Avis juridique important

|

32000H0789

2000/789/EC: Commission Recommendation of 29 November 2000 setting out guidelines for the authorisation of warehousekeepers under Council Directive 92/12/EEC in relation to products subject to excise duty (notified under document number C(2000) 3355)

Official Journal L 314 , 14/12/2000 P. 0029 - 0031

Commission Recommendationof 29 November 2000setting out guidelines for the authorisation of warehousekeepers under Council Directive 92/12/EEC in relation to products subject to excise duty(notified under document number C(2000) 3355)(2000/789/EC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular the second indent of Article 211 thereof,Whereas:(1) Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products(1), as last amended by Directive 2000/47/EC(2), requires warehouses and warehousekeepers handling manufactured tobacco, alcohol, alcoholic beverages and mineral oils to be authorised by the Member States.(2) The report of the High Level Group on fraud in the tobacco and alcohol sectors, which was endorsed by the Directors-General of Customs and of Indirect Taxation on 24 April 1998, contains recommendations on tackling fraud.(3) The Commission, in its communication to the Council on efforts to tackle fraud in the field of excise duties, fully endorses the High Level Group's analysis of the causes of the problem and agrees with the recommendations of the Group(3).(4) The Ecofin Council endorsed the management summary of the High Level Group's report on 19 May 1998 and gave a political commitment to tackle fraud.(5) The Group's work showed that Member States used differing criteria for granting or withdrawing authorisation as warehousekeeper.(6) According to point (a) of Article 13 of Directive 92/12/EEC, national authorities must obtain a guarantee from the authorised warehousekeeper to cover the risk inherent in the intra-Community movement of goods.(7) According to point (a) of Article 13 of Directive 92/12/EEC, national authorities may require authorised warehousekeepers to provide a guarantee to cover the risk inherent in the production, processing and holding of goods.(8) According to point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 16(2) of Directive 92/12/EEC, national authorities must obtain a guarantee from registered traders.(9) Member States should be free to determine how guarantees are provided.(10) According to Article 15a(1) of Directive 92/12/EEC, Member States have to maintain an electronic database of authorised warehousekeepers or traders registered for excise purposes, and premises authorised as tax warehouses.(11) The High Level Group recommended that the Commission and the Member States should consider common principles for the authorisation of warehouses and warehousekeepers.(12) A Fiscalis seminar was held in Luxembourg at the beginning of October 1998 to establish a guide for granting and withdrawing warehousekeepers' authorisations and for controlling goods in warehouses.(13) Discussions have taken place at the meetings of the Excise Committee, and Member States have been invited to make proposals concerning the content of provisions.(14) In order to ensure more uniform procedures for granting and withdrawing authorisation, the representatives of the Member States in the Excise Committee have unanimously agreed on the provisions contained in this Recommendation,HEREBY RECOMMENDS:SCOPEArticle 11. Member States are invited to apply the provisions of this Recommendation when authorising a natural or legal person keeping a warehouse:(a) to produce, process, hold, receive and dispatch products subject to excise duty in the course of his business, excise duty being suspended;(b) to receive, hold and dispatch products subject to excise duty under suspension of the duty.2. This Recommendation should also be broadly applicable when authorising a registered trader, namely a natural or legal person without authorised-warehousekeeper status, to receive, in the course of his business, products subject to excise duty from another Member State under duty suspension arrangements.CRITERIA FOR GRANTING AUTHORISATIONArticle 21. Although Member States are invited to apply strict criteria when granting authorisation to the persons specified in Article 1, a balance should be achieved between facilitating trade and exercising effective control.2. For the purposes of reaching an informed decision and evaluating the potential risk to revenue of granting authorisation, the following information should be obtained from the applicant, prior to authorisation:- the applicant's name and address,- the type of activity,- a plan of the premises and their location and a description of the activity and the plant,- a written application supported by commercial records and company register information,- the VAT number,- an extract of the registration in the commercial register or an equivalent database, where such registration is required by the Member State concerned,- the names of the company's officers, their position and their powers in the company,- details of the company's accounting system, internal control measures and methods of audit,- details of the company's financial position, its revenue history and its compliance with other fiscal obligations (customs, VAT, direct taxation),- the level of storage, estimate of goods to be produced, held or moved in a given period,- details of past and present warehousekeeping authorisations held by the applicant in other Member States.That information may be obtained by means of a special application form.3. Member States may request intending warehousekeepers to provide a list of the Member States to which they plan to dispatch excise goods under excise duty suspension arrangements. This list may be freely transmitted to the Member States of destination concerned.Article 31. In order to form a clear view of the existence and structure of the premises and the warehouse, Member States may carry out a pre-authorisation visit. Member States should obtain, where possible, a detailed plan of the proposed warehouse for facilitating checks and audits, especially in the case of larger premises, and for defining clearly the boundaries of the duty-suspended area.2. Adequate stock control measures by both the authorised persons and national administrations should be an important element of any warehousing system. It is also important to check the origin of excise products and the entire production process from the receipt of raw materials up to the dispatch of the finished product. This may involve coding and marking products.INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED TO THOSE APPLYING FOR AUTHORISATIONArticle 41. Member States are invited to inform the applicant warehousekeepers and registered traders about national obligations in the matter of bookkeeping in order to provide a clear audit trail of all products received, manufactured, processed, held and dispatched.2. Applicant warehousekeepers should be informed of the need to reveal in their bookkeeping all information necessary for the correct operation and control of the tax warehouse. Depending on the legislation of the Member States, these include in particular:- raw material stock sheets,- manufacturing register,- stock sheets for all products,- sheets for received and dispatched goods.3. In particular, the information contained in the warehousekeeper's books should include a description of the goods, their tax category, a reference to the accompanying administrative document (AAD) as described in Regulation (EEC) No 2719/92(4) (national number of the AAD, the date of departure of the goods and a note of the date on which the third copy is received by the consignor for discharge).4. Stock records, profit and loss accounts, balance sheets and audit reports should be available to the competent authorities.5. Occasional checks to follow up the activity of the company should be carried out by the competent authorities of the Member States.Article 5The Member States are invited to inform warehousekeepers of their obligations concerning the application of national excise legislation, and especially:- the obligation to provide the competent authorities with the information necessary for the operation of the excise early-warning system,- the obligation to use an AAD for all intra-Community and export consignments and to complete that document accurately before goods are dispatched,- the obligation to use the national numbering system for the AAD,- the obligation to specify the time intended for the journey and, if required, details of a reasonable route.GUARANTEESArticle 61. The amount of the guarantee should reflect the risk inherent in the activities of the warehousekeeper or the registered trader.2. The amount of the guarantee should be regularly reviewed to reflect any changes in the volume of trade, the activities of the warehousekeeper or the rates of excise duties applicable in the Member States.CANCELLATION OR WITHDRAWAL OF AN AUTHORISATIONArticle 71. An authorisation should in principle only be cancelled or withdrawn on serious grounds, and after a Member State's competent authorities have carefully examined the warehousekeeper's situation.2. An authorisation may, for instance, be cancelled or withdrawn in the following cases:- non-fulfilment of the obligations inherent in the authorisation,- insufficient cover for the requisite guarantee,- repeated non-compliance with the legal provisions in force,- involvement in criminal activities,- tax evasion or fraud.MISCELLANEOUSArticle 81. The regular updates of the electronic database (SEED: system for exchange of excise data), provided in Article 15a(1) of Directive 92/12/EEC should include any new authorisations granted or modifications in the data contained, such as an expansion in activities, change of address or withdrawal of the authorisation.2. If national legislation so permits, information on applicants who already have a trading history in one Member State may be disclosed at the request of another.3. The Member States are invited to take appropriate measures to control the production, processing, holding, receipt and dispatch of goods at warehouses and movements of excisable goods under the excise-duty suspension arrangements. If necessary, Member States may assist each other in performing these tasks in accordance with the provisions on administrative cooperation and mutual assistance.FINAL PROVISIONSArticle 9Member States are invited to communicate to the Commission by 31 December 2001 the texts of the main laws, regulations and administrative provisions adopted pursuant to this Recommendation, and to notify the Commission of any subsequent changes thereto.Article 10This Recommendation is addressed to the Member States.Done at Brussels, 29 November 2000.For the CommissionFrederik BolkesteinMember of the Commission(1) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992, p. 1.(2) OJ L 197, 29.7.2000, p. 73.(3) SEC(1998) 732 final, 29.4.1998.(4) OJ L 276, 19.9.1992, p. 1.


Recommendation for a Council opinion in accordance with the third paragraph of Art. 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the updated convergence programme of Malta, 2005-2008


Avis juridique important

|

31982K2242

Commission Recommendation No 2242/82/ECSC of 10 August 1982 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on broad- flanged beams originating in Spain

Official Journal L 238 , 13/08/1982 P. 0032 - 0034

*****COMMISSION  RECOMMENDATION No 2242/82/ECSC  of 10 August 1982  imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on broad-flanged beams originating in Spain  THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community,  Having regard to Commission recommendation No 3018/79/ECSC of 21 December 1979 on protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Coal and Steel Community (1), as amended by recommendation No 1995/82/ECSC (2), and in particular Article 11 thereof,  After consultations within the Advisory Committee provided for by Article 6 of recommendation No 3018/79/ECSC,  Whereas in July 1982 the Commission received a complaint, lodged by the European Confederation of Iron and Steel Industries (EUROFER) on behalf of almost all Community producers of broad-flanged beams;  Whereas, since the complaint provided sufficient evidence of dumping in respect of the like product originating in Spain and of material injury resulting therefrom, the Commission accordingly announced, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (3), the initiation of a proceeding concerning imports of broad-flanged beams originating in Spain and commenced an investigation of the matter at Community level;  Whereas the Commission has published basic prices (4) based on the lowest normal prices or costs of production in the supplying countries where normal conditions of competition prevail, including the costs of transport, insurance and customs duties; whereas for its preliminary determination of dumping the Commission compared for the first half of 1982 the prices of imports into the Community of the products under consideration with the basic prices;  Whereas this comparison shows that between January and June 1982 considerable quantities of broad-flanged beams originating in Spain have been offered for importation 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 the margin has varied, reaching more than 20 % in some instances;  Whereas, with regard to injury to the Community industry concerned, the evidence available to the Commission shows that imports of the products concerned originating in Spain into the Federal Republic of Germany, which traditionally accounted for the vast majority of Community imports of these products, have increased very significantly over the last few years; whereas the level of these imports into the Federal Republic of Germany was 85 824 tonnes in 1977 and increased to 112 100 tonnes in 1980, 130 414 tonnes in 1981 and 90 715 tonnes in the six month period running from October 1981 to March 1982; whereas during the six month period ending in May 1982 import licence applications for 125 574 tonnes were lodged with the German authorities;  Whereas in 1980 imports into the Federal Republic of Germany of the product concerned originating in Spain represented 16 % of German and 7 % of Community consumption; whereas the average monthly quantity for which import licences were issued between December 1981 and May 1982 by the German authorities corresponds to 37 % of average monthly consumption in the Federal Republic of Germany and to approximately 17 % of average monthly consumption in the Community in 1981;  Whereas in respect of prices the information available to the Commission shows that the price at which the product concerned, originating in Spain, was sold to Community customers substantially undercut the list prices of the Community producers; whereas in some instances this undercutting was more than 20 %; whereas these prices are forcing the Community industry either to lose sales or to align its prices downwards and to sell the like products at price levels insufficient to cover its costs;  Whereas the Community steel industry is in a crisis situation characterized by a fall in production, very low capacity utilization and reduced profits or increased losses; whereas the numbers employed fell by 244 780 or 30;8 % between 1974 and 1981; whereas in respect of broad-flanged beams in particular the quantity of new orders obtained by German producers in the first quarter of 1982 was 30 % less than orders in the fourth quarter of 1981 and 48 % less than orders obtained in the first quarter of 1981; whereas this significant fall coincides with a sharp increase in the  number of import licences issued for the products concerned originating in Spain; whereas the importation of the quantities licensed and their resale at low prices seriously jeopardizes the attempt being made at present by Community authorities and producers to reduce output and increase prices to profitable levels;  Whereas the Commission has also considered the injury caused by other factors which, individually or in combination, are also affecting the Community industry; whereas it has found in this context, using the information available, that between 1978 and 1980 the level of consumption had declined by approximately 10 %; whereas, since 1978, the volume of imports from other sources into the Federal Republic of Germany has remained relatively stable at a low level and in 1981 did not exceed one quarter of the deliveries of the like products originating in Spain; whereas the influence of the dumped imports has been isolated from the other factors adversely affecting the industry, taking into consideration in particular the sharp increase of Spanish imports since the third quarter of 1981; whereas having regard to the restructuring efforts being undertaken at present by the Community steel industry the Commission has reached the preliminary conclusion that the dumped imports are causing or threatening to cause material injury to the Community industry;  Wheereas a Bilateral Arrangement between the Community and Spain concerning Spanish exports of certain iron and steel products to the Community was concluded in 1978 and extended until 31 December 1982; whereas the Commission is of the opinion that the normal functioning of this Arrangement is no longer assured due to persistent and unjustified under-quotation of Arrangement prices for broad-flanged beams by imports of these products originating in Spain; whereas, after consultations with the Spanish authorities, the Commission has, therefore, as of 1 July 1982, suspended the application of the price rules fixed in the Arrangement for broad-flanged beams;  Whereas, in addition, imports into the Community of broad-flanged beams originating in Spain have exceeded by more than 50 % the quantities provided for in the Arrangement;  Whereas, in these circumstances and in order to prevent further injury being caused during the proceeding, the interests of the Community call for immediate intervention consisting in the imposition of a provisional anti-dumping duty; whereas having regard to the extent of injury caused the rate of this duty should be equal to:  - the difference between the basic prices published by the Commission for these products and their price on importation into the Community, or  - the weighted average amount by which imports into the Federal Republic of Germany between 1 January and 11 June 1982, the latest period for which information is available to the Commission, undercut these basic prices,  whichever amount is the higher;  Whereas, in order to prevent possible evasion of anti-dumping duty, it is necessary to establish another basis for calculating such duty where the products in question are not put into free circulation by the first purchaser in the Community; whereas the method used should take account of a reasonable margin between import prices and resale prices charged by Community importers for these products originating in Spain; whereas the Commission considers a margin of 15 % to be appropriate;  Whereas a period should be fixed within which the parties concerned may, following the imposition of the provisional duty, make their views known and apply to be heard orally by the Commission;  Whereas it is appropriate to repeal the definitive anti-dumping duty on broad-flanged beams originating in Spain but imported from some other non-member country, which was imposed by Commission recommendation No 935/79/ECSC (1),  MAKES THE FOLLOWING  Article 1  1. A provisional anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on broad-flanged beans falling within Common Customs Tariff subheading 73.11 A ex I and corresponding to NIMEXE code 73.11-12, originating in Spain.  2. (a) The amount of the duty shall be equal to:  - the amount by which the effective price (basic price plus extras) established by contract, free-at-frontier, duty-paid, is lower than the most recent effective price (basic price plus extras) published by the Commission for these products, or  - 8;63 ECU per 1 000 kg net,  whichever amount is higher.  (b) Where the products defined in paragraph 1 are not put into free circulation on the basis of the price to the first purchaser in the Community, the amount of duty shall be equal to:  - the amount by which the effective price (basic price plus extras) established by contract, free-at-frontier, duty-paid is lower than the most recent effective price (basic price plus extras), published by the Commission for these products and increased by 15 %, or  - 8;63 ECU per 1 000 kg net,  whichever amount is higher.  (c) However, where the declarant is able to give proof to the satisfaction of the customs authorities of the price paid by the first purchaser, subparagraph (a) shall apply.  3. The provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply for the application of this duty.  4. The release for free circulation in the Community of the products referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subject to the provision of a security equivalent to the amount of the provisional duty.  Article 2  1. Without prejudice to Article 7 (4) (b) and (c) of recommendation No 3018/79/ECSC, the parties concerned may make known their views and apply to be heard orally by the Commission within one month of the entry into force of this recommendation.  2. Subject to Articles 11, 12 and 14 of recommendation No 3018/79/ECSC, this recommendation shall be applicable for four months or until the adoption by the Commission of definitive measures.  Article 3  The definitive anti-dumping duty established by recommendation No 935/79/ECSC in relation to imports of broad-flanged beams falling within Common Customs Tariff subheading 73.11 A ex I and corresponding to NIMEXE code 73.11-12, originating in Spain but imported from some other non-member country, is hereby repealed.  Article 4  This recommendation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.  Done at Brussels, 10 August 1982.  For the Commission  Étienne DAVIGNON  Vice-President  (1) OJ No L 339, 31. 12. 1979, p. 15.  (2) OJ No L 215, 23. 7. 1982, p. 28.  (3) OJ No C 207, 10. 8. 1982, p. 4.  (4) OJ No L 372, 29. 12. 1981, p. 1.  (1) OJ No L 117, 12. 5. 1979, p. 16.


title: Commission Recommendation of 7 May 2009 on the Regulatory Treatment of Fixed and Mobile Termination Rates in the EU

text:
               20.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 124/67

      COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION

   of 7 May 2009
   on the Regulatory Treatment of Fixed and Mobile Termination Rates in the EU
   (2009/396/EC)
   THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
   Having regard to Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (1) and in particular Article 19(1) thereof,
   After consulting the Communications Committee,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               According to Article 8(3) of Directive 2002/21/EC, National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs) shall contribute to the development of the internal market, inter alia, by cooperating with each other and with the Commission in a transparent manner to ensure the development of consistent regulatory practice. However, during the assessment of more than 850 draft measures notified under Article 7 of Directive 2002/21/EC it appeared that inconsistencies in the regulation of voice call termination rates still exist.

               (2)

               Although some form of cost orientation is generally provided for in most Member States, a divergence between price control measures prevails across the Member States. In addition to a significant variety in the chosen costing tools, there are also different practices in implementing those tools. This widens the spread between wholesale termination rates applied across the European Union, which can only be partly explained by national specificities. The European Regulators Group (ERG) established by Commission Decision 2002/627/EC (2) recognised this in its Common Position on symmetry of fixed call termination rates and symmetry of mobile call termination rates. NRAs have also, in a number of cases, authorised higher termination rates for smaller fixed or mobile operators on the grounds that these operators are new entrants into the market and have not benefited from economies of scale and/or are subject to differing cost conditions. These asymmetries exist both within and across national boundaries, although they are slowly decreasing. The ERG recognised in its Common Position that termination rates should normally be symmetric and asymmetry requires an adequate justification.

               (3)

               Significant divergences in the regulatory treatment of fixed and mobile termination rates create fundamental competitive distortions. Termination markets represent a situation of two-way access where both interconnecting operators are presumed to benefit from the arrangement but, as these operators are also in competition with each other for subscribers, termination rates can have important strategic and competitive implications. Where termination rates are set above efficient costs, this creates substantial transfers between fixed and mobile markets and consumers. In addition, in markets where operators have asymmetric market shares, this can result in significant payments from smaller to larger competitors. Furthermore, the absolute level of mobile termination rates remains high in a number of Member States compared to those applied in a number of countries outside of the European Union, and also compared to fixed termination rates generally, thus continuing to translate into high, albeit decreasing, prices for end-consumers. High termination rates tend to lead to high retail prices for originating calls and correspondingly lower usage rates, thus decreasing consumer welfare.

               (4)

               The lack of harmonisation in the application of cost-accounting principles to termination markets to-date demonstrates a need for a common approach which will provide greater legal certainty and the right incentives for potential investors, and reduce the regulatory burden on existing operators that are currently active in several Member States. The objective of coherent regulation in termination markets is clear and recognised by the NRAs and has been repeatedly expressed by the Commission in the context of its assessment of draft measures under Article 7 of Directive 2002/21/EC.

               (5)

               Certain provisions of the regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services require necessary and appropriate cost-accounting mechanisms and price control obligations to be implemented, namely Articles 9, 11 and 13 in conjunction with recital 20 of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive) (3).

               (6)

               Commission Recommendation 2005/698/EC of 19 September 2005 on accounting separation and cost accounting under the regulatory framework for electronic communications (4) has provided a framework for the consistent application of the specific provisions concerning cost accounting and accounting separation, with a view to improving the transparency of regulatory accounting systems, methodologies, auditing and reporting processes to the benefit of all parties involved.

               (7)

               Wholesale voice call termination is the service required in order to terminate calls to called locations (in fixed networks) or subscribers (in mobile networks). The charging system in the EU is based on Calling Party Network Pays, which means that the termination charge is set by the called network and paid by the calling network. The called party is not billed for this service and generally has no incentive to respond to the termination price set by its network provider. In this context, excessive pricing is the main competition concern of regulatory authorities. High termination prices are ultimately recovered through higher call charges for end-users. Taking into account the two-way access nature of termination markets, further potential competition problems include cross-subsidisation between operators. These potential competition problems are common to both fixed and mobile termination markets. Therefore, in the light of the ability and incentives of terminating operators to raise prices substantially above cost, cost orientation is considered the most appropriate intervention to address this concern over the medium term. Recital 20 of Directive 2002/19/EC notes that the method of cost recovery should be appropriate to the particular circumstances. In view of the specific characteristics of call termination markets and the associated competitive and distributional concerns, the Commission has for a long time recognised that setting a common approach based on an efficient cost standard and the application of symmetrical termination rates would promote efficiency, sustainable competition and maximise consumer benefits in terms of price and service offerings.

               (8)

               According to Article 8(1) of Directive 2002/21/EC, Member States shall ensure that when carrying out the regulatory tasks specified in that Directive and the specific directives, in particular those designed to ensure effective competition, NRAs take the utmost account of the desirability of making regulations technologically neutral. Article 8(2) of Directive 2002/21/EC further requires NRAs to promote competition by, amongst other things, ensuring that all users derive maximum benefit in terms of choice, price and quality of service and that there is no distortion or restriction of competition. In order to achieve these objectives and a consistent application in all Member States, the regulated termination rates should be brought down to the costs of an efficient operator as soon as possible.

               (9)

               In a competitive environment, operators would compete on the basis of current costs and would not be compensated for costs which have been incurred through inefficiencies. Historic cost figures therefore need to be adjusted into current cost figures to reflect the costs of an efficient operator employing modern technology.

               (10)

               Operators which are compensated for actual costs incurred for termination have few incentives to increase efficiency. The implementation of a bottom-up model is consistent with the concept of developing a network for an efficient operator whereby an economic/engineering model of an efficient network is constructed using current costs. It reflects the equipment quantity needed rather than that actually provided and it ignores legacy costs.

               (11)

               Given the fact that a bottom-up model is based largely on derived data, e.g. network costs are computed using information from equipment vendors, regulators may wish to reconcile the results of a bottom-up model with the results of a top-down model in order to produce as robust results as possible and to avoid large discrepancies in operating cost, capital cost and cost allocation between a hypothetical and a real operator. In order to identify and improve possible shortcomings of the bottom-up model, such as information asymmetry, the NRA may compare the results of the bottom-up modelling approach with those resulting from a corresponding top-down model which uses audited data.

               (12)

               The cost model should be based on the efficient technological choices available in the time frame considered by the model, to the extent that they can be identified. Hence, a bottom-up model built today could in principle assume that the core network for fixed networks is Next-Generation-Network (NGN)-based. The bottom-up model for mobile networks should be based on a combination of 2G and 3G employed in the access part of the network, reflecting the anticipated situation, while the core part could be assumed to be NGN-based.

               (13)

               Taking account of the particular characteristics of call termination markets, the costs of termination services should be calculated on the basis of forward-looking long-run incremental costs (LRIC). In a LRIC model, all costs become variable, and since it is assumed that all assets are replaced in the long run, setting charges based on LRIC allows efficient recovery of costs. LRIC models include only those costs which are caused by the provision of a defined increment. An incremental cost approach which allocates only efficiently incurred costs that would not be sustained if the service included in the increment was no longer produced (i.e. avoidable costs) promotes efficient production and consumption and minimises potential competitive distortions. The further termination rates move away from incremental cost, the greater the competitive distortions between fixed and mobile markets and/or between operators with asymmetric market shares and traffic flows. Therefore, it is justified to apply a pure LRIC approach whereby the relevant increment is the wholesale call termination service and which includes only avoidable costs. A LRIC approach would also allow the recovery of all fixed and variable costs (as the fixed costs are assumed to become variable over the long run) which are incremental to the provision of the wholesale call termination service and would thereby facilitate efficient cost recovery.

               (14)

               Avoidable costs are the difference between the identified total long-run costs of an operator providing its full range of services and the identified total long-run costs of that operator providing its full range of services except for the wholesale call termination service supplied to third parties (i.e. stand-alone cost of an operator not offering termination to third parties). To ensure an appropriate attribution of the costs, a distinction needs to be made between those costs that are traffic-related, i.e. all those fixed and variable costs which rise with increased levels of traffic, and those costs that are non-traffic-related, i.e. all those costs which do not rise with increased levels of traffic. To identify the avoidable costs relevant for wholesale call termination, non-traffic-related costs should be disregarded. Then, it may be appropriate to attribute traffic-related costs firstly to other services (e.g. call origination, SMS, MMS, broadband, leased lines, etc.) with wholesale voice call termination being the final service to be taken into account. The cost allocated to the wholesale call termination service should thus be equal only to the additional cost incurred to provide the service. As a consequence, cost accounting based on a LRIC approach for wholesale call termination services in fixed and mobile markets should allow the recovery only of costs which would be avoided if a wholesale call termination service was no longer provided to third parties.

               (15)

               It can be seen that call termination is a service which generates benefits to both calling and called parties (if the receiver did not receive a benefit it would not accept the call), which in turn suggests that both parties have a part in the creation of costs. The use of cost causation principles to set cost-orientated prices would suggest that the creator of the costs should bear those costs. Recognising the two-sided nature of call termination markets with costs being driven by two sides, not all related costs need to be recovered via the regulated wholesale termination charge. However, for the purposes of this Recommendation, all of the avoidable costs of providing the wholesale call termination service can be recovered via the wholesale charge, i.e. all of those costs which increase in response to an increase in wholesale termination traffic.

               (16)

               In setting termination rates, any deviation from a single efficient cost level should be based on objective cost differences outside the control of operators. In fixed networks, no such objective cost differences outside the control of the operator have been identified. In mobile networks, uneven spectrum assignment may be considered an exogenous factor which results in per-unit-cost differences between mobile operators. Exogenous cost differences may arise where spectrum assignments have not taken place using market-based mechanisms but on the basis of a sequential licensing process. Where the spectrum assignment takes place through a market-based mechanism such as an auction or where there is a secondary market in place, frequency-induced cost differences become more endogenously determined and are likely to be significantly reduced or eliminated.

               (17)

               New entrants in mobile markets may also be subject to higher unit costs for a transitional period before having reached the minimum efficient scale. In such situations, NRAs may allow them, after having determined that there are impediments on the retail market to market entry and expansion, to recoup their higher incremental costs compared to those of a modelled operator for a transitional period of up to four years after market entry. Drawing upon the ERG Common Position, it is reasonable to envisage a time frame of four years for phasing out asymmetries based on the estimation that in the mobile market it can be expected to take three to four years after entry to reach a market share of between 15 and 20 %, thereby approaching the level of the minimum efficient scale. This is distinct to the situation for new entrants in fixed markets which have the opportunity to achieve low unit costs by focusing their networks on high-density routes in particular geographic areas and/or by renting relevant network inputs from the incumbents.

               (18)

               A depreciation method that reflects the economic value of an asset is the preferred approach. If, however, the development of a robust economic depreciation model is not feasible, other approaches are possible, including straight-line depreciation, annuities and tilted annuities. The criterion for choosing among the alternative approaches is how closely they are likely to approximate an economic measure of depreciation. Thus, if the development of a robust economic depreciation model is not feasible, the depreciation profile of each major asset in the bottom-up model should be examined separately, and the approach which generates a depreciation profile similar to that of economic depreciation should be chosen.

               (19)

               With regard to efficient scale, different considerations apply in fixed and in mobile markets. The minimum efficient scale may be reached at different levels in the fixed and mobile sectors as this depends on the different regulatory and commercial environments applicable to each.

               (20)

               When regulating wholesale termination charges, NRAs should neither preclude nor inhibit operators from moving to alternative arrangements for the exchange of terminating traffic in the future to the extent that these arrangements are consistent with a competitive market.

               (21)

               A period of transition until 31 December 2012 should be considered long enough to allow NRAs to put the cost model in place and for operators to adapt their business plans accordingly while, on the other hand, recognising the pressing need to ensure that consumers derive maximum benefits in terms of efficient cost-based termination rates.

               (22)

               For NRAs with limited resources, an additional transitional period may exceptionally be needed in order to prepare the recommended cost model. In such circumstances, if an NRA is able to demonstrate that a methodology (e.g. benchmarking) other than a bottom-up LRIC model based on current costs results in outcomes consistent with this Recommendation and generates efficient outcomes consistent with those in a competitive market, it could consider setting interim prices based on an alternative approach until 1 July 2014. Where it would be objectively disproportionate for those NRAs with limited resources to apply the recommended cost methodology after this date, such NRAs may continue to apply an alternative methodology up to the date for review of this Recommendation, unless the body established for cooperation among NRAs and the Commission, including its related working groups, provides sufficient practical support and guidance to overcome this limitation of resources and, in particular, the cost of implementing the recommended methodology. Any such outcome resulting from alternative methodologies should not exceed the average of the termination rates set by NRAs implementing the recommended cost methodology.

               (23)

               This Recommendation has been subject to a public consultation,

         HEREBY RECOMMENDS:

               1.

               When imposing price control and cost-accounting obligations in accordance with Article 13 of Directive 2002/19/EC on the operators designated by National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs) as having significant market power on the markets for wholesale voice call termination on individual public telephone networks (hereinafter referred to as ‘fixed and mobile termination markets’) as a result of a market analysis carried out in accordance with Article 16 of Directive 2002/21/EC, NRAs should set termination rates based on the costs incurred by an efficient operator. This implies that they would also be symmetric. In doing so, NRAs should proceed in the way set out below.

               2.

               It is recommended that the evaluation of efficient costs is based on current cost and the use of a bottom-up modelling approach using long-run incremental costs (LRIC) as the relevant cost methodology.

               3.

               NRAs may compare the results of the bottom-up modelling approach with those of a top-down model which uses audited data with a view to verifying and improving the robustness of the results and may make adjustments accordingly.

               4.

               The cost model should be based on efficient technologies available in the time frame considered by the model. Therefore the core part of both fixed and mobile networks could in principle be Next-Generation-Network (NGN)-based. The access part of mobile networks should also be based on a combination of 2G and 3G telephony.

               5.

               The different cost categories referred to herein should be defined as follows:

                           (a)

                           ‘Incremental costs’ are those costs that can be avoided if a specific increment is no longer provided (also known as avoidable costs);

                           (b)

                           ‘Traffic-related costs’ are all those fixed and variable costs which rise with increased levels of traffic.

               6.

               Within the LRIC model, the relevant increment should be defined as the wholesale voice call termination service provided to third parties. This implies that in evaluating the incremental costs NRAs should establish the difference between the total long-run cost of an operator providing its full range of services and the total long-run costs of this operator in the absence of the wholesale call termination service being provided to third parties. A distinction needs to be made between traffic-related costs and non-traffic-related costs, whereby the latter costs should be disregarded for the purpose of calculating wholesale termination rates. The recommended approach to identifying the relevant incremental cost would be to attribute traffic-related costs firstly to services other than wholesale voice call termination, with finally only the residual traffic-related costs being allocated to the wholesale voice call termination service. This implies that only those costs which would be avoided if a wholesale voice call termination service were no longer provided to third parties should be allocated to the regulated voice call termination services. Principles for calculating the wholesale voice call termination service increment in fixed and mobile termination networks respectively are further elaborated in the Annex.

               7.

               The recommended approach for asset depreciation is economic depreciation wherever feasible.

               8.

               When deciding on the appropriate efficient scale of the modelled operator, NRAs should take into account the principles for defining the appropriate efficient scale in fixed and mobile termination networks as set out in the Annex.

               9.

               Any determination of efficient cost levels which deviates from the principles set out above should be justified by objective cost differences which are outside the control of the operators concerned. Such objective cost differences may emerge in mobile termination markets due to uneven spectrum assignments. To the extent that additional spectrum acquired to provide wholesale call termination is included in the cost model, NRAs should review any objective cost differences regularly, taking into account, inter alia, whether on a forward-looking basis additional spectrum is likely to be made available through market-based assignment processes which might erode any cost differences arising from existing assignments or whether this relative cost disadvantage decreases over time as the volumes of the later entrants increase.

               10.

               In case it can be demonstrated that a new mobile entrant operating below the minimum efficient scale incurs higher per-unit incremental costs than the modelled operator, after having determined that there are impediments on the retail market to market entry and expansion, the NRAs may allow these higher costs to be recouped during a transitional period via regulated termination rates. Any such period should not exceed four years after market entry.

               11.

               This Recommendation is without prejudice to previous regulatory decisions taken by NRAs in respect of the matters raised herein. Notwithstanding this, NRAs should ensure that termination rates are implemented at a cost-efficient, symmetric level by 31 December 2012, subject to any objective cost differences identified in accordance with points 9 and 10.

               12.

               In exceptional circumstances where an NRA is not in a position, in particular due to limited resources, to finalise the recommended cost model in a timely manner and where it is able to demonstrate that a methodology other than a bottom-up LRIC model based on current costs results in outcomes consistent with this Recommendation and generates efficient outcomes consistent with those in a competitive market, it could consider setting interim prices based on an alternative approach until 1 July 2014. Where it would be objectively disproportionate for those NRAs with limited resources to apply the recommended cost methodology after this date, such NRAs may continue to apply an alternative methodology up to the date for review of this Recommendation, unless the body established for cooperation among NRAs and the Commission, including its related working groups, provides sufficient practical support and guidance to overcome this limitation of resources and, in particular, the cost of implementing the recommended methodology. Any such outcome resulting from alternative methodologies should not exceed the average of the termination rates set by NRAs implementing the recommended cost methodology.

               13.

               This Recommendation will be reviewed not later than four years after the date of application.

               14.

               This Recommendation is addressed to the Member States.

      Done at Brussels, 7 May 2009.

            For the Commission

         Viviane REDING

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 33.

      (2)  OJ L 200, 30.7.2002, p. 38.

      (3)  OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 7.

      (4)  OJ L 266, 11.10.2005, p. 64.

      ANNEX

         Principles for the calculation of wholesale termination rates in fixed networks

      The relevant incremental costs (i.e. avoidable costs) of the wholesale call termination service are the difference between the total long-run costs of an operator providing its full range of services and the total long-run costs of that operator not providing a wholesale call termination service to third parties.
      A distinction needs to be made between traffic-related costs and non-traffic-related costs to ensure the appropriate attribution of those costs. The non-traffic-related costs should be disregarded for the purpose of calculating wholesale termination rates. From the traffic-related costs only those costs which would be avoided in the absence of a wholesale call termination service being provided should be allocated to the relevant termination increment. These avoidable costs may be calculated by allocating traffic-related costs first to services other than wholesale call termination (e.g. call origination, data services, IPTV, etc.) with only the residual traffic-related costs being allocated to the wholesale voice call termination service.
      The default demarcation point between traffic- and non-traffic-related costs is typically where the first point of traffic concentration occurs. In a PSTN network this is normally deemed to be the upstream side of the line card in the (remote) concentrator. The broadband NGN equivalent is the line card in the DSLAM/MSAN (1). Where the DSLAM/MSAN is located in a street cabinet, then it needs to be considered whether the former loop between the cabinet and the exchange/MDF is a shared medium and should be treated as part of the traffic-sensitive cost category, in which case the traffic-/non-traffic-related demarcation point will be located in the street cabinet. If dedicated capacity is allocated to the voice call termination service irrespective of the technology deployed, then the demarcation point remains at the level of the (remote) concentrator.
      Following the approach outlined above, examples of costs which would be included in the termination service increment would include additional network capacity needed to transport additional wholesale termination traffic (e.g. additional network infrastructure to the extent that it is driven by the need to increase capacity for the purposes of carrying the additional wholesale termination traffic) as well as additional wholesale commercial costs directly related to the provision of the wholesale termination service to third parties.
      To determine the efficient scale of an operator for the purposes of the cost model, NRAs should take into account that in fixed networks operators have the opportunity to build their networks in particular geographic areas and to focus on high-density routes and/or to rent relevant network inputs from the incumbents. When defining the single efficient scale for the modelled operator, NRAs should therefore take into account the need to promote efficient entry while also recognising that under certain conditions smaller operators can produce at low unit costs in smaller geographic areas. Furthermore, smaller operators that cannot match the largest operators′ scale advantages over broader geographic areas can be assumed to purchase wholesale inputs rather than self-provide termination services.

         Principles for the calculation of wholesale termination rates in mobile networks

      The relevant incremental costs (i.e. avoidable costs) of the wholesale call termination service are the difference between the total long-run costs of an operator providing its full range of services and the total long-run costs of an operator not providing a wholesale call termination service to third parties.
      A distinction needs to be made between traffic-related costs and non-traffic-related costs to ensure the appropriate attribution of those costs. The non-traffic-related costs should be disregarded for the purpose of calculating wholesale termination rates. From the traffic-related costs only those costs which would be avoided in the absence of a wholesale call termination service being provided should be allocated to the relevant termination increment. These avoidable costs may be calculated by allocating traffic-related costs first to services other than wholesale call termination (e.g. call origination, SMS, MMS, etc.) with only the residual traffic-related costs being allocated to the wholesale voice call termination service.
      The costs of the handset and the SIM card are not traffic-related and should be excluded from any costing model for wholesale voice call termination services.
      Coverage can be best described as the capability or option to make a single call from any point in the network at a point in time, and capacity represents the additional network costs which are necessary to carry increasing levels of traffic. The need to provide such coverage to subscribers will cause non-traffic-related costs to be incurred which should not be attributed to the wholesale call termination increment. Investments in mature mobile markets are more driven by capacity increases and by the development of new services and this should be reflected in the cost model. The incremental cost of wholesale voice call termination services should therefore exclude coverage costs but should include additional capacity costs to the extent that they are caused by the provision of wholesale voice call termination services.
      The costs of spectrum usage (the authorisation to retain and use spectrum frequencies) incurred in providing retail services to network subscribers are initially driven by the number of subscribers and thus are not traffic-driven and should not be calculated as part of the wholesale call termination service increment. The costs of acquiring additional spectrum to increase capacity (above the minimum necessary to provide retail services to subscribers) for the purposes of carrying additional traffic resulting from the provision of a wholesale voice call termination service should be included on the basis of forward-looking opportunity costs, where possible.
      Following the approach outlined above, examples of costs which would be included in the termination service increment would include additional network capacity needed to transport additional wholesale traffic (e.g. additional network infrastructure to the extent that it is driven by the need to increase capacity for the purposes of carrying the additional wholesale traffic). Such network-related costs could include additional Mobile Switching Centres (MSCs) or backbone infrastructure directly required to carry the terminating traffic for third parties. Furthermore, where certain network elements are shared for the purposes of supplying origination and termination services, such as cell sites or Base Transceiver Stations (BTS), these network elements will be included in the termination cost model to the extent that they are needed because of the additional capacity necessary to carry terminating traffic by third parties. In addition, the additional spectrum costs and wholesale commercial costs directly related to the provision of the wholesale termination service to third parties would also be taken into account. This implies that coverage costs, unavoidable business overhead costs and retail commercial costs are not included.
      To determine the minimum efficient scale for the purposes of the cost model, and taking account of market share developments in a number of EU Member States, the recommended approach is to set that scale at 20 % market share. It may be expected that mobile operators, having entered the market, would strive to maximise efficiency and revenues and thus be in a position to achieve a minimum market share of 20 %. In case an NRA can prove that the market conditions in the territory of that Member State would imply a different minimum efficient scale, it could deviate from the recommended approach.

         (1)  Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer/Multi-Service Access Node.


title: Commission Recommendation of 3 April 2007 concerning a coordinated Community monitoring programme for 2007 to ensure compliance with maximum levels of pesticide residues in and on cereals and certain other products of plant origin and national monitoring programmes for 2008 (notified under document number C(2007) 1452) (Text with EEA relevance )

text:
               11.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 96/21

      COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION

   of 3 April 2007
   concerning a coordinated Community monitoring programme for 2007 to ensure compliance with maximum levels of pesticide residues in and on cereals and certain other products of plant origin and national monitoring programmes for 2008
   (notified under document number C(2007) 1452)
   (Text with EEA relevance)
   (2007/225/EC)
   THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 211 thereof,
   Having regard to Council Directive 86/362/EEC of 24 July 1986 on the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on cereals (1), and in particular Article 7(2)(b) thereof,
   Having regard to Council Directive 90/642/EEC of 27 November 1990 on the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on certain products of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables (2), and in particular Article 4(2)(b) thereof,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Directives 86/362/EEC and 90/642/EEC provide that the Commission should progressively work towards a system which would permit the estimation of dietary exposure to pesticides. To make realistic estimations possible, data on the monitoring of pesticide residues should be available in a number of food products which constitute major components of the European diet. It is generally recognised that major components of the European diet are constituted by some 20 to 30 food products. In view of the resources available at national level for pesticide residue monitoring, Member States are only able to analyse samples of eight products each year within a coordinated monitoring programme. Pesticide uses show changes within the timescale of three-year cycles. Each pesticide should thus generally be monitored in 20 to 30 food products over a series of three-year cycles.

               (2)

               Residues of the pesticides covered by this Recommendation should be monitored in 2007, as this will allow using these data for the estimation of actual dietary exposure to them.

               (3)

               A systematic statistical approach to numbers of samples to be taken in each coordinated monitoring exercise is necessary. Such an approach has been set out by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (3). On the basis of a binomial probability distribution, it can be calculated that examination of 642 samples allows with a certainty of more than 99 %, the detection of a sample containing pesticide residues above the limit of determination (LOD), provided that not less than 1 % of products of plant origin contain residues above that limit. Collection of these samples should be apportioned between Member States on the basis of population and consumer numbers, with a minimum of 12 samples per product and per year.

               (4)

               Guidelines concerning ‘Quality control procedures for pesticide residue analysis’ are published on the Commission website (4). It is agreed that these guidelines should be applied as far as possible by the analytical laboratories of the Member States and should be reviewed continuously in the light of experience gained in the monitoring programmes.

               (5)

               Commission Directive 2002/63/EC (5) establishes Community methods of sampling for the official control of pesticide residues in and on products of plant and animal origin. The sampling methods and procedures laid down in this Directive incorporate those recommended by the Codex Alimentarius Commission.

               (6)

               Directives 86/362/EEC and 90/642/EEC require Member States to specify the criteria applied in drawing up their national inspection programmes. Such information should include the criteria applied in determining the numbers of samples to be taken and analyses to be carried out and the reporting levels applied, the criteria by which the reporting levels have been fixed and details of accreditation under the Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law animal health and animal welfare rules (6), taking into consideration Article 18 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2076/2005 of 5 December 2005 laying down transitional arrangements for the implementation of Regulations (EC) No 853/2004, (EC) No 854/2004 and (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and amending Regulations (EC) No 853/2004 and (EC) No 854/2004 (7), which gives a derogation on the accreditation requirement. The number and type of infringements and the action taken should also be indicated.

               (7)

               Maximum residue levels for baby food have been established in accordance with Article 6 of Commission Directive 91/321/EEC of 14 May 1991 on infant formulae and follow-on formulae (8) and Article 6 of Commission Directive 96/5/EC, Euratom of 16 February 1996 on processed cereal-based foods and baby foods for infants and young children (9).

               (8)

               Information on the results of monitoring programmes is particularly appropriate for treatment, storage and transmission by electronic/informatics methods. Formats have been developed for supply of data by e-mail from the Member States. Member States should therefore be able to send their reports to the Commission in the standard format. The further development of such a standard format is most effectively undertaken by the development of guidelines by the Commission.

               (9)

               The measures provided for in this recommendation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

         HEREBY RECOMMENDS:

               1.

               Member States are invited, during the year 2007, to take and analyse samples for the product/pesticide residue combinations set out in Annex I, on the basis of the number of samples of each product allocated to them in Annex II, reflecting as appropriate, national, Community and third country share of the Member State's market.
               The lot to be sampled should be chosen randomly, in line with a monitoring approach.
               The sampling procedure, including the number of units, should be in line with Directive 2002/63/EC.

               2.

               Of the total amount of samples as given according to Annex I and II, each Member State should take and analyse:

                           (a)

                           at least 10 samples of baby food based mainly on vegetables, fruits or cereals;

                           (b)

                           a number of samples (with a minimum of one sample, where available) from produce originating from organic farming that reflects the market share of organic produce in each Member State.

               3.

               Member States are invited to report the results of the analysis of samples tested for the product/pesticide residue combinations set out in Annex I by 31 August 2008 at the latest, indicating:

                           (a)

                           The analytical methods used and reporting levels achieved, in accordance with the quality control procedures set out in the Quality Control Procedures for Pesticide Residue Analysis;

                           (b)

                           The number and type of infringements and the action taken.

               4.

               The report should be produced in a format — including the electronic format — conforming to the guidance to the Member States with regard to implementation of Commission recommendations concerning coordinated Community monitoring programmes provided by the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health.
               The result on samples of baby food and on samples taken from produce originating from organic farming should be reported in separate datasheets.

               5.

               Member States are invited to send to the Commission and to the other Member States, by 31 August 2007 at the latest, the information required under Article 7(3) of Directive 86/362/EEC and Article 4(3) of Directive 90/642/EEC concerning the 2006 monitoring exercise to ensure, at least by check sampling, compliance with maximum pesticide residue levels including:

                           (a)

                           The results of their national programmes concerning pesticide residues;

                           (b)

                           Information on their laboratories quality control procedures and, in particular, information concerning aspects of the guidelines concerning Quality Control Procedures for Pesticide Residue Analysis which they have not been able to apply or have had difficulty in applying;

                           (c)

                           Information on accreditation in accordance with the provisions of Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 (including scope of the accreditation, accreditation body and copy of accreditation certificate) of the laboratories carrying out the analyses;

                           (d)

                           Information about the proficiency tests and ring tests in which the laboratory has participated.

               6.

               Member States are invited to send to the Commission, by 30 September 2007 at the latest, their intended national programme for monitoring maximum pesticide residue levels fixed by Directives 90/642/EEC and 86/362/EEC for the year 2008, including information on:

                           (a)

                           The criteria applied in determining the number of samples to be taken and analyses to be carried out;

                           (b)

                           The reporting levels applied and the criteria by which the reporting levels have been fixed; and

                           (c)

                           Details of accreditation, under Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, of the laboratories carrying out analyses.

      Done at Brussels, 3 April 2007.

            For the Commission

         Markos KYPRIANOU

            Member of the Commission

      (1)  OJ L 221, 7.8.1986, p. 37. Directive as last amended by Commission Directive 2007/11/EC (OJ L 63, 1.3.2007, p. 26).

      (2)  OJ L 350, 14.12.1990, p. 71. Directive as last amended by Commission Directive 2007/12/EC (OJ L 59, 27.2.2007, p. 75).

      (3)  Codex Alimentarius, Pesticide Residues in Foodstuffs, Rome 1994, ISBN 92-5-203271-1; Volume 2, p. 372.

      (4)  Document SANCO/10232/2006 of 24 March 2006.
   http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/plant/protection/resources/qualcontrol_en.pdf

      (5)  OJ L 187, 16.7.2002, p. 30.

      (6)  OJ L 165, 30.4.2004, p. 1, as corrected by OJ L 191, 28.5.2004, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 (OJ L 363, 20.12.2006, p. 1).

      (7)  OJ L 338, 22.12.2005, p. 83. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1666/2006 (OJ L 320, 18.11.2006, p. 47).

      (8)  OJ L 175, 4.7.1991, p. 35. Directive as last amended by Directive 2006/82/EC (OJ L 362, 20.12.2006, p. 94).

      (9)  OJ L 49, 28.2.1996, p. 17. Directive as last amended by Directive 2003/13/EC (OJ L 41, 14.2.2003, p. 33).

      ANNEX I
      PESTICIDE/PRODUCT COMBINATIONS TO BE MONITORED

                  2007

                  2008 (1)

                  2009 (1)

                  Acephate

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Acetamiprid

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Aldicarb

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Amitraz

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Azinphos-methyl

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Azoxystrobin

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Benomyl + carbendazim
                  (expressed as carbendazim)

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Bifenthrin

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Bromide total

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Bromopropylate

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Bupirimate

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Buprofezin

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Captan

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Folpet

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Carbaryl

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Chlofentezin

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Chlormequat (2)

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Chlorothalonil

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Chlorpropham

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Chlorpyriphos

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Chlorpyriphos-methyl

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Cypermethrin

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Cyprodinil

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Deltamethrin

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Diazinon

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Dichlofluanid

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Dichlorvos

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Dicofol

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Dimethoate + Omethoate
                  (sum expressed as dimethoate)

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Dinocap

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Diphenylamine

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Endosulfan

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Fenarimol

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Fenhexamid

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Fenitrothion

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Fludioxonil

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Flusilazole

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Glyphosate (3)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Hexaconazole

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Hexythiazox

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Imazalil

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Imidacloprid

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Indoxacarb

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Iprodione

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Iprovalicarb

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Kresoxim-methyl

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Lambda-cyhalothrin

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Malathion

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Maneb group

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Mepanipyrim

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Mepiquat (2)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Metalaxyl

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Methamidophos

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Methidathion

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Methiocarb

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Methomyl/Thiodicarb
                  (sum expressed as methomyl)

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Myclobutanil

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Oxydemeton-methyl

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Parathion

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Penconazole

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Phosalone

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Pirimicarb

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Pirimiphos-methyl

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Prochloraz

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Procymidone

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Profenofos

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Propargite

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Pyrethrins

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Pyrimethanil

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Pyriproxyfen

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Oxamyl

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Quinoxyfen

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Spiroxamine

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Tebuconazole

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Thiophanate-methyl

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Tebufenozide

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Trifloxystrobin

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Thiabendazole

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Tolcloflos-methyl

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Tolylfluanid

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Triademefon + Triadimenol
                  (expressed as sum of triadimenol and triadimefon)

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                  Vinclozolin

                  (c)

                  (a)

                  (b)

                              (a)

                              Beans (fresh or frozen), carrots, cucumbers, oranges or mandarins, pears, potatoes, rice, spinach (fresh or frozen).

                              (b)

                              Aubergines, bananas, cauliflower, grapes, orange juice (), peas (fresh/frozen, without pod), peppers (sweet), wheat.

                              (c)

                              Apples, head cabbage, leek, lettuce, tomatoes, peaches including nectarines and similar hybrids; rye or oats, strawberries.

         (1)  Indicative for 2008 and 2009, subject to programmes which will be recommended for these years.

         (2)  Chlormequat and mepiquat should be analysed in cereals, carrots, fruiting vegetables and pears.

         (3)  Only cereals.

         (4)  For orange juice, Member States should specify the source (concentrates or fresh fruits).

      ANNEX II
      Number of samples of each product to be taken and analysed by each Member State.

                  Country code

                  Samples

                  AT

                  12 (1)

                  15 (2)

                  B

                  12 (1)

                  15 (2)

                  BG

                  12 (1)

                  15 (2)

                  CY

                  12 (1)

                  15 (2)

                  CZ

                  12 (1)

                  15 (2)

                  DE

                  93

                  DK

                  12 (1)

                  15 (2)

                  ES

                  45

                  EE

                  12 (1)

                  15 (2)

                  EL

                  12 (1)

                  15 (2)

                  FR

                  66

                  FI

                  12 (1)

                  15 (2)

                  HU

                  12 (1)

                  15 (2)

                  IT

                  65

                  IE

                  12 (1)

                  15 (2)

                  LU

                  12 (1)

                  15 (2)

                  LT

                  12 (1)

                  15 (2)

                  LV

                  12 (1)

                  15 (2)

                  MT

                  12 (1)

                  15 (2)

                  NL

                  17

                  PT

                  12 (1)

                  15 (2)

                  PL

                  45

                  RO

                  17

                  SE

                  12 (1)

                  15 (2)

                  SI

                  12 (1)

                  15 (2)

                  SK

                  12 (1)

                  15 (2)

                  UK

                  66

                  Total minimum number of samples: 642

         (1)  Minimum number of samples for each single residue method applied.

         (2)  Minimum number of samples for each multi-residue method applied.


title: Council Recommendation of 11 July 2017 on the 2017 National Reform Programme of the United Kingdom and delivering a Council opinion on the 2017 Convergence Programme of the United Kingdom

text:
               9.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/122

         COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
   of 11 July 2017
   on the 2017 National Reform Programme of the United Kingdom and delivering a Council opinion on the 2017 Convergence Programme of the United Kingdom
   (2017/C 261/27)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 121(2) and 148(4) thereof,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,
   Having regard to the recommendation of the European Commission,
   Having regard to the resolutions of the European Parliament,
   Having regard to the conclusions of the European Council,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Employment Committee,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Financial Committee,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Social Protection Committee,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Economic Policy Committee,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 16 November 2016, the Commission adopted the Annual Growth Survey, marking the start of the 2017 European Semester for economic policy coordination. The priorities of the Annual Growth Survey were endorsed by the European Council on 9-10 March 2017. On 16 November 2016, on the basis of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2), the Commission adopted the Alert Mechanism Report, in which it did not identify the United Kingdom as one of the Member States for which an in-depth review would be carried out.

               (2)

               The 2017 country report for the United Kingdom was published on 22 February 2017. It assessed the United Kingdom’s progress in addressing the country-specific recommendations adopted by the Council on 12 July 2016, the follow-up given to the country-specific recommendations adopted in previous years and United Kingdom’s progress towards its national Europe 2020 targets.

               (3)

               The United Kingdom submitted its 2017 National Reform Programme on 21 April 2017 and its 2017 Convergence Programme on 27 April 2017. In order to take account of their interlinkages, the two programmes have been assessed at the same time.

               (4)

               Relevant country-specific recommendations have been addressed in the programming of the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds) for the 2014-2020 period. As provided for in Article 23 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3), where it is necessary to support the implementation of relevant Council recommendations, the Commission may request a Member State to review and propose amendments to its Partnership Agreement and relevant programmes. The Commission has provided further details on how it would make use of that provision in guidelines on the application of the measures linking effectiveness of the ESI Funds to sound economic governance.

               (5)

               The United Kingdom is currently in the corrective arm of the Stability and Growth Pact. Should a timely and durable correction have been achieved in 2016-17, the United Kingdom will become subject to the preventive arm of the Stability and Growth Pact and to the transitional debt rule in 2017-18. In its 2017 Convergence Programme, the Government expects to have corrected the excessive deficit by the fiscal year 2016-17, in line with the Council Recommendation of 19 June 2015, with a headline deficit of 2,7 % of GDP. The headline deficit is then expected to increase slightly to 2,8 % of GDP in 2017-18 before declining to 1,9 % of GDP in 2018-19. The Convergence Programme does not include a medium-term budgetary objective. According to the Convergence Programme, the general government debt-to-GDP ratio is expected to broadly stabilise around 87,5 % from 2016-17 to 2018-19 before falling to 84,8 % of GDP in 2020-21. The macroeconomic scenario underpinning those budgetary projections is favourable. While the measures needed to support the planned deficit targets are overall well specified, downside risks to the macroeconomic outlook pose a risk to the achievement of the planned deficit reduction.

               (6)

               On 12 July 2016, the Council recommended that the United Kingdom put an end to the excessive deficit situation by 2016-17 and, following the correction of the excessive deficit, achieve a fiscal adjustment of 0,6 % of GDP in 2017-18 towards the minimum medium-term budgetary objective. Based on the Commission 2017 spring forecast, the headline deficit is projected to have reached 2,7 % of GDP in 2016-17, in line with the target recommended by the Council. In 2017-18, there is a risk of some deviation from the preventive arm requirement.

               (7)

               In the light of its fiscal situation and, in particular, of its debt level, the United Kingdom is expected to further adjust towards an appropriate medium-term budgetary objective. According to the commonly agreed adjustment matrix under the Stability and Growth Pact, that adjustment translates into a requirement of a nominal growth rate of net primary government expenditure (4) which does not exceed 1,8 %. It would correspond to an annual structural adjustment of 0,6 % of GDP. Under unchanged policies, there is a risk of some deviation from that requirement over the period 2017-18 and 2018-19 taken together. At the same time, the United Kingdom is prima facie not projected to comply with the transitional debt rule in 2017-18 but is forecast to comply in 2018-19. Overall, the Council is of the opinion that the United Kingdom needs to stand ready to take further measures as of 2017-18 to comply with the provisions of the Stability and Growth Pact. However, as foreseen in Regulation (EC) No 1466/97, the assessment of the budgetary plans and outcomes should take account of the Member State’s budgetary balance in the light of the cyclical conditions. As recalled in the Commission Communication accompanying these country-specific recommendations, the future assessment will need to take due account of the goal of achieving a fiscal stance that contributes to both strengthening the ongoing recovery and ensuring the sustainability of the United Kingdom’s public finances. In that context, the Council notes that the Commission intends to carry out an overall assessment in line with Regulation (EC) No 1466/97, in particular in the light of the cyclical situation of the United Kingdom.

               (8)

               Private investment has been consistently well below the Union average and public investment marginally below. Productivity is significantly below the G7 average and has stagnated since 2008. The Government is putting a strong policy emphasis on raising investment to boost productivity growth. A key challenge is addressing significant shortcomings in the capacity and quality of the United Kingdom’s infrastructure networks. Road congestion is high and rail capacity is increasingly inadequate in places in the face of rapidly growing demand. There is also an increasingly urgent need for higher investment in new energy generation and supply capacity. The National Infrastructure Delivery Plan sets out ambitious plans to improve the UK’s economic infrastructure and a number of investment decisions on major transport and energy projects were made in 2016. However, concerns remain over whether adequate public and private investment can be secured to address infrastructure backlogs in a timely and cost-effective way. The United Kingdom has a major challenge to increase housing supply. A chronic shortage of housing contributes to high and rising house prices and has significant economic and social costs, especially around poles of economic growth. The reformed planning system, and a range of complementary housing policies, are together somewhat more supportive of increased residential construction. Nevertheless, a number of constraints on housing supply remain, including very strict and complex regulation of the land market and residential construction, and new housing supply is still not keeping up with the growth in demand.

               (9)

               Labour market headline figures continue to be positive, with low long-term and youth unemployment overall. However the levels of inactivity, and part-time and low-wage employment have room for improvement. Earnings growth remains modest, linked to weak productivity growth. Concerns about skills supply, utilisation and progression remain. There have been significant policy developments focusing on skills and progression via reforms to technical education and apprenticeships. Quality in apprenticeships will need focus on both the qualification level undertaken and the subject area in which it is taken. Other, strategically important, funded routes for skills enhancement, particularly for people over 25, would expand the skills offer available to the State, to business and to individuals seeking career progression. There are also challenges related to the supply of childcare and social care, which contribute to the high rate of female part-time employment. Childcare reforms to date have been constant but gradual. A step-change is likely with the full roll-out of some initiatives in the next 2 years. The participation of children less than 3 years old in formal childcare is relatively low. While recent measures improve to some extent the availability and affordability of childcare for children aged 3 and 4, they do not address the issue of childcare supply for children under 3 years old. As a result of previously announced reforms and cutbacks, in particular to in-work support, social policy outcomes including child poverty may come under pressure in the near-to-medium term, particularly in a context of higher inflation. The number of children in poverty who live in working households is a particular cause for concern.

               (10)

               In the context of the 2017 European Semester, the Commission has carried out a comprehensive analysis of United Kingdom’s economic policy and published it in the 2017 country report. It has also assessed the 2017 Convergence Programme, the 2017 National Reform Programme and the follow-up given to the recommendations addressed to the United Kingdom in previous years. It has taken into account not only their relevance for sustainable fiscal and socioeconomic policy in the United Kingdom but also their compliance with Union rules and guidance, given the need to strengthen the Union’s overall economic governance by providing Union-level input into future national decisions.

               (11)

               In the light of this assessment, the Council has examined the 2017 Convergence Programme and its opinion (5) is reflected in particular in recommendation (1) below,

         HEREBY RECOMMENDS that United Kingdom take action in 2017 and 2018 to:

               1.

               Pursue a substantial fiscal effort in 2018-19 in line with the requirements of the preventive arm of the Stability and Growth Pact, taking into account the need to strengthen the ongoing recovery and to ensure the sustainability of the United Kingdom’s public finances.

               2.

               Take further steps to boost housing supply, including through reforms to planning rules and their implementation.

               3.

               Address skills mismatches and provide for skills progression, including by continuing to strengthen the quality of apprenticeships and providing for other funded ‘further education’ progression routes.

      Done at Brussels, 11 July 2017.

            For the Council

            The President

         T. TÕNISTE

      (1)  OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 1.

      (2)  Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 on the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances (OJ L 306, 23.11.2011, p. 25).

      (3)  Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 320).

      (4)  Net government expenditure comprises total government expenditure excluding interest expenditure, expenditure on Union programmes fully matched by Union funds revenue and non-discretionary changes in unemployment benefit expenditure. Nationally financed gross fixed capital formation is smoothed over a 4-year period. Discretionary revenue measures or revenue increases mandated by law are factored in. One-off measures on both the revenue and expenditure sides are netted out.

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


title: Council Recommendation of 12 February 2008 concerning the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Development Fund (Seventh EDF) for the financial year 2006

text:
               15.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 41/22

      COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION

   of 12 February 2008
   concerning the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Development Fund (Seventh EDF) for the financial year 2006
   (2008/116/EC)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
   Having regard to the Fourth ACP-EEC Convention, signed at Lomé on 15 December 1989 (1), as amended by the Agreement signed in Mauritius on 4 November 1995 (2),
   Having regard to Internal Agreement 91/401/EEC on the financing and administration of Community aid under the Fourth ACP-EEC Convention (3), setting up, amongst others, the Seventh European Development Fund (Seventh EDF) and in particular Article 33(3) thereof,
   Having regard to the Financial Regulation 91/491/EEC of 29 July 1991 applicable to development finance cooperation under the Fourth ACP-EEC Convention (4), and in particular Articles 69 to 77 thereof,
   Having examined the revenue and expenditure account and the balance sheet relating to the operations of the Seventh EDF as at 31 December 2006 and the Court of Auditors’ report concerning the financial year 2006 together with the Commission’s replies (5),
   Whereas:

               (1)

               Pursuant to Article 33(3) of the Internal Agreement, the discharge for the financial management of the Seventh EDF is to be given to the Commission by the European Parliament on the recommendation of the Council.

               (2)

               The overall implementation by the Commission of the operations of the Seventh EDF during the financial year 2006 has been satisfactory,

         HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the European Parliament give the Commission a discharge in respect of the implementation of the operations of the Seventh EDF for the financial year 2006.

      Done at Brussels, 12 February 2008.

            For the Council

            The President

         A. BAJUK

      (1)  OJ L 229, 17.8.1991, p. 3.

      (2)  OJ L 156, 29.5.1998, p. 3.

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

      (4)  OJ L 266, 21.9.1991, p. 1.

      (5)  OJ C 259, 31.10.2007, p. 1.