIARLY

      (1)  OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 1.

      (2)  Maintained for 2012 by Council Decision 2012/238/EU of 26 April 2012 on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States (OJ L 119, 4.5.2012, p. 47).

      (3)  OJ C 213, 20.7.2011, p. 12.

      (4)  OJ L 296, 15.11.2011, p. 38.

      (5)  OJ L 320, 3.12.2011, p. 28.

      (6)  OJ L 113, 25.4.2012, p. 8.