title: Recommendation of the EFTA Surveillance Authority No 54/04/COL of 30 March 2004 concerning a coordinated programme for the official control of foodstuffs for 2004

text:
               6.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 260/12

      RECOMMENDATION OF THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY

   No 54/04/COL
   of 30 March 2004
   concerning a coordinated programme for the official control of foodstuffs for 2004
   THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY,
   Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA), and in particular Article 109 and Protocol 1 thereof,
   Having regard to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice, and in particular Article 5(2)(b) and Protocol 1 thereof,
   Having regard to the Act referred to at point 50 of Chapter XII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement (Council Directive 89/397/EEC of 14 June 1989 on the official control of foodstuffs (1)), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, and in particular Article 14(3) thereof,
   After consulting the EFTA Foodstuffs Committee assisting the EFTA Surveillance Authority,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               It is necessary, with a view to the sound operation of the European Economic Area, to arrange for coordinated food inspection programmes within the EEA designed to improve the harmonised implementation of the official controls by the EEA States.

               (2)

               Such programmes should place emphasis on compliance with the foodstuffs legislation in force under the EEA Agreement, which is particularly designed to protect public health and consumer interests, and to ensure fair trade practices.

               (3)

               Article 3 of the Act referred to at point 54n of Chapter XII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement (Council Directive 93/99/EEC of 29 October 1993 on the subject of additional measures concerning the official control of foodstuffs (2)) requires the laboratories referred to in Article 7 of Directive 89/397/EEC to comply with the criteria set out in European Standard EN 45000 series, now replaced by EN ISO 17025:2000.

               (4)

               The results from the simultaneous implementation of national programmes and coordinated programmes may provide information and experience on which to base future control activities and legislation.

               (5)

               The participation of Iceland and Liechtenstein in the programmes in parts A and B of the scope of this Recommendation will have to be evaluated with respect to their exemptions from Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA Agreement,

         HEREBY RECOMMENDS TO THE EFTA STATES:
   1.   During 2004, to carry out inspections and controls including, where indicated, taking samples and analysing such samples in laboratories, with the aim of:

               —

               assessing the bacteriological safety of cheeses made from raw or thermised milk,

               —

               assessing the bacteriological safety of fresh refrigerated poultry meat as regards thermophilic Campylobacter,

               —

               assessing the bacteriological and toxicological safety of spices.

         2.   Although sampling and/or inspection rates are not set out in this Recommendation, to ensure that those rates are sufficient to provide an overview of the subject under consideration.
   3.   To provide information as requested following the format of the record sheets set out in the Annexes to help enhance the comparability of results. This information should be sent to the EFTA Surveillance Authority at the latest by 1 May 2005 accompanied by an explanatory report which should include comments on the results and on the enforcement measures taken.
   4.   Foodstuffs to be analysed under this programme should be submitted to laboratories complying with Article 3 of Directive 93/99/EEC. However, if such laboratories do not exist in the EFTA States for certain analysis included in this Recommendation, the States may nominate other laboratories providing the capacity to carry out these analyses.
   SCOPE AND METHODS
   A.   Bacteriological safety of cheeses made from raw or thermised milk
   1.   Scope of the programme
   Contaminated cheeses made from raw or thermised milk have been responsible for outbreaks of food poisoning in humans by several types of bacteria such as Salmonella, Listeria monocytogenes, verotoxigenic Escherichia coli and Staphylococcal enterotoxins.
   A long tradition of production and consumption of raw milk cheeses exists in the EEA. In order to continue this tradition while ensuring food safety, considerable improvements have been made in the system of production, collection and storage of raw milk used for the production of cheeses. Particular attention is paid by the concerned food operators in terms of hygiene and control along the entire process of production.
   The aim of this element of the programme is to investigate the microbiological safety of cheeses made from raw or thermised milk, in order to promote a high level of consumer protection and to collect information on the prevalence of pathogenic and indicator micro-organisms in those products. This investigation concerns a one-year programme and will be followed up, during its second year, by a wider programme on the bacteriological safety of cheeses. The purpose of this wider programme is to establish the baseline contamination in other categories of cheeses in order to be able to draw meaningful conclusions on the specific risk of raw or thermised milk cheeses. The results of the investigations of this part on raw and thermised milk cheeses will be analysed and provided taking account of the results of the general overview in this sector becoming available after the second year.
   2.   Sampling and method of analysis
   The investigations should concern fresh, soft and semi-hard cheeses made from raw or thermised milk. The competent authorities of the EFTA States should take representative samples of these products, both at the production level and the retail level, including imported products, with a view to testing for the presence of Salmonella, Listeria monocytogenes and thermophilic Campylobacter and enumeration of Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli. If Listeria monocytogenes is detected, the number of these bacteria should be enumerated. When samples are taken at retail level, tests may be limited to the presence of Salmonella and thermophilic Campylobacter and enumeration of Listeria monocytogenes. The samples, of 100 g minimum each or of one cheese if less than 100 g, should be handled hygienically, placed in refrigerated containers and sent immediately to the laboratory for analysis.
   Laboratories should be allowed to use a method of their choice provided that its level of performance matches the aim to be achieved. However, the most recent version of standard ISO 6785 or EN/ISO 6579 is recommended for the detection of Salmonella, the most recent versions of standards EN/ISO 11290-1 and 2 are recommended for detection of Listeria monocytogenes, the most recent version of ISO 10272:1995 is recommended for the detection of thermophilic Campylobacter, the most recent version of EN/ISO 6888-1 or 2 is recommended for the enumeration of Staphylococcus aureus and the most recent version of standard ISO 11866-2,3 or ISO 16649-1,2 is recommended for the enumeration of Escherichia coli. Additional equivalent methods recognised by competent authorities may also be used.
   The overall level of sampling should be left to the judgement of the competent authorities of the EFTA States.
   The results of the controls should be recorded on the model record sheet set out in Annex I.
   B.   Bacteriological safety of fresh refrigerated poultry meat as regards thermophilic Campylobacter

   1.   Scope of the programme
   Thermophilic Campylobacter are a leading bacterial cause of food-related illness in humans. The number of reported human cases have been rising during recent years and epidemiological studies show that poultry meat is an important source of infection and that a significant proportion of fresh poultry meat for human consumption is contaminated with these bacteria.
   There is currently not enough scientific information to set a criterion in the legislation in force under the EEA Agreement for Campylobacter and further studies are under development to further understand the epidemiology of this pathogen and the role played by other animal products and other food in general.
   The aim of this element of the programme is to assess the microbiological safety of fresh poultry meat for Campylobacter in order to promote a high level of consumer protection and to collect information on the prevalence of these bacteria in such products.
   2.   Sampling and method of analysis
   The investigations should concern fresh refrigerated poultry meat, in particular chicken and turkey. The competent authorities of the EFTA States should take representative samples of these products, both at the slaughterhouse level and the retail level, including imported products, with a view to testing for the presence of thermophilic Campylobacter. The samples, of 10 g each taken from neck skin before carcasses are chilled or, when samples are taken at retail level, 25 g or 25 square centimetres from breast meat, should be handled hygienically, placed in refrigerated containers and sent immediately to the laboratory for analysis. In addition, for a better comparability of results, it is recommended to carry out the sampling during the period from May to October.
   Laboratories should be allowed to use a method of their choice provided that its level of performance matches the aim to be achieved. However, the most recent version of standard ISO 10272:1995 is recommended for the detection of thermophilic Campylobacter. Additional equivalent methods recognised by competent authorities may also be used.
   The overall level of sampling should be left to the judgement of the competent authorities of the EFTA States.
   The results of these controls should be recorded on the model record sheet set out in Annex II.
   C.   Bacteriological and toxicological safety of spices
   1.   Scope of the programme
   Spices, herbs and vegetables seasonings (spices) are valued for their distinctive flavours, colour and aromas. However, spices may contain high numbers of micro-organisms, including pathogenic bacteria, moulds and yeasts. If not properly treated, they can result in rapid deterioration of food they are supposed to enhance. Spices have been reported to be the primary sources of food borne outbreaks when added to food where further growth of the pathogens was possible. This possibility is greater when spices are used in food which may not be thoroughly heat treated. The contamination with certain strains of moulds can also result in the production of toxins, such as aflatoxins which, if they exceed the levels laid down in the Act referred to at point 54zn of Chapter XII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement (Commission Regulation (EC) No 466/2001 of 8 March 2001 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs (3)), can provoke serious risks for consumers' health.
   The aims of this element of the programme are to assess the bacteriological and toxicological safety of spices, to collect information on the prevalence of pathogenic micro-organisms and to verify that spices placed on the market do not exceed the limits of aflatoxins established in the legislation in force under the EEA Agreement, in order to ensure a high level of consumer protection.
   2.   Sampling and method of analysis
   The competent authorities of the EFTA States should take representative samples of spices at import level, at production level/packing establishments, at wholesale level, in establishments using spices in the preparation of food, and at retail level, with a view to testing for:

               (a)

               the count of Enterobacteriaceae, the presence of Salmonella and enumeration of Bacillus cereus and Clostridium perfringens.

                  Enterobacteriaceae count is used as an indicator for possible irradiation or other similar treatments of spices. The samples, of 100 g minimum each or one package if less than 100 g, should be handled hygienically and sent immediately to the laboratory for analysis. Laboratories are allowed to use a method of their choice provided that its level of performance matches the aim to be achieved. However, the most recent version of standard ISO 6579:2002 is recommended for the detection of Salmonella, the most recent version of standard EN ISO 5552:1997 is recommended for the enumeration of Enterobacteriaceae, the most recent version of standard ISO 7932:1993 is recommended for the enumeration of Bacillus cereus and the most recent version of standard ISO 7937:1997 is recommended for the enumeration of Clostridium perfringens. Additional equivalent methods recognised by competent authorities may also be used.
               The overall level of sampling should be left to the judgement of the competent authorities of the EFTA States.
               The results of the following controls should be recorded on the model record sheet set out in Annex III, Section 1 and 2;

               (b)

               the levels of aflatoxins in spices, which should not exceed the maximum levels laid down in the legislation in force under the EEA Agreement.
               The sampling and analysis should be performed in accordance with the Act referred to at point 54 of Chapter XII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement (Commission Directive 98/53/EC of 16 July 1998 laying down the sampling methods and the methods of analysis for the official control of the levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs (4)). Pursuant to that Directive, the sample size must be between 1 and 10 kg, depending on the size of the lot to be controlled.
               The overall level of sampling should be left to the judgement of the competent authorities of the EFTA States.
               The results of the following controls should be recorded on the model record sheet set out in Annex IV to this Recommendation.

      This Recommendation is addressed to Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.
      Done at Brussels, 30 March 2004.

            For the EFTA Surveillance Authority

         Bernd HAMMERMANN

            College Member

      (1)  OJ L 186, 30.6.1989, p. 23.

      (2)  OJ L 290, 24.11.1993, p. 14. Directive as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 284, 31.10.2003, p. 1).

      (3)  OJ L 77, 16.3.2001, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 857/2005 (OJ L 143, 7.6.2005, p. 9).

      (4)  OJ L 201, 17.7.1998, p. 93. Directive as last amended by Directive 2004/43/EC (OJ L 113, 20.4.2004, p. 14).

      ANNEX I
      BACTERIOLOGICAL SAFETY OF CHEESES MADE FROM RAW OR THERMISED MILK
      EFTA State: _

                  Bacterial groups/criteria (1)

                  Sampling stage

                  Product identification

                  Number of samples

                  Analysis results (2)

                  Measures taken
                  (number and kind) (3)

                  S

                  A

                  U

                     Salmonella spp.
                  n = 5 c = 0
                  Absent in 25 g

                  Production

                  unripened soft (fresh) cheese

                  ripened soft cheese

                  semi-hard cheese

                  Retail

                  unripened soft (fresh) cheese

                  ripened soft cheese

                  semi-hard cheese

                  Thermophilic Campylobacter

                  n = 5 c = 0
                  Absent in 25g

                  Production

                  unripened soft (fresh) cheese

                  ripened soft cheese

                  semi-hard cheese

                  Retail

                  unripened soft (fresh) cheese

                  ripened soft cheese

                  semi-hard cheese

                     Staphylococcus aureus

                  n = 5 c = 2
                  m = 1 000 cfu/g
                  M = 10 000 cfu/g

                  Production

                  unripened soft (fresh) cheese

                  ripened soft cheese

                  semi-hard cheese

                  Retail

                  unripened soft (fresh) cheese

                  ripened soft cheese

                  semi-hard cheese

                     Escherichia coli

                  n = 5 c = 2
                  m = 10 000 cfu/g
                  M = 100 000 cfu/g

                  Production

                  unripened soft (fresh) cheese

                  ripened soft cheese

                  semi-hard cheese

                  Retail

                  unripened soft (fresh) cheese

                  ripened soft cheese

                  semi-hard cheese

                  A

                  P

                  ≤ 100 cfu/g

                  > 100 cfu/g

                     Listeria monocytogenes

                  n = 5 c = 0
                  Absent in 25 g

                  Production

                  unripened soft (fresh) cheese

                  ripened soft cheese

                  semi-hard cheese

                  Retail

                  unripened soft (fresh) cheese

                  ripened soft cheese

                  semi-hard cheese

         (1)  The number of samples to be taken may be reduced when sampling at retail level. When a reduced sampling is made this should be indicated in the report.

         (2)  S = Satisfactory, A = Acceptable, U = Unsatisfactory, A = Absent, P = Present. As regards Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli, the result is satisfactory if all the values observed are < m, acceptable if maximum of c values are between m and M, and unsatisfactory if one or more values are > M or more than c values are between m and M.

         (3)  For reporting enforcement measures it is recommended to use the following categories: verbal warning, written warning, improved in house control required, recall of product required, administrative penalty, court action, other.

      ANNEX II
      MICROBIOLOGICAL SAFETY OF FRESH POULTRY MEAT (AS REGARDS THERMOPHILIC CAMPYLOBACTER)
      EFTA State: _

                  Bacterial pathogens/criteria (1)

                  Sampling stage

                  Product identification

                  Number of samples

                  Analysis results

                  Measures taken
                  (number and kind) (2)

                  Absent

                  Present

                  Thermophilic Campylobacter

                  n=5 c=0
                  Absent in 25 g

                  Production

                  Fowl/chicken

                  Turkey

                  Retail

                  Fowl/chicken

                  Turkey

         (1)  The number of samples to be taken may be reduced when sampling at retail level. When a reduced sampling is made this should be indicated in the report.

         (2)  For reporting enforcement measures it is recommended to use the following categories: verbal warning, written warning, improved in house control required, recall of product required, administrative penalty, court action, other.

      ANNEX III
      SECTION 1
      BACTERIOLOGICAL SAFETY OF SPICES
      EFTA State: _

                  Bacterial groups/criteria (1)

                  Sampling stage

                  Product identification

                  Number of samples

                  Analysis results (2)

                  Measures taken
                  (number and kind) (3)

                  S

                  A

                  U

                     Salmonella spp.
                  n = 5 c = 0
                  Absent in 25 g

                  Import or production/packaging or wholesale

                     Capsicum spp.

                     Piper spp.

                  Nutmeg/ginger/curcuma

                  Other spices and herbs

                  Establishment (using large amount of spices for food preparation)

                     Capsicum spp.

                     Piper spp.

                  Nutmeg/ginger/curcuma

                  Other spices and herbs

                  Retail

                     Capsicum spp.

                     Piper spp.

                  Nutmeg/ginger/curcuma

                  Other spices and herbs

                     Bacillus cereus

                  n = 5 c = 1
                  m = 1 000 cfu/g
                  M = 10 000 cfu/g

                  Import or production/ packaging or wholesale

                     Capsicum spp.

                     Piper spp.

                  Nutmeg/ginger/curcuma

                  Other spices and herbs

                  Establishment (using large amount of spices for food preparation)

                     Capsicum spp.

                     Piper spp.

                  Nutmeg/ginger/curcuma

                  Other spices and herbs

                  Retail

                     Capsicum spp.

                     Piper spp.

                  Nutmeg/ginger/curcuma

                  Other spices and herbs

            SECTION 2
      BACTERIOLOGICAL SAFETY OF SPICES
      EFTA State: _

                  Bacterial groups/criteria (4)

                  Sampling stage

                  Product identification

                  Number of samples

                  Analysis results (5)

                  Measures taken
                  (number and kind) (6)

                  S

                  A

                  U

                     Clostridium perfringens

                  n = 5 c = 1
                  m = 100 cfu/g
                  M = 1 000 cfu/g

                  Import or production/ packaging or wholesale

                     Capsicum spp.

                     Piper spp.

                  Nutmeg/ginger/curcuma

                  Other spices and herbs

                  Establishment (using large amount of spices for food preparation)

                     Capsicum spp.

                     Piper spp.

                  Nutmeg/ginger/curcuma

                  Other spices and herbs

                  Retail

                     Capsicum spp.

                     Piper spp.

                  Nutmeg/ginger/curcuma

                  Other spices and herbs

                     Enterobacteriaceae

                  n = 5 c = 1
                  m = 10 cfu/g
                  M = 100 cfu/g

                  Import or production/ packaging or wholesale

                     Capsicum spp.

                     Piper spp.

                  Nutmeg/ginger/curcuma

                  Other spices and herbs

                  Establishment (using large amount of spices for food preparation)

                     Capsicum spp.

                     Piper spp.

                  Nutmeg/ginger/curcuma

                  Other spices and herbs

                  Retail

                     Capsicum spp.

                     Piper spp.

                  Nutmeg/ginger/curcuma

                  Other spices and herbs

         (1)  The number of samples to be taken may be reduced when sampling at retail level. When a reduced sampling is made this should be indicated in the report.

         (2)  S = Satisfactory, A = Acceptable, U = Unsatisfactory. As regards Bacillus cereus and Clostridium perfringens the result is satisfactory if all the values observed are < m, acceptable if maximum of c values are between m and M, and unsatisfactory if one or more values are > M or more than c values are between m and M.

         (3)  For reporting enforcement measures it is recommended to use the following categories: verbal warning, written warning, improved in house control required, recall of product required, administrative penalty, court action, other.

         (4)  The number of samples to be taken may be reduced when sampling at retail level. When a reduced sampling is made this should be indicated in the report.

         (5)  S = Satisfactory, A = Acceptable, U = Unsatisfactory. As regards Bacillus cereus and Clostridium perfringens the result is satisfactory if all the values observed are < m, acceptable if maximum of c values are between m and M, and unsatisfactory if one or more values are > M or more than c values are between m and M.

         (6)  For reporting enforcement measures it is recommended to use the following categories: verbal warning, written warning, improved in house control required, recall of product required, administrative penalty, court action, other.

      ANNEX IV
      TOXICOLOGICAL SAFETY OF SPICES
      EFTA State: _

                  Sampling stage

                  Product identification

                  Number of samples

                  Analysis results

                  Measures taken
                  (number and kind) (1)

                  Aflatoxin B1
                  (μg/kg)

                  Aflatoxin total
                  (μg/kg)

                  < 2

                  2-5

                  > 5

                  < 4

                  4-10

                  > 10

                  Import or establishment for packaging or wholesaler

                     Capsicum spp.

                     Piper spp.

                  Nutmeg/ginger/curcuma

                  Other spices and herbs

                  Establishment
                  (using large amount of spices for food preparation)

                     Capsicum spp.

                     Piper spp.

                  Nutmeg/ginger/curcuma

                  Other spices and herbs

                  Retail

                     Capsicum spp.

                     Piper spp.

                  Nutmeg/ginger/curcuma

                  Other spices and herbs

         (1)  For reporting enforcement measures it is recommended to use the following categories: verbal warning, written warning, improved in house control required, recall of product required, administrative penalty, court action, other.


Avis juridique important

|

31998H0511

98/511/EC: Commission Recommendation of 29 July 1998 amending Recommendation 98/195/EC on interconnection in a liberalised telecommunications market (Part 1 - Interconnection pricing) (notified under document number C(1998) 2234) (Text with EEA relevance)

Official Journal L 228 , 15/08/1998 P. 0030 - 0034

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION of 29 July 1998 amending Recommendation 98/195/EC on interconnection in a liberalised telecommunications market (Part 1 - Interconnection pricing) (notified under document number C(1998) 2234) (Text with EEA relevance) (98/511/EC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Directive 97/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 on interconnection in telecommunications with regard to ensuring universal service and interoperability through application of the principles of open network provision (ONP) (1), and in particular Article 7(5) thereof,Whereas point 9 of Recommendation 98/195/EC (2) states that the Recommendation, and in particular the 'best current practice charges` in point 4 and the data in Annex II, will be reviewed by the Commission by 31 July 1998 at the latest, and updated where necessary;Whereas the 'best current practice` interconnection in point 4 of the Recommendation and the interconnection cost data for Member States in Annex II thereto should be updated;Whereas the advisory committee set up by Article 9(1) of Council Directive 90/387/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the establishment of the internal market for telecommunications services through the implementation of open network provision (3), as amended by Directive 97/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (4), has been consulted,MAKES THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION:Article 1 Recommendation 98/195/EC is amended as follows:1. The following point 4a is inserted:'4a. Based on the data given in Annex II, the following "best current practice" charges are recommended maximum interconnection charges for the period starting 1 January 1999:"Best current practice" interconnection charges"Best current practice" interconnection charge for call termination at the LOCAL level (i.e. at a local exchange or as near a local exchange as possible)between 0,5 and 1,0 ECU/100 per minute (at peak rate)"Best current practice" interconnection charge for SINGLE TRANSIT interconnection (metropolitan level)between 0,8 and 1,6 ECU/100 per minute (at peak rate)"Best current practice" interconnection charge for DOUBLE TRANSIT interconnection (national level - more than 200 km)between 1,5 and 2,3 ECU/100 per minute (at peak rate)`2. In point 9, the date of 31 July 1998 is replaced by the date of 31 July 1999.3. Figure 1a below is inserted in section 1 of Annex II:'Figure 1a:Interconnection rates for call termination (May 1998)>REFERENCE TO A FILM>(1) Last tariffs proposed by the operator but not yet approved by the national regulatory authority.`4. The table in the Annex is added to section 3 of Annex II.Article 2 This Recommendation is addressed to the Member States.Done at Brussels, 29 July 1998.For the CommissionMartin BANGEMANNMember of the Commission(1) OJ L 199, 26. 7. 1997, p. 32.(2) OJ L 73, 12. 3. 1998, p. 42.(3) OJ L 192, 24. 7. 1990, p. 1.(4) OJ L 295, 29. 10. 1997, p. 23.ANNEX >TABLE>


				|

		52014DC0426

			Recommendation for a COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION on Slovakia’s 2014 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Slovakia’s 2014 stability programme /* COM/2014/0426 final - 2014/ () */

Recommendation for a
COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
on Slovakia’s 2014 national reform
programme
and delivering a Council opinion on Slovakia’s 2014 stability programme
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 121(2) and 148(4)
thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No
1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary
positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies[1], and in particular
Article 5(2) thereof,
Having regard to the recommendation of the
European Commission[2],
Having regard to the resolutions of the
European Parliament[3],
Having regard to the conclusions of the
European Council,
Having regard to the opinion of the
Employment Committee,
Having regard to the opinion of the
Economic and Financial Committee,
Having regard to the opinion of the Social
Protection Committee,
Having regard to the opinion of the
Economic Policy Committee,
Whereas:
(1)
On 26 March 2010, the European Council agreed to
the Commission’s proposal to launch a new strategy for growth and jobs, Europe
2020, based on enhanced coordination of economic policies, which will focus on
the key areas where action is needed to boost Europe’s potential for
sustainable growth and competitiveness.
(2)
On 13 July 2010, the Council, on the basis of
the Commission's proposals, adopted a recommendation on the broad guidelines
for the economic policies of the Member States and the Union (2010 to 2014)
and, on 21 October 2010, adopted a decision on guidelines for the employment
policies of the Member States, which together form the ‘integrated guidelines’.
Member States were invited to take the integrated guidelines into account in
their national economic and employment policies.
(3)
On 29 June 2012, the Heads of State or
Government decided on a Compact for Growth and Jobs, providing a coherent
framework for action at national, EU and euro area levels using all possible
levers, instruments and policies. They decided on action to be taken at the
level of the Member States, in particular expressing full commitment to achieving
the objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy and to implementing the
country-specific recommendations.
(4)
On 9 July 2013, the Council adopted a recommendation
on Slovakia’s national reform programme for 2013 and delivered its opinion on Slovakia’s updated stability programme for 2012-2016. On 15 November 2013, in line with Regulation
(EU) No 473/2013[4],
the Commission presented its opinion on Slovakia's draft budgetary plan for 2014[5].
(5)
On 13 November 2013, the Commission adopted the
Annual Growth Survey[6],
marking the start of the 2014 European Semester of economic policy
coordination. On the same day on the basis of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011, the
Commission adopted the Alert Mechanism Report[7],
in which it did not identify Slovakia as one of the Member States for
which an in-depth review would be carried out.
(6)
On 20 December 2013, the European Council
endorsed the priorities for ensuring financial stability, fiscal consolidation
and action to foster growth. It underscored the need to pursue differentiated,
growth-friendly fiscal consolidation, to restore normal lending conditions to
the economy, to promote growth and competitiveness, to tackle unemployment and the
social consequences of the crisis, and to modernise public administration.
(7)
On 23 April 2014, Slovakia submitted its 2014 national
reform programme and its 2014 stability programme. In order to take account of
their interlinkages, the two programmes have been assessed at the same time.
(8)
The objective of the budgetary strategy outlined
in the 2014 Stability Programme is to ensure the sustainability of the correction
of the excessive deficit and to reach the medium-term objective of a structural
deficit of around 0.5% of GDP by 2017. This medium-term objective is more
stringent than what the Stability and Growth Pact requires. Slovakia's general government deficit was sustainably brought below 3% of GDP in 2013. The planned
(recalculated) change in the structural balance for 2014 would imply that Slovakia deviates significantly from the adjustment path toward its medium-term objective.
In 2015, the planned improvement of 0.3% of GDP would be in line with Stability
and Growth Pact rules. In the later years, the Stability Programme would not
ensure adequate adjustment towards the medium-term objective. Expenditure would
grow at a pace consistent with the expenditure benchmark both in 2014 and 2015.
The Stability Programme envisages that the largest part of the consolidation
effort to reach the medium-term objective would take place in 2016 and 2017.
Overall, the adjustment path towards the medium-term objective presents risks
with respect to compliance with the requirements of the Stability and Growth
Pact. The Stability Programme foresees the general government debt to remain
below the 60% of GDP reference value during the whole programming period. The
macroeconomic scenario underpinning the budgetary projections in the programme,
which has been endorsed by an independent body (Macroeconomic Forecasting
Committee), is plausible. The already quantified measures do not ensure that
the fiscal targets defined by the authorities will be reached. Moreover, not
all revenue measures are sufficiently specified and cost-saving reforms of the state
administration remain subject to implementation risks while the public wage
bill may miss the budgeted values, as in the past. On the other hand, the
figures presented in the Stability Programme do not yet take into account the
expected savings stemming from the activation of the domestic debt brake. According
to the Commission 2014 spring forecast, which incorporates the impact of the
expenditure savings due to the debt brake, the deviation from the adjustment
path would be smaller in 2014 than foreseen in the programme, while a
sufficient structural adjustment is projected in 2015, with the expenditure
benchmark being met both in 2014 and 2015. While both the Stability and
National Reform Programmes declare an intention to increase growth-enhancing
spending, this does not appear to be fully supported by the underlying plans.
Spending on education from the state budget increases in 2014 but declines in
the following years. Based on the assessment of the Stability Programme and the
Commission forecast, pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97, the
Council is of the opinion that there is a risk of deviation from the adjustment
path towards the medium-term objective in 2014 whereas an appropriate
correction is expected in 2015.
(9)
In response to requirements of the Treaty on Stability Coordination and Governance, Slovakia introduced a balanced budget rule in November 2013. The budgetary framework is,
however, weakened by the lack of expenditure ceilings. While their introduction
was envisaged by the 2013 stability programme, the commitment has, so far, not
been implemented. Slovakia remains a country with a medium risk with respect to
the sustainability of public finances and health care expenditure is projected
to be the main driver of the rising costs of ageing contributing 2% of GDP, the
second highest projected increase in health care expenditure of all the EU
Member States. The problems are felt mainly in in-patient care and primary care.
In December 2013, the government adopted a 2014-30 Strategic Framework for
Health to improve cost-effectiveness. The Strategy now requires detailed
implementation plans.
(10)
Slovakia has made
progress in improving tax compliance and the implementation of the Action plan
to combat tax fraud is in progress with around half of the measures in place.
As a result the efficiency of the Slovak tax system appears to have improved in
2013, especially for VAT, although the need to consolidate efforts and
strengthen the analytical and audit capacity of the tax administration remains
and the unification of the collection of taxes, customs duties and social
insurance contributions is behind schedule. To continue growth-friendly fiscal
consolidation, Slovakia could rely more on taxes less detrimental to growth,
notably recurrent property and environmental taxation. In this respect, there
has been no progress in reforming recurrent property taxation and linking it to
the market value of the property. The revenues from this tax remain low and
unchanged since 2000. In 2013, the government implemented measures to reduce a
large discrepancy in the tax wedge between employees and self-employed people,
but the substantial gap in the effective tax rates of the two groups observed
in 2012 persists.
(11)
The Slovak labour market continues to face a
number of challenges. Most unemployment, which remains at around 14%, is long-term,
pointing to the structural nature of the unemployment problem in Slovakia. Slovakia made some progress towards reducing the tax wedge for low-paid workers who
enter the labour market after long-term unemployment, but the effectiveness of
the measures needs to be monitored and assessed. Only limited progress has been
made in other areas, namely enhancing the capacity of the public employment
services to provide personalised services and strengthening the link between
activation measures and social assistance. As regards youth unemployment, the
public employment service has limited capacity for early intervention and for
tailoring services to job-seekers profiles and for reaching out to not
registered youth. There is thus need to act in these areas, in line with the
objectives of a youth guarantee.  More targeted measures are needed for the
most disadvantaged jobseekers, including Roma, whose employment rate remains
very low. The lack of adequate child care facilities in
particular for children under three makes it more difficult for mothers to
return to the labour market.
(12)
The limited labour market relevance of education
hampers the supply of skilled labour. The performance of pupils in compulsory
education is below EU average and has decreased significantly. Public
expenditure on education remains low despite recent increases in teachers'
salaries; initial training of teachers is being strengthened and practical experience
reinforced, but these efforts need to continue. Despite government efforts to
reform vocational education and training and subsidize jobs for young people, the
youth unemployment rate remains among the highest in the EU and school-to-job
transition remains cumbersome. The relatively
low percentage of job-oriented bachelor-level programmes and insufficient
cooperation with employers reduces the labour market relevance of tertiary
education. Improving the quality of higher education
and of cooperation between businesses and education institutions would also help
to enhance the innovation capacity of the Slovak economy. The plans in the
Smart Specialisation Strategy go in the right direction, but need to be
effectively implemented. The persistently low provision of good quality
early childhood education and care weighs on educational achievements, in
particular for Roma. So far, initiatives aimed at improving educational
outcomes for Roma pupils are overly reliant on EU co-financed projects.
(13)
In energy, Slovakia has made progress on
preparatory work for more electricity and gas interconnections with
neighbouring countries; however, measures to make the Slovak energy market
function better, and in particular to improve the transparency of the
tariff-setting mechanism, are still needed. A package of measures to improve
energy efficiency has been proposed for EU financing in the new programming
period.
(14)
The ongoing reform of public administration will
improve client-orientation , however, the Slovak public administration
continues to underperform in terms of both quality and efficiency. Persistently
high staff turnover linked to the political cycle together with weak human
resource management and weak analytical capacity impairs evidence-based
policy-making. Slovakia continues to score poorly in international indicators
of corruption and it has made little progress in improving the efficiency and
transparency of its judicial system. The quality of the business environment in
  Slovakia has deteriorated and support for fast-growing firms has stagnated. Slovakia recently reformed its public-procurement rules with the aim to improve
transparency and efficiency, but application of these rules remains a challenge
and the impact of the 2013 public procurement reform remains limited.
(15)
In the context of the European Semester, the
Commission has carried out a comprehensive analysis of Slovakia’s economic policy. It has assessed the stability programme and the national reform
programme. It has taken into account not only their relevance for sustainable
fiscal and socio-economic policy in Slovakia but also their compliance with EU
rules and guidance, given the need to reinforce the overall economic governance
of the European Union by providing EU-level input into future national
decisions. Its recommendations under the European Semester are
reflected in recommendations (1) to (6) below.
(16)
In the light of this assessment, the Council has
examined Slovakia’s stability programme, and its opinion[8] is reflected in
particular in recommendation (1) below.
(17)
In the context of the European Semester the
Commission has also carried out an analysis of the economic policy of the euro
area as a whole. On the basis of this analysis the Council has issued specific recommendations
for the Member States whose currency is the euro. Slovakia should also ensure
the full and timely implementation of these recommendations.
HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Slovakia take action within the period 2014-2015 to:
1.           Following
the correction of the excessive deficit, reinforce the budgetary measures for
2014 in the light of the emerging gap of 0.3% of GDP relative to the Stability
and Growth Pact requirements based on the Commission
2014 spring forecast. In 2015, ensure the required adjustment of 0.1% of
GDP towards the medium-term objective taking into account the expected weak
economic conditions. Thereafter, until the medium-term objective is achieved,
pursue an annual structural adjustment of 0.5% of GDP as a benchmark. Further
strengthen the fiscal framework, also by introducing binding and enforceable
expenditure ceilings. Improve the long term sustainability of public finance by
increasing the cost-effectiveness of the health-care sector, in particular by rationalising
hospital care and management and by strengthening primary care.
2.           Improve the efficiency of
the tax administration by strengthening its audit, risk assessment and debt
collection capacity. Link the basis for real-estate taxation to the market
value of the property.
3.           More effectively address
long-term unemployment through activation measures, second-chance education and
tailored quality training. Enhance the capacity of public employment services for
case management, personalised counselling and activation of jobseekers, and
strengthen the link between activation and social assistance. Effectively
tackle youth unemployment by improving early intervention, in line with the
objectives of a youth guarantee. Improve incentives for women's employment, by
enhancing the provision of child-care facilities, in particular for children
below three years of age.
4.           Take measures to increase
the quality of teaching in order to raise educational outcomes. Reinforce the
provision of work-based learning in companies in vocational education and
training. Adapt accreditation, funding and governance measures to encourage the
creation of profession-oriented bachelor-level programmes. Improve the quality
and relevance of the science base and implement plans to foster effective
knowledge transfer and co-operation between academia, research and business.
Adopt systemic measures to improve access to high quality and inclusive
pre-school and school education for marginalised communities, including Roma
and take steps to increase their wider participation in vocational training and
higher education.
5.           Step up efforts to make
the energy market function better, in particular by increasing the public
transparency of the regulatory framework and by exploring the determinants of
the high electricity network charges, notably for industrial consumers.
Building on the progress made so far, further develop interconnections with
neighbouring countries, including with Ukraine, accordingly to the Memorandum
of Understanding signed in April
6.           Take measures, including
by amending the Act on Civil Service, to increase the independence of the
public service. Adopt a strategy to improve the management of human
resources in public administration. Step up efforts to strengthen analytical
capacity in key ministries with a view to adopting evidence-based policies, and
improving the quality of policy impact assessment. Take steps to fight
corruption and accelerate efforts to improve the efficiency and quality of the
judicial system. Introduce measures to improve business environment including for
SMEs. Step up efforts to improve the efficiency of public procurement.
Done at Brussels,
                                                                       For
the Council
                                                                       The
President
[1]               OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 1.
[2]               COM(2014) 426 final.
[3]               P7_TA(2014)0128 and P7_TA(2014)0129.
[4]               OJ L 140, 27.5.2013, p.11.
[5]               C(2013) 8011 final
[6]               COM(2013) 800 final.
[7]               COM(2013) 790 final.
[8]               Under Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No
1466/97.


title: Council Recommendation of 8 July 2014 on the National Reform Programme 2014 of Romania and delivering a Council opinion on the Convergence Programme of Romania, 2014

text:
               29.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/109

         COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
   of 8 July 2014
   on the National Reform Programme 2014 of Romania and delivering a Council opinion on the Convergence Programme of Romania, 2014
   2014/C 247/21
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 121(2) and 148(4) thereof,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,
   Having regard to the recommendation of the European Commission,
   Having regard to the resolutions of the European Parliament,
   Having regard to the conclusions of the European Council,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Employment Committee,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Financial Committee,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Social Protection Committee,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Economic Policy Committee,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 26 March 2010, the European Council agreed to the Commission's proposal to launch a new strategy for growth and jobs, Europe 2020, based on enhanced coordination of economic policies, 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, on the basis of the Commission's proposals, adopted a Recommendation on the broad guidelines for the economic policies of the Member States and the Union (2010 to 2014) and, on 21 October 2010, it 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 29 June 2012, the Member States' Heads of State or Government decided on a Compact for Growth and Jobs, providing a coherent framework for action at national, EU and euro area levels using all possible levers, instruments and policies. They decided on action to be taken at the level of the Member States, in particular expressing full commitment to achieving the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy and to implementing the country‐specific recommendations.

               (4)

               On 9 July 2013, the Council adopted a Recommendation (3) on Romania's 2013 National Reform Programme and delivered its opinion on Romania's 2013 Convergence Programme for 2012‐2016.

               (5)

               On 13 November 2013, the Commission adopted the Annual Growth Survey, marking the start of the 2014 European Semester for economic policy coordination. Also, on 13 November 2013, the Commission, on the basis of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011, adopted the Alert Mechanism Report.

               (6)

               On 20 December 2013, the European Council endorsed the priorities for ensuring financial stability, fiscal consolidation and action to foster growth. It underscored the need to pursue differentiated, growth‐friendly fiscal consolidation, to restore normal lending conditions to the economy, to promote growth and competitiveness, to tackle unemployment and the social consequences of the crisis, and to modernise public administration.

               (7)

               On 6 May 2014, Romania submitted its 2014 National Reform Programme and, on 5 May 2014, its 2014 Convergence Programme. In order to take account of their interlinkages, the two programmes have been assessed at the same time.

               (8)

               On 22 October 2013, the Council adopted Decision 2013/531/EU (4) providing medium‐term financial assistance to Romania of up to EUR 2 billion until September 2015. Precautionary medium‐term financial assistance for Romania under the balance‐of‐payments facility for non‐euro‐area Member States was considered appropriate due to unstable capital flows affecting in particular emerging markets, risks to the macroeconomic scenario, and remaining vulnerabilities in the banking sector. While, under present market conditions, Romania does not intend to request the disbursement of any instalment, the precautionary assistance is expected to help consolidate macroeconomic, budgetary and financial stability and, through the pursuit of structural reforms, to increase the resilience and the growth potential of the economy. The Memorandum of Understanding of 6 November 2013 and its subsequent supplements laying down the conditions to be fulfilled under the EU precautionary assistance complement and support the country‐specific recommendations of the European Semester. The EU precautionary assistance will be conditional upon the implementation of a comprehensive economic policy programme, with a particular focus on structural reform measures including those country‐specific recommendations relating to administrative capacity, product market reforms, the business environment, labour markets, pensions, state‐owned enterprises, and healthcare. This agenda does not exempt the Government from fully implementing all the country‐specific recommendations. The policy prioritisation, implementation and coordination necessary for implementing the Memorandum of Understanding and the country‐specific recommendations, should be dealt with where priority decisions are made, in a coherent way.

               (9)

               The objective of the budgetary strategy outlined in the 2014 Convergence Programme is to achieve the medium‐term objective of a structural deficit of 1 % of GDP in 2015, which reflects the requirement of the Stability and Growth Pact, and to remain at it thereafter. Romania is benefitting in 2014 from the possibility of a temporary deviation from the adjustment path towards the medium‐term objective allowed for jointly financed projects. The temporary deviation has to be compensated for in the following year. The Convergence Programme plans a stabilisation of the (recalculated) structural balance in 2014 and an improvement of 0,8 % of GDP in 2015. Expenditure is forecast to grow at a pace consistent with the expenditure benchmark in both 2014 and 2015. The debt to GDP ratio is forecast to reach 40 % in 2015, and to decrease in 2016‐2017. Overall, the budgetary strategy outlined in the Convergence Programme is in line with the requirements of the Stability and Growth Pact. The macroeconomic scenario underpinning the budgetary projections is plausible. It is broadly in line with the Commission services 2014 spring forecast. However the potential GDP estimate underlying the Convergence Programme is slightly higher, mainly on account of a more optimistic labour market outlook. There are downside risks to the 2014 budgetary plans related to expenditure control and lower‐than‐envisaged tax collection. Moreover, for 2015 and beyond, the measures underpinning the proposed fiscal path are not yet specified.
               According to the Commission forecast, despite a small deterioration in the structural balance in 2014, Romania is compliant with the Stability and Growth Pact requirements in 2014, taking into account the temporary deviation allowed for jointly financed projects. For 2015, there is a risk of a significant deviation from the required structural adjustment, taking into account the necessary compensation for the temporary deviation allowed for jointly financed projects). Moreover, Romania is forecast to deviate from the expenditure benchmark in 2015. Based on its assessment of the Convergence Programme and the Commission forecast, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1466/97, the Council is of the opinion that the Convergence Programme presents risks of a significant deviation from the requirements of the preventive arm in 2015.

               (10)

               Tax fraud and tax avoidance in the areas of VAT, including cross‐border schemes, excises, social security contributions and income taxation remain a major challenge. Tangible progress in fighting undeclared work is limited, while the effectiveness of the tax compliance strategy is hampered by the lack of realistic and binding implementation measures and insufficient focus on prevention. A reform of the tax administration to increase its efficiency is ongoing; cross‐border administrative cooperation, in particular in the VAT area, remains weak. The tax wedge on low and middle‐income wage earners remains high and encourages undeclared work and under‐declared earnings. There has been some progress in the field of environmental taxation, as the vehicle taxation system was improved and excise duties on fuel were increased and are now automatically indexed. Romania faces long‐term sustainability risks, mainly due to age‐related expenditure. There are concerns as regards the sustainability and adequacy of the pension system due to the low ratio of employed contributors to people drawing pensions. Romania has taken steps to equalise the pensionable age for women and men as of 2035.

               (11)

               Inefficient use of resources and poor management increase the fiscal sustainability risk in the health sector. Widespread informal payments in the public healthcare further hinder the accessibility, efficiency and quality of the system. Reforms to improve the efficiency of the healthcare sector and its financial sustainability have begun but continuous efforts are needed. Some of the measures are incurring delays and suffer from insufficient funding and the services' low capacity. Reducing the excessive use of hospital in‐patient care and strengthening primary care and referral systems will increase cost‐effectiveness. Further reforms of the healthcare system aimed at improving the health of the population by promoting, among other things, equitable access to quality health services has been launched.

               (12)

               High inactivity, insufficient utilisation of labour potential and the need to increase the quality and productivity of the work force remain key challenges of the Romanian labour market. The quality of public job search and retraining services is still low, despite some small‐scale measures. Limited resources within the public employment service and a lack of measurement of performance constrain the efficient delivery of personalised services to jobseekers, employer services and the integration of active and passive labour market policies. Romania has a high and increasing percentage of young people not in employment, education or training (17,3 % in 2013). A national Active Ageing Strategy to support an increase in the employment rate of older workers has been delayed and now is due by the end of 2014.

               (13)

               There is no transparent guideline for minimum wage setting involving social partners aiming at supporting employment and competitiveness and safeguarding labour income in a sustainable way.

               (14)

               The Education Reform of 2011, which set a long‐term agenda for upgrading the quality of education at all levels, is not yet fully operational, due to insufficient financial and human resources. Following a sharp decline in vocational education and training in the last 20 years, several reforms and pilot projects have been initiated in recent years but the availability of vocational education and training, its relevance to the labour market and business involvement in work‐based learning and apprenticeships remains low. Important skills mismatches persist for tertiary graduates and the link between business and academia remains weak, as shown by a high unemployment rate and many university graduates being employed either in professions not corresponding to their training or in jobs requiring lower levels of qualification. Participation in lifelong learning activities continues to be among the lowest in the Union. The early school leaving rate continues to be one of the highest in the Union and is now higher than prior to 2010, affecting in particular Roma. Female employment is hindered by low provision of, and limited access to, affordable quality childcare facilities, in particular for the 0 to 3‐year olds.

               (15)

               Poverty reduction remains a major challenge. Despite the relatively stable employment situation, gross household incomes have been declining and income inequalities have been growing. Families with children are particularly exposed. There was only limited progress in speeding up the transition from institutional to alternative care for children deprived of parental care. There is still a high number of persons with disabilities in large residential institutions, while community services for the disabled are not sufficiently developed. The low take‐up, coverage and adequacy of social benefits remain a challenge for the efficiency of social benefits in reducing poverty. The introduction of the Minimum Insertion Income combining three existing social benefits (the Guaranteed Minimum Income, the family allowance and the heating benefits) planned for 2015 has been delayed. The implementation of the National Roma Integration Strategy started in 2012, but financial allocation for the implementation of key action plans was insufficient and the results are modest. The revision of the Strategy and the implementation of the revised action plans are delayed.

               (16)

               The weak capacity of the public administration to develop and implement policies remains a core challenge for Romania, hampering overall development of the country, the business environment and the capacity for public investment, while not allowing for the provision of public services of sufficient quality. The structural causes that led to a low administrative capacity were analysed in 2013. Based on this, a 2014‐2020 strategy on strengthening public administration is currently under preparation and is expected to be finalised by mid‐2014.

               (17)

               Despite important progress, the absorption rate for EU funds remains one of the lowest in the Union. Continuously weak management and control systems and public procurement practices may negatively impact the preparations for and implementation of the next generation of programmes. Strategic planning and policy prioritisation at the centre of government as well as policy prioritisation and multi‐annual budgetary planning at the level of line ministries with important investment portfolios remain a challenge. Public procurement legislation suffers from instability and a lack of coherence. The institutional set‐up, with multiple actors and frequently overlapping responsibilities is not equipped to tackle the shortcomings and provide appropriate guidance to contracting authorities. Corruption and conflicts of interests continue to be concerns for contracting authorities. A system for ex ante checks for conflicts of interest in the award process of public procurement contracts is expected to become operational by the end of 2014.

               (18)

               The poor quality of regulations and the lack of transparency and predictability of the regulatory framework hinder businesses and citizens. Procedures for obtaining electricity, dealing with construction permits and paying taxes are still complex. Unclear land ownership rights represent a further challenge for Romania's business environment; less than 50 % of real estate is recorded in the land book system and only around 15 % of real estate records are verified and registered digitally. Romania has made some progress in improving the quality, independence and efficiency of the justice system and in the fight against corruption, but these issues remain a concern for businesses seeking effective redress. Resistance to integrity and anti‐corruption measures at political and administrative levels is still strong.

               (19)

               Price regulation in the electricity market for industrial customers ended in 2013 and the phasing‐out of gas and electricity price regulation is ongoing. Efficiency and transparency of governance of the state‐owned enterprises in these sectors represent a major challenge. Energy price deregulation is expected to bring incentives to enhance energy efficiency, although concrete measures and resource commitments are needed to further improve energy efficiency in the housing, district heating, industry and urban transport sectors. The integration of Romania's electricity and gas markets in the EU markets remains incomplete and substantial barriers remain for the implementation of cross‐border connections for gas, which would contribute to enhancing diversification of supply.

               (20)

               The underdeveloped basic transport infrastructure continues to be a bottleneck to growth in Romania. High growth of the vehicle fleet and the low quality of the road infrastructure hamper businesses and the economy. Poor maintenance of the railway network has affected safety and reliability. Freight transport on inland waterways remains far below its potential, particularly on the Danube. The inefficiency and non‐transparent governance of state‐owned enterprises in the transport sector hinder the development of network infrastructures.

               (21)

               In the context of the European Semester, the Commission has carried out a comprehensive analysis of Romania's economic policy. It has assessed the National Reform Programme and the Convergence Programme. It has taken into account not only their relevance for sustainable fiscal and socio‐economic policy in Romania but also their compliance with EU rules and guidance, given the need to reinforce the overall economic governance of the Union by providing EU‐level input into future national decisions. Its recommendations under the European Semester are reflected in recommendations (1) to (8) below.

               (22)

               In the light of this assessment, the Council has examined the Convergence Programme, and its opinion (5) is reflected in particular in recommendation (2) below,

         HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Romania take action within the period 2014‐2015 to:

               1.

               Implement the EU/IMF financial assistance programme by fully addressing the policy conditionality ‐ included in the Memorandum of Understanding of 6 November 2013 and its subsequent supplements ‐ that complements and supports the implementation of these country‐specific recommendations.

               2.

               Implement the budgetary strategy for 2014, significantly strengthen the budgetary effort to ensure reaching the medium‐term objective in 2015 in line with commitments under the Balance of Payments programme and as reflected in the 2014 Convergence Programme, in particular by specifying the underlying measures, and remain at the medium‐term objective thereafter. Improve tax collection by continuing to implement a comprehensive tax compliance strategy, stepping up efforts to reduce VAT fraud. Fight undeclared work. Reduce tax burden for low‐ and middle‐income earners in a budget‐neutral way. Finalise the pension reform started in 2010 by equalising the pensionable age for men and women.

               3.

               Step up reforms in the health sector to increase its efficiency, quality and accessibility, including for disadvantaged people and remote and isolated communities. Increase efforts to curb informal payments, including through proper management and control systems.

               4.

               Strengthen active labour‐market measures and the capacity of the National Employment Agency. Pay particular attention to the activation of unregistered young people. Strengthen measures to promote the employability of older workers. Establish, in consultation with social partners, clear guidelines for transparent minimum wage setting, taking into account economic and labour market conditions.

               5.

               Increase the quality and access to vocational education and training, apprenticeships, tertiary education and of lifelong learning and adapt them to labour market needs. Ensure better access to early childhood education and care.

               6.

               In order to alleviate poverty, increase the efficiency and effectiveness of social transfers, particularly for children, and continue reform of social assistance, strengthening its links with activation measures. Step up efforts to implement the envisaged measures to favour the integration of Roma in the labour market, increase school attendance and reduce early school leaving, through a partnership approach and a robust monitoring mechanism.

               7.

               Step up efforts to strengthen the capacity of public administration, in particular by improving efficiency, human resource management, the decision‐making tools and coordination within and between different levels of government; and by improving transparency, integrity and accountability. Accelerate the absorption of EU funds, strengthen management and control systems, and improve capacity of strategic planning, including the multi annual budgetary element. Tackle persisting shortcomings in public procurement. Continue to improve the quality and efficiency of the judicial system, fight corruption at all levels, and ensure the effective implementation of court decisions.

               8.

               Promote competition and efficiency in energy and transport industries. Accelerate the corporate governance reform of state‐owned enterprises in the energy and transport sectors and increase their efficiency. Improve and streamline energy efficiency policies. Improve the cross‐border integration of energy networks and enable physical reverse flows in gas interconnections as a matter of priority.

      Done at Brussels, 8 July 2014.

            For the Council

            The President

         P. C. PADOAN

      (1)  OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 1.

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

      (3)  OJ C 217, 30.7.2013, p. 67.

      (4)  Council Decision 2013/531/EU of 22 October 2013 providing precautionary Union medium‐term financial assistance to Romania (OJ L 286, 29.10.2013, p. 1).

      (5)  Under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1466/97.


title: Commission Recommendation of 5 December 2007 on reproducing the text of Article 20 TEC in passports (notified under document number C(2007) 5841)

text:
               6.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 118/30

      COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION

   of 5 December 2007
   on reproducing the text of Article 20 TEC in passports
   (notified under document number C(2007) 5841)
   (2008/355/EC)
   THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 211 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Article 20 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (hereinafter Article 20 TEC) entitles Union citizens located in a third country in which their own Member State is not represented to protection by the diplomatic and consular authorities of any other Member State represented, on the same conditions as the nationals of that State. This right is also enshrined in Article 46 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               (2)

               A Eurobarometer survey published in July 2006 revealed that the majority of Union citizens are not aware of Article 20 TEC and its implications. Only 23 % of the persons interviewed claimed to be familiar with the possibilities offered by Article 20 TEC. It also emerged that half of the Union citizens expect to travel to a third country within the next three years.

               (3)

               The suggestion to reproduce Article 20 TEC in passports to inform citizens of their rights was invoked in the report of 9 May 2006 of Mr Barnier ‘For a European civil protection force: Europe aid’. On 15 June 2006, the Council Presidency invited Member States to consider the possibility of reproducing the wording of Article 20 TEC in passports to ensure that Union citizens are well informed of their rights (1).

               (4)

               The Commission adopted a Green Paper on diplomatic and consular protection of Union citizens in third countries (2) on 28 November 2006, which proposed several possible actions to strengthen the protection of Union citizens. As an effective way of reminding citizens of their rights, it was suggested to recommend Member States to print Article 20 TEC in passports. This proposal received wide support from Member States, civil society, citizens and other European institutions (3)
                   (4). To inform citizens of their right to protection by diplomatic and consular authorities under Article 20 TEC, it was also suggested to create an EU website concerning this right and to include a reference to the website in national passports.

               (5)

               The issuing of passports falls under Member States’ competence. A uniform format for passports was introduced by a Resolution of the representatives of the Governments of the Member States on 23 June 1981 (5). In addition, measures have been adopted at Community level regarding the security standards for passports. Minimum security standards for passports were introduced by a Resolution of the representatives of the Governments of the Member States on 17 October 2000 in order to combat forgery (6). A Council Regulation was adopted on 13 December 2004 requiring Member States to introduce biometric identifiers in passports by 28 August 2006 and to store additional data in passports by 28 June 2007 (7).

               (6)

               Article 20 TEC should be reproduced in the official language(s) of the Member State issuing the passport.

               (7)

               It would be sufficient to reproduce the wording of the first sentence of Article 20 TEC. The second sentence refers to Member States’ duty to engage in international negotiations to secure protection and is not directly relevant for citizens.

               (8)

               The Commission intends to create a website dedicated to consular protection to publish practical information, e.g. updated contact details of Member States’ representations in third countries. It would be useful to include a reference to this website in national passports together with Article 20 TEC as a single common access point to information on this right.

               (9)

               To minimise the administrative burden of the Member States, it would be appropriate to recommend Member States to print Article 20 TEC in new passports issued after 1 July 2009.

               (10)

               In order to inform citizens whose passports are issued without a reference to Article 20 TEC, it should be recommended to affix a sticker on the outside rear cover.

               (11)

               To reproduce the wording of Article 20 TEC in passports would significantly enhance citizens’ awareness of the right to protection by diplomatic and consular authorities and entail limited costs for the Member States,

         HEREBY RECOMMENDS:

               1.

               Member States are invited to reproduce the first sentence of Article 20 of the Treaty establishing the European Community and a reference to an EU website (http://ec.europa.eu/consularprotection) in passports issued after 1 July 2009.

               2.

               Member States are invited to make available a sticker with the information referred to in point 1 to holders of passports issued before 1 July 2009.

               3.

               Member States are invited to inform the Commission 18 months from the publication of this Recommendation in the Official Journal of the European Union of action taken in response to this Recommendation.

      Done at Brussels, 5 December 2007.

            For the Commission

         Franco FRATTINI

            Vice-President

      (1)  ‘Reinforcing the European Union’s emergency and crisis response capacities’, Document of the Council 10551/06 of 15.6.2006.

      (2)  COM(2006) 712.

      (3)  Opinion of the European Parliament: A6-0454/2007.

      (4)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee: SOC/262 (CESE 425/2007).

      (5)  OL C 241, 19.9.1981, p. 1.

      (6)  OJ C 310, 28.10.2000, p. 1.

      (7)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States (OJ L 385, 29.12.2004, p. 1).


title: Common visa restrictions for Russian officials involved in the Sergei Magnitsky case European Parliament recommendation of 23 October 2012 to the Council on establishing common visa restrictions for Russian officials involved in the Sergei Magnitsky case (2012/2142(INI))

text:
               7.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               CE 68/13

         Tuesday 23 October 2012Common visa restrictions for Russian officials involved in the Sergei Magnitsky case
   P7_TA(2012)0369
   European Parliament recommendation of 23 October 2012 to the Council on establishing common visa restrictions for Russian officials involved in the Sergei Magnitsky case (2012/2142(INI))
   2014/C 68 E/02

      The European Parliament,

               —

               having regard to Article 215 of the TFEU,

               —

               having regard to the proposal for a recommendation to the Council by Guy Verhofstadt and Kristiina Ojuland, on behalf of the ALDE Group (B7-0196/2012),

               —

               having regard to its resolution of 17 February 2011 on the rule of law in Russia (1),

               —

               having regard to its resolution of 16 December 2010 on the Annual Report on Human Rights in the World 2009 and the European Union’s policy on the matter (2),

               —

               having regard to its resolution of 14 December 2011 on the upcoming EU-Russia Summit on 15 December 2011 and the outcome of the Duma elections on 4 December 2011 (3),

               —

               having regard to its recommendation of 2 February 2012 to the Council on a consistent policy towards regimes against which the EU applies restrictive measures (4),

               —

               having regard to the adoption of the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act by the US Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee on 26 June 2012, seeking to impose visa bans and asset freezes on Russian officials allegedly involved in the detention, abuse and death of Sergei Magnitsky,

               —

               having regard to the draft resolution entitled ‘Rule of law in Russia: case of Sergei Magnitsky’, which was presented to the 2012 annual session of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, calling on national parliaments to take action to impose visa sanctions and asset freezes,

               —

               having regard to Rule 121(3) of its Rules of Procedure,

               —

               having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A7-0285/2012),

               A.

               whereas the arrest, conditions of detention and subsequent death in custody of Sergei Magnitsky represent a well documented and substantial case of disrespect for fundamental human rights;

               B.

               whereas the posthumous prosecution of Sergei Magnitsky is a violation of international and national laws and clearly shows the malfunctioning of the Russian criminal justice system;

               C.

               whereas the Russian Federation, as a member of the Council of Europe and of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, has committed itself to fully respecting fundamental rights and the rule of law, and whereas the European Union has repeatedly offered additional assistance and expertise to help the Russian Federation modernise, and abide by, its constitutional and legal order;

               D.

               whereas, despite the 2011 conclusions of the inquiry conducted by the Russian President’s Human Rights Council on the illegality of Sergei Magnitsky’s arrest, detention and being denied access to justice, the investigations are stalled and the officials involved have been exonerated and even assigned to the posthumous case; whereas such actions on the part of the authorities demonstrate the politically motivated nature of Magnitsky’s prosecution;

               E.

               whereas the European Union has urged the Russian authorities on many occasions and formats, from regular human rights consultations to summit-level meetings, to conduct thorough independent investigations in this special, well documented case, and to put an end to the current climate of impunity;

               F.

               whereas the case of Sergei Magnitsky is only one but the most prominent and well documented case of abuse of powers by the Russian law enforcement authorities, heavily violating the rule of law; whereas a multitude of other juridical cases exist using systematically the pretext of economic crimes and alleged corruption for eliminating business competitors or political rivals;

               G.

               whereas visa restrictions and other restrictive measures are not traditional judicial sanctions per se, but constitute a political signal of the EU’s concern to a larger target audience and thus remain a necessary and legitimate foreign policy tool;

               H.

               whereas EU sanctions on the Magnitsky case could prompt the Russian authorities to make genuine and fresh efforts to address, in a more concrete and convincing manner, the question of the rule of law in Russia and the current climate of impunity;

               I.

               whereas several national parliaments of EU Member States – among them the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Sweden and Poland – have already passed resolutions urging their governments to introduce sanctions on the Magnitsky case, while several other national parliaments, such as those in Portugal, France, Spain and Latvia, are at the initial drafting stage for such resolutions;

               1.

               Addresses the following recommendations to the Council:

                           (a)

                           to establish a common EU list of officials responsible for the death of Sergei Magnitsky, for the subsequent judicial cover-up and for the ongoing and sustained harassment of his mother and widow;

                           (b)

                           to impose and implement an EU-wide visa ban on these officials and to freeze any financial assets they or their immediate family may hold inside the European Union;

                           (c)

                           to call on Russia to conduct a credible and independent investigation encompassing all aspects of this tragic case, and to bring all those responsible to justice;

                           (d)

                           to urge the Russian authorities to put an end to the widespread corruption and to reform the judicial system, and bring it into line with international standards, by creating an independent, just and transparent system that cannot, under any circumstances, be misused for political reasons;

                           (e)

                           to raise, in the course of bilateral meetings with Russian authorities, this issue as well as the issue of intimidation and impunity in cases involving human rights defenders, journalists and lawyers, in a more determined, resolute and result-oriented manner;

               2.

               Encourages the Council to take a coherent and proactive stance on other serious human rights violations in Russia, on the basis of well documented, converging and independent sources and convincing evidence, and to introduce similar restrictive measures against offenders as a last resort measure;

               3.

               Underlines that the commitment of the Russian authorities to basic values such as the rule of law, and respect for human rights and basic freedoms, remains the main prerequisite for EU-Russia relations and for the development of a stable and reliable partnership between the two parties;

               4.

               Instructs its President to forward this recommendation to the Council and, for information, to the Commission, the Member States, the Russian State Duma and the Government of the Russian Federation.

      (1)  OJ C 188 E, 28.6.2012, p. 37.

      (2)  OJ C 169 E, 15.6.2012, p. 81.

      (3)  Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0575.

      (4)  Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0018.