title: 2011/136/EU: Commission Recommendation of 1 March 2011 guidelines for the implementation of data protection rules in the Consumer Protection Cooperation System (CPCS)

text:
               2.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 57/44

         COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
   of 1 March 2011
   guidelines for the implementation of data protection rules in the Consumer Protection Cooperation System (CPCS)
   (2011/136/EU)
   THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 292 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws (the Regulation on consumer protection cooperation) (1) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC Regulation’) aims at enhancing the enforcement cooperation of consumer protection laws within the single market, establishes an EU-wide Network of national public enforcement authorities (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC Network’) and lays down the framework and general conditions under which Member States enforcement authorities are to cooperate to protect the collective economic interest of consumers.

               (2)

               Cooperation between national enforcement authorities is vital for the single market to function effectively and under the CPC Network each authority is able to call on other authorities for assistance in investigating possible breaches of EU consumer protection laws.

               (3)

               The aim of the Consumer Protection Cooperation System (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPCS’) is to enable public enforcement authorities to exchange information concerning possible breaches of consumer protection laws within a safe and secure environment.

               (4)

               The exchange of information by electronic means between Member States needs to comply with the rules on the protection of personal data laid down in 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 (2) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Data Protection Directive’) and Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (3) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Data Protection Regulation’).

               (5)

               Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union recognises the right to data protection. The CPCS should ensure that the different obligations and responsibilities shared between the Commission and Member States as regards data protection rules are clear and data subjects are provided with information and easily available mechanisms to assert their rights.

               (6)

               It is appropriate to establish guidelines for the implementation of data protection rules in the CPCS (hereinafter referred to as the ‘guidelines’) in order to ensure that data protection rules are respected when data is processed through the CPCS.

               (7)

               Enforcement officials should be encouraged to contact their national Data Protection Supervisory Authorities for guidance and assistance on the best way to implement the guidelines in accordance with national law and if necessary to ensure that notification and prior checking procedures relating to the processing operations under the CPCS are carried out at national level.

               (8)

               Participation in the training sessions organised by the Commission to assist with the implementation of the guidelines should be strongly encouraged.

               (9)

               Feedback to the Commission on the implementation of the guidelines should be provided no later than 2 years following the adoption of this Recommendation. The Commission should then make a further assessment of the level of data protection in the CPCS and should evaluate whether additional instruments, including regulatory measures, are required.

               (10)

               Necessary steps should be taken to facilitate the implementation of the guidelines by actors and users of the CPCS. National data protection authorities and the European Data Protection Supervisor should closely monitor developments and the implementation of data protection safeguards with respect to the CPCS.

               (11)

               The guidelines complement Commission Decision 2007/76/EC (4) and take into account the opinion of the Working Party on the Protection of Individuals with regard to the Processing of Personal Data set up by Article 29 (5) of the Data Protection Directive and the opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor (6) established by Article 41 of the Data Protection Regulation (hereinafter referred to as the ‘EDPS’).

         HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:
   Member States should follow the guidelines laid down in the Annex.

      Done at Brussels, 1 March 2011.

            For the Commission

         John DALLI

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  OJ L 364, 9.12.2004, p. 1.

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

      (3)  OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ L 32, 6.2.2007, p. 192.

      (5)  Opinion 6/2007/EC on data protection issues related to the Consumer Protection Cooperation System (CPCS) 01910/2007/EN — WP 130 — adopted on 21 September 2007.

      (6)  EDPS Opinion Ref. 2010-0692.

      ANNEX

         Guidelines for the implementation of data protection rules in the Consumer Protection Cooperation System (CPCS)

      1.   INTRODUCTION
      Cooperation between national consumer protection authorities is vital for the proper functioning of the internal market since a lack of effective enforcement in cross-border cases undermines the confidence of consumers in taking up cross-border offers and hence their faith in the internal market and also gives rise to a distortion of competition.
      The CPCS is an IT-tool established by the CPC Regulation and provides a structured mechanism for the exchange of information between national consumer protection authorities that form part of the CPC Network. It allows a public authority to call on other public authorities of the CPC Network for assistance in investigating and tackling possible infringements of EU consumer protection legislation and in taking enforcement action to stop illegal commercial practices of sellers and suppliers targeting consumers living in other EU countries. Requests for information and all communication between competent public authorities concerning the application of the CPC Regulation are carried out through the CPCS.
      The objective of the CPC Regulation is to enhance the enforcement of consumer protection laws across the internal market by setting up an EU-wide Network of national enforcement authorities and to establish the conditions under which Member States are to cooperate with each other. The CPC Regulation established that such exchanges of information and mutual assistance requests between national enforcement authorities was to be carried out through a designated database. The CPCS was therefore designed to facilitate this administrative cooperation and exchange of information with a view to enforcing EU consumer protection laws.
      The scope of cooperation is limited to intra-Community infringements of the legal acts listed in the Annex to the CPC Regulation that protects the collective economic interests of consumers.
      2.   SCOPE AND OBJECTIVE OF THESE GUIDELINES
      These guidelines aim at addressing the central concern of ensuring a balance between efficient and effective enforcement cooperation amongst Member States competent authorities whilst respecting fundamental rights to privacy and the protection of personal data.
      Personal data is defined in the Data Protection Directive (1) as any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person; an identifiable person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his or her physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity.
      Since national enforcement officials (case handlers) who are the CPCS users may not always be data protection experts and may not always be sufficiently aware of the data protection requirements imposed by their own national data protection legislation, it is advisable to provide CPCS users with guidelines in which the functioning of the CPCS is explained from a practical data protection perspective as well as detailing the safeguards that are built into the system and the possible risks associated with its use.
      The objective of the guidelines is to cover the most significant data protection issues in connection with the CPCS and provide a user-friendly explanation that all CPCS users can refer to. It does not, however, provide an exhaustive analysis of the data protection implications of the CPCS.
      It is strongly recommended that data protection authorities in the Member States be consulted to ensure that the guidelines are complemented with specific obligations laid down in national data protection laws. CPCS users can also obtain further assistance and guidance from these national data protection authorities to ensure that data protection requirements are met. A list of these authorities with the contact details and websites can be found at:
      http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/nationalcomm/#eu
      It should be clear that the processing of personal data should be carried out in accordance with the specific principles and conditions laid down in the Data Protection Directive. Case handlers are entitled in the context of Regulation to exchange data, including personal data, through the CPCS, if the purpose of the processing is to stop the infringement of EU consumer laws as listed in the CPC Regulation Annex. Before processing such data however, a careful assessment is necessary to ensure that data protection principles are safeguarded and processing is strictly necessary to achieve the aims of the CPC Regulation.
      With this in mind, case handlers having access to the CPCS will need to carry out a case by case assessment before any processing of personal data can be carried out (2). The purpose of these guidelines is to assist case handlers with this assessment by providing some guiding data protection principles that need to be considered.
      The aim is also to clarify some of the complexities of the CPCS architecture with regard to joint processing operations and joint controllership by setting out what is the role of the Commission and the role of Member States competent authorities as ‘joint-controllers’ of the CPCS data exchanges.
      3.   THE CPCS — AN IT-TOOL FOR ENFORCEMENT COOPERATION
      The CPCS is an IT-tool designed and maintained by the Commission in cooperation with the Member States. The purpose of the CPCS is to assist Member States with the practical implementation of EU consumer protection legislation. It is used by the CPC Network which consists of public authorities designated by the Member States and EEA countries to cooperate and exchange information with each other in the enforcement of consumer protection laws as provided in the CPC Regulation.
      Article 10 of the CPC Regulation states that:

         ‘The Commission shall maintain an electronic database in which it shall store and process the information it receives under Articles 7, 8 and 9. The database shall be made available for consultation only by the competent authorities…’

      Article 12(3) of the CPC Regulation adds:

         ‘Requests for assistance and all communication of information shall be made in writing using a standard form and communicated electronically via the database established in Article 10.’

      The CPCS facilitates cooperation and exchanges of information limited to intra-Community infringements of the Directives and Regulations listed in the CPC Regulation Annex which deals with a variety of topics including unfair commercial practices, distance selling, consumer credit, package travel, unfair contract terms, time-share, e-commerce and others. The CPCS cannot be used for information exchanges in legislative areas not specifically listed in this Annex.
      Examples:

                  I.

                  A trader established in Belgium is using unfair terms in his dealings with consumers resident in France in breach of the Unfair Contract Terms Directive. The consumer authority in France may use the CPCS to make a request to the consumer authority in Belgium to take all necessary enforcement measures available in Belgium against the trader to bring about the cessation of the intra-Community infringement without delay.

                  II.

                  The consumer authority in Denmark receives complaints that a particular website is using fraudulent and deceptive commercial practices to the detriment of consumers. The website is hosted in Sweden. The Danish consumer authority needs information in connection with the website. It may therefore use the CPCS to make a request for information to the Swedish consumer authority which has an obligation to supply the information.

            Information is uploaded by Member States, stored in the CPCS, accessed by the Member States to whom the information was addressed and deleted by the Commission (3). The CPCS is used as a repository for information and as a means to exchange information through an efficient and secure communication system.
      From a data protection perspective, the establishment of such a database always creates certain risks to the fundamental right of personal data protection: sharing more data than is strictly necessary for the purposes of efficient cooperation; retaining data that should have been deleted and holding data that is no longer accurate or is incorrect; and failing to ensure that the rights of data subjects and obligations of data controllers are respected. It is therefore necessary to address such risks by ensuring that the users of the CPCS are well informed and trained in data protection rules and capable of ensuring compliance with applicable data protection legislation.
      4.   DATA PROTECTION LEGAL AND SUPERVISORY FRAMEWORK
      The European Union has an established legal framework on data protection since 1995: the Data Protection Directive (4) which governs the processing of personal data by Member States and by the Data Protection Regulation (5) which governs the processing of personal data by the European Union institutions and bodies. The application of the data protection law currently depends on who the CPCS actor or user is.
      Processing acts undertaken by the Commission are governed by Data Protection Regulation and processing acts undertaken by case handlers in the competent national enforcement authorities are governed by the national laws transposing the Data Protection Directive.
      Being the two main actors with specific roles to play in the CPCS, both the Commission and the designated competent authorities, as co-controllers, have an obligation to notify and submit their respective processing operations for prior checking by the relevant supervisory authorities and ensure compliance with data protection rules. That said national laws transposing the Data Protection Directive may provide exemptions from both the notification and prior checking requirements.
      The harmonisation of data protection laws was intended to ensure both a high level of data protection and safeguard the fundamental rights of individuals whilst allowing the free flow of personal data between Member States. Given that national implementation measures may give rise to differing rules, in order to ensure compliance with data protection rules, CPCS users are strongly advised to discuss these guidelines with their national data protection authorities since rules may vary, for example, on the information to be provided to individuals or the duty to notify certain data processing operations to data protection authorities.
      A significant feature of the EU data protection legal framework is its supervision by independent data protection authorities. Citizens have the right to lodge complaints before these authorities and promptly resolve their data protection concerns outside the courts. The processing of personal data at national level is supervised by the national data protection authorities and the processing of personal data by the European institutions is supervised by the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) (6). Consequently, the Commission is subject to the supervision of the EDPS and other users of the CPCS to the supervision of national data protection authorities.
      5.   WHO IS WHO IN THE CPCS? — THE ISSUE OF JOINT CONTROLLERSHIP
      The CPCS is a clear example of joint processing operations and joint controllership. Whilst only the competent authorities in the Member States collect, record, disclose and exchange personal data, the storage and deletion of these data on its servers is the responsibility of the Commission. The Commission does not have access to these personal data but is considered as the system manager and operator of the system.
      Consequently, the allocation of different tasks and responsibilities between the Commission and the Member States can be summarised as follows:

                  —

                  Each competent authority is a data controller with respect to its own data processing activities.

                  —

                  The Commission is not a user but the operator of the system, responsible primarily for the maintenance and security of the system architecture. However, the Commission also has access to the alerts, feedback information and other case related information (7). The purpose of the Commission’s access is to monitor the application of the CPC Regulation as well as the consumer protection legislation listed in the Annex to the CPC Regulation and to compile statistical information in connection with carrying out these duties. The Commission does not however have access to the information contained in mutual assistance and enforcement requests as these are only addressed to the Member States competent authorities dealing with the specific case in question. That said the CPC Regulation does provide the possibility for the Commission to assist competent authorities in case of certain disputes (8) and to be invited to participate in a coordinated investigation involving more than two Member States (9).

                  —

                  The CPCS actors share responsibility with respect to the legitimacy of the processing, information provision and rights of access, objection and rectification.

                  —

                  Both the Commission and the competent authorities in their roles as controllers are individually responsible for ensuring that the rules relating to their data processing operations are compatible with data protection rules.

            6.   ACTORS AND USERS IN THE CPCS
      Different access profiles exist within the CPCS: access to the database is restricted and allocated to a named competent authority official only (authenticated user) which is not transferable. Requests for access to the CPCS can only be granted to the officials notified to the Commission by Member States competent authorities. A login/password is requested to enter the system which can be obtained by the single liaison office.
      Only users in the requested and applicant competent authorities have full access to the complete information exchanged for a given case which includes all attachments in the CPCS case file. Single liaison offices can only read key information on a case to allow them to identify the competent authority to which a request needs to be transferred. They cannot read confidential documents attached to a request or an alert.
      In enforcement cases, general information is shared between users in all the competent authorities notified as being responsible for the legal acts infringed. This is done through the notifications. These notifications should give a broad description of a case and should avoid including personal data. Exceptions may exist such as the name of seller or supplier (if a natural person).
      The Commission has no access to information and enforcement requests or confidential documents but does receive notifications and alerts.
      7.   DATA PROTECTION PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE TO EXCHANGES OF INFORMATION
      Processing of personal data by the CPCS users in the Member States may only take place under conditions and in accordance with the principles that the Data Protection Directive establishes. The data controller is responsible for ensuring that the data protection principles are complied with when processing personal data in the CPCS.
      It should also be noted that both confidentiality and data protection rules apply to the CPCS. Confidentiality rules and professional secrecy rules can apply to data in general whereas data protection rules are limited to personal data.
      It is important to bear in mind that CPCS users in the Member States are responsible for many other processing operations and may not be data protection experts. Data protection compliance in the CPCS does not need to be unduly complicated or pose an excessive administrative burden. Neither does it have to be a one-size fits all system. These guidelines are recommendations for the treatment of personal data and it should be recalled that not all the data exchanged within the CPCS is personal data.
      Before each upload of information into the CPCS, enforcement officials need to consider whether the personal data to be sent is strictly necessary to achieve the purposes of efficient cooperation and give consideration to whom they are sending the personal data. The enforcement official needs to ask himself whether the recipient strictly needs to receive this information for the purposes of the alert or mutual assistance request.
      The following list of fundamental data protection principles aims at assisting enforcement officials having access to the CPCS to make a case by case assessment of whether data protection rules related to the processing of personal data are being complied with each time they process personal data within the system. Enforcement officials should also bear in mind that exemptions and restrictions on the application of the data protection principles, listed below, may exist at national level and are advised to consult their national data protection authorities (10).

         What are the data protection principles to be observed?

      The general principles on data protection to be borne in mind before undertaking the processing of any personal data have been taken from the data protection Directive. Since this Directive has been transposed into national law, case-handlers are reminded to consult their national data protection supervisory authorities regarding the application of the principles listed below and are advised to see whether any exemptions or restrictions exist to the application of these principles.

         Principle of Transparency

      According to the Data Protection Directive, the data subject has the right to be informed when his personal data is being processed. The controller is required to provide his name and address, the purpose of processing, the recipients of the data and all other information required to ensure the processing is fair (11).
      Data may be processed only under the following circumstances (12):

                  —

                  when the data subject has given his consent,

                  —

                  when the processing is necessary for the performance of or the entering into a contract,

                  —

                  when processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation,

                  —

                  when processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject,

                  —

                  processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller or in a third party to whom the data are disclosed,

                  —

                  processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed.

         Principle of lawfulness and fairness

      Personal data cannot be collected or processed in unfair or unlawful ways, nor should it be used for ends not compatible with the purposes laid down in the CPC Regulation. For processing to be lawful, case handlers need to ensure that they have clear reasons justifying the processing need. The processing needs to be conducted for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and may not be processed further in a way incompatible with those purposes (13). This can only be provided for in the CPC Regulation.
      For the processing to be fair, the data subjects need to be informed of the purposes for which his/her data is to be processed and of the existence of the right of access, rectification and objection.

         Principle of proportionality, accuracy and retention periods

      The information needs to be proportionate, adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are collected and/or further processed. The data must be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date; every reasonable step must be taken to ensure that data which are inaccurate or incomplete, having regard to the purposes for which they were collected or for which they are further processed, are erased or rectified; personal data needs to be kept in a form which permits the identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the data were collected or for which they were processed. Appropriate safeguards need to be built in for personal data stored for longer periods for historical, statistical or scientific use.
      Case handlers need to consider whether the information that they are processing is strictly necessary to the purposes to be achieved.

         Principle of purpose limitation

      Personal data needs to be collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a way incompatible with those purposes and brought to the attention of the data subject. Case handlers should only process personal data only when there is a clear purpose for doing so i.e. that legal grounds exist within the CPC Regulation that justifies the transfer.

         Rights of access

      Data subjects have the right according to the Data Protection Directive (14) to be informed that their personal data are being processed; the purposes for the processing; the recipients of the data and that they have specific rights i.e. the right to information and rectification. The data subject has the right to access all data processed on him. The data subject also has the right to request the rectification, deletion or blocking of data that is incomplete, inaccurate or is not being processed in compliance with the data protection rules (15).

         Sensitive data

      Processing of data revealing racial or ethnical origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade-union membership, health, sex life, offences and criminal convictions is prohibited. However, the Data Protection Directive (16) does provide for certain exemptions to this rule where sensitive data may be processed under given conditions (17). Since CPCS users may find themselves in a position where they are handling sensitive data (18), it is advised to approach sensitive data with caution. CPCS users are recommended to consult their national data protection authority on whether derogations apply to the processing sensitive data.

         Exemptions

      In the context of the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences some exemptions are allowed by the Data Protection Directive. Case handlers are advised to consult national law to assess whether such exemptions are possible and to what extent (19). Should such exemptions be used, it is recommended that they are clearly indicated in the privacy statements of each competent authority.

         Applying the data protection principles

      Applying these data protection principles to the functioning of the CPCS leads to the following recommendations:

                  (1)

                  The use of the CPCS should be strictly limited to the purposes set out in the CPC Regulation. Article 13(1) of the CPC Regulation states that information communicated may only be used for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the laws that protect consumers’ interests. These laws are listed in the Annex to the CPC Regulation.

                  (2)

                  It is recommended that enforcement officials use the information obtained from a mutual assistance request or alert only for the purposes relating to that specific case, in strict compliance with data protection legal requirements, assessing ex ante the necessity of the processing in the context of investigations carried out in the wider public interest.

                  (3)

                  When transferring data, enforcement officials make an assessment on a case by case basis of who should be the recipients of the information to be processed.

                  (4)

                  The CPCS users should carefully select the questions they ask in the mutual assistance request and not ask for more data than in necessary. This is not only an issue of respecting data quality principles but also a matter of reducing the administrative burden.

                  (5)

                  The Data Protection Directive (20) requires that personal data needs to be accurate and kept up to date. It is recommended that it should be for the competent authority which supplied the information to contribute towards the ensuring the accuracy of the data stored in the CPCS. Pop up messages have been added as a feature in the CPCS to periodically remind case handlers to check whether personal data is accurate and kept up to date.

                  (6)

                  A practical way to inform data subjects’ of their rights is through a comprehensive webpage privacy notice. It is recommended that each competent authority should provide a webpage privacy notice on their websites. Each privacy notice should conform with all the information obligations as established by the Data Protection Directive, include a link to the Commission’s privacy notice webpage and should give further details including contact details on the competent authority in question as well as any national restrictions on the right of access or information. All data controllers involved are responsible for ensuring that privacy notices are published.

                  (7)

                  The data subject may request access, rectification and deletion of their personal data from more than one source. Although each competent authority is responsible, as the data controller, for its own data processing operations, a coordinated response to requests relating to cross-border cases should be pursued. It is recommended that in such cases, competent authorities inform other concerned competent authorities of the receipt of the request.
                  When a competent authority considers that granting a request may affect the investigation or enforcement procedure being carried out by other competent authorities, the former should request the opinion of the latter before granting the request.
                  The data subject may also turn to the Commission with its request. The Commission may only grant a request for data to which it has access. On receipt of a request, the Commission should consult the competent authority which supplied the information. If no objections are raised or the competent authority fails to respond within a reasonable period, the Commission may decide whether or not to grant the request on the basis of the Data Protection Regulation. The Commission should also request the opinion of competent authorities whose investigative or enforcement activities may be compromised as a result of granting the request. The Commission should examine whether incorporating additional technical features into the CPCS would facilitate such exchanges.

                  (8)

                  The CPC Implementing Decision 2007/76/EC provides the establishment of data fields within the CPCS for the names of company directors. Enforcement officials need to make an assessment on whether the inclusion of this type of personal data is necessary to solve the case. A case by case assessment of whether it is necessary to include the name of a company director in the designated data field needs to be made before each upload of information in the CPCS and prior to sending an alert or mutual assistance request to another competent authority.

                  (9)

                  The CPC Implementing Decision 2007/76/EC requires that the competent authority uploading information or enforcement requests or alerts needs to indicate whether the information is to be treated confidentially. This is to be done on a case by case basis. Similarly, the requested authority, when supplying information, needs to indicate whether the information is to be treated confidentially. The CPCS includes a default value feature where CPCS users need to explicitly grant access to documents by unclicking the confidential flag.

            8.   CPCS AND DATA PROTECTION

         Data protection friendly environment

      The CPCS has been designed with data protection legislation requirements in mind:

                  —

                  The CPCS uses s-TESTA which stands for secured Trans European Services for Telematics between Administrations. It offers a managed, reliable and secure pan-European communication platform for European and National administrations. The s-TESTA network is based on a dedicated private infrastructure completely separated from the Internet. Appropriate security measures are included in the system’s design to ensure the best possible protection for the Network. The Network is subject of a security accreditation to make it suitable for transmitting information classified at the level ‘EU Restricted’.

                  —

                  A number of technical features have been introduced: secure and personalised passwords to notified competent officials in designated authorities, use of a secure network s-TESTA), pop-up messages that remind case handlers that they need to consider data protection rules when processing personal data, creation of different user profiles that modulate the access to the information depending on the user role (the competent authority, the single liaison office or the Commission), the possibility to limit access to documents by defining them as confidential and the message on the CPCS homepage pointing to the data protection rules.

                  —

                  Implementing rules (21) that cover key aspects to ensure data protection compliance: clear deletion rules (what information; how and when to delete data); principles that specify the types of access to the information (only directly concerned competent authorities have full access and the others only have general information).

                  —

                  Operational guidelines (22) that further clarify what to consider when completing the different data fields and integration of these guidelines (23).

                  —

                  Annual reviews to ensure that competent authorities verify the accuracy of personal data (tagging is planned but has not yet been implemented) and also that cases are closed and/or deleted as foreseen by the rules to ensure that cases are not forgotten. The Commission organises on a regular basis with Member States a systematic review of cases that have been opened for a period substantially longer than the average case-handling period.

                  —

                  Automatic deletion of mutual assistance cases 5 years after the closing of the case as required by the CPC Regulation.

                  —

                  The CPCS is an evolving IT-tool which aims to be data protection friendly. Many safeguard features have already been built into the system architecture which has been described above. The Commission intends to continue developing further improvements as required.

         Some additional guidance

         How long should a case be stored and when should it be closed and deleted?

      Only the Commission can delete information from the CPCS (24) and it does so normally at the request of a competent authority. When making such a request, the competent authority needs to specify the grounds for the deletion request. The only exception is enforcement requests. These are automatically deleted by the Commission 5 years from the closure of the case by the applicant authority.
      Rules with given time limits have been established to ensure the deletion of data that is no longer required; inaccurate; proves to be unfounded and/or has been retained for maximum storage periods.

         Why is the data retention period set at 5 years?

      The purpose of the retention period is to facilitate cooperation between public authorities responsible for the enforcement of the laws that protect consumers’ interests in dealing with intra-Community infringements, to contribute to the smooth functioning of the internal market, the quality and consistency of enforcement of the laws that protect the consumers’ interest, the monitoring of the protection of consumers economic interests and to contribute to raising the standard and consistency of enforcement. During the retention period authorised enforcement officials working for a competent authority that originally dealt with a case may consult the file in order to establish links with possibly repeated infringements which contributes to a better and more efficient enforcement.

         What information can be included in the discussion forum?

      The discussion forum is annexed to the CPCS and is a tool intended for the exchange of information with respect to issues such as new enforcement powers and best practice. Generally, the discussion forum although not frequently used by enforcement officials should not serve to exchange case-related data and should not refer to personal data.

         What type of data can be included in the short summaries and attached documents?

      The CPC Implementing Decision 2007/76/EC foresees the data field ‘attached documents’ in the case of alerts and information and enforcement requests. The short summaries are fields where a description of the infringement should be made. It is recommended that personal data should not be included in the short summaries as the purpose of this data field is to have a general description of the infringement. Personal data in attached documents that is not strictly necessary should be blacked out or removed.

         What is meant by ‘reasonable suspicion’ that an infringement has occurred?

      Reasonable suspicion needs to be interpreted in accordance with national law. However, it is recommended that suspected infringements should only be included in the CPCS if there is some evidence to support the case that an infringement has or is likely to have occurred.

         What about transfers to third countries?

      The CPC Regulation (25) provides that information communicated under the CPC Regulation may also be communicated to an authority of a third country by a Member State having a bilateral assistance agreement provided the consent of the competent authority that originally communicated the information has been obtained and that data protection provisions are met.
      It is recommended that in the absence of an international agreement by the European Union for mutual assistance cooperation arrangements (26) with a third country, any bilateral assistance agreement with a given third country should provide for adequate data protection safeguards and be notified to the relevant data protection supervisory authorities so that prior checking may be carried out, unless the Commission has found that the third country ensures an adequate level of protection for personal data transferred from the Union in accordance with Article 25 of the Data Protection Directive.

         (1)  Article 2(a).

         (2)  It should be noted that data protection principles apply to both data stored electronically and data stored in hardcopy.

         (3)  For specific rules on deletion see: Decision 2007/76/EC and ‘The Consumer Protection Cooperation Network: Operating Guidelines’.

         (4)  Directive 95/46/EC.

         (5)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.

         (6)  http://www.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/edps/EDPS

         (7)  Articles 8, 9, and 15 of CPC Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004.

         (8)  Article 8(5) of CPC Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004.

         (9)  Article 9 of CPC Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004.

         (10)  Article 11(2) and 13 of Directive 95/46/EC.

         (11)  Article 10 and 11 of Directive 95/46/EC.

         (12)  Article 7 of Directive 95/46/EC.

         (13)  Article 6(1)(b) of Directive 95/46/EC.

         (14)  Article 10, 11, 12 of Directive 95/46/EC.

         (15)  Article 12 of Directive 95/46/EC.

         (16)  Article 8(2) of Directive 95/46/EC.

         (17)  Article 8 of Directive 95/46/EC.

         (18)  Chapter 4 of the Annex to Decision 2007/76/EC.

         (19)  Opinion 6/2007/EC on data protection issues related to the Consumer Protection Cooperation System (CPCS) 01910/2007/EN — WP 130 — adopted on 21 September 2007, p. 24-26.

         (20)  Article 6(1)(d) of Directive 95/46/EC.

         (21)  Decision 2007/76/EC.

         (22)  The Consumer Protection Cooperation Network: Operating Guidelines — endorsed by the CPC Committee on 8 June 2010.

         (23)  The content of these guidelines will be integrated into future trainings on the CPCS.

         (24)  Article 10 of the CPC Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Chapter 2 of the Annex to the CPC Implementing Decision 2007/76/EC.

         (25)  Article 14(2) of CPC Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004.

         (26)  Article 18 of CPC Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004.


title: Recommendation of the European Central Bank of 23 August 2010 to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of the Banca d’Italia (ECB/2010/11)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/1

         RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK
   of 23 August 2010
   to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of the Banca d’Italia
   (ECB/2010/11)
   2010/C 233/01
   THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,
   Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Article 27.1 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

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

               (2)

               The mandate of the Banca d’Italia’s current external auditors ended after the audit for the financial year 2009. It is therefore necessary to appoint external auditors from the financial year 2010.

               (3)

               The Banca d’Italia has selected PricewaterhouseCoopers SpA as its external auditors for the financial years 2010 to 2015,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:
   It is recommended that PricewaterhouseCoopers SpA should be appointed as the external auditors of the Banca d’Italia for the financial years 2010 to 2015.

      Done at Frankfurt am Main, 23 August 2010.

            The President of the ECB

         Jean-Claude TRICHET


title: Commission Recommendation of 30 May 2008 on risk reduction measures for the substances chromium trioxide, ammonium dichromate and potassium dichromate (notified under document number C(2008) 2326) (Text with EEA relevance)

text:
               18.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 158/65

      COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION

   of 30 May 2008
   on risk reduction measures for the substances chromium trioxide, ammonium dichromate and potassium dichromate
   (notified under document number C(2008) 2326)
   (Text with EEA relevance)
   (2008/455/EC)
   THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances (1) and in particular Article 11(2) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               In the framework of Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 the following substances have been identified as priority substances for evaluation in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 143/97 of 27 January 1997 concerning the third list of priority substances as foreseen under Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 (2):

                           —

                           chromium trioxide,

                           —

                           ammonium dichromate,

                           —

                           potassium dichromate.

               (2)

               The rapporteur Member State designated pursuant to that Regulation has completed the risk evaluation activities with regard to man and the environment for those substances in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 of 28 June 1994 laying down the principles for the assessment of risks to man and the environment of existing substances and has suggested a strategy for limiting the risks in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 (3).

               (3)

               The Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment (SCTEE) has been consulted and has issued opinions with respect to the risk evaluations carried out by the rapporteur. The opinions have been published on the website of the Scientific Committee.

               (4)

               The results of the risk evaluation and further results of the strategies for limiting the risks are set out in the corresponding Commission Communication (4).

               (5)

               It is appropriate, on the basis of that evaluation, to recommend certain risk reduction measures for certain substances.

               (6)

               The risk reduction measures recommended for workers should be considered within the framework of the legislation for workers protection, which is considered to provide an adequate framework to limit the risks of the relevant substances to the extent needed.

               (7)

               The risk reduction measures provided for in this recommendation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up pursuant to Article 15(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 793/93,

         HEREBY RECOMMENDS:
   SECTION 1
   CHROMIUM TRIOXIDE

         (CAS No 1333-82-0; Einecs No 215-607-8)

   AMMONIUM DICHROMATE

         (CAS No 7789-09-05; Einecs No 232-143-1)

   POTASSIUM DICHROMATE

         (CAS No 7778-50-9; Einecs No 231-906-6)

   Risk reduction measures for workers (1) and the environment (2, 3, 4, 5, 6)

               1.

               Employers using chromium (VI) compounds for use in the manufacture of pigments and dyes, the formulation of metal treatment products, electrolytic metal plating, and as mordants in wool dyeing should take note of any sector-specific guidance developed at national level, based on the practical, non-binding guidance available from the Commission, as provided for in Article 12(2) of Council Directive 98/24/EC (5).

               2.

               Competent authorities in the Member States concerned should lay down, in the permits issued under Directive 2008/1/EC (6), conditions, emission limit values or equivalent parameters or technical measures regarding chromium (VI) compounds in order to operate according to the best available techniques (BAT) taking into account the technical characteristic of the installations concerned, their geographical location and the local environmental conditions.

               3.

               Member States should carefully monitor the implementation of BAT regarding chromium (VI) compounds and report any important developments to the Commission in the framework of the exchange of information on BAT.

               4.

               Local emissions to the environment should, where necessary, be controlled by national rules to ensure that no risk for the environment is expected.

               5.

               With particular regard to the on-site reduction of chromium (VI) compounds to Cr (III) tanning salts by plants involved in the tanning of hides and skins, it is recommended that in the next amendment of the BREF Document for plants involved in the tanning of hides and skins, appropriate references are included to indicate that the on-site reduction of chromium (VI) compounds for the production of chromium (III) tanning salts should not be considered as BAT.

               6.

               For the water bodies where emissions of chromium (VI) may cause a risk, the relevant Member State(s) establish environmental quality standards (EQS) and the national pollution reduction measures to achieve those EQS in 2015 in accordance with Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (7).

         SECTION 2
   ADDRESSEES

               7.

               This Recommendation is addressed to all sectors importing, producing, transporting, storing, formulating into a preparation or other processing, using, disposing or recovering the substances and to the Member States.

      Done at Brussels, 30 May 2008.

            For the Commission

         Stavros DIMAS

            For the Commission

      (1)  OJ L 84, 5.4.1993, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 284, 31.10.2003, p. 1).

      (2)  OJ L 25, 28.1.1997, p. 13.

      (3)  OJ L 161, 29.6.1994, p. 3.

      (4)  OJ C 152, 18.6.2008, p. 1.

      (5)  OJ L 131, 5.5.1998, p. 11. Directive as modified by Directive 2007/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 165, 27.6.2007, p. 21).

      (6)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2008, p. 8.

      (7)  OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1. Directive as last amended by Directive 2008/32/EC (OJ L 81, 20.3.2008, p. 60).


title: Commission Recommendation No 1716/78/ECSC of 20 July 1978 providing for the suspension of the provisional anti-dumping duty established in relation to imports of iron and steel coils for re-rolling originating in Australia

text:
No L 198 /4                          Official Journal of the European Communities                           22. 7 . 78
                           COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION No 1716/78 /ECSC
                                                     of 20 July 1978
              providing for the suspension of the provisional anti-dumping duty established
              in relation to imports of iron or steel coils for re-rolling originating in Australia
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN                                 HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION :
COMMUNITIES,
                                                                                Article 1
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European          The application of the provisional anti-dumping duty
Coal and Steel Community, and in particular Article            established by Commission recommendation No 307/
74 thereof,
                                                               78 / ECSC, in relation to imports of iron or steel coils
Having regard to Commission recommendation                     for re-rolling originating in Australia, is suspended
77/329/ECSC of 15 April 1977 on protection against             from the date of the entry into force of this recom
                                                               mendation .
dumping or the granting of bounties or subsidies by
countries which are not members of the European                This recommendation does not prejudice the decision
Coal and Steel Community (•), as amended by recom             which the Commission may take subsequently with
mendation No 3004/77/ECSC (2), and in particular               respect to the treatment to be accorded to the sums
Articles 15 and 19 thereof,                                    guaranteed up to this date by way of provisional
                                                               duties .
Having heard the opinions expressed within the advi
sory committee provided for by recommendation                   No other anti-dumping duty or other similar
77/329/ ECSC,                                                  measures will be applied to imports of steel products
                                                               falling under the ECSC Treaty and originating in
Whereas the Commission has established, by recom              Australia unless a counter-recommendation is made
mendation No 307/78/.ECSC (3), a provisional anti             by the Commission .
dumping duty in relation to imports of iron or steel
coils for re-rolling originating in Australia ;                                        Article 2
                                                               This recommendation is addressed to the Member
Whereas since that time certain arrangements have
been made between the Community and Australia                  States. It will enter into force in respect of each
with respect to trade in steel products ;                      Member State from the date of its publication in the
                                                                Official Journal of the European Communities.
Whereas these arrangements, which the Commission
deems reasonable, allow the further application of              Done at Brussels, 20 July 1978 .
provisional anti-dumping duties to be suspended,
                                                                                For the Commission
without prejudice however to the subsequent decision
of the Commission with respect to the treatment to be                                   Wilhelm HAFERKAMP
accorded to the amounts guaranteed by way of provi
sional duty.                                                                                Vice-President
(•) OJ No L 114, 5. 5. 1977, p. 6.
(2) OJ No L 352, 31 . 12. 1977, p. 13.
(3) OJ No L 45, 16. 2. 1978 , p. 17.


Avis juridique important

|

E1997C0167

RECOMMENDATION OF THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY No 167/97/COL of 17 June 1997 concerning a co-ordinated programme of inspections in 1997 to ensure compliance with maximum levels of pesticide residues in and on certain products of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables

Official Journal L 303 , 06/11/1997 P. 0026 - 0029

RECOMMENDATION OF THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY No 167/97/COL of 17 June 1997 concerning a co-ordinated programme of inspections in 1997 to ensure compliance with maximum levels of pesticide residues in and on certain products of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY,Having regard to the European Economic Area Agreement, and in particular Article 109 and Protocol 1 thereof,Having regard to the Agreement relating to 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 in point 54 of Chapter XII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement on the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide in and on certain products of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables (Council Directive 90/642/EEC as amended), as adapted by way of Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement (below referred to as the Act), and in particular Article 4 (3) thereof,After consulting the EFTA Foodstuffs Committee assisting the EFTA Surveillance Authority,Whereas it follows from Article 4 (2) of the Act, that the EFTA States are required to send to the EFTA Surveillance Authority by 1 August 1996, all necessary information on the implementation during 1995 of their national programmes of inspection to ensure compliance with maximum levels of pesticide residues as set in Annex II to the said Directive; whereas the Authority has received certain information in accordance with this requirement;Whereas Article 4 (1) of the Act requires the EFTA States to draw up forward programmes laying down the nature and frequency of the inspections to be carried out to ensure compliance with the established list of maximum levels of pesticide residues;Whereas the amount of information made available to the EFTA Surveillance Authority has not been sufficient to permit a complete overview of the EFTA States' pesticide residues monitoring activities during 1995 or to allow a comprehensive evaluation of the EFTA States' monitoring intentions for 1997; whereas, nevertheless, sufficient information is available to coordinate a programme of monitoring of specific pesticides/product combinations at EEA level; whereas this is the third such specific co-ordinated programme to be recommended and indications as to the products to be included in future annual specific co-ordinated programmes are important for the planning of the competent authorities of the EFTA States; whereas products will not normally be repeated in specific co-ordinated programmes within an interval of three years;Whereas Annex II of the Act, as amended, contains lists of harmonized maximum residue levels for certain pesticides, which should be subject to the national and co-ordinated programmes of inspections in 1997;Whereas it remains necessary to recommend general basic arrangements for the inspections for pesticide residues to be carried out by the EFTA States during 1997 in order to ensure compliance with the mandatory maximum levels of pesticides residues and to contribute to the good functioning of the European Economic Area;Whereas it is important that information on current national quality assurance measures applied to sampling and analyses of pesticide residue levels is made available by the EFTA States as a basis for further discussion;Whereas it would also be helpful for the establishment of future recommendations for the EFTA Surveillance Authority to be informed in advance of the EFTA States' forward programmes for 1998 for the monitoring of maximum levels of pesticide residues provided for by the Act;Whereas the inspections and check sampling by EFTA States to ensure compliance with the maximum levels of pesticide residues set out in the list referred to in Article 1 (1) of Commission Directive 90/642/EEC should be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Act referred to in point 20 of Chapter XII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement establishing Community methods of sampling for the official control of pesticide residues in and on fruit and vegetables (Commission Directive 79/700/EEC), the Act referred to in point 37 of Chapter XII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement concerning the introduction of Community methods of sampling and analysis for the monitoring of foodstuffs intended for human consumption (Council Directive 85/591/EEC), the Act referred to in point 50 of Chapter XII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement on the official control of foodstuffs (Council Directive 89/397/EEC) and the Act referred to in point 54n of Chapter XII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement on the subject of additional measures concerning the official control of foodstuffs (Council Directive 93/99/EEC);Whereas Liechtenstein shall comply with the provisions of the acts referred to in Chapter XII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement by 1 January 2000; whereas Liechtenstein was to do its utmost to comply with the provisions of the acts referred to in that Chapter by 1 January 1997; whereas therefore Liechtenstein is included in this recommendation for 1997;Whereas the European Commission, in its Recommendation of 2 December 1996 concerning a co-ordinated programme of inspections in 1997 to ensure compliance with maximum levels of pesticide residues in an on certain products of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables, has recommended the Member States of the European Union to apply a corresponding programme,HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:It is recommended that Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway:1. as a specific exercise for 1997, sample and analyse for the product/pesticide residue combinations set out in the Annex, on the basis of a target number of 50 samples of each product, reflecting as appropriate national, EEA and third-country shares of the EFTA States' market and report the results, including analytical methods used, reporting levels achieved and quality assurance measures, at the latest by 1 August 1998;2. by 1 August 1997, send to the EFTA Surveillance Authority all the information as required by Article 4 (2) of the Act concerning the 1996 monitoring exercise to ensure, at least by check sampling, compliance with maximum pesticide residue levels and, in particular:2.1. the results of the specific exercise for 1996, as set out in point 5 of Recommendation of EFTA Surveillance Authority No 85/96/COL concerning a co-ordinated programme of inspections in 1996 to ensure compliance with maximum levels of pesticide residues in and on certain products of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables;2.2 the results of their national programmes concerning pesticides listed in Annex II of Directive 90/642/EEC, in relation to harmonized levels and, where these have not yet been fixed at EEA level, in relation to the national levels in force;2.3. the criteria applied when drawing up their national programmes concerning the numbers of samples taken and the analyses carried out;2.4. the criteria applied when defining and fixing reporting levels;2.5. the quality assurance measures applied to sampling of products or changes in those measures reported in previous years;2.6. details of accreditation, in accordance with the provisions of Article 3 of Directive 93/99/EC, of the laboratories carrying out the analyses and, where such accreditation has not yet been accorded, the criteria applied in establishing quality assurance measures in those laboratories;3. by 1 July 1997, send to the EFTA Surveillance Authority their intended national programme for monitoring maximum pesticide residue levels fixed by Directive 90/642/EEC for the year 1998 and, as far as possible, for following years.4. This Recommendation is addressed to Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.Done at Brussels, 17 June 1997.For the EFTA Surveillance AuthorityThe PresidentKnut ALMESTADANNEX Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) to be monitored in the specific exercise for 1997 set out in point 1 of the Recommendation >TABLE>


title: Council Recommendation of  14 March 2006  concerning the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Development Fund (Seventh EDF) for the financial year 2004

text:
               18.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 81/10

      COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION

   of 14 March 2006
   concerning the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Development Fund (Seventh EDF) for the financial year 2004
   (2006/221/EC)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
   Having regard to the Fourth ACP-EC Convention, signed at Lomé on 15 December 1989, as amended by the Agreement signed at Mauritius on 4 November 1995,
   Having regard to Internal Agreement 91/401/EEC on the financing and administration of Community aid under the Fourth ACP-EC Convention (1), setting up, amongst others, the Seventh European Development Fund (Seventh EDF) and in particular Article 33(3) thereof,
   Having regard to Financial Regulation 91/491/EEC of 29 July 1991 applicable to development finance cooperation under the Fourth ACP-EC Convention (2), and in particular Articles 69 to 77 thereof,
   Having examined the revenue and expenditure account and the balance sheet relating to the operations of the Seventh EDF as of 31 December 2004 and the Court of Auditors' report concerning the financial year 2004 together with the Commission's replies (3),
   Whereas pursuant to Article 33(3) of the Internal Agreement, the discharge for the financial management of the Seventh EDF is to be given to the Commission by the European Parliament on the recommendation of the Council;
   Whereas the overall implementation by the Commission of the operations of the Seventh EDF during the financial year 2004 has been satisfactory;
   HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the European Parliament give the Commission a discharge in respect of the implementation of the operations of the Seventh EDF for the financial year 2004.

      Done at Brussels, 14 March 2006.

            For the Council

            The President

         K.-H. GRASSER

      (1)  OJ L 229, 17.8.1991, p. 288.

      (2)  OJ L 266, 21.9.1991, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ C 301, 30.11.2005, p. 249.


title: Recommendation of the European Central Bank of 30 April 2008 to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of the European Central Bank (ECB/2008/2)

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/1

      RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

   of 30 April 2008
   to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of the European Central Bank
   (ECB/2008/2)
   (2008/C 114/01)
   THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,
   Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Article 27.1 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and of the national central banks of the Eurosystem are audited by independent external auditors recommended by the ECB's Governing Council and approved by the Council of the European Union.

               (2)

               The mandate of the current external auditors of the ECB ended following the audit for the financial year 2007. It is therefore necessary to appoint external auditors from the financial year 2008.

               (3)

               The ECB has selected PricewaterhouseCoopers Aktiengesellschaft Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft as its external auditors for the financial years 2008 to 2012,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:
   It is recommended that PricewaterhouseCoopers Aktiengesellschaft Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft should be appointed as the external auditors of the ECB for the financial years 2008 to 2012.

      Done at Frankfurt am Main, 30 April 2008.

            The President of the ECB

         Jean-Claude TRICHET


Avis juridique important

|

32001H0042

Commission Recommendation of 22 December 2000 concerning a coordinated Community monitoring programme for 2001 to ensure compliance with maximum levels of pesticide residues in and on cereals and certain products of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2000) 4096)

Official Journal L 011 , 16/01/2001 P. 0040 - 0045

Commission Recommendationof 22 December 2000concerning a coordinated Community monitoring programme for 2001 to ensure compliance with maximum levels of pesticide residues in and on cereals and certain products of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables(notified under document number C(2000) 4096)(Text with EEA relevance)(2001/42/EC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,Having regard to Council Directive 86/362/EEC of 24 July 1986 on the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on cereals(1), as last amended by Directive 2000/58/EC(2), and in particular Article 7(2)(b) thereof,Having regard to Council Directive 90/642/EEC of 27 November 1990 on the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on certain products of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables(3), as last amended by Directive 2000/58/EC, and in particular Article 4(2)(b) thereof,Whereas:(1) Article 7(2)(b) of Directive 86/362/EEC and Article 4(2)(b) of Directive 90/642/EEC require the Commission to submit to the Standing Committee on Plant Health by 31 December each year a recommendation setting out a coordinated Community monitoring programme to ensure compliance for maximum levels of pesticide residues set out in the Annexes II to the said Directives.(2) Experience gained by the Commission and the Member States in establishing, carrying out and reporting on the three previous annual coordinated monitoring programmes indicates that multiannual programmes appear to be most effective and practical. It appears appropriate to indicate in this recommendation the framework of future programmes. Article 1(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 645/2000(4) provides for Commission recommendations covering periods between one and five years.(3) The Commission should progressively work towards a system which would permit the estimation of actual pesticide dietary exposure, as provided for in the second paragraph of Article 7(3) of Directive 86/362/EEC and the second paragraph of Article 4(3) of Directive 90/642/EEC. To facilitate examination of the feasibility of such estimations, data concerning the monitoring of residues of pesticides in a number of food products which constitute major components of European diets should be available. In view of the resources available at national level for pesticide residue monitoring, Member States are only able to analyse samples of 10 products each year within a coordinated monitoring programme. Pesticide uses show changes within a five years' rolling programme timescale. Each pesticide should generally be monitored in 20 to 30 food products over a series of three-year cycles.(4) The residues recommended to be monitored in 2001 will allow examination of the feasibility of using the data concerning the pesticides acephate, the benomyl group, chlorpyriphos, iprodione and methamidophos as these compounds (identified as Group A in Annex IA) have already been monitored between 1996 and 2000 for estimation of actual dietary exposure. Continued monitoring facilitates recognising changes in pesticide occurrence.(5) The residues recommended to be monitored between 2001 and 2004 will allow examination of the feasibility of using the data concerning the pesticides diazinon, metalaxyl, methidathion, thiabendazole and triazophos for estimation of actual dietary exposure as these compounds (identified as Group B in Annex IA) have already been monitored between 1997 and 2000.(6) The residues recommended to be monitored between 2001 and 2004 will allow examination of the feasibility of using the data concerning the pesticides chlorpyriphos-methyl, deltamethrin, endosulfan, imazalil, lambda-cyhalothrin, the maneb group, mecarbam, permethrin, pirimiphos-methyl and vinclozolin for estimation of actual dietary exposure, as these compounds (identified as Group C in Annex IA) have already been monitored in 1998, 1999 and 2000.(7) The residues recommended to be monitored between 2000 and 2004 will allow examination of the feasibility of using the data concerning the pesticides azinphosmethyl, captan, chlorothalonil, dichlofluanid, dicofol, dimethoate, folpet, malathion, omethoate, procymidone, propyzamide and azoxystrobine for estimation of actual dietary exposure as these compounds, except azoxystrobine (identified as Group D in Annex IA) have already been monitored in 1998, 1999 and 2000.(8) The monitoring of disulfoton, phorate, thiometon and oxydemeton-methyl is not feasible within routine monitoring mufti-residue analytical methods. It is appropriate to collect data on occurrence of these residues when expected, in those Member States where the pesticide residues are most likely to be detected.(9) A systematic statistical approach to numbers of samples to be taken in each coordinated monitoring exercise is necessary. Such an approach has been set out by the Commission of the Codex Alimentarius(5). Based on a binomial probability distribution it can be calculated that examination of a total sample number of 459 gives a 99 % confidence of detecting one sample containing pesticide residues above the LOD where 1 % of products of plant origin contain residues above the LOD. At least 459 samples should therefore be taken across the Community, and should be apportioned between Member States on the basis of population and consumer numbers, with a minimum of 12 samples per product and per year, and indicated in Annex IB.(10) Draft guidelines concerning quality control procedures for pesticide residue analysis, have been discussed by the experts of the Member States at Oeiras, Portugal on 15 and 16 September 1997 and discussed and taken note of in the subgroup "Pesticide Residues" of the Working Group on Plant Health on 20 and 21 November 1997. It is agreed that these draft guidelines should be implemented as far as possible by the analytical laboratories of the Member States and should be reviewed in the light of this experience. The guidelines were discussed and revised by the experts of the Member States at Athens, Greece on 15 to 17 November 1999. The revised guidelines will be submitted to the Standing Committee on Plant Health and are to be published by the Commission(6).(11) Article 4(2)(a) of Directive 90/642/EEC requires Member States to specify the criteria applied in drawing up their national inspection programmes when sending to the Commission information on their implementation during the previous year. Such information should include the criteria applied in determining the numbers of samples to be taken and analyses to be carried out and the reporting levels applied and the criteria by which the reporting levels have been fixed. Details of accreditation under Directive 93/99/EEC of 29 October 1993 on the subject of additional measures concerning the official control of foodstuffs(7) of the laboratories carrying out analyses should be indicated.(12) Information on the results of monitoring programmes is particularly appropriate for treatment, storage and transmission by electronic/informatic methods. Formats have been developed for supply of data in diskette form from the Member States to the Commission. Member States should therefore be able to send their reports to the Commission in the standard format. The further development of such a standard format is most effectively undertaken by the development of guidelines by the Commission.(13) The measures provided for in this recommendation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plant Health,HEREBY RECOMMENDS THE MEMBER STATES TO:Article 1Sample and analyse for the product/pesticide residue combinations set out in Annex IA, on the basis of the number of samples of each product allocated to each Member State in Annex IB, reflecting as appropriate, national, Community and third country share of the Member State's market; for at least one pesticide possibly posing an acute risk, one of the products will be subjected to individual analysis of the items in the composite sample: two samples of an appropriate number of items will be taken, where possible the produce of a single producer; if in the first, composite sample a detectable level of the pesticide is found, the items of the second sample will be analysed individually; in 2001 this will include the combination phorate/potatoes and/or metidathion/apples.Article 2Sample products for the analysis of disulfoton, phorate, thiometon and oxydemeton-methyl in those countries where authorisations exist for the use of these pesticides on those products, on the basis of the number of samples of each product allocated to each Member State in Annex IB.Article 3By 31 August 2001, report the results for the part of the specific exercise allocated for 2000 in Annex IA, indicating the analytical methods used and reporting levels achieved, in accordance with the quality control procedures set out in the quality control procedures for pesticide residue analysis(8), in a format, including the electronic format, as set out in the Document for Guidance to the Member States with regard to implementation of the Commission Recommendations concerning coordinated Community monitoring programmes(9).Article 4By 31 August 2001, send to the Commission and to the Member States all the information as required by Article 7(3) of Directive 86/362/EEC and Article 4(3) of Directive 90/642/EEC concerning the 2000 monitoring exercise to ensure, at least by check sampling, compliance with maximum pesticide residue levels including:1. the results of their national programmes concerning pesticides listed in the Annexes II of Directives 86/362/EEC and 90/642/EEC, in relation to harmonised levels and, where these have not yet been fixed at Community level, in relation to the national levels in force;2. information on their laboratories quality control procedures and, in particular, information concerning aspects of the guidelines concerning quality control procedures for pesticide residue analysis which they have not been able to apply or have had difficulty in applying;3. information on accreditation in accordance with the provisions of Article 3 of Directive 93/99/EEC (including type of accreditation, accreditation body and copy of accreditation certificate) of the laboratories carrying out the analyses;4. information about the proficiency tests and ring tests the laboratory has participated in.Article 5By 30 September 2001, send to the Commission their intended national programme for monitoring maximum pesticide residue levels fixed by Directives 90/642/EEC and 86/362/EEC for the year 2002.This recommendation is addressed to the Member States.Done at Brussels, 22 December 2000.For the CommissionDavid ByrneMember of the Commission(1) OJ L 221, 7.8.1986, p. 37.(2) OJ L 244, 29.9.2000, p. 78.(3) OJ L 350, 14.12.1990, p. 71.(4) OJ L 78, 29.3.2000, p. 7.(5) Codex Alimentarius, "Pesticide Residues in Foodstuffs", Rome 1994, ISBN 92-5-203271-1; Volume 2, page 372.(6) Published in OJ L 128, 21.5.1999, p. 30. A revised version will be available as document number SANCO/3103/2000 (http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/ph_ps/pest/index_en.htm).(7) OJ L 290, 24.11.1993, p. 14.(8) See footnote 6.(9) OJ L 128, 21.5.1999, p. 48.ANNEX IAPesticide/product combinations to be monitored in the specific exercise set out in Article 1 of this Recommendation>TABLE>ANNEX IBNumber of samples of each product to be taken by each Member State, in the coordinated Community monitoring programme for 2001>TABLE>ANNEX IICoordinated monitoring programme of the years 1996 to 2004 with the intake estimation time windows and scope>TABLE>z Apples, strawberries, grapes, tomatoes, lettuce.y Mandarines, pears, bananas, beans, potatoes.x Oranges, peaches, carrots, spinach.w Cauliflower, peppers, wheat, melons.v Rice, cucumber, head cabbage, peas.u Onions, leeks, orange juice, apple juice, rye.


title: Recommendation of the European Systemic Risk Board of 24 March 2016 amending Recommendation ESRB/2015/2 on the assessment of cross-border effects of and voluntary reciprocity for macroprudential policy measures (ESRB/2016/3)

text:
               29.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/1

         RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN SYSTEMIC RISK BOARD
   of 24 March 2016
   amending Recommendation ESRB/2015/2 on the assessment of cross-border effects of and voluntary reciprocity for macroprudential policy measures
   (ESRB/2016/3)
   (2016/C 153/01)
   THE GENERAL BOARD OF THE EUROPEAN SYSTEMIC RISK BOARD,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
   Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on European Union macro-prudential oversight of the financial system and establishing a European Systemic Risk Board (1), and in particular Article 3 and Articles 16 to 18 thereof,
   Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (2), and in particular Article 458(8) thereof,
   Having regard to Decision ESRB/2011/1 of the European Systemic Risk Board of 20 January 2011 adopting the Rules of Procedure of the European Systemic Risk Board (3), and in particular Article 15(3)(e) and Articles 18 to 20 thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Ensuring effectiveness and consistency of macroprudential policy requires policy makers to give due consideration to the cross-border effects of macroprudential policy measures adopted by individual Member States and, when warranted, to adopt suitable reciprocating macroprudential policy measures to address them.

               (2)

               The framework on voluntary reciprocation for macroprudential policy measures set out in Recommendation ESRB/2015/2 of the European Systemic Risk Board (4) should ensure that all exposure-based macroprudential policy measures activated in one Member State are reciprocated in the other Member States.

               (3)

               In the light of recent legislative developments in Belgium with respect to the implementation of the 5-percentage-point risk-weight add-on applied under Article 458(2)(d)(vi) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 to Belgian mortgage loan exposures of credit institutions using the internal ratings-based (IRB) approach, the General Board of the European Systemic Risk Board has decided to include the Belgian measure in the list of macroprudential policy measures which are recommended to be reciprocated under Recommendation ESRB/2015/2,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:
   SECTION 1

      AMENDMENTS

   Recommendation ESRB/2015/2 is amended as follows:

               (1)

               Section 1, sub-recommendation C(1) is replaced by the following:

                           ‘1.

                           The relevant authorities are recommended to reciprocate the macroprudential policy measures adopted by other relevant authorities and recommended for reciprocation by the ESRB. It is recommended that the following measures be reciprocated:
                           Belgium:

                                       —

                                       a 5-percentage-point risk-weight add-on applied under Article 458(2)(d)(vi) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 to Belgian mortgage loan exposures of credit institutions using the internal-ratings based approach as further described in the annex.’;

               (2)

               the text set out in the Annex is added as an annex to Recommendation ESRB/2015/2.

      Done at Frankfurt am Main, 24 March 2016.

            The Chair of the ESRB

         Mario DRAGHI

      (1)  OJ L 331, 15.12.2010, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 176, 27.6.2013, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ C 58, 24.2.2011, p. 4.

      (4)  Recommendation ESRB/2015/2 of the European Systemic Risk Board of 15 December 2015 on the assessment of cross-border effects of and voluntary reciprocity for macroprudential policy measures (OJ C 97, 12.3.2016, p. 9).

      ANNEX

            ‘ANNEX

               Belgium

            5-Percentage-point risk-weight add-on applied under Article 458(2)(d)(vi) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 to Belgian mortgage loan exposures of credit institutions using the internal-ratings based approach (IRB credit institutions)
            I.   Description of the measure

                        1.

                        The Belgian measure constitutes a 5-percentage-point increase in risk weights applied by IRB credit institutions to the exposure value of Belgian mortgage loans. Specifically, the risk weighting, calculated in accordance with Article 154(3) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, for retail exposures secured by residential immovable property located in Belgium is increased by 5 percentage points. For example, a risk weighting of 10 percent applied by IRB credit institutions to Belgian mortgage loans is increased to 15 percent.

                  II.   Reciprocation

                        2.

                        In accordance with Article 458(5) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, relevant authorities are recommended to reciprocate the Belgian measure for the exposure value of Belgian mortgage loans issued by domestically authorised branches, located in Belgium, of IRB credit institutions established in their respective jurisdictions. For the purposes of this paragraph, the deadline specified in sub-recommendation C(3) applies.

                        3.

                        Where there are no IRB credit institutions located in other Member States with branches established in Belgium that have material exposures to the Belgian mortgage market, relevant authorities may decide not to apply Article 458(5) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013. Where a new decision to extend the period of application of the Belgian measure has been adopted under Article 458(9) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, relevant authorities are recommended to review the situation and, if deemed necessary, reciprocate the Belgian measure.

                        4.

                        Relevant authorities are also recommended to reciprocate the Belgian measure for the exposure value of Belgian mortgage loans provided directly across borders by IRB credit institutions established in their respective jurisdictions. In accordance with sub-recommendation C(2), relevant authorities are recommended to apply, following consultation with the ESRB, the macroprudential policy measure available in their jurisdiction that has the effect most equivalent to the above reciprocation, including adopting supervisory measures and powers laid down in Title VII, Chapter 2, Section IV of Directive 2013/36/EU. Relevant authorities are recommended to adopt the equivalent measure within six months.

                        5.

                        Where there are no IRB credit institutions located in other Member States with material direct cross-border exposures to the Belgian mortgage market, relevant authorities may decide not to reciprocate. Where a new decision to extend the period of application of the Belgian measure has been adopted under Article 458(9) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, relevant authorities are recommended to review the situation and, if deemed necessary, reciprocate the Belgian measure.’


				|

		52013PC0385

			Recommendation for a COUNCIL DECISION abrogating Decision 2010/286/EU on the existence of an excessive deficit in Italy /* COM/2013/0385 final */

			   	Recommendation for a
COUNCIL DECISION
abrogating Decision 2010/286/EU on the
existence of an excessive deficit in Italy
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
and in particular Article 126(12) thereof,
Having regard to the recommendation from
the Commission,
Whereas:
(1)       By Council Decision 2010/286/EU
of 2 December 2009[1],
following a recommendation from the Commission, it was decided that an
excessive deficit existed in Italy. The Council noted that the general
government deficit planned for 2009 was 5.3% of GDP, thus above the 3% of GDP Treaty
reference value, while the general government gross debt was planned to reach 115.1%
of GDP in 2009, thus above the 60% of GDP Treaty reference value[2].
(2)       On 2 December 2009, in
accordance with Article 126(7) TFEU and Article 3(4) of Council Regulation
(EC) No 1467/97 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation
of the excessive deficit procedure[3],
the Council, based on a recommendation from the Commission, addressed a
recommendation to Italy with a view to bringing the excessive deficit situation
to an end by 2012 at the latest. The recommendation was made public.
(3)       In accordance with Article
4 of the Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaties,
the Commission provides the data for the implementation of the procedure. As
part of the application of this Protocol, Member States are to notify data on
government deficits and debt and other associated variables twice a year,
namely before 1 April and before 1 October, in accordance with Article 3 of
Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2009 of 25 May 2009 on the application of the
Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaty establishing
the European Community[4].

(4)       When considering whether a
decision on the existence of an excessive deficit should be abrogated, the
Council should take a decision on the basis of notified data. Moreover, a
decision on the existence of an excessive deficit should be abrogated only if
the Commission forecasts indicate that the deficit will not exceed the 3% of
GDP threshold over the forecast horizon[5].
(5)       Based on data provided by
the Commission (Eurostat) in accordance with Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 479/2009
following the notification by Italy before 1 April 2013, the 2013 Stability Programme, the Commission services’ 2013 spring forecast, and the assessment of additional measures
adopted in decree-law 54 of 21 May 2013, the following
conclusions are warranted:
–
After peaking at 5.5% of GDP in 2009, Italy's
general government deficit was steadily brought down and reached 3.0% of GDP in
2012, which was the deadline set by the Council. The improvement was driven by significant
fiscal consolidation, while in 2012 interest expenditure was 0.8 pp. of
GDP higher than in 2009 and the composition of economic activity was tax poorer.
–
The stability programme for 2013-17, adopted by
the Italian government on 10 April 2013 and endorsed by parliament on 7 May, plans
the deficit to decline slightly to 2.9% of GDP in 2013 and then fall to 1.8% of
GDP in 2014. Based on the no-policy-change assumption, the Commission services'
2013 Spring forecast projects a deficit of 2.9% of GDP in 2013 and, 2.5% of GDP
in 2014. Both the stability programme and the Spring forecast include the
impact of decree-law 35 of 8 April 2013, which provides for the settlement of
trade debt arrears owed by the general government sector to private suppliers, for
an overall amount of EUR 40 billion (or around 2.5% of GDP) over 2013‑14.
While this amount translates into a corresponding increase of the general
government debt, it affects the deficit only for the part that is related to capital
expenditure. The decree law sets these payments at 0.5% of GDP in 2013, with a
corresponding increase in the deficit. It also includes a safeguard clause that
authorises the government to delay the settlement of deficit-increasing trade
debt arrears or adopt other corrective measures, in order to ensure the achievement
of the 2013 budgetary target.
–
The Italian Parliament formally endorsed the
budgetary objectives put forward in the 2013 stability programme on 7 May. On 17
May, i.e. after the Spring forecast, the new governmment issued a formal
declaration to confirm these commitments and announce the adoption of new
measures in the full respect of the budgetary objectives in the stability
programme. Decree-law 54, adopted on the same date, spells out the new
measures. These include:
–
the suspension of the June instalment of the
property tax on owner‑occupied houses – excluding luxury residences – as
well as agricultural property, while committing the government to an overall
redesign of the legislation on real estate taxation. A safeguard clause ensures
that the redesign has to be made in the full respect of the budgetary targets in
primary terms; furthermore, if the budgetary-neutral reform fails to be
approved by the end of August 2013, the suspended property tax instalment will
have to be paid by 16 September.
–
the extension of the wage supplementation scheme
to workers not already covered for the year 2013, by reallocating available
budgetary resources over and above those set aside with the 2012 labour‑market
reform.
–
Overall, the new provisions are assessed to have
no significant impact on the deficit, if consistently implemented. Therefore,
the deficit is set to remain below the reference value of 3% of GDP in a
durable way.
–
After improving by nearly 2¾ pps. of GDP in
cumulative terms between 2009 and 2012, the structural balance, i.e. adjusted for
the economic cycle and net of one‑off and other temporary measures, is forecast
to further improve by nearly 1 pp. in 2013 (to around ‑½% of GDP) and worsen
slightly in 2014, based on a no‑policy‑change assumption.
–
The debt-to-GDP ratio rose by 10.6 percentage
points between 2009 and 2012, to 127.0%, also due to Italy's contribution to financial
assistance to Euro Area Member States. As cyclical conditions remain negative,
the gross government debt is forecast to increase to 131.4% of GDP in 2013 and 132.2%
in 2014 also due to the 2.5 pps. of GDP settlement of trade debt arrears
planned over 2013-14.
(6)       The Council recalls that,
starting in 2013, which is the year following the correction of the excessive
deficit, Italy should progress towards its medium-term objective at an
appropriate pace, including respecting the expenditure benchmark, and make
sufficient progress towards compliance with the debt criterion
in accordance with Article 2(1a) of Council Regulation (EC) 1467/97 of July
1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit
procedure.
(7)       In accordance with Article
126(12) of the Treaty, a Council Decision on the existence of an excessive
deficit is to be abrogated when the excessive deficit in the Member State
concerned has, in the view of the Council, been corrected.
(8)       In the view of the
Council, the excessive deficit in Italy has been corrected and Decision 2010/286/EU
should therefore be abrogated,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
From an overall assessment it follows that
the excessive deficit situation in Italy has been corrected.
Article 2
Decision 2010/286/EU is hereby abrogated.
Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the Italian Republic.
Done at Brussels,
                                                                       For
the Council
                                                                       The
President
[1]               OJ L 125, 21.5.2010, p. 40.
[2]               The general government deficit and debt for 2009 were
subsequently revised to 5.5% and 116.4% of GDP respectively.
[3]               OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 6.
[4]               OJ L 145, 10.6.2009, p. 1.
[5]               In line with the “Specifications on the
implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact and Guidelines on the format
and content of Stability and Convergence Programmes” of 3 September 2012. See:
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/economic_governance/sgp/pdf/coc/code_of_conduct_en.pdf