Avis juridique important

|

31985K0041

Commission Recommendation No 41/85/ECSC of 4 January 1985 on Community surveillance in respect of the importation of certain iron and steel products covered by the ECSC Treaty and originating in certain non-member countries other than Spain

Official Journal L 007 , 09/01/1985 P. 0005 - 0010 Spanish special edition: Chapter 11 Volume 21 P. 0135  Portuguese special edition Chapter 11 Volume 21 P. 0135

*****COMMISSION  RECOMMENDATION No 41/85/ECSC  of 4 January 1985  on Community surveillance in respect of the importation of certain iron and steel products covered by the ECSC Treaty and originating in certain non-member countries other than Spain  THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, and in particular Article 74 thereof,  Whereas by recommendation No 161/84/ECSC (1), as amended by recommendation No 902/84/ECSC (2), the Commission has subjected to a Community monitoring system the imports into the Community of certain iron and steel products covered by the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community;  Whereas the reasons which originally led the Commission to introduce these measures, namely the need to ensure fuller information on both expected imports and the terms under which they are made, continue to apply;  Whereas, it is advisable to take into account the special monitoring scheme introduced for imports originating in Spain,  MAKES THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION:  Article 1  1. The importation into the Community of iron and steel products covered by the ECSC Treaty, listed in Annexes III A and III B and originating in non-member countries other than Spain, shall be subject to the issue of an import licence.  2. The products referred to in paragraph 1 shall be considered as being of first-choice quality until proof to the contrary is supplied by the importer.  3. The import licence shall be issued or endorsed by the Member States, free of charge and for any quantities requested, upon receipt of the application and in any case within not more than 10 working days from the submission of the completed application and presentation of two duplicates of the relevant purchase contract(s) and the vendor's order confirmation(s). The originals of these documents must be produced if required by the licence-issuing authority. If the products in question are declared as being seconds or of substandard quality, the import licence shall indicate the precise characteristics which justify the said classification of the products.  4. Paragraph 1 shall apply without prejudice to the maintenance of existing quantitative restrictions imposed by certain Member States on certain iron and steel products in respect of certain non-member countries.  5. The period of validity of the import licence is hereby fixed at two months, without prejudice to possible changes in the import arrangements in force.  6. Completely used import licences shall be returned immediately to the issuing office. Licences not, or incompletely, used two months after their date of issue shall be returned to the issuing office within five working days of their date of expiry.  Article 2  1. The importer's application must state for goods listed in Annexes III A and III B:  (a) the country of origin and the country of consignment;  (b) a description of the goods and an indication of the Common Customs Tariff subheading and the NIMEXE code;  (c) the characteristics establishing any claim that the goods are seconds or of substandard quality;  (d) the quantity of the goods in tonnes, by individual lots;  (e) the name, address, telephone number and telex number of the vendor;  (f) the name, address, telephone number and telex number of the importer;  (g) the name, address, telephone number and telex number of any final purchaser, where known;  (h) the proposed date and place (customs office) of importation;  (i) the point of delivery used for the calculation of the invoiced price;  (j) the date of the contract for the purchase of the goods and the contract number or any other reference given by the vendor by which the delivery in question may be identified;  (k) where applicable, that the goods in question are intended for processing under contract and subsequent re-export outside the Community (country of re-export to be specified).  2. The following additional information shall also be supplied when a licence to import goods listed in Annex III A is applied for:  A. For goods originating in and consigned directly from one of the countries listed in Annex I (direct importation):  (a) a full commercial description of the goods, including exact specifications, sufficient to permit calculation of the delivered price according to the price lists selected;  (b) the delivered price per tonne, including transport costs to point of delivery and all extras, rebates and any other factors relevant to calculation of the delivered price;  (c) details of:  (i) the price lists of the producer in the non-member country in question, chosen for calculating the delivered price, stating the date of the chosen lists; or  (ii) the Community producer's price lists chosen for calculating the delivered price, stating the date of the chosen lists; or  (iii) where appropriate, the non-member country offer on which the terms of the delivery have been aligned, giving details sufficient to identify the offer, including its date; or  (iv) any other appropriate price (to be justified);  (d) if available, the date of issuance of the bill of lading.  B. For goods originating in and consigned directly from one of the countries listed in Annex II (direct importation):  (a) a full commercial description of the goods, including exact specifications, sufficient to permit calculation of the delivered price according to the price lists selected;  (b) the delivered price per tonne, including customs duties, transport costs to point of delivery and all extras, rebates and any other factors relevant to calculation of the delivered price;  (c) details of:  (i) the Community producer's price lists chosen for calculating the delivered price, stating the date of the chosen lists; or  (ii) where appropriate, the non-member country offer on which the terms of the delivery have been aligned, giving details sufficient to identify the offer, including its date; or  (iii) where appropriate, other prices (to be justified);  (d) the date of issuance of the bill of lading, if available.  C. For goods originating in one of the countries listed in Annexes I or II but consigned from any non-member country other than the country of origin (indirect importation), for products originating in Brazil, other than pig and cast iron falling within heading No 73.01 of the Common Customs Tariff, and for goods originating in a non-member country other than Spain, not listed in Annexes I or II:  (a) a complete description corresponding to that appearing in the list of products subject to the basic prices in force;  (b) the cif price at the Community frontier, per tonne, in the currency of the contract, plus customs duties applicable and unloading costs.  3. The importer shall declare that neither he nor the purchaser will be granted any reduction, rebate or other form of refund not mentioned in the contract for the transaction, either at the time of the transaction or subsequently.  4. The importer shall certify that his application for an import licence is accurate.  5. The importer shall state whether his application is a repeat of a previous application concerning the same delivery.  Article 3  1. The Member States shall communicate to the Commission, as soon as such information is established by the competent authorities, any difference between:  - the delivered price calculated according to the provisions on prices applicable to the non-member countries listed in Annexes I and II on the date scheduled for importation, and - the price used on the basis of the chosen Community producer's price list pursuant to Article 2 (2) (B) (c) or justified otherwise.  They shall also furnish all necessary documents, notably the duplicates of licence applications, purchase contracts and vendor's order confirmations, whenever the price difference noted is considerable or relates to a large quantity.  2. The Member States shall communicate to the Commission, as soon as such information is established by the competent authorities, any difference between:  - the basic price as published in the Official Journal of the European Communities, plus any extras, and  - the cif price at the Community frontier, including customs duties applicable and unloading costs, in ECU per tonne, for the following goods:  (i) goods originating in one of the countries listed in Annexes I and II, but consigned from a non-member country other than the country of origin;  (ii) goods originating in non-member countries, other than Spain or those listed in Annexes I and II;  (iii) goods originating in Brazil, other than pig and cast iron falling within heading No 73.01 of the Common Customs Tariff.  3. Within the first 10 days of each month, Member States shall notify the Commission of the tonnage and amounts (calculated on the basis of the cif prices) for which import licences were issued during the preceding month.  4. The information supplied by Member States shall include:  (a) a breakdown by product (Common Customs Tariff subheading and NIMEXE code) with separate declaration of the quantities declared as being seconds or of substandard quality;  (b) a breakdown by country of origin;  (c) within the total of any one product originating in any one country, the quantities not imported directly from that country and, where appropriate, a breakdown by country or countries of consignment;  (d) the quantities of each product re-exported outside the Community after inward processing.  5. Within the first 10 days of each month, Member States shall communicate to the Commission the tonnage and the amounts (calculated on the basis of the cif price) for which import licences have expired during the preceding month without having been used by importers.  Article 4  For the purposes of this recommendation, the country of consignment is deemed to be the last intermediate non-member country in which the product in question was the subject of entrepôt operations or legal transactions not connected with its transportation.  Article 5  This recommendation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.  It shall apply until 31 December 1985.  Done at Brussels, 4 January 1985.  For the Commission  Wilhelm HAFERKAMP  Vice-President  (1) OJ No L 19, 24. 1. 1984, p. 5.  (2) OJ No L 93, 3. 4. 1984, p. 8.  ANNEX  I  Austria  Finland  Norway  Sweden  ANNEX II  1.2 // Australia Brazil (1) Bulgaria Czechoslovakia Hungary  // Japan Korea Poland Romania South Africa  (1) Only for pig and cast iron falling within heading No 73.01 of the Common Customs Tariff.  ANNEX  III A  List of products the importation of which is subject to the issue of an import document  (quantity and price surveillance)  1.2.3 //   //   //   // CCT heading No  // NIMEXE code  // Description  //   //   //   //   //   //   // 73.01 B  // 73.01-21, 23, 25, 27  // Haematite pig iron and cast iron  // 73.01 C  // 73.01-31, 35  // Phosphoric pig iron and cast iron  // 73.01 D  // 73.01-41, 49  // Pig iron and cast iron other than spiegeleisen, haematite and phosphoric pig iron and cast iron  // 73.02 A I  // 73.02-01, 09  // Ferro-manganese containing more than 2 % by weight of carbon (high carbon ferro-manganese)  // 73.07 A I  // 73.07-12  // Blooms and billets, of iron or steel, rolled (1)  // 73.07 B I  // 73.07-21, 24  // Slabs and sheet bars, of iron or steel, rolled (1)  // 73.08  // 73.08-03, 05, 07, 21, 25, 29, 41, 45, 49  // Iron or steel coils for re-rolling other than 'electrical'  // 73.10 A I  // 73.10-11  // Wire rod of iron or steel  // 73.10 A II  // 73.10-12, 14  // Concrete reinforcing bars of iron or steel with minor indentations, flanges, grooves or other deformations produced during the rolling process, whether or not twisted after rolling  //   // 73.10-15, 17  // Other bars and rods  // 73.11 A I  // 73.11-11, 12, 14, 16, 19  // Angles, shapes and sections of iron or steel, not further worked than hot-rolled or extruded  // 73.12 A II  // 73.12-19  // Hoop and strip of iron or steel, other than 'electrical', not further worked than hot-rolled  // 73.13 A II  // 73.13-16  // 'Electrical' sheets and plates of iron or steel, other than with a watt-loss, regardless of thickness, of 0,75 watt or less  // 73.13 B I a)  // 73.13-17, 19, 21, 23, 26  // Sheets and plates, other than 'electrical', not further worked than hot-rolled, of a thickness of 2 mm or more  // 73.13 B II a)  // 73.13-41  // Sheets and plates, other than 'electrical', not further worked than cold-rolled, of a thickness of 3 mm or more  // 73.13 B II b)  // 73.13-43, 45  // Sheets and plates, other than 'electrical', not further worked than cold-rolled, of a thickness of more than 1 mm but less than 3 mm  // 73.13 B II c)  // 73.13-47, 49  // Sheets and plates, other than 'electrical', not further worked than cold-rolled, of a thickness of 1 mm or less  // 73.13 B IV c) 1 and 2  // 73.13-67, 72  // Sheets and plates, other than 'electrical', non-corrugated, zinc-coated  // 73.15 A V b) 1  // 73.63-21  // High carbon wire rod  // 73.15 B I b) 2 (aa)  // 73.71-53  // Blooms, billets, slabs, sheet bars, other than forged (1): - Stainless or heat-resisting steel  // 73.15 B V b) 1 (aa)  // 73.73-23  // Wire rod: - Stainless or heat-resisting steel  // 73.15 B V b) 1 (cc)  // 73.73-25  // Wire rod: - S, Pb and P steels  // 73.15 B V b) 1 (dd)  // 73.73-26  // Wire rod: - Mangano-silicon  // 73.15 B V b) 1 (ee)  // 73.73-29  // Wire rod: - Other (excluding high-speed)  // 73.15 B V b) 2 (aa)  // 73.73-33  // Hot-rolled or extruded bars, rods, angles, shapes and sections: - Stainless or heat-resisting steel  // 73.15 B V b) 2 (cc)  // 73.73-35  // Hot-rolled or extruded bars, rods, angles, shapes and sections: - S, Pb and P steels  // 73.15 B V b) 2 (dd)  // 73.73-36  // Hot-rolled or extruded bars, rods, angles, shapes and sections: - Mangano-silicon  //   //   //   //   //  //  (1) Includes products of the same form in continuous casting.  1.2.3 //   //   //  //   //   //   // CCT heading No  // NIMEXE code  // Description  //   //   //   //   // 73.15 B V b) 2 (ee)  // 73.73-39  // Hot-rolled or extruded bars, rods, angles, shapes and sections: - Other alloy (excluding high-speed)  // 73.15 B VII a) 2  // 73.75-19  // 'Electrical' sheets and plates in alloy steel with a watt-loss, regardless of thickness, of greater than 0,75 watt  // 73.15 B VII b) 1 (aa) 11  // 73.75-23  // Hot-rolled sheets and plates of a thickness more than 4,75 mm: - Stainless or heat-resisting  // 73.15 B VII b) 1 (aa) 33  // 73.75-29  // Sheets and plates of a thickness of more than 4,75 mm other than stainless, heat-resisting or high-speed steel  // 73.15 B VII b) 1 (bb) 11  // 73.75-33  // Hot-rolled sheets and plates of a thickness not less than 3 mm but not more than 4,75 mm: - Stainless or heat-resisting  // 73.15 B VII b) 1 (cc) 11  // 73.75-43  // Hot-rolled sheets and plates of a thickness less than 3 mm: - Stainless or heat-resisting  // 73.15 B VII b) 2 (aa) 11  // 73.75-53  // Sheets and plates, other than 'electrical' not further worked than cold-rolled, of a thickness of 3 mm or more, stainless or heat-resisting  // 73.15 B VII b) 2 (bb) 11  // 73.75-63  // Cold-rolled sheet of a thickness less than 3 mm: - Stainless or heat-resisting  //   //   //  ANNEX III B  List of products for which import is subject to the issue of an import document (quantity monitoring)  1.2.3 //   //   //   // CCT heading No  //  NIMEXE code  // Description  //   //   //   // 73.13 B IV b) 1  // 73.13-64  // Tinplate  // 73.13 B IV c) 2 (aa)  // 73.13-68  // Sheets and plates, other than 'electrical', corrugated, otherwise zinc-coated  // 73.13 B IV d) 3 (bb) 33  // 73.13-87  // Sheets and plates, other than 'electrical', aluminium-coated  // 73.15 A I b) 2  // 73.61-50  // Blooms, billets, slabs and sheet bars of high carbon steel, other than forged (1)  // 73.15 B I b) 2 (cc)  // 73.71-55  // Blooms, billets, slabs and sheet bars: - S, Pb and P steels (1)  // 73.15 B I b) 2 (dd)  // 73.71-56  // Blooms, billets, slabs and sheet bars: - Mangano-silicon steel (1)  // 73.15 B I b) 2 (ee)  // 73.71-59  // Blooms, billets, slabs and sheet bars: - Other alloy steel (1)  // 73.15 B V b) 1 (bb)  // 73.73-24  // Wire rod of high-speed steel  // 73.15 B V b) 2 (bb)  // 73.73-34  // Hot-rolled or extruded bar, rod, angles, shapes and sections of high-speed steel  // 73.15 B VII b) 1 (bb) 33  // 73.75-39  // Hot-rolled plate and sheet of a thickness not less than 3 mm but not more than 4,75 mm: - Other alloy (excluding stainless)  // 73.15 B VII b) 1 (cc) 33  // 73.75-49  // Hot-rolled sheet of a thickness less than 3 mm: - Other alloy (excluding stainless)  // 73.15 B VII b) 2 (aa) 33  // 73.75-79  // Sheets and plates, other than 'electrical', not further worked than cold-rolled, of a thickness of 3 mm or more: - Other  // 73.15 B VII b) 2 (bb) 33  // 73.75-69  // Cold-rolled sheet of a thickness less than 3 mm: - Other alloy (excluding stainless)  //   //   //  (1) Includes products of the same form in continuous casting.73.75-69  COLD-ROLLED SHEET OF A THICKNESS LESS THAN 3 MM : - OTHER ALLOY ( EXCLUDING STAINLESS )  //  //  //  ( 1 ) INCLUDES PRODUCTS OF THE SAME FORM IN CONTINUOUS CASTING .


title: Recommendation of the European Central Bank of 1 June 2012 to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of Banka Slovenije (ECB/2012/9)

text:
               7.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/1

         RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK
   of 1 June 2012
   to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of Banka Slovenije
   (ECB/2012/9)
   2012/C 161/01
   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 Banka Slovenije’s current external auditors will end following the audit for the financial year 2011. It is therefore necessary to appoint external auditors from the financial year 2012.

               (3)

               Banka Slovenije has selected Deloitte revizija d.o.o. as its external auditors for the financial years 2012 to 2014,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:
   It is recommended that Deloitte revizija d.o.o. should be appointed as the external auditors of Banka Slovenije for the financial years 2012 to 2014.

      Done at Frankfurt am Main, 1 June 2012.

            The President of the ECB

         Mario DRAGHI


Avis juridique important

|

31979H0114

79/114/EEC: Council Recommendation of 21 December 1978 on the ratification of the 1978 International Convention on standards of training, certification and watchkeeping for seafarers

Official Journal L 033 , 08/02/1979 P. 0031 - 0031 Greek special edition: Chapter 05 Volume 3 P. 0163  Spanish special edition: Chapter 07 Volume 2 P. 0162  Portuguese special edition Chapter 07 Volume 2 P. 0162

COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION  of 21 December 1978  on the ratification of the 1978 International Convention on standards of training, certification and watchkeeping for seafarers  (79/114/EEC)  THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 84 (2) thereof,  Whereas, at its meeting on 7 and 8 April 1978 in Copenhagen, the European Council declared that the Community should make the prevention and combating of marine pollution, particularly from hydrocarbons, a major objective;  Whereas, at its meeting on 6 and 7 July 1978 in Bremen, the European Council deemed it necessary, taking into account the proposals of individual Member States and the Commission, to take further measures to increase the safety of maritime traffic;  Whereas an International Convention on standards of training, certification and watchkeeping for seafarers was adopted in London in July 1978;  Whereas, in the interests of shipping safety and the prevention of pollution, this Convention should enter into force as soon as possible ; whereas the early ratification of the Convention by the Member States would constitute a major contribution to the achievement of that objective,    HEREBY RECOMMENDS:    - that the Member States sign the 1978 International Convention on standards of training, certification and watchkeeping for seafarers by 1 April 1979 and ratify it as soon as possible and not later than 31 December 1980;       - that the Member States inform the Secretary-General of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization that they have signed and ratified the Convention in accordance with this recommendation.           Done at Brussels, 21 December 1978.  For the Council  The President  Otto Graf LAMBSDORFF


title: Recommendation for a Council recommendation to France with a view to bringing an end to the situation of an excessive government defícit Application of Article 104(7) of the Treaty

text: ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---


title: Recommendation for a Council recommendation with a view to giving early warning to Germany in order to prevent the occurrence of an excessive deficit and proposal for a Council decision making public this recommendation

text: ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---  ---pagebreak---


Avis juridique important

|

31978K1704

Commission Recommendation No 1704/78/ECSC of 19 July 1978 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on certain sheets and plates, of iron or steel, originating in Czechoslovakia, Japan, Poland and Spain

Official Journal L 195 , 20/07/1978 P. 0017 - 0019

****( 1 ) OJ NO L 114 , 5 . 5 . 1977 , P . 6 .  ( 2 ) OJ NO L 352 , 31 . 12 . 1977 , P . 13 .  ( 3 ) OJ NO C 19 , 24 . 1 . 1978 , P . 7 .  ( 4 ) OJ NO L 19 , 24 . 1 . 1978 , P . 9 AND OJ NO L 23 , 28 . 1 . 1978 , P . 33 .  ( 5 ) OJ NO L 39 , 9 . 2 . 1978 , P . 13 .  ( 6 ) POLAND : OJ NO L 120 , 4 . 5 . 1978 , AND OJ NO   L 145 , 1 . 6 . 1978 .   SPAIN : OJ NO L 115 , 27 . 4 . 1978 .   JAPAN : OJ NO L 106 , 20 . 4 . 1978 .   CZECHOSLOVAKIA : OJ NO L 106 , 20 . 4 . 1978 .  ( 7 ) SPAIN : OJ NO L 120 , 4 . 5 . 1978 .   CZECHOSLOVAKIA : OJ NO L 116 , 28 . 4 . 1978 .   JAPAN : OJ NO L 94 , 8 . 4 . 1978 .  ( 1 ) COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION OF 31 DECEMBER 1977 CONCERNING THE BASIC PRICES OF CERTAIN STEEL PRODUCTS ( OJ NO L 353 , 31 . 12 . 1977 , P . 1 ), AS AMENDED BY THE COMMUNICATION OF 5 JULY 1978 ( OJ NO L 183 , 5 . 7 . 1978 , P . 3 .  ( 2 ) OJ NO L 114 , 5 . 5 . 1977 , P . 1 , OJ NO C 174 , 22 . 7 . 1977 AND OJ NO L 352 , 31 . 12 . 1977 , P . 17 .     COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION NO 1704/78/ECSC   OF 19 JULY 1978   IMPOSING A DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING DUTY ON CERTAIN SHEETS AND PLATES , OF IRON OR STEEL , ORIGINATING IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA , JAPAN , POLAND AND SPAIN   THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN   COMMUNITIES ,   HAVING REGARD TO THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY , AND IN PARTICULAR ARTICLES 74 AND 86 THEREOF ,   HAVING REGARD TO COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 77/329/ECSC OF 15 APRIL 1977 ON PROTECTION AGAINST DUMPING OR THE GRANTING OF BOUNTIES OR SUBSIDIES BY COUNTRIES WHICH ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY ( 1 ), AS AMENDED BY RECOMMENDATION NO 3004/77/ECSC ( 2 ), AND IN PARTICULAR ARTICLES 17 AND 19 THEREOF ,   HAVING REGARD THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED WITHIN THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE PROVIDED FOR BY RECOMMENDATION 77/329/ECSC ,   WHEREAS THE COMMISSION HAS RECEIVED A COMPLAINT , SUBMITTED IN THE NAME OF THE RELEVANT COMMUNITY INDUSTRY , SETTING OUT EVIDENCE AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF DUMPING OF CERTAIN SHEETS AND PLATES OF IRON OR STEEL , ORIGINATING IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA , JAPAN , POLAND AND SPAIN AND CERTAIN OTHER COUNTRIES , AND MATERIAL INJURY RESULTING THEREFROM ;   WHEREAS , SINCE THE INFORMATION RECEIVED INDICATED THAT THE COMPLAINT WAS ADMISSIBLE AND THAT DEFENSIVE MEASURES MIGHT BE NECESSARY , THE COMMISSION OFFICIALLY INFORMED THE IMPORTERS AND EXPORTERS KNOWN TO BE CONCERNED , PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES A NOTICE OF THE INITIATION OF AN INQUIRY CONCERNING THE IMPORTS IN QUESTION ( 3 ) AND COMMENCED AN EXAMINATION OF THE MATTER IN COOPERATION WITH THE MEMBER STATES ;   WHEREAS , SINCE PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF THE MATTER SHOWED THAT THERE WAS DUMPING AND SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF INJURY AND THE INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY CALLED FOR IMMEDIATE INTERVENTION , THE COMMISSION , BY RECOMMENDATIONS NO 121/78/ECSC , NO 160/78/ECSC ( 4 ), AND NO 262/78/ECSC ( 5 ) IMPOSED PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON THE IMPORTS IN QUESTION ;   WHEREAS , IN CERTAIN CASES , THE SAID RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN EXTENDED ( 6 ) AND IN CERTAIN CASES SUSPENDED ( 7 );   WHEREAS , IN THE COURSE OF THE EXAMINATION OF THE MATTER , COMPLETED AFTER THE IMPOSITION OF THE PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES , THE COMMISSION GAVE INTERESTED PARTIES THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE KNOWN THEIR VIEWS IN WRITING AND GAVE THE PARTIES DIRECTLY CONCERNED WHO SO REQUESTED THE OPPORTUNITY ORALLY TO DEVELOP THEIR VIEWS :   WHEREAS , HOWEVER , IN SO FAR AS INTERESTED PARTIES DID NOT AVAIL THEMSELVES OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE KNOWN THEIR VIEWS OR PRESENT THEIR ARGUMENTS , THE COMMISSION HAD TO BASE ITS FINDINGS ON THE FACTS AVAILABLE ;   WHEREAS , WHEN DETERMINING DUMPING ON THE IMPORTS ORIGINATING IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA AND POLAND , THE COMMISSION HAD TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT TRADE IS ON A BASIS OF NEAR OR TOTAL MONOPOLY AND THAT PRICES ARE FIXED BY THE STATE AND THAT , THEREFORE , AN EXACT COMPARISON BETWEEN THE EXPORT PRICE OF THE PRODUCT TO THE COMMUNITY AND ITS DOMESTIC PRICE IS NOT APPROPRIATE ;   WHEREAS IN VIEW OF THE PARTICULAR SITUATION PREVAILING ON NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL MARKETS FOR STEEL IT APPEARED TO THE COMMISSION THAT SALES ON THE DOMESTIC MARKETS OF JAPAN AND SPAIN WERE NOT MADE IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF TRADE AND DID NOT PERMIT A PROPER COMPARISON FOR THE PURPOSES OF ESTABLISHING DUMPING MARGINS ;   WHEREAS , FOR THESE REASONS , THE COMMISSION HAS DECIDED TO BASE ITS DUMPING CALCULATIONS ON THE COST OF PRODUCTION IN A COUNTRY CONSIDERED TO BE ONE OF THE MOST EFFICIENT PRODUCERS OF THE PRODUCT IN QUESTION , AS ESTABLISHED BY MEANS OF THE LATEST PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATA ;           WHEREAS SUCH COST OF PRODUCTION HAS BEEN CALCULATED TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION INTER ALIA THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS : RAW MATERIALS ( COVERING IRON ORE , SINTER , PELLETS , SCRAP , FERRO ALLOYS AND OTHER IRON-BEARING MATERIALS AND FLUXES ), ENERGY COSTS ( COKE , FUEL OIL , ELECTRICITY ), LABOUR COSTS INCLUDING SOCIAL COSTS , OTHER OPERATING COSTS ( INCLUDING MAINTENANCE COSTS AND TRANSPORT COSTS ) AND CAPITAL COSTS , TO WHICH WAS ADDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT FOR ADMINISTRATION , SELLING AND ANY OTHER COSTS AND FOR PROFITS ;   WHEREAS THE AFOREMENTIONED CALCULATION HAS CONFIRMED THE REASONABLENESS OF THE BASIC PRICES AS PUBLISHED BY THE COMMISSION ( 1 );   WHEREAS THE PRICES OF IMPORTS INTO THE COMMUNITY OF THE PRODUCTS WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE COMPLAINT HAVE BEEN COMPARED WITH THESE BASIC PRICES ;   WHEREAS THIS PRICE COMPARISON WAS MADE ON A FREE COMMUNITY FRONTIER DUTY-PAID BASIS ;   WHEREAS THIS EXAMINATION OF THE MATTER HAS SHOWN THAT THE PRODUCTS IN QUESTION WERE OFFERED FOR IMPORT WITHIN THE COMMUNITY AT PRICES LOWER THAN THE BASIC PRICES AND THAT DUMPING HAS TAKEN PLACE , THE MARGIN OF WHICH IS CONSTITUTED BY THIS UNDERCUTTING ;   WHEREAS , WITH REGARD TO THE INDUSTRY CONCERNED , THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE TO THE COMMISSION SHOWS THAT , WHILST GLOBAL IMPORTS IN 1977 AMOUNTED TO 1 700 000 TONNES , IMPORTS ORIGINATING IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA , JAPAN , POLAND AND SPAIN ROSE FROM 431 000 TONNES IN 1974 TO 811 000 TONNES IN 1977 ; WHEREAS , AS A RESULT , GLOBAL IMPORTS HAVE ACQUIRED A COMMUNITY MARKET SHARE OF 19 % IN TOTAL AND 12 % FOR IMPORTS ORIGINATING IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA , JAPAN , POLAND AND SPAIN , TOGETHER WITH THOSE FROM AUSTRIA , BULGARIA , FINLAND , THE GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC , ROMANIA AND SWEDEN , WHICH ARE ALSO SUBJECT TO DEFENSIVE MEASURES IN THE COMMUNITY OR TO STEEL ARRANGEMENTS CONCLUDED WITH THE ECSC ;   WHEREAS , ON THE OTHER HAND , THE COMMUNITY STEEL INDUSTRY IS IN A STATE OF CRISIS ; WHEREAS DURING THE PERIOD 1974 TO 1977 PRODUCTION OF THE PRODUCTS CONCERNED FELL BY SOME 40 % WHILE THE NUMBER EMPLOYED DROPPED FROM 780 000 TO 720 000 , SHORT-TIME WORKING BECAME NECESSARY AND MOST OF THE FIRMS CONCERNED SHOWED REDUCED PROFITS OR SERIOUS LOSSES ;   WHEREAS , IN ORDER TO REMEDY THIS SITUATION , THE COMMISSION HAS INTRODUCED A SYSTEM OF GUIDANCE PRICES ( 2 ) FOR SALES WITHIN THE COMMUNITY OF CERTAIN STEEL PRODUCTS PRODUCED BY THE EUROPEAN STEEL INDUSTRY ;   WHEREAS THE IMPORT PRICES INTO THE COMMUNITY OF PRODUCTS ORIGINATING IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA , JAPAN , POLAND AND SPAIN ARE CONSIDERABLY LOWER THAN THESE GUIDANCE PRICES ; WHEREAS SUCH UNDERCUTTING PREVENTS THE EUROPEAN PRODUCERS FROM ACHIEVING THE GUIDANCE PRICES , JEOPARDIZES THE EQUILIBRIUM OF THE ENTIRE PRICING SYSTEM AND CAUSES OR THREATENS TO CAUSE MATERIAL INJURY TO THE COMMUNITY INDUSTRY OR TO A MAJOR PART OF IT ;   WHEREAS , THEREFORE , THE FACTS AS FINALLY ESTABLISHED SHOW THAT MATERIAL INJURY HAS BEEN CAUSED TO THE COMMUNITY INDUSTRY OR THAT SUCH INJURY WOULD HAVE BEEN CAUSED IF PROVISIONAL ACTION HAD NOT BEEN TAKEN , BY IMPORTS ORIGINATING IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA , JAPAN , POLAND AND SPAIN TOGETHER WITH THOSE FROM AUSTRIA , BULGARIA , FINLAND , THE GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC , ROMANIA AND SWEDEN , WHICH ARE ALSO SUBJECT TO DEFENSIVE MEASURES OR COVERED BY STEEL ARRANGEMENTS CONCLUDED WITH THE COMMUNITY ;   WHEREAS , IN THE SERIOUS CONDITIONS BEING EXPERIENCED BY THE COMMUNITY STEEL INDUSTRY , THE INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY REQUIRE THE IMPOSITION OF A DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING DUTY AND THE DEFINITIVE COLLECTION OF THE AMOUNT SECURED BY WAY OF PROVISIONAL DUTY ;   WHEREAS THE AMOUNT OF SUCH DEFINITIVE DUTY SHOULD CORRESPOND TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BASIC PRICE PUBLISHED BY THE COMMISSION FOR THE PRODUCTS IN QUESTION AND THEIR PRICE ON IMPORTATION INTO THE COMMUNITY , DUE CONSIDERATION BEING GIVEN TO ANY REDUCTION IN VALUE CLAIMED BY THE IMPORTERS AND ESTABLISHED TO THE SATISFACTON OF THE COMPETENT NATIONAL AUTHORITIES ;   WHEREAS , HOWEVER , CERTAIN ARRANGEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY AND CZECHOSLOVAKIA , JAPAN , POLAND AND SPAIN WITH RESPECT TO TRADE IN STEEL PRODUCTS ;   WHEREAS THESE ARRANGEMENTS , WHICH THE COMMISSION CONSIDERS SATISFACTORY , ALLOW THE DEFINITIVE DUTY UNDER THIS RECOMMENDATION TO BE SUSPENDED AND TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS FROM THE DEFINITIVE COLLECTION OF DUTY ,   HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION :   ARTICLE 1   1 .  A DEFINTIVE ANTI-DUMPING DUTY IS HEREBY IMPOSED ON THE FOLLOWING PRODUCTS ORIGINATING IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA , JAPAN , POLAND AND SPAIN :   -  SHEETS AND PLATES , OF IRON OR STEEL , OTHER THAN ELECTRICAL , NOT FURTHER WORKED THAN HOT-ROLLED , OF A THICKNESS OF 2 MM OR MORE ,   -  COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF SUBHEADING 73.13 B I A ),   -  NIMEXE CODES 73.13-17 , 19 , 21 , 23 AND 26 .   2 .  THE AMOUNT OF THIS DUTY SHALL BE EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE EFFECTIVE PRICE ( BASIC PRICE PLUS EXTRAS ) ESTABLISHED BY CONTRACT , FREE FRONTIER DUTY-PAID , IS LOWER THAN THE EFFECTIVE PRICE ( BASIC PRICE PLUS EXTRAS ) LAST PUBLISHED BY THE COMMISSION FOR THIS PRODUCT AT THE TIME OF ITS ENTRY FOR COMMUNITY CONSUMPTION .   3 .  THE AMOUNT OF THE DUTY SHALL HOWEVER BE REDUCED TO THE EXTENT THAT THE IMPORTER ESTABLISHES TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COMPETENT NATIONAL AUTHORITIES THAT THE PRICE DIFFERENTIAL REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPH 2 ABOVE IS DUE TO A DIMINUTION IN VALUE RESULTING FROM THE QUALITY OF THE GOODS BEING INFERIOR TO THE LOWEST QUALITY DESCRIBED IN THE LAST PUBLICATION OF BASIC PRICES BY THE COMMISSION .   4 .  THIS DUTY SHALL BE COLLECTED ON THE SAME BASIS AS CUSTOMS DUTIES .   ARTICLE 2   THE AMOUNTS SECURED BY WAY OF PROVISIONAL DUTY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RECOMMENDATIONS NO 121/78/ECSC , NO 160/78/ECSC AND NO 262/78/ECSC IN RESPECT OF PRODUCTS ORIGINATING IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA , JAPAN , POLAND AND SPAIN SHALL BE DEFINITIVELY COLLECTED TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY DO NOT EXCEED THE RATE OF DUTY FIXED IN THIS RECOMMENDATION .   ARTICLE 3   1 .  THE APPLICATION OF THE DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING DUTY IMPOSED UNDER ARTICLE 1 ABOVE IS HEREBY SUSPENDED .   ARTICLE 4   IN DEROGATION FROM ARTICLE 2 , THE AMOUNTS SECURED BY WAY OF PROVISIONAL DUTY SHALL NOT BE DEFINITIVELY COLLECTED BUT SHALL BE REFUNDED UPON REQUEST OF THE IMPORTER CONCERNED , AS REGARDS :  ( A ) SHEETS AND PLATES OF THICKNESS NOT EXCEEDING 10 MM ;  ( B ) DELIVERIES MADE UNDER CONTRACTS CONCLUDED BEFORE 20 DECEMBER 1977 , WHICH CONTAIN NO PRICE REVISION CLAUSE PERMITTING AN ADAPTATION OF THE CONTRACT PRICES TO THE BASIC PRICES APPLIED IN THE COMMUNITY ;  ( C ) DELIVERIES MADE UNDER THE CONTRACTS REFERRED TO UNDER  ( B ) ABOVE AND DESTINED FOR SHIPBUILDING YARDS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY .   ARTICLE 5   THIS RECOMMENDATION SHALL BE NOTIFIED TO THE MEMBER STATES .   IT SHALL ENTER INTO FORCE FOR EACH MEMBER STATE ON THE DATE OF ITS PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES .   DONE AT BRUSSELS , 19 JULY 1978 .   FOR THE COMMISSION   WILHELM HAFERKAMP   VICE-PRESIDENT


				|

		52013DC0373

			Recommendation for a COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION on Romania’s 2013 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Romania’s convergence programme for 2012-2016 /* COM/2013/0373 final */

Recommendation for a
COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
on Romania’s 2013 national reform
programme
and delivering a Council opinion on Romania’s convergence programme for
2012-2016
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 121(2) and 148(4)
thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No
1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary
positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies[1], and in particular Article 9(2)
thereof,
Having regard to the recommendation of the
European Commission[2],
Having regard to the resolutions of the
European Parliament[3],
Having regard to the conclusions of the
European Council,
Having regard to the opinion of the
Employment Committee,
After consulting the Economic and Financial
Committee,
Whereas:
(1)       On 26 March 2010, the
European Council agreed to the Commission’s proposal to launch a new strategy
for growth and jobs, Europe 2020, based on enhanced coordination of economic
policies, which will focus on the key areas where action is needed to boost Europe’s potential for sustainable growth and competitiveness.
(2)       On 13 July 2010, the
Council, on the basis of the Commission's proposals, adopted a recommendation
on the broad guidelines for the economic policies of the Member States and the
Union (2010 to 2014) and, on 21 October 2010, adopted a decision on guidelines
for the employment policies of the Member States[4],
which together form the ‘integrated guidelines’. Member States were invited to
take the integrated guidelines into account in their national economic and
employment policies.
(3)       On 29 June 2012, the Heads
of State or Government decided on a Compact for Growth and Jobs, providing a coherent
framework for action at national, EU and euro area levels using all possible
levers, instruments and policies. They decided on action to be taken at the level
of the Member States, in particular expressing full commitment to achieving the
objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy and to implementing the country-specific
recommendations.
(4)       On 6 July 2012, the
Council adopted a recommendation on Romania’s national reform programme for
2012 and delivered its opinion on Romania’s updated convergence programme for
2011-2015.
(5)       On 28 November 2012, the
Commission adopted the Annual Growth Survey[5],
marking the start of the 2013 European Semester of economic policy
coordination. Also on 28 November 2012, the Commission, on the basis of
Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011, adopted the Alert Mechanism Report[6], in which it did not identify Romania as one of the Member States for which an in-depth review would be carried out.
(6)       On 14 March 2012, the
European Council endorsed the priorities for ensuring financial stability,
fiscal consolidation and action to foster growth. It underscored the need to
pursue differentiated, growth-friendly fiscal consolidation, to restore normal
lending conditions to the economy, to promote growth and competitiveness, to
tackle unemployment and the social consequences of the crisis, and to modernise
public administration.
(7)       On 30 April 2013, Romania submitted its 2013 convergence programme covering the period 2012-2016 and its 2013
national reform programme. In order to take account of their interlinkages, the
two programmes have been assessed at the same time.
(8)       Based on the assessment of
the 2013 convergence programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97,
the Council is of the opinion that the macroeconomic scenario underpinning the
budgetary projections in the programme is plausible and in line with the
assessment in the latest European Commission forecast. Thanks to substantial
consolidation efforts and in line with the Council
recommendation, Romania reduced its general government deficit to below 3% in
2012. .
The convergence programme aims at an MTO of -1% of GDP (previously -0.7% of
GDP), which is in line with the requirements of the Stability and Growth Pact.
The objective of the budgetary strategy outlined in the programme is to reach
the MTO by 2014 which, when recalculated by Commission based on the commonly
agreed methodology, corresponds to reaching the MTO by 2015. The progress in
structural terms towards the MTO is higher than 0.5% of GDP in 2013 and about
0.4% in 2014. The expenditure benchmark over the programme period was met.
Adjustment is front-loaded in 2013 with revenue-enhancing measures including
reductions in tax-deductible items, improvement in the taxation of agriculture,
the introduction of a windfall levy following the deregulation of gas prices
and introduction of a special tax on transmission of electricity and gas. The
main risks to the convergence programme relate to further possible financial
corrections linked to the absorption of EU funds, or the financing from the
national budget of priority projects, renewed accumulation of arrears,
especially at local government level, and limited progress with restructuring of
state-owned enterprises. Romania's public debt remains relatively low, at 37.8%
of GDP in 2012. It is expected to rise to 38.6% in 2014 but will remain well
below the 60% of GDP threshold over the programme period
(9)       Following a request by Romania on 17 February 2011, the European Commission and the IMF negotiated a precautionary
economic adjustment programme with the Romanian authorities. In the context of
the EU’s precautionary assistance, Romania undertook to implement a
comprehensive economic-policy programme with a particular focus on structural
reform measures to improve the functioning of labour and product markets and
increase the resilience and growth potential of the Romanian economy. In
parallel, the programme has ensured that fiscal consolidation continues, that management
and control of public finances improve, and that reforms are implemented in
external, monetary, financial stability, and financial market policies. In
March 2013, Romania formally requested a three-month extension of the IMF
programme. While the possibility to draw on funds under the EU programme
expired at the end of March 2013, the final programme review will take place by
the end of June 2013.
(10)     Romania's fiscal position
has been improving with the budget deficit decreasing below 3% in 2012 and a
further fiscal consolidation expected for 2013. Low tax compliance represents a
major challenge for Romania’s tax system, in particular in the areas of VAT and
labour taxation. Environmental taxes are below the EU average. Romania's public debt remains low, at 34.7% of GDP in 2011. It is expected to rise to 38% in
2014 but will remain below the 60% of GDP threshold. While Romania does not face a risk of fiscal stress in the short or medium-term, it is at medium
risk in the long-term due to age-related expenditure. There are concerns as
regards the sustainability and adequacy of the pension system due to a low
ratio of employed contributors to people drawing pensions. Romania is now one of the two Member States that have not yet decided to equalise the
pensionable age for women and men and the employment rate of older workers (41.4 %
in 2012) is substantially below the EU average.
(11)     The health sector in Romania features major inequities in terms of access to and quality of services provided. This
is due also to the inefficient use of resources and to poor management. Reforms
to improve the efficiency of the healthcare sector have begun but continuous
efforts are needed. The cost-effectiveness of the system could be increased by
reducing the excessive use of hospital in-patient care and by strengthening
primary care and referral systems.
(12)     Romania continued to have a
low employment rate (63.8 %) in 2012 although a slight improvement was
registered on the year before (up from 62.8 %). The country’s Europe 2020
target of 70 % by 2020 remains difficult to reach. Romanian labour
productivity is still one of the lowest in the EU. The quality of public
employment activation, job search and retraining services is still relatively
low. Limited administrative capacity does not allow for the efficient delivery
of active labour market policies through quality personalised services, nor for
the better integration of active and passive labour market policies. Adult
participation in lifelong learning remains stagnant at very low levels (1.6 %
in 2011), significantly lower than the EU average (8.9 %). The youth
employment and activity rates were among the lowest in the EU in 2012 (23.9%
and 30.9% respectively), whereas the youth unemployment rate was high at 22.7%
in 2012. Romania registers a high and increasing share of young people neither
in employment, nor in education and training (16.8% in 2012).
(13)     Poverty reduction continues
to be a major challenge. In 2011, 40.3 % of the population are at risk of
poverty and social exclusion, about two thirds more than the EU average of 24.2 %.
Children are particularly affected (49.1 %). The impact of social
transfers (excluding pensions) in reducing poverty remains significantly below
the average efficiency of transfers in the EU, both for the population as a
whole (23.7 % in Romania as against 37.5 % for the EU in 2011) and
for children (22 % compared to 42.8 % for the EU). The low take-up,
coverage and adequacy of social benefits remain a challenge for the efficiency
of social benefits in reducing poverty. In the field of social assistance,
several pieces of legislation were adopted in 2012 as follow-up to the reform
of 2011. The adoption of the remaining legislation would be an important step
towards completing the reform. However the link with activation measures could
be further strengthened. The implementation of the National Roma Integration
Strategy started in 2012, but the results are modest. Better coordination
between different stakeholders is needed for an effective implementation of the
strategy, including the allocation of financing.
(14)     The education law of 2011,
a major reform that set a long-term agenda for upgrading the quality of
education at all levels, is not yet fully operational. For a successful
implementation of the education reform the necessary financial and human
resources will have to be devoted to building up administrative capacity and
policy making. Romania faces a major challenge in raising the quality of its
education and training system. Early school leaving is a significant challenge;
at 17.3 % in 2012, the Romanian early school-leaving rate is well above
both the EU average of 13.5 % and the national target of 11.3 %. Problems
persist especially in rural and remote areas and for the Roma. Romania also lacks an adequate data collection mechanism regarding early school leavers; a
comprehensive strategy, to be adopted this year, should help in this regard. Access
to quality affordable early childhood education and care remains problematic. Mismatches
between skills and labour market demand are characteristic of a large proportion
of vocational and tertiary education programmes, with the poor level of
vocational skills being a specific challenge. The high unemployment rate among
tertiary graduates and the rate of over-qualification make a further alignment
of tertiary education with the labour market a high priority. Positive but slow
progress was registered in the transition from institutional to alternative
care for children deprived of parental care but further efforts are needed.
(15)     Poor administrative capacity
is a core concern for Romania. The public administration is characterised by an
inconsistent legal framework, frequent recourse to emergency ordinances, low
levels of inter-ministerial cooperation and excessive bureaucracy. It is also
undermined by a lack of skills, a lack of transparency in staff recruitment and
high management turnover rates. Poor administrative capacity contributes to low
absorption of EU funds. The end-2012 absorption target agreed under the EU
financial assistance programme was missed by a wide margin. Cumulative
absorption by the end of 2012 stood at EUR 5.53 billion or 20.2 % of the
total available structural, cohesion and agricultural funds. This was EUR 2.47
billion short of the programme’s end-2012 target of EUR 8 bn. The absorption
rate of structural and cohesion funds is even lower, standing at 13 % at
the end of March 2013. The absorption of EU funds stalled for most of the
second half of 2012, after several deficiencies in management and control
systems and in public procurement were identified by national and European
auditors. There is a significant risk that a substantial part of structural and
cohesion funds will be de-committed in 2013.
(16)     Romania faces a number of
challenges in economic competitiveness with productivity in industry and
services remaining low. Major challenges are a weak business environment and
low support for research and development (R&D). Improvements to the
business environment should be integrated into a wider, coherent e-government
strategy to promote an administrative culture of transparency and legal
certainty and provide for better public online services. Romania should also undertake efforts to ease access to finance and to reduce the administrative
burden on SMEs. R&D intensity is extremely low (0.48 % in 2011) and
the efficiency and effectiveness of investment need to be substantially
improved. Investors in R&D need to prioritise activities that have potential
to attract private investment. Romania should also strengthen the intellectual
property rights framework with a view to increasing the commercialisation of
research results.
(17)     Romania has a low degree of
competition and efficiency in the energy and transport industries. Inefficiency
and intransparent governance of the state-owned enterprises in these sectors
represent a major challenge. Increasing energy efficiency in buildings, district
heating, industry and transport is a further key challenge. Romania is the third most energy-intensive economy in the EU whose energy intensity is 2.5
times higher than the EU average. It is also the third most carbon-intensive
economy in the EU. Residential buildings in Romania use eight times more energy
than the EU-15 average due to an inefficient district heating system and the fact
that buildings are not insulated appropriately. The integration of Romania's electricity and gas markets in the EU markets remains incomplete and crossborder
connections for gas still have to be implemented.
(18)     In the context of the
European Semester, the Commission has carried out a comprehensive analysis of Romania’s economic policy. It has assessed the convergence programme and
national reform programme. It has taken into account not only their relevance
for sustainable fiscal and socio-economic policy in Romania but also their
compliance with EU rules and guidance, given the need to reinforce the overall
economic governance of the European Union by providing EU-level input into
future national decisions. Its recommendations under the European Semester are
reflected in recommendations (1) to (8) below.
(19)     In the light of this
assessment, the Council has examined Romania’s convergence programme, and its
opinion[7]
is reflected in particular in recommendation (1) below,
HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Romania should take action within the period 2013-2014 to:
1.           Complete the EU/IMF
financial assistance programme.
2.           Ensure growth-friendly fiscal
consolidation and implement the budgetary strategy for the year 2013 and beyond
as envisaged, thus ensuring achievement of the medium-term objective by 2015. Improve
tax collection by implementing a comprehensive tax compliance strategy and
fight undeclared work. In parallel, explore ways to increase reliance on
environmental taxes. Equalise the pensionable age for men and women and underpin
the pension reform by promoting the employability of older workers.
3.           Pursue health sector
reforms to increase its efficiency, quality and accessibility, in particular
for disadvantaged people and remote and isolated communities. Reduce the
excessive use of hospital care including by strengthening outpatient care.
4.           Improve labour market
participation, as well as employability and productivity of the labour force,
by reviewing and strengthening active labour market policies, to provide
training and individualised services and promoting lifelong learning. Enhance
the capacity of the National Employment Agency to increase the quality and
coverage of its services. To fight youth unemployment, implement without delay the
National Plan for Youth Employment, including for example through a Youth
Guarantee. To alleviate poverty, improve the effectiveness and efficiency of
social transfers with a particular focus on children. Complete the social
assistance reform by adopting the relevant legislation and strengthening its
link with activation measures. Ensure concrete delivery of the National Roma
integration strategy.
5.           Speed up the education
reform including the building up of administrative capacity at both central and
local level and evaluate the impact of the reforms. Step up reforms in
vocational education and training. Further align tertiary education with the
needs of the labour market and improve access for disadvantaged people. Implement
a national strategy on early school leaving focusing on better access to quality
early childhood education, including for Roma children. Speed up the transition
from institutional to alternative care for children deprived of parental care.
6.           Strengthen governance and
the quality of institutions and the public administration, in particular by
improving the capacity for strategic and budgetary planning, by increasing the
professionalism of the public service through improved human resource
management and by strengthening the mechanisms for coordination between the
different levels of government. Significantly improve the quality of
regulations through the use of impact assessments, and systematic evaluations.
Step up efforts to accelerate the absorption of EU funds in particular by
strengthening management and control systems and improving public procurement.
7.           Improve and simplify the
business environment in particular through reducing administrative burdens on
SMEs and implementing a coherent e-government strategy. Ease and diversify
access to finance for SMEs. Ensure closer links between research, innovation
and industry, in particular by prioritising research and development activities
that have the potential to attract private investment. Step up efforts to improve
the quality, independence and efficiency of the judicial system in resolving
cases and fight corruption more effectively.
8.           Promote competition and
efficiency in network industries, by ensuring the independence and capacity of
national regulatory authorities, and by continuing the corporate governance
reform of state-owned enterprises in the energy and transport sectors. Adopt a
comprehensive long-term transport plan and improve broadband infrastructure. Continue
to remove regulated gas and electricity prices and improve energy efficiency.
Improve the cross-border integration of energy networks and speed up
implementation of the gas interconnection projects.
Done at Brussels,
                                                                       For
the Council
                                                                       The
President
[1]               OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 1.
[2]               COM(2013) 373 final.
[3]               P7_TA(2013)0052 and P7_TA(2013)0053.
[4]               Council Decision 2013/208/EU of 22 April 2013.
[5]               COM(2012) 750 final.
[6]               COM(2012) 751 final.
[7]               Under Article 9(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No
1466/97.


title: Commission Recommendation of  7 June 2006  Establishing guidelines on the use of claims referring to the absence of tests on animals pursuant to Council Directive 76/768/EEC   (Text with EEA relevance)

text:
               10.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 158/18

      COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION

   of 7 June 2006
   Establishing guidelines on the use of claims referring to the absence of tests on animals pursuant to Council Directive 76/768/EEC
   (Text with EEA relevance)
   (2006/406/EC)
   THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
   Having regard to Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (1), and in particular the second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 6(3) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Article 6(3) of Directive 76/768/EEC provides that the manufacturer or the person responsible for placing a cosmetic product on the Community market may take advantage, on the product packaging or in any document, notice, label, ring or collar accompanying or referring to the product, of the fact that no animal tests have been carried out only if the manufacturer and his suppliers have not carried out or commissioned any animal tests on the finished product, or its prototype or any of the ingredients contained in it, or used any ingredients that have been tested on animals by others for the purpose of developing new cosmetic products.

               (2)

               It is thus possible to claim on a cosmetic product that no animal testing was carried out in relation to its development.

               (3)

               It is necessary to establish guidelines aimed at ensuring that common criteria are applied in the use of such claims, that an aligned understanding of the claims is reached and in particular that such claims do not mislead the consumer or lead to unfair competition on the market between manufacturers.

               (4)

               Moreover, a general understanding of the provision set out in the second subparagraph of Article 6(3) of Directive 76/768/EEC within the framework of good administrative cooperation would facilitate a common implementation by control authorities. This would prevent, for instance, distortions in the internal market.

               (5)

               The measures provided for in this Recommendation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Cosmetic Products,

         HEREBY RECOMMENDS:
   For the purposes of the application of the second subparagraph of Article 6(3) of Directive 76/768/EEC, Member States should use the following guidelines.
   1.   Main principles
   The use of claims on a cosmetic product should not mislead the consumer. The consumer should obtain the real benefit of being able to make an informed choice as a result of the ‘not tested on animals’ labelling claim. The information should be useful for the consumer.
   The use of claims should not lead to unfair competition on the market between manufacturers and/or suppliers who use such claims as marketing tools.
   2.   Voluntary use of claims
   Under the second subparagraph of Article 6(3) of Directive 76/768/EEC the manufacturer or the person responsible for placing the product on the market may use a claim to indicate that no animal testing has been carried out. Therefore it is not mandatory, neither for the manufacturer nor for the person responsible for placing the product on the market, to use such a claim. It is a possibility which is offered to those persons if the requirements in the second subparagraph of Article 6(3) of Directive 76/768/EEC, taking into account the present guidelines, are met.
   3.   Interpretation of the requirements set out in the second subparagraph of Article 6(3) of Directive 76/768/EEC
   The definitions of certain terms used in the context of the present guidelines are repeated below for clarity purposes:

               —

               ‘cosmetic product’ means ‘cosmetic product’ as defined in Article 1 of Directive 76/768/EEC,

               —

               ‘finished cosmetic product’ means ‘finished cosmetic product’ as defined in Article 4a(3)(a) of Directive 76/768/EEC,

               —

               ‘ingredients’ means any chemical substance or preparation of synthetic or natural origin, including perfume and aromatic compositions used in composition of cosmetic products (see in that respect Article 5a(1) of Directive76/768/EEC which excludes ‘perfumes and aromatic compositions’ only for the purpose compiling of an inventory of ingredients),

               —

               ‘prototype of the cosmetic product’ means ‘prototype’ as defined in Article 4a(3)(b) of Directive 76/768/EEC,

               —

               ‘animal’ means ‘animal’ as defined in Article 2(a) of Council Directive 86/609/EEC (2),

               —

               ‘testing’ means any tests performed in relation to the development or safety evaluation of the product or its ingredients (see in that respect Article 7a(1)(h) of Directive 76/768/EEC),

               —

               ‘re-testing’ means testing a product or its ingredients another time.

         The requirements in the second subparagraph of Article 6(3) should be interpreted as follows:

               (a)

               ‘no animal tests have been carried out’ means that no animal test whatsoever was carried out in relation to the development or safety evaluation of a cosmetic product or its ingredients. Only the full replacement of the animal tests by an alternative method, and therefore not a reduction or a refinement of animal tests, allows the claim to be made. Furthermore, it does not matter where the test (including re-testing) is performed (in the Community or in third countries) or when the test has been performed.

               (b)

               ‘the manufacturer and his suppliers have not carried out or commissioned any animal tests […]’ means that the manufacturer and his suppliers, including all suppliers in the supply chain:

                           —

                           have not directly carried out the animal tests,

                           —

                           have not commissioned animal tests, which means that they have not requested or paid for animal tests by means for instance of sponsorship of research by academic institutions.

               (c)

               The fact that the manufacturer and his suppliers should not have ‘used any ingredients that have been tested on animals by others for the purpose of developing new cosmetic products’ means that the manufacturer and his suppliers should not have used ingredients for which data resulting from animal tests made by others for the purpose of developing a new cosmetic product are available for instance in scientific literature. In this context ‘the development of new cosmetic product’ means either the reformulation of product already on the market or the development of a totally new product (innovation). A new packaging can not be considered as a new cosmetic product.

         4.   Burden of proof
   Any person who claims on a cosmetic product that no animal testing was carried out in relation to its development should be responsible for the claim and should be able to prove the relevance of the claim with regard to Directive 76/768/EEC.
   In that context it is recalled that all relevant information for control purposes has to be readily accessible in accordance with Article 7a(1) of Directive 76/768/EEC and in particular points (d) and (h) thereof, which read as follows:

               ‘(d)

               Assessment of the safety for human health of the finished product.
               […]

               (h)

               data on any animal testing performed by the manufacturer, his agents or suppliers, relating to the development or safety evaluation of the product or its ingredients, including any animal testing performed to meet the legislative or regulatory requirements of non-member countries’.

         5.   Wording of claims
   Any person who wishes to use a claim to indicate that no animal testing has been carried out is free to choose the wording of the claim and/or to use any pictures, figurative or other signs, as long as all the relevant requirements in Directive 76/768/EEC are fulfilled.

      Done at Brussels, 7 June 2006.

            For the Commission

         Günter VERHEUGEN

            Vice-President

      (1)  OJ L 262, 27.9.1976, p. 169. Directive as last amended by Commission Directive 2005/80/EC (OJ L 303, 22.11.2005, p. 32).

      (2)  OJ L 358, 18.12.1986, p. 1.


title: Recommendation of the European Central Bank of 17 December 2015 on dividend distribution policies (ECB/2015/49)

text:
               30.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 438/1

         RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK
   of 17 December 2015
   on dividend distribution policies
   (ECB/2015/49)
   (2015/C 438/01)
   THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 127(6) and Article 132 thereof,
   Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Article 34 thereof,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (1), and in particular Article 4(3) thereof,
   Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the European Central Bank of 16 April 2014 establishing the framework for cooperation within the Single Supervisory Mechanism between the European Central Bank and national competent authorities and with national designated authorities (SSM Framework Regulation) (ECB/2014/17) (2),
   Whereas:
   Credit institutions need to continue preparing for a timely and full application of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) and Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) in a challenging macroeconomic and financial environment, which exerts pressure on credit institutions' profitability and, as a result, on their capacity to build up their capital bases. Moreover, while credit institutions need to finance the economy, a conservative distribution policy is part of an adequate risk management and sound banking system. The same method that was set out in Recommendation ECB/2015/2 of the European Central Bank (5) should be applied,
   HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:
   I.

               1.

               Credit institutions should establish dividend policies using conservative and prudent assumptions in order, after any distribution, to satisfy the applicable capital requirements.

                           (a)

                           Credit institutions are required to satisfy the applicable minimum capital requirements (‘Pillar 1 requirements’) at all times. This includes a Common Equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 4,5 %, a Tier 1 capital ratio of 6 % and a total capital ratio of 8 % as provided for by Article 92 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013.

                           (b)

                           Moreover, credit institutions are required to satisfy at all times the capital requirements that are imposed as a result of the applicable Decision on the Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process in application of Article 16(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 and which go beyond the Pillar 1 requirements (‘Pillar 2 requirements’).

                           (c)

                           Credit institutions are also required to satisfy the countercyclical capital and systemic buffers as referred to in Article 128(2), (3), (4) and (5) of Directive 2013/36/EU, and all other buffers adopted by national competent and designated authorities.

                           (d)

                           Credit institutions are also required to satisfy their required ‘fully loaded’ (6) Common Equity Tier 1 capital ratio, their Tier 1 capital ratio and their total capital ratio by the applicable full phase-in date. This refers to the full application of the abovementioned ratios after application of the transitional provisions, as well as that of the countercyclical capital buffer and the systemic buffers referred to in Article 128(2), (3), (4) and (5) of Directive 2013/36/EU, and all other buffers adopted by national competent and designated authorities. The transitional provisions are set out in Title XI of Directive 2013/36/EU and in Part Ten of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013.

                     These requirements are to be met both on a consolidated level and on an individual basis unless the application of prudential requirements has been waived on an individual basis, as provided for in Articles 7 and 10 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013.

               2.

               With regard to credit institutions paying dividends (7) in 2016 for the financial year 2015, the ECB recommends that:
               (a)
                     Category 1
                  : Credit institutions that satisfy the applicable capital requirements as referred to in paragraph 1(a), (b) and (c), and which have already reached their fully loaded ratios as referred to in paragraph 1(d) as at 31 December 2015, should distribute their net profits in dividends in a conservative manner to enable them to continue to fulfil all requirements even in the case of deteriorated economic and financial conditions;
               (b)
                     Category 2
                  : Credit institutions that satisfy the applicable capital requirements as referred to in paragraph 1(a), (b) and (c) as at 31 December 2015 but have not reached their fully loaded ratios as referred to paragraph 1(d) as at 31 December 2015 should distribute their net profits in dividends in a conservative manner to enable them to continue to fulfil all requirements, even in the case of deteriorated economic and financial conditions. In addition, they should in principle only pay-out dividends to the extent that, at a minimum, a linear (8) path towards the required fully loaded capital requirements as referred to in paragraph 1(d) is secured;
               (c)
                     Category 3
                  : Credit institutions in breach of the requirements referred to in paragraph 1(a), (b) or (c) should in principle not distribute any dividend.
               Credit institutions that are not able to comply with this Recommendation because they consider themselves to be legally required to pay-out dividends should immediately contact their joint supervisory team.

         II.
   This Recommendation is addressed to significant supervised entities and significant supervised groups as defined in Article 2(16) and (22) of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 (ECB/2014/17).
   III.
   This Recommendation is also addressed to the national competent authorities and designated authorities with regard to less significant supervised entities and less significant supervised groups as defined in Article 2(7) and (23) of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 (ECB/2014/17). The national competent and designated authorities are expected to apply this Recommendation to such entities and groups, as deemed appropriate (9).

      Done at Frankfurt am Main, 17 December 2015.

            The President of the ECB

         Mario DRAGHI

      (1)  OJ L 287, 29.10.2013, p. 63.

      (2)  OJ L 141, 14.5.2014, p. 1.

      (3)  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 (OJ L 176, 27.6.2013, p. 1).

      (4)  Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC (OJ L 176, 27.6.2013, p. 338).

      (5)  Recommendation ECB/2015/2 of the European Central Bank of 28 January 2015 on dividend distribution policies (OJ C 51, 13.2.2015, p. 1).

      (6)  All buffers at fully loaded levels except the capital conservation buffer, which would for methodological reasons be fixed at the 2016 phase-in level for the fully loaded calculations.

      (7)  Credit institutions may have various legal forms, e.g. listed companies and non-joint stock companies such as mutuals, cooperatives or savings institutions. The term ‘dividend’ as used in this recommendation refers to any type of cash pay-out that is subject to the approval of the General Assembly.

      (8)  In practice, this means that over a period of four years starting on 31 December 2014, credit institutions should in principle retain at least 25 % per year of the gap towards their fully loaded Common Equity Tier 1 capital ratio, their Tier 1 capital ratio and their total capital ratio, as referred to in paragraph 1(d).

      (9)  If the recommendation is applied to less significant supervised entities and less significant supervised groups that believe themselves unable to comply because they understand themselves to be legally required to pay-out dividends, they should immediately contact their national competent authorities.


Important legal notice

|

52005SC0226

Recommendation for a Council Recommendation to Hungary with a view to bringing an end to the situation of an excessive government deficit  /* SEC/2005/0226 final */

	Brussels, 16.2.2005SEC(2005) 226 finalRecommendation for aCOUNCIL RECOMMENDATION TO HUNGARYwith a view to bringing an end to the situation of an excessive government deficit(presented by the Commission)EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUMThe excessive deficit procedure (EDP) is governed by Article 104 of the Treaty and by Council Regulation (EC) N°1467/97 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure, which is part of the Stability and Growth Pact. These provisions are complemented by the political commitments enshrined in the Resolution of the Amsterdam European Council on the Stability and Growth Pact of 17 June 1997.Based on the Commission services Spring 2004 forecasts, which took into consideration data reported by Hungary in March 2004 and which showed a deficit of 5.9% of GDP in 2003[1], the Commission initiated the excessive deficit procedure for Hungary on 12 May 2004 with the adoption of a report according to Article 104(3). On the Commission’s recommendation, the Council decided on 5 July 2004, in conformity with Article 104(6), that Hungary had an excessive deficit and consequently, pursuant to Article 104(7), issued a recommendation to the Hungarian authorities for its correction[2]. In this recommendation, the Council invited the Hungarian authorities to implement the measures envisaged in the May 2004 convergence programme aiming at a correction of the excessive deficit by 2008. In particular, the Hungarian authorities were recommended to stand ready to introduce additional measures, if necessary, with a view to achieving the general government deficit target for 2004, and to take effective action by 5 November 2004 regarding the measures envisaged to achieve the 2005 deficit target[3]. Based on the recommendation of the Commission of 22 December 2004, the Council adopted on 18 January 2005 a decision under Article 104(8) that Hungary did not take effective action in response to the 5 July 2004 Council recommendations. The Council recognised that a number of measures had been taken by the Hungarian authorities that contributed to a reduction in the deficit in 2004 and 2005, but that they were not sufficient to avoid a sizeable deviation from the targets in both years and more generally a deviation from the planned adjustment path of the May convergence programme. In this context, the Council underlined that the continued commitment of the government to have the excessive deficit corrected by 2008 needed to be underpinned by decisive measures of further fiscal consolidation and more determined pursuit of structural reforms.Since Hungary is not yet a member of the euro area and therefore the last two steps of the excessive deficit procedure under Article 104(9) and 104(11) do not apply, the Council may issue another recommendation based on Article 104(7). Such a recommendation should take into account information concerning the budgetary strategy provided in the first update of Hungary’s convergence programme submitted on 1 December 2004.Compared to the previous programme, the update foresees the following annual targets for the general government deficit: 4.5%, 3.8%, 3.1%, 2.4% and 1.8% of GDP between 2004 and 2008. These figures benefit from the decision by Eurostat of 23 September 2004 allowing that for a transitory period, until the March 2007 fiscal notification, second pillar pension funds can be recorded inside the general government. The Hungarian authorities decided to avail themselves of this possibility and hence presented the deficit figures by subtracting the second pillar burden created by the 1998 pension reform from the general government deficit. Compared to the May 2004 programme, this lowers the yearly deficit figures by 0.8-1 percentage point between 2004 and 2008. Including the burden arising from the pension reform of 1998, as required once the transitory period provided by Eurostat expires, the projected general government deficit path would be 5.3% of GDP in 2004, 4.7% in 2005, 4.1% in 2006, 3.4% in 2007 and 2.8% of GDP in 2008; although less front loaded than the previous programme, the update keeps the target date to correct the excessive deficit. For the sake of comparison with the Commission services Autumn 2004 forecast, the previous convergence programme and Council recommendation under Article 104(7), and given that the 2008 target falls outside this transitory period, both figures with and without the pension fund burden are used.The Commission services have carried out a technical evaluation of this update. In its draft recommendation of 16 February 2005 for a Council opinion on this update[4], the Commission considered that the adjustment path described in the update should be appropriate to correct the excessive deficit by 2008, provided that it is backed by sufficient measures minimising the risks attached to the implementation. This also concerns the new deficit target for 2005 of 3.8% of GDP (4.7% including the burden of the pension reform), which has a particular importance since slippages would have an impact on the following years and hence may undermine the capacity of moving to below 3% of GDP by 2008 as planned.The Commission noted that there is a risk of worse-than-projected budgetary outcomes so that the budgetary stance in the programme appears insufficient to implement this path. As far as 2005 is concerned, the Commission services projected in Autumn 2004 a deficit of 5.2% for 2005 (4.3% excluding the burden of the pension reform), the main risks are that: (1) interest expenditures could turn out higher than forecast; (2) the newly introduced rules for expenditure restriction may turn out to be insufficient. There is also a risk concerning the timely adoption of further intended measures to reform the public administration, health and education systems as announced in the May 2004 convergence programme and its update which are key to the planned adjustment; (3) assumptions for certain revenues (mainly VAT and social contributions) appear overly optimistic. There also appeared to be a risk that VAT refunds originating from 2004 would be carried over to 2005, but the authorities have committed to accelerate the payments so as to not burden the 2005 budget. The budget contains an “emergency” reserve package of 0.5% of GDP against a possible overshooting of the 2005 target. It is intended to cover unforeseen adjustments to processes which cannot be influenced by the government. While the existence of this reserve is welcome, the amount allocated to it seems insufficient in view of the risks surrounding the 2005 Budget. Furthermore, the freeing of these reserves at a too early stage in the year may reduce the incentives to apply rigorously the budget. A further risk might arise from ongoing investments intended to be transferred into private public partnership arrangements. If these transfers are possibly not realised in time, they would have to be financed from the budget. Moreover, any possible cut in VAT rates in the framework of the ongoing tax reforms could increase the risk to revenues, even if compensated by an increase in other rates. Without a careful consideration of its timing, such move may jeopardize the attainment of the revised 2005 target and hence undermine the deficit reduction path[5]. This analysis suggests that, in order to reach the 2005 target of 3.8% of GDP (4.7% of GDP including the burden of the pension reform), additional measures of half a percentage point of GDP would be needed.In view of this assessment it seems necessary that the Hungarian authorities: (i) take additional measures, as far as possible of a structural nature, in order to achieve the new deficit target of 3.8% of GDP (4.7% of GDP, including the burden arising from the pension reform of 1998 as required when the transitory period provided by Eurostat for the accounting of such item will expire) in 2005; in particular, the “emergency” reserve package could be increased substantially and its use be as limited as possible and made conditional upon clear evidence on the attainment of the deficit target for 2005; (ii) make the timing and implementation of any tax cuts conditional upon the expected achievement of the deficit targets of the convergence programme update submitted in December 2004; (iii) progress with the envisaged reforms of the public administration, health and education systems as committed also with a view to improving the long-term sustainability of the public finances.Against this background, the Commission is herewith submitting to the Council a recommendation for a new Council recommendation to be addressed to Hungary with a view to bringing the situation of an excessive deficit to an end, according to Article 104(7) of the Treaty.Recommendation for aCOUNCIL RECOMMENDATION TO HUNGARYwith a view to bringing an end to the situation of an excessive government deficitTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 104(7) thereofHaving regard to the recommendation from the CommissionWhereas:(1) According to Article 104 of the Treaty, Member States are to avoid excessive government deficits.(2) The Stability and Growth Pact is based on the objective of sound government finances as a means of strengthening the conditions for price stability and for strong sustainable growth conducive to employment creation.(3) On 5 July 2004, the Council decided, in accordance with Article 104(6), that an excessive deficit exists in Hungary.(4) Having decided on the existence of an excessive deficit in Hungary, the Council, in accordance with Article 104(7) of the Treaty and Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure[6], recommended that the Hungarian authorities take action in a medium-term framework in order to bring the deficit below 3% of GDP by 2008 in a credible and sustainable manner, in accordance with the path for deficit reduction as specified in the Council Opinion of 5 July 2004 on the convergence programme submitted in May 2004. Notably it recommended that the authorities stand ready to introduce additional measures with a view to achieving the deficit target for 2004, and take effective action by 5 November 2004 regarding the measures envisaged to achieve the 2005 deficit target.(5) On 18 January 2005, the Council recognised that a number of measures had been taken to reduce the government deficit in 2004 and 2005 by the deadline of 5 November 2004. However, it considered that they were not sufficient to achieve the targets and would not avoid a deviation from the planned adjustment path of the May 2004 convergence programme. It considered that that the continued commitment of the government to correct the excessive deficit by 2008 needed to be underpinned by decisive measures of further fiscal consolidation and a more determined pursuit of structural reforms. Against this background, the Council, acting pursuant to Article 104(8) of the Treaty, decided that by 5 November 2004 Hungary had not taken effective action in response to its recommendation of 5 July 2004[7].(6) Having joined the Community on 1 May 2004, Hungary is a Member State with a derogation, within the meaning of Article 122(1) of the Treaty, which means that it is to avoid excessive deficits but that Articles 104(9) and Article 104(11) of the Treaty do not apply to it. Therefore it is appropriate to issue a new recommendation pursuant to Article 104(7).(7) According to Article 3(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1467/97, a recommendation made in accordance with Article 104(7) must specify that effective action is to be taken by the Member State concerned within four months and that the correction of the excessive deficit should be completed in the year following its identification unless there are special circumstances. Such special circumstances continue to be present in the case of Hungary namely because the general government deficit upon accession was significantly above the 3% of GDP reference value and because of the ongoing structural shift in the economy.(8) Where special circumstances exist, the Member State concerned may be allowed to correct the excessive deficit in a medium-term framework. The convergence programme update submitted by Hungary in December 2004 provides a revised framework with the following annual targets for the general government deficit: 4.5%, 3.8%, 3.1%, 2.4% and 1.8% of GDP between 2004 and 2008. Including the burden arising from the pension reform of 1998, as required when the transitory period provided by Eurostat until the March 2007 notification for the accounting of such item will expire, the projected general government deficit path would be 5.3%, 4.7%, 4.1%, 3.4% and 2.8% of GDP between 2004 and 2008. Hence the update continues to plan to correct the excessive deficit by 2008. According to the Council Opinion of [8 March 2005], the adjustment path, including the deficit targets of 3.8% of GDP (4.7% of GDP including the burden of the pension reform) in 2005 and, including the burden of the pension reform, of 2.8% of GDP in 2008, can be considered appropriate to correct the excessive deficit by 2008, provided that it is underpinned by sufficient measures to achieve the deficit targets.(9) Although this adjustment path and in particular the new deficit target for 2005 of 3.8% of GDP (4.7% of GDP including the burden of the pension reform) can be considered appropriate, the current policy stance of the Hungarian authorities is not sufficient to achieve the target. Based on the draft budget for 2005 and a projected growth rate of 3.7% in 2005, the Commission services forecast in autumn 2004 a deficit of 5.2% of GDP in 2005 (including the burden of the pension reform). The main risks pointed out are were that (i) interest expenditure may turn out higher, (ii) the newly introduced rules for expenditure restraint may be insufficient and there is a risk concerning the timely adoption of further intended measures to reform the public administration, health and education systems as announced in the May 2004 convergence programme and its update which are key to the planned adjustment; and (iii) some revenue items, especially VAT and social security contributions, might fall short of projections. Concerning VAT, an additional risk has been identified that refunds originating from 2004 would be carried over to 2005, but given the recent commitment by the authorities to accelerate the payments, it is assumed that this will not burden the 2005 budget and hence not require additional adjustment. A further risk might arise from ongoing investments intended to be transferred into public private partnership arrangements. If these transfers are possibly not realised in time, they would have to be financed from the budget. The budget contains an “emergency” reserve package of 0.5% of GDP against a possible overshooting of the 2005 target. While the existence of this reserve is welcome, the amount allocated to it seems insufficient in view of the risks to the 2005 budget and there are concerns that these reserves might be freed too early in the year. This analysis suggests that, in order to reach the 2005 target of 3.8% of GDP (4.7% of GDP including the burden of the pension reform), additional measures of half a percentage point of GDP would be needed.(10) Budgetary consolidation measures should secure a lasting improvement in the general government balance, while being geared towards enhancing the quality of the public finances and reinforcing the growth potential of the economy —HEREBY RECOMMENDS:-  that the Hungarian authorities put an end to the present excessive deficit situation as rapidly as possible;-  That the Hungarian authorities take action in a medium-term framework in order to bring the deficit below 3% of GDP by 2008 in a credible and sustainable manner, in accordance with the path for deficit reduction as specified in the Council Opinion of [8 March 2005] on the convergence programme update submitted in December 2004;-  that the Hungarian authorities take effective action by [8 July 2005] regarding additional measures, as far as possible of a structural nature, in order to achieve the new deficit target of 3.8% of GDP in 2005 set in the convergence programme (4.7% of GDP including the burden arising from the pension reform of 1998, as required when the transitory period provided by Eurostat until the March 2007 fiscal notification for the accounting of such item will expire). In particular, the “emergency” reserve package in the 2005 budget could be increased substantially and its use be as limited as possible and made conditional upon clear evidence on the attainment of the deficit target for 2005;-  that the Hungarian authorities make the timing and implementation of any tax cuts conditional upon the achievement of the deficit targets of the convergence programme update submitted in December 2004.In addition, the Council invites the Hungarian authorities:-  to seize every opportunity to accelerate the fiscal adjustment;-  to progress with the envisaged reforms of the public administration, health and education systems as committed also with a view to improving the long-term sustainability of the public finances.This recommendation is addressed to the Republic of Hungary.Done at Brussels, [8 March 2005].For the CouncilThe President [1] The September 2004 notification corrected the general government deficit upwards from 5.9% of GDP to 6.2% for 2003.[2] See http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/04/st11/st11218.en04.pdf.[3] In addition, the Council invited the Hungarian authorities to seize every opportunity to accelerate the fiscal adjustment; to undertake the envisaged reforms of the public administration, health and education systems to ensure the foreseen reduction of the expenditure ratio and to improve the long-term sustainability of the public finances, and to ensure that planned tax cuts are adequately financed and make their implementation conditional upon the achievement of the deficit targets .[4] SEC(2005) 229.[5] The final 2004 deficit figure is still subject to risks stemming from the uncertainty regarding the difference between the cash and the accrual based data. In particular, there are remaining accounting uncertainties related to agricultural subsidy payments and the payment of the 13th salary to public employees which could still lead to an increase in the accrual based deficit in 2004 and have an impact on the 2005 deficit.[6] OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p.6.[7] See http://register.consilium.eu.int.


				|

		52014PC0253

			Recommendation for a COUNCIL DECISION designating the European Capital of Culture for the year 2018 in the Netherlands /* COM/2014/0253 final */

			   	EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
Decision No1622/2006/EC of the European
Parliament and the Council of 24 October 2006 establishing a Community action
for the European Capital of Culture event for the years 2007 to 2019,[1] lays down the procedure
of designation of the European Capitals of Culture. According to Article 2 of
this Decision, from 2009 onwards, two cities of two Member States will be
designated as European Capitals of Culture, in turn, according to the
chronological order set out in the Annex to the Decision. Malta and the
Netherlands are entitled to host the event in 2018. Malta decided to proceed
with its selection procedure one year ahead of the normal time schedule, and
Valletta was designated as “European Capital of Culture 2018” in Malta by Council
Decision 2013/286/EU of 17 May 2013.[2]
The nomination for the European Capital of
Culture for the year 2018 in the Netherlands is submitted to the following
process.
A call for submissions of applications is
published by the Member State concerned no later than six years before the
event. A selection panel composed of 13 independent experts in the cultural
sector is convened for a pre-selection meeting no later than five years before
the event. It assesses the applications received against the criteria laid down
in article 4 of Decision No1622/2006/EC and agrees on a short-list of candidate
cities which have to be considered further after completing their application.
The Member State concerned convenes the
panel for a final selection nine months after the pre-selection meeting. After
an extensive evaluation of the pre-selected cities based on the criteria laid
down for the action, the panel recommends one city for the title in the Member
State concerned.
On the basis of this recommendation, the Member
State nominates one city to be European Capital of Culture and notifies the
European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the Committee of the
Regions no later than four years before the event in question is due to begin.
The European Parliament may forward an
opinion to the Commission no later than 3 months after receipt of the
nominations.
The Council, acting on a recommendation
from the Commission, officially designates the cities in question for the year
for which they have been nominated.
After completion of the two-round
competition described above, the panel recommended that Leeuwarden (Netherlands)
host the event in 2018 in its report dated September 2013. The Netherlands notified
this nomination to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the
Committee of the Regions in December 2013.
The European Parliament forwarded its
positive opinion to the Commission in February 2014.
Consequently, the Commission, in accordance
with Article 9.3 of Decision No1622/2006/EC submits to the Council the appended
recommendation for the official designation of Leeuwarden for the 2018 European
Capital of Culture event in the Netherlands.
Recommendation for a
COUNCIL DECISION
designating the European Capital of
Culture for the year 2018 in the Netherlands

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the
functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Decision No1622/2006/EC of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 establishing a
Community action for the European Capital of Culture event for the years 2007
to 2019[3],
and in particular Article 9(3) thereof,
Having regard
to the recommendation from the European Commission,
Having regard
to the Selection Panel report of September 2013 regarding the selection process
of the European Capital of Culture in the Netherlands,
Whereas :
Considering
that the criteria referred to in Article 4 of Decision No1622/2006/EC are
entirely fulfilled,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
Leeuwarden is designated as “European
Capital of Culture 2018” in the Netherlands.
Article 2
This
Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in
the Official Journal of the European Union.
Done at Brussels,
                                                                       For
the Council
                                                                       The
President
[1]               OJ L 304 of 3.11.2006, p. 1.
[2]               OJ L 162 of 14.06.2013, p. 9.
[3]               OJ L 304 of 3.11.2006, p. 1.