1.4.2005

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/1

COUNCIL OPINION

of 18 January 2005

on the updated Stability Programme of Luxembourg, 2004-2007

(2005/C 79/01)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies (1), and in particular Article 5(3) thereof,

Having regard to the recommendation of the Commission,

After consulting the Economic and Financial Committee,

HAS DELIVERED THIS OPINION:

On 18 January 2005 the Council examined the updated stability programme of Luxembourg, which covers the period 2004 to 2007. The update broadly complies with the data requirements of the revised ‘code of conduct on the content and format of stability and convergence programmes’. In particular, some required data on the macroeconomic assumptions are missing.

The update estimates real GDP growth at 4,4 % in 2004, from 2,9 % in 2003. In 2005 and 2006, growth is projected to decelerate to 3,8 % and 3,3 % respectively, before reaccelerating to 4,3 % in 2007. On the basis of currently available information, this scenario seems to reflect plausible growth assumptions.

The budgetary strategy underlying the update aims to slightly reduce the deficit to 1,0 % of GDP in 2005 from the 1,4 % of GDP estimated for 2004. In 2006 and 2007, the deficit would remain at the 2005 level with both revenues and expenditure projected to remain constant as a percentage of GDP. It positively contrasts with the 2003 update, which was based on a significantly less optimistic growth outlook than that of 2004 and anticipated that the general government deficit would widen from 0,6 % of GDP in 2003 to around 2 % in the remainder of the programme period. In cyclically-adjusted terms, the Commission services' calculations according to the commonly agreed methodology project that a surplus, amounting to 0,3 % of GDP, will emerge in 2005 and gradually rise to 2,0 % of GDP in 2007, reflecting an estimated widening negative output gap. However, the estimates of output gaps and hence of cyclically-adjusted balances present unusually large margins of uncertainty in the case of Luxembourg, due to the very specific features of its economy, which calls for a very prudent use of such indicators. Over the time horizon covered, the ratio of public investment to GDP would remain broadly constant, at about 5 % of GDP, which is well above the EU average.

The risks to the budgetary projections in the programme appear broadly balanced. On the one hand, revenue projections in Luxembourg are traditionally cautious, and the 2004 budgetary outcome might be significantly better than currently estimated, which might perhaps entail a favourable base effect for the remaining years of the programme. On the other hand, the programme projects a slowdown in the rise in public spending, which has been particularly rapid in recent years, without detailing the measures that should help achieve this. The budgetary stance in the programme seems to provide a sufficient safety margin against breaching the 3 % of GDP deficit threshold with normal cyclical fluctuations. It also seems sufficient to achieve the Stability and Growth Pact's medium-term objective of a position close to balance within the programme period (from 2005) in cyclically-adjusted terms.

The debt ratio is extremely low and is even forecast to decline somewhat over the time horizon covered by the update, from 5,0 % of GDP in 2004 to 4,5 % of GDP in 2007. The total net asset position is even more favourable due to the substantial financial assets, estimated at about 50 % of GDP, accumulated over past years through fiscal surpluses.

Luxembourg appears to be in a favourable position with regard to the long-term sustainability of its public finances. The large net positive asset position can be expected to offset at least in part the future costs of ageing. However, the ratio between contributors to and beneficiaries of the pension system will deteriorate, even under a favourable scenario whereby employment growth keeps up with the exceptional rates recorded in the last two decades. Therefore, some restraint is called for in order to ensure that government spending remains in line with revenue and that the policy of accumulating reserves can be maintained, together with the adoption of measures aiming at raising the currently low employment rate of residents, especially older ones.

Comparison of key macroeconomic and budgetary projections

		2004	2005	2006	2007
Real GDP (% change)	SP Nov 2004	4,4	3,8	3,3	4,3
	COM autumn 2004forecast	4,0	3,5	3,6	n.a.
	SP Nov 2003	2,0	3,0	3,8	n.a.
HICP inflation (%)	SP Nov 2004	2,6	3,2	1,5	1,7
	COM autumn 2004	3,0	2,3	1,6	n.a.
	SP Nov 2003	1,5	1,3	1,2	n.a.
General government balance (% of GDP)	SP Nov 2004	– 1,4	– 1,0	– 0,9	– 1,0
	COM autumn 2004 (3)	– 0,8	– 1,6	– 2,0	n.a.
	SP Nov 2003	– 1,8	– 2,3	– 1,5	n.a.
Primary balance (% of GDP)	SP Nov 2004	– 1,2	– 0,9	– 0,8	– 0,9
	COM autumn 2004 (3)	– 0,6	– 1,4	– 1,8	n.a.
	SP Nov 2003	– 1,6	– 2,1	– 1,5	n.a.
Cyclically-adjusted balance (% of GDP)	SP Nov 2004 (2)	– 0,7	0,3	1,4	2,0
	COM autumn 2004 (3)	0,4	0,3	0,7	n.a.
	SP Nov 2003 (2)	0,9	1,0	2,2	n.a.
Government gross debt (% of GDP)	SP Nov 2004	5,0	5,0	4,6	4,5
	COM autumn 2004 (3)	4,9	4,8	4,7	n.a.
	SP Nov 2003	5,2	5,0	4,4	n.a.
Sources: Stability programme (SP); Commission services economic forecasts (COM); Commission services calculations

(1) OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 1

(2) Commission services calculations on the basis of the information in the programme

(3) Finalised before the presentation of the 2005 budget

Sources:

Stability programme (SP); Commission services economic forecasts (COM); Commission services calculations

1.4.2005

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/3

COUNCIL OPINION

of 18 January 2005

on the updated convergence programme of the Czech Republic, 2004-2007

(2005/C 79/02)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to the recommendation of the Commission,

After consulting the Economic and Financial Committee,

HAS DELIVERED THIS OPINION:

On 18 January 2005 the Council examined the updated convergence programme of the Czech Republic, which covers the period 2004 to 2007. The programme complies broadly with the data requirements of the ‘code of conduct on the content and format of stability and convergence programmes’. In particular, in spite of a revision in the data provided after the submission of the update, the expenditure and revenue ratios are not fully consolidated in line with ESA95 statistical standards. Accordingly, the Czech Republic is invited to achieve compliance with the data requirements.

The programme contains different scenarios for the macroeconomic and budgetary projections: a ‘baseline’ scenario, an ‘optimistic’ scenario and a ‘pessimistic’ scenario. The ‘baseline’ scenario is considered as the reference scenario for assessing budgetary projections, because it reflects plausible growth assumptions. This scenario expects real GDP growth to be 3,8 % in 2004. In 2005, real GDP is forecast to reach 3,6 % and to accelerate slightly later on, reaching 3,8 % in 2007. The programme's projections for inflation appear realistic.

On 5 July 2004, the Council decided that an excessive deficit existed in the Czech Republic and recommended that this be corrected by 2008.

The programme aims at reducing the deficit from 5,2 % of GDP in 2004 (including one-off expenditures of about 1,2 % of GDP) to below the 3 % of GDP reference value in 2008, in line with the Council recommendation under Article 104(7). Compared with the May 2004 convergence programme, there is no change in the deficit targets for 2005-2007 although GDP growth has been revised upward and the budgetary outcome for 2004 (excluding one-offs) is better than expected. The programme targets a cut in the general government deficit by 1,9 percentage points between 2004 and 2007 and a cut in the primary deficit by 2,3 percentage points over the same period. The adjustment is foreseen to be gradual, by about 0,5 % of GDP annually, except in 2006, when the deficit improvement is planned to be almost 1 % of GDP. Both revenues and expenditure are planned to fall over the programme period (as a percent of GDP), with public investment is the only expenditure item expected to increase, from 4,2 % of GDP in 2003 to 4,6 % of GDP in 2007, well above the EU-average (2,4 % of GDP in 2004).

The risks to the budgetary projections in the programme appear broadly balanced. On the one hand, the macroeconomic scenario suggests that revenues could be better than expected and that expenditures could be lower than budgeted. Moreover, further risks to the budgetary targets linked to the state guarantees and debt assumption appear to be limited. On the other hand, important expenditure cuts, particularly regarding government consumption, still have to be adopted in order to meet expenditure ceilings in 2006 and 2007. Also, the implementation of expenditure ceilings is subject to a risk ahead of the next regular parliamentary elections scheduled for June 2006. In view of this risk assessment, the budgetary stance in the programme seems sufficient to reduce the deficit to below 3 % of GDP by 2008 as envisaged in the programme.

The debt ratio is estimated to have reached 38,6 % of GDP in 2004, well below the 60 % of GDP Treaty reference value. The programme projects the debt ratio to increase by 1,4 percentage points over the programme period.

The Czech Republic appears to be at serious risk with regard to the long-term sustainability of the public finances, on grounds of the very important projected budgetary costs of an ageing population. In particular, the strategy of fiscal consolidation outlined in the programme needs to be complemented with additional reforms to reduce the sustainability risks associated with the projected increase in pension and health-care expenditures.

The economic policies outlined in the update are partly consistent with the country-specific broad economic policy guidelines in the area of public finances. On the one hand, the programme is in line with the reduction of the general government deficit recommended by the Council and the reduction is based on legally binding medium-term expenditure ceilings. On the other hand, the implementation of the recommended cuts of the wage bill of central government envisaged in the May convergence programme is proving difficult and measures to control the deficits and debt of regional governments and municipalities might not be sufficient. In addition, the programme does not present concrete steps to safeguard the long-term sustainability of the public finances, specifically through the implementation of pension and healthcare reforms.

In view of the above assessment, and in the light of the recommendations made by the Council under Article 104(7), the Czech Republic is recommended to allocate higher-than-budgeted revenues to deficit reduction and adhere strictly to the medium-term expenditure ceilings for central government, which become legally binding from 2006. Furthermore, the Czech Republic is invited to step up the pension reform and to undertake the reform of the healthcare system to improve the long-term sustainability of the public finances.

Comparison of key macroeconomic and budgetary projections

		2004	2005	2006	2007
Real GDP (% change)	CP December 2004	3,8	3,6	3,7	3,8
	COM autumn 2004	3,8	3,8	4,0	n.a.
	CP May 2004	2,8	3,1	3,3	3,5
HICP inflation (%)	CP December 2004	2,7	3,2	2,6	2,2
	COM autumn 2004	2,8	3,1	2,9	n.a.
	CP May 2004	2,8	2,6	2,2	2,2
General government balance (% of GDP)	CP December 2004	– 5,2	– 4,7	– 3,8	– 3,3
	COM autumn 2004	– 4,8 (2)	– 4,7	– 4,3	n.a.
	CP May 2004	– 5,3	– 4,7	– 3,8	– 3,3
Primary balance (% of GDP)	CP December 2004	– 4,0	– 3,3	– 2,3	– 1,7
	COM autumn 2004	– 3,6 (2)	– 3,3	– 2,9	n.a.
	CP May 2004	– 4,1	– 3,4	– 2,4	– 1,7
Government gross debt (% of GDP)	CP December 2004	38,6	38,3	39,2	40,0
	COM autumn 2004	37,8 (2)	39,4	40,6	n.a.
	CP May 2004	38,4	39,7	41,0	41,7
Sources: Convergence programme (CP); Commission services economic forecasts (COM)

(1) OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 1.

(2) The Commission services forecast for 2004 did not include the imputed state guarantee of 0.8% of GDP.

Sources:

Convergence programme (CP); Commission services economic forecasts (COM)

1.4.2005

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/5

COUNCIL OPINION

of 18 January 2005

on the updated stability programme of Austria, 2004-2008

(2005/C 79/03)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies (1), and in particular Article 5(3) thereof,

Having regard to the recommendation of the Commission,

After consulting the Economic and Financial Committee,

HAS DELIVERED THIS OPINION:

On 18 January 2005 the Council examined the updated stability programme of Austria, which covers the period 2004-2008. The programme complies with the data requirements of the ‘code of conduct on the content and format of stability and convergence programmes’.

The macroeconomic scenario underlying the programme envisages that real GDP growth will pick up from 1,9 % in 2004 to 2,5 % in 2005 and 2006 and remain at around 2 Formula % over the remainder of the programme period. On the basis of the currently available information this scenario seems to reflect plausible growth assumptions for the first years, but appears rather favourable for the final years, as the forecast remains above potential output for four years in a row. The programme's projections for inflation are realistic.

Austria aims to achieve a balanced budget by 2008. From a ratio of 1,3 % of GDP in 2004, the deficit is expected to rise to 1,9 % of GDP in 2005, after which it first declines slowly to 1,7 % in 2006, and then drops to zero in 2008 in two equally large reduction steps. This trajectory reflects a budgetary strategy that combines a sustained lowering of the tax burden with a return to a balanced budget over the medium term. In ESA 95 terms, the tax burden is planned to fall from 43,1 % in 2003 to 40 % in 2008, while total expenditures are planned to fall by 4,8 percentage points. The consolidation path has been enshrined in a National Stability Pact between the territorial authorities, which is to be enforced at all levels of government via a penalty system.

The budgetary outcome could be worse than projected in the programme. In particular, the budgetary path front-loads tax relief but back-loads the corresponding restraint on expenditure. Risks are balanced for 2005 and 2006, when deficit developments are dominated by the sizeable tax cuts that will become effective on 1 January 2005, and in view of a realistic underlying macroeconomic scenario. However, for the outer years 2007/08, risks appear to be downward-biased as, first, GDP growth is assumed to remain above potential and, second, the envisaged substantial fall in the expenditure/GDP ratio remains largely unspecified in the programme. In view of this risk assessment, the budgetary stance in the programme may not be sufficient to achieve the Stability and Growth Pact's medium-term objective of a budgetary position of close-to-balance in cyclically-adjusted terms by 2008. However, it seems to provide a sufficient safety margin against breaching the 3 % of GDP deficit threshold with normal macroeconomic fluctuations over the programme period.

The debt ratio is estimated to have reached 64,2 % of GDP in 2004, above the 60 %-of-GDP Treaty reference value. The programme projects the debt ratio to decline by 5 percentage points over the programme period. The evolution of the debt ratio may be less favourable than projected given the risks to the budgetary targets mentioned above. On the other hand, Austria could potentially compensate for this risk with large-scale privatisations.

Austria appears to be in a relatively favourable position with regard to the long-term sustainability of public finances, in spite of important projected budgetary costs of an ageing population. The pension reforms of 2003 and 2004 are set to provide substantial budgetary relief in the long-term. After the pension reform of 2003, Austria passed a further pension reform in 2004 (Pensionsharmonisierung), with the aim of bringing all groups of private and public sector employees into a harmonised pension system. The significant contribution of the 2004 law to long-term financial sustainability is being back-loaded to take effect only after 2030, while the medium-term savings from the 2003 law are partly reduced.

The economic policies outlined in the programme are partly consistent with the country-specific broad economic policy guidelines in the area of public finances. Although Austria will lower its high tax burden, this does not go hand-in-hand with expenditure restraint, so that the cyclically-adjusted position strongly deteriorates in 2005 and a close-to-balance position is projected to be reached only in the final year of the programme.

In view of the above assessment, Austria is recommended to achieve a higher degree of front loading in the overall budget consolidation path. Furthermore, Austria should lay out in greater detail the specific measures through which a significant budget consolidation could be achieved in the last two years of the programme.

Comparison of key macroeconomic and budgetary projections

		2004	2005	2006	2007	2008
Real GDP (% change)	SP Dec 2004	1,9	2,5	2,5	2,2	2,4
	COM autumn 2004	1,9	2,4	2,4	n.a.	n.a.
	SP Nov 2003	1,9	2,5	2,5	2,4	n.a.
HICP inflation (%)	SP Dec 2004	2,1	1,8	1,4	1,5	1,6
	COM autumn 2004	2,1	1,8	1,4	n.a.	n.a.
	SP Nov 2003	1,2	1,5	1,7	1,8	n.a.
General government balance (% of GDP)	SP Dec 2004	– 1,3	– 1,9	– 1,7	– 0,8	0,0
	COM autumn 2004	– 1,3	– 2,0	– 1,7	n.a.	n.a.
	SP Nov 2003	– 0,7	– 1,5	– 1,1	– 0,4	n.a.
Primary balance (% of GDP)	SP Dec 2004	1,9	1,2	1,3	2,2	2,9
	COM autumn 2004	1,7	0,9	1,2	n.a.	n.a.
	SP Nov 2003	2,8	1,9	2,2	2,8	n.a.
Cyclically-adjusted balance (% of GDP)	SP Dec 2004 (2)	– 0,9	– 1,7	– 1,6	– 0,8	– 0,1
	COM autumn 2004	– 1,0	– 1,9	– 1,7	n.a.	n.a.
	SP Nov 2003 (2)	– 0,4	– 1,4	– 1,1	– 0,5	n.a.
Government gross debt (% of GDP)	SP Dec 2004	64,2	63,6	63,1	61,6	59,1
	COM autumn 2004	64,0	63,9	63,4	n.a.	n.a.
	SP Nov 2003	65,8	64,1	62,3	59,9	n.a.
Sources: Stability programme (SP); Commission services' autumn 2004 economic forecasts (COM); Commission services' calculations.

(1) OJ L 209, 2.8.1997.

(2) Commission services' calculations on the basis of the information in the programme

Sources:

Stability programme (SP); Commission services' autumn 2004 economic forecasts (COM); Commission services' calculations.

1.4.2005

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/7

COUNCIL OPINION

of 18 January 2005

on the updated convergence programme of Sweden, 2004-2007

(2005/C 79/04)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

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 co-ordination of economic policies (1), and in particular Article 9(3) thereof,

Having regard to the recommendation of the Commission,

After consulting the Economic and Financial Committee,

HAS DELIVERED THIS OPINION:

On 18 January 2005 the Council examined the updated convergence programme of Sweden, which covers the period 2004 to 2007. The programme broadly complies with the data requirements of the revised ‘code of conduct on the content and format of stability and convergence programmes’. In particular, some data are not fully in line with ESA95 standards. Accordingly, Sweden is invited to achieve full compliance with data requirements.

The macroeconomic scenario underlying the programme envisages real GDP growth moderating from a strong 3,5 % in 2004 to 3,0 % in 2005 and an average 2,4 % in 2006-07. On the basis of currently available information, this scenario seems to reflect plausible growth assumptions. The programme's projections for inflation appear realistic.

The budgetary framework includes a general government surplus objective of 2 % of GDP on average over the cycle, multi-annual nominal ceilings for central government expenditures and a balanced budget balance requirement for local governments. The update foresees general government surpluses of 0,7 % in 2004, 0,6 % in 2005, 0,4 % in 2006 and 0,9 % in the final year, 2007. Both expenditure and revenue ratios are on a gradually declining trend over the projection period. Adjusting for the estimated impact of the cycle using the common methodology, the cyclically-adjusted budget balance is in surplus throughout the projection period, despite a substantial discretionary stimulus in 2005, reflecting the government's concern with the weak labour market situation. As a result, the general government surplus will not reach 2 % during the projection period. While the pension system and the local government sub-sector are expected to show surpluses, the central government deficit is increasing in 2005 and 2006. Compared to the previous update, the current update presents budgeting targets that are worse on average against macroeconomic developments that are more favourable than earlier projected.

The risks to the budgetary projections in the programme appear broadly balanced. On the one hand, the budgetary projections seem plausible and Sweden has a very good track record in not exceeding set expenditure ceilings. In addition, the financial situation at local government level seems to be improving. On the other hand, taxes have shown to be quite volatile over the last few years and continuing to respect prudent expenditure ceilings will be important.

In view of this risk assessment, the budgetary stance in the programme seems sufficient to maintain the achievement of surpluses over the 2004 to 2007 period in line with the Stability and Growth Pact's medium-term objective of a position of close to balance or surplus. It also provides a sufficient safety margin against breaching the 3 % of GDP deficit threshold with normal macroeconomic fluctuations throughout the programme period.

The debt ratio is estimated to have reached 51,7 % of GDP in 2004, well below the 60 % of GDP Treaty reference value. The programme projects the debt ratio to decline to 49,0 % of GDP by 2007.

Sweden appears to be in a relatively favourable position with regard to the long-term sustainability of the public finances, despite important projected budgetary costs of an ageing population. However, a risk to long-term sustainability may emerge in the long run. This is based on the projected increase in the old-age dependency ratio and existing trends in healthcare-related expenditures, labour force participation and employment. Without further reforms modifying these trends, aiming at a budgetary surplus over the next 10 years of 2 % of GDP, in line with the government's budgetary target, becomes a key factor to address sustainability over the longer term.

Comparison of key macroeconomic and budgetary projections

		2004	2005	2006	2007
Real GDP (% change)	CP Nov 2004	3,5	3,0	2,5	2,3
	COM autumn 2004	3,7	3,1	2,9	n.a.
	CP Nov 2003	2,0	2,6	2,5	n.a.
HICP inflation (%)	CP Nov 2004 (3)	1,3	1,5	n.a.	n.a.
	COM autumn 2004	1,1	1,5	1,9	n.a.
	CP Nov 2003 (3)	1,7	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.
General government balance (% of GDP)	CP Nov 2004	0,7	0,6	0,4	0,9
	COM autumn 2004	0,6	0,6	0,8	n.a.
	CP Nov 2003 (4)	0,6	1,4	1,9	n.a.
Primary balance (% of GDP)	CP Nov 2004 (2)	2,8	2,8	2,7	3,3
	COM autumn 2004	2,7	2,8	3,0	n.a.
	CP Nov 2003	0,9	1,7	2,1	n.a.
Cyclically-adjusted balance (% of GDP)	CP Nov 2004 (5)	0,8	0,5	0,5	1,2
	COM autumn 2004	0,7	0,4	0,6	n.a.
	CP Nov 2003 (5)	1,3	1,8	2,0	n.a.
Government gross debt (% of GDP)	CP Nov 2004	51,7	50,5	50,0	49,0
	COM autumn 2004	51,6	50,6	49,7	n.a.
	CP Nov 2003	51,5	50,0	48,3	n.a.
Sources: Updated Swedish Convergence Programme, November 2003 and November 2004 (CP); Commission services economic forecasts (COM); Commission services calculations

(1) OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 1.

(2) In the update, the Swedish authorities provide primary balances excluding net interest and not the conventional gross interest. However, in the table, primary balances are given excluding gross interest using data from the update.

(3) % change Dec-Dec

(4) For comparability, net lending reported for the 2002 and 2003 updates refers to figures calculated taking into account the full periodisation of taxes (while this accounting change was not formally introduced until 2004).

(5) Commission services calculations on the basis of information in the programme.

Sources:

Updated Swedish Convergence Programme, November 2003 and November 2004 (CP); Commission services economic forecasts (COM); Commission services calculations

1.4.2005

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/11

COUNCIL OPINION

of 18 January 2005

on the updated Stability Programme of the Netherlands, 2004-2007

(2005/C 79/06)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to the recommendation of the Commission,

After consulting the Economic and Financial Committee,

HAS DELIVERED THIS OPINION:

On 18 January 2005 the Council examined the updated stability programme of the Netherlands, which covers the period 2004 to 2007. The programme complies with the data requirements of the revised ‘code of conduct on the content and format of stability and convergence programmes’.

The macroeconomic scenario underlying the programme envisages that real GDP growth will pick up from 1 Formula % in 2004 to 1 Formula % in 2005 and 2 Formula % on average over the rest of the programme period. This scenario is broadly plausible although growth is assumed above potential growth in the last two years of the programme. The programme's projections for inflation appear realistic.

On 2 June 2004, the Council decided that an excessive deficit existed in the Netherlands and recommended that this be corrected by 2005. In line with this recommendation, the primary aim of the budgetary strategy of the programme is to bring the general government deficit below the Treaty reference value of 3 % of GDP by 2005. To this end, the programme encompasses a frontloaded consolidation effort, concentrated in 2004 and 2005. The budgetary strategy also includes the use of real expenditure ceilings to control expenditure growth and the longer-term objective of sustainable public finances. At the same time, significant public investments will continue, resulting in an average public investment ratio over the programme period of slightly above 3 % of GDP, against an EU average of 2,4 % of GDP in 2004. Compared with the previous update, the current update presents a less favourable profile in the budget deficit against the background of less favourable macro-economic developments.

The risks to the budgetary projections in the programme appear broadly balanced. In particular, negative risks stemming from the macroeconomic scenario and the budgetary cost of the social agreement between the government and social partners reached on 5 November 2004 are broadly offset by positive risks of the impact of higher oil prices on revenue from the sale of natural gas and the cautious nature of the assumptions on the tax intensity of economic activity in the upturn. In view of this risk assessment, the budgetary stance in the programme seems sufficient to reduce the deficit to below 3 % of GDP by 2005 but does not seem to provide a sufficient safety margin against breaching this threshold as a result of normal macroeconomic fluctuations in the following years. It is also insufficient to ensure that the Stability and Growth Pact's medium-term objective of a budgetary position of close to balance is achieved within the programme period.

The debt ratio is estimated to have reached 56,3 % of GDP in 2004, below the 60 % of GDP Treaty reference value. The programme projects the debt ratio to increase by two percentage points over the programme period.

The budgetary strategy outlined in the programme puts the Netherlands in a relatively favourable position with regard to the long-term sustainability of public finances, despite important projected budgetary costs of an ageing population. Given the projected increase in the old-age dependency ratio, and in the absence of further fiscal consolidation leading to a budgetary position close to balance or in surplus in the medium term, further reforms that would modify the trends in age-related expenditures and raising further participation rates would reduce sustainability risks over the longer term.

The economic policies outlined in the programme are partly consistent with the country-specific broad economic policy guidelines in the area of public finances. The budgetary framework with expenditure ceilings is adhered to, and budgetary adjustment to correct the excessive deficit is well under way. However, the expected reduction in the headline deficit in 2006 and especially 2007 is quite slow, while the cyclically-adjusted balance would not show progress towards the medium-term objective of a budgetary position of close-to-balance after 2005.

In view of the above assessment, the Netherlands is recommended to continue to ensure that the deficit is brought below 3 % of GDP by 2005, and, in view of the risk of pro-cyclicality and the challenges of ageing population, to take the necessary measures to achieve a budgetary position close to balance thereafter.

Comparison of key macroeconomic and budgetary projections

		2004	2005	2006	2007
Real GDP (% change)	SP Nov. 2004	1,25	1,5	2,5	2,5
	COM autumn 2004 00	1,4	1,7	2,4	n.a.
	SP Oct. 2003	1	2,5	2,5	2,5
HICP inflation (%)	SP Nov. 2004	1,25	1,25	1,5	1,5
	COM autumn 2004	1,2	1,3	1,4	n.a.
	SP Oct. 2003	1,5	1,5	1,5	1,5
General government balance (% of GDP)	SP Nov. 2004	– 3,0	– 2,6	– 2,1	– 1,9
	COM autumn 2004	– 2,9	– 2,4	– 2,1	n.a.
	SP Oct. 2003	– 2,3	– 1,6	– 0,9	– 0,6
Primary balance (% of GDP)	SP Nov. 2004	– 0,1	0,3	0,7	0,8
	COM autumn 2004	0,0	0,5	0,9	n.a.
	SP Oct. 2003	0,6	1,2	1,8	2,1
Cyclically-adjusted balance (% of GDP)	SP Nov. 2004 (2)	– 1,6	– 1,2	– 1,2	– 1,3
	COM autumn 2004	– 1,4	– 1,0	– 1,0	n.a.
	SP Oct. 2003 (3)	– 0,7	– 0,3	– 0,2	– 0,2
Government gross debt (% of GDP)	SP Nov. 2004	56,3	58,1	58,6	58,3
	COM	55,7	58	58,4	n.a.
	SP Oct. 2003	54,5	53,7	53,0	52,2
Sources: Stability programmes (SP); Commission services' economic forecasts (COM); Commission services' calculations. Forecast growth rates in the update have been rounded to the nearest quarter of a percentage point.

(1) OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 1.

(2) Commission services' calculations on the basis of the information in the programme.

(3) Commission services' calculations applying the commonly agreed methodology to the information in the programme.

Sources:

Stability programmes (SP); Commission services' economic forecasts (COM); Commission services' calculations. Forecast growth rates in the update have been rounded to the nearest quarter of a percentage point.

1.4.2005

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/17

Call for proposals relating to the processing of papers of Members of the European Parliament accumulated in the exercise of their duties and handed over in the form of legal donations or legacies (2005-002)

(2005/C 79/11)

As part of the policy of making information on the history of European integration available, each year the European Parliament identifies projects that contribute to the processing of the papers of Members and former members of the European Parliament accumulated in the exercise of their duties connected with the European Parliament and handed over in the form of legal donations and legacies to institutes, associations or foundations.

Legal basis

—	Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities.

—	Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities.

—	Rules on processing the papers of Members of the European Parliament handed over in the form of legal donations or legacies to an institute, association or foundation, adopted by the Bureau of the European Parliament on 2 June 2003.

Programme and source of funding: processing of the papers of Members of the European Parliament

Budget item: 2271 of Section I – Parliament – of the general budget of the European Union.

I. NATURE OF PROJECT, GEOGRAPHICAL AREA AND DURATION OF THE PROJECT

1 Objective of the project: to facilitate the processing of and free access to the papers that Members of the European Parliament have assembled in connection with and during their term of office as an MEP. The work forms part of the policy of making information on the history of European integration available which Parliament is pursuing for the benefit of researchers and the citizens of Europe.

2 Nature of project: the archival processing of documents accumulated by Members or former Members of the European Parliament (and of the Common Assembly of the ECSC and the European Parliamentary Assembly) during their term of office as an MEP. These documents will have been handed over in the form of donations or legacies to an institute, association or foundation registered with the SPP-ICA and will not yet have been archivally processed. No grant shall be awarded for expenditure incurred before the signing of the specific financing agreement (Article 112 of the Financial Regulation). These activities shall break down as follows:

Establishment of a filing plan

Archival processing in accordance with ISAD(G) and ISAAR (CPF) standards

Scanning and microfilming of documents.

3 Geographical area: European Union

4 Maximum duration: 30 June 2006 (deadline for submission of the request for payment of the grant balance, following completion of the project).

5 Publication: this call for proposals, and the grant application form, shall be sent for publication to:

the Official Journal of the European Union;

the European Parliament's Internet site (http://www.europarl.eu.int/tenders);

the Internet site of the International Council on Archives – Section of Archives and Archivists of Parliaments and Political Parties (SPP).

II. FUNDING

1	Maximum budget allocated to this call for proposals (this amount may be reduced or increased on the basis of budgetary/practical requirements): EUR 250 000

2 Maximum and minimum amount of grants

—

Maximum percentage of the project cost that may be financed from Community funds: 50 % of costs calculated at a rate of up to EUR 9 900 per linear metre (approx. 5 000 sheets) for textual documents and EUR 7 per unit for non-textual documents (this percentage shall apply only to fonds eligible for funding – see point 1.6 of the grant application form).

—	Minimum amount of grants: EUR 4 950

The maximum amount of grants shall be determined on the basis of the appropriations available under budget Item 2271.

3 Terms of funding

—

50 % after the list of beneficiaries has been drawn up and after the following two conditions have been met:

—	issue (possibly, at the European Parliament's request), by an authorised banking institution, of a performance bond for the work, executable at first call, and of an amount equal to the first funding instalment;

—	conclusion of a written agreement;

—	50 % after completion of the project and submission of the documents constituting evidence of completion.

4 Number of grants

Only one fonds may be the subject of grant applications made by any one applicant in any one year.

III. CONDITIONS GOVERNING ELIGIBILITY AND FUNDING

1 Conditions governing eligibility

Applicants must:

(a)	be a legal person and a member of the International Council on Archives — Section of Archives and Archivists of Parliaments and Political Parties (SPP/ICA);

(b)	have a substantial knowledge of archiving;

(c)	have a knowledge and understanding of the rules of professional conduct and the ISAD(G) and ISAAR(CPF) international standards;

(d)	have proven experience in the management of documents relating to parliamentary activities;

(e)	not be in any of the situations specified in Articles 93 and 94 of the Financial Regulation (see grant application form, ‘Solemn declarations’);

(f)

be in a position to produce all supporting documents required to prove that the eligibility, selection and award criteria laid down in this call for proposals and the legal basis have been met, in particular proof of the form, composition and historical significance (for the history of European integration) of the fonds.

2 Minimum funding conditions

Funding may be awarded to an institute, association or foundation only if:

(a)

The documents have been donated or bequeathed free of charge and subject to the waiver, by their authors, of the right to consideration for exercising their copyright and in particular their reproduction rights, so that the applicant has and can provide proof of a genuine right to use the fonds free of charge;

(b)

The archival processing of textual documents is subject to the rules of professional conduct and in particular the ISAD(G) and ISAAR(CPF) standards, in accordance with the instructions in Annex 1 to the Rules on processing the papers of Members of the European Parliament handed over in the form of legal donations or legacies to an institute, association or foundation, adopted by the Bureau of the European Parliament on 2 June 2003;

(c)	No other grant is being paid to the applicant, for the same reason, from the general budget of the European Union;

(d)	The documents are not used, after archival processing, for profit-making purposes;

(e)	The applicant undertakes to make a full list of the documents processed available to the European Parliament and to users (on paper and in electronic form and, if necessary, on its website) and to give them free access to the original documents;

(f)	The applicant has other sources of funding for the processing of the archives;

(g)	The applicant undertakes to handle the preparation and management of the project directly and not merely to act as an intermediary;

(h)

The documents for archival processing:

—	concern facts and people clearly linked to the history of European integration;

—	concern European integration since the inception of the ECSC (document fonds dating from earlier than 1952 are excluded);

—	are linked to the personal experience of the Member gained during his or her term of office as an MEP (documents accumulated outside the term of office of Members or former Members of the Common Assembly of the ECSC, the European Parliamentary Assembly or the European Parliament shall be excluded);

—	are historical in nature (for this reason documents accumulated during the parliamentary term which began in 2004 shall be excluded);

—	are substantial (fonds which amount to less than one linear metre = 5 000 pages and non-textual documents that are not part of a fonds eligible for the minimum funding of EUR 4 950 shall be excluded).

IV. SELECTION AND AWARD CRITERIA

1 Selection criteria

The applicant must demonstrate stable and adequate sources of funding to maintain its activity during the period of completion of the work and contribute to its financing (up to a minimum of 50 %) and prefinancing, before payment of the balance (up to a minimum of 25 %).

It must have recognised archiving skills of a nature to enable it to carry out the archival processing in question. For this purpose, the curricula vitae of the personnel responsible for the processing must be attached. In addition, the external human resources and equipment the applicant intends to use through the award of contracts must be specified and documented. NB: in view of section III.2(g), external resources may be used only for physical tasks.

Finally, the applicant must demonstrate its genuine capacity to make the list of documents available to users and to provide access to the originals free of charge.

2 Award criteria

The proposed project should seek to maximise the effectiveness of the policy being pursued by the European Parliament of ensuring that the most comprehensive body of information on the history of European integration is available to researchers and the citizens of Europe. To this end, the following award criteria, with the relative weightings indicated below, shall apply:

(a)	the aptitude of the fonds (whether textual or otherwise) to constitute a significant addition to the history of European integration (with that aim in view, official European Parliament or European Union documents shall be excluded). Relative weighting: . . . . . . . . . ./60 points;

(b)	importance of the duties performed by the Member or former Member during his or her term of office as an MEP. Relative weighting: . . . . . . . . . ./ 15 points;

(c)	novelty of the sources of information. This criterion shall be assessed on the basis of the percentage of the fonds accounted for by non-published documents, a figure which must be substantiated in the grant application. Relative weighting: . . . . . . . . . ./15 points;

(d)

ability of the applicant to offer the general public access to the fonds.

This criterion will be assessed on the basis of the following parameters:

—	creation of an electronic database: Relative weighting: . . . . . . . . . ./5 points;

—	placing of a full list of the scanned documents on the Web (in keeping with any legal requirements concerning personal data protection): Relative weighting: . . . . . . . . . ./5 points.

When assessing compliance with the award criteria, account shall be taken, as far as possible, of the need to strike a fair balance between the various proposals on the basis of the dual criterion of geographical origin and political affiliation (fifth recital of the Rules on processing the papers of Members of the European Parliament handed over in the form of legal donations or legacies to an institute, association or foundation).

3 Procedure

The assessment committee shall classify the proposals on the basis of the points awarded in keeping with the relative weighting of the criteria, as outlined above.

The information substantiating compliance with the criteria must be clearly set out on the application form and proven by means of any supporting documents required. The assessment committee may ask the applicant to clarify supporting documents, or provide additional supporting documents, by a time limit that it shall lay down. All the information contained in the grant application must be substantiated, where appropriate, by means of supporting documents. Information which has not been substantiated shall not be taken into account when compliance with the criteria is assessed.

The European Parliament reserves the right to verify on the spot, where appropriate, information submitted by applicants in connection with this call for proposals.

4 Provisional time-frame for notification of the results of the award procedure

July/September 2005

V. SUBMISSION OF APPLICATIONS/GENERAL INFORMATION

1 Submitting an application

Applications must be submitted on the grant application form (attached); all parts of the form must be completed, failing which the application shall be declared inadmissible.

Applications and accompanying documentation must be presented on paper (one signed original and five copies) and in electronic format (two diskettes or two CDs).

2 Closing date for the submission of applications

The closing date for receiving applications is 25 May 2005. Applications received by the contracting authority after this closing date shall not be considered.

3 Forwarding proposals

Proposals must:

—	be drawn up on the grant application form;

—	be signed by the applicant or his/her duly authorised representative;

—	be perfectly legible so as to rule out any uncertainty as to the wording and figures;

—

be sent under double cover. The two envelopes shall be sealed. In addition to the address of the recipient service as given in the call for proposals, the inner envelope must bear the following:

CALL FOR PROPOSALS 2005-002

‘Processing of the papers of Members of the European Parliament’

NOT TO BE OPENED BY THE MAIL SERVICE OR ANY UNAUTHORISED PERSON

If self-adhesive envelopes are used, they shall be sealed using strips of adhesive tape bearing the signature of the sender. The official stamp of his or her body shall also be regarded as the sender's signature;

—

be forwarded by registered mail at the latest by the closing date laid down in the call for proposals, as evidenced by the postmark or handed in, in return for a dated receipt issued by the Mail Service at the place of work of the European Parliament indicated in the call for proposals. Proposals submitted in this way must be handed in at the latest by midday (12.00) on the closing date.

Proposals sent by private courier service shall be regarded as having been handed in. It shall be for the applicant to make sure that its proposal has been delivered, at the latest by midday (12.00) on the closing date, to the European Parliament's Mail Service, at the address given below, and that a receipt has been issued.

The outer envelope shall bear the following address:

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Official Mail Service

ASP 0F158

Attn: Directorate-General for the Presidency

Budget and Finance Unit (ASP 1H353)

Rue Wiertz, 60

B-1047 Brussels (Belgium)

This envelope shall also bear the sender's address.

The inner envelope shall bear the following address:

Directorate-General for the Presidency

Budget and Finance Unit (ASP 1H353)

Rue Wiertz, 60

B-1047 Brussels (Belgium)

Proposals which do not comply with these requirements shall be declared inadmissible.

4 Detailed information

The following documents are available on the following Internet page:

http://www.europarl.eu.int/tenders/default.htm:

—	rules on processing the papers of Members of the European Parliament handed over in the form of legal donations or legacies to an institute, association or foundation

—	grant application form

—	model performance bond

—	model agreement.

All questions concerning this call for proposals with a view to the awarding of grants must be sent by electronic mail, giving the publication reference, to the following e-mail address:

Ibalthazart@europarl.eu.int

Rphilippot@europarl.eu.int

GRANT APPLICATION FORM

Budget Item 2271

(Processing of the papers of Members of the European Parliament handed over in the form of legal donations or legacies to an institute, association or foundation)

Name of applicant:

File No:
For contracting authority use only

I. ARCHIVAL PROCESSING ACTION

1 Description

1.1	Name of Member of the European Parliament who has handed over the documents

1.2	Date handed over

1.3	Handed over as:

1.4	Have the documents been bequeathed free of charge and subject to the waiver, by their authors, of the right to consideration for exercising their copyright and in particular their reproduction rights? Can the documents therefore be used free of charge? If yes, please attach proof

1.5

Composition of the fonds

(a)	Linear metres paper copy

(b)	Number of documents audio copy – types

(c)	Number of documents audio-visual copy – types

(d)	Number of Kb/Mb/Gb on electronic medium – types

1.6

Reasons justifying the importance of the fonds (maximum one page), on the basis of the following criteria:

(a)	Form and composition of the fonds (all relevant supporting documents to be attached)

(b)	Duties performed during his or her term of office as an MEP by the Member who handed over the papers

(c)	Importance of the papers as an addition to the history of European integration. Specify whether official European Parliament or European Union documents are present and to what extent (all relevant supporting documents to be attached).

(d)	Facts and people concerned.

(e)	Novelty of source. Specify what percentage of the papers have already been published (all relevant supporting documents to be attached).

(f)	Period concerned (documents dating from before 1952 and after the 1999-2004 parliamentary term are excluded).

(g)	State the link between the papers and the personal experience of the Member gained during his or her term of office as an MEP.

1.7	Description of any work already completed on the same fonds (specify the number of pages already processed): (maximum half a page)

1.8	Detailed description of work to be carried out (see section I of the call for proposals) (maximum one page)

1.9

Methodology (maximum one page):

(a)	Division into phases

(b)	Evaluation procedures by phase

(c)	Proposed team for each phase

1.10	Duration and action plan

2. Expected results (maximum one page)

II. APPLICANT

1. Identity

Full legal name:
Acronym (if appropriate):
Legal status confirming legal personality:
Evidence of powers to represent the legal person (attach supporting documents)
Documents justifying SPP/ICA registration
VAT No (if appropriate):
Official address:
Postal address:
Contact person:
Telephone No:
Fax No:
E-mail address:
Website:

2. Bank references

The bank must have its head office in the country in which the applicant is registered.

Bank name:
Bank address:
Account name:
Name(s) of signatory/ies:
Position(s) of signatory/ies:
Bank code:
IBAN account No of applicant: N.B. This account must enable any payments made by the EP to be identified
SWIFT code:

3. Description of applicant (maximum 1 page).

3.1 When was your organisation set up and when did it commence activities?

3.2 What are the principal activities of your organisation at present?

3.3 Management bodies and members thereof, whose statutory position must be stated here.

BODY
Name	Profession	Sex	Position	Number of years within body

3.4 Knowledge of archiving

3.4.1

Brief list of previous archiving experience (maximum one page).

3.4.2

Curricula vitae of archivists (maximum one page per archivist).

3.4.3

Ability to apply ISAD(G) and ISAAR(CPF) methods, in accordance with the instructions in Annex 1 to the Rules on processing the papers of Members of the European Parliament handed over in the form of legal donations or legacies to an institute, association or foundation, adopted by the Bureau of the European Parliament on 2 June 2003.

3.4.4

Estimate the external human and material resources which the applicant expects to use, to perform actual archiving work, through the award of contracts (specify which).

3.5 Indicate the relationship with the users of your fonds (proportion of researchers, students, general public)

3.6 Availability of processed documents

3.6.1

Are you able to make the list of processed documents available to the European Parliament and users free of charge and give them access to the originals of these documents? How?

3.6.2

Do you plan to create a database with the scanned documents?

3.6.3.

Do you plan to publish the documents on a website (in keeping with any legal requirements concerning personal data protection)?

4. Budget

4.1

Attach the applicant's operating budget for the financial year 2005. The applicant must indicate sources of funding to cover at least the 50 % of the cost of the work not covered by the grant being applied for and at least 25 % of the cost of the work to be financed by the payment of the balance (50 % of the grant) once the work is complete.

4.2	Attach profit and loss account and balance sheet for the financial year 2004.

4.3

Does the applicant have or has it applied for other sources of funding during the financial year 2005 for the same work as in paragraph 1, for other work or for its current activities from the general budget of the European Union?

If yes:

—	what is the amount? . . . . . . . . . .

—	please state the nature, origin and purpose of the funding

SOLEMN DECLARATIONS

The applicant declares that it is not in any of the following situations (which constitute a reason for exclusion from funding under the terms of Articles 93 and 94 of the Financial Regulation):

(a)

bankrupt or being wound up, having its affairs administered by the courts or in an arrangement with creditors, suspension of its business activities, or the subject of proceedings concerning those matters, or in any analogous situation arising from a similar procedure provided for in national legislation or regulations;

(b)	convicted of an offence concerning its professional conduct by a judgement which has the force of res judicata;

(c)	guilty of grave professional misconduct proven by any means which the contracting authority can justify;

(d)	guilty of failure to fulfil its obligations relating to the payment of social security contributions or the payment of taxes in accordance with the legal provisions of the country in which it is established;

(e)	the subject of a judgement which has the force of res judicata for fraud, corruption, involvement in a criminal organisation or any other illegal activity detrimental to the Communities' financial interests;

(f)	following another procurement procedure or grant award procedure financed by the Community budget, it has been declared to be in serious breach of contract for failure to comply with its contractual obligations.

(g)	subject to a conflict of interest;

(h)	guilty of failure to supply the information required in this application form or guilty of misrepresentation.

I am in one of the above situations

If yes, specify which:

The applicant undertakes, if a grant is awarded, not to use the papers for profit-making purposes

The applicant undertakes, if a grant is awarded, to make a full list of the personal documents processed available to users (on paper and electronic media, and if necessary, on its website) and to provide access to the original documents.

The applicant undertakes to handle the preparation and management of the project directly and not to act merely as an intermediary.

The applicant undertakes, if a grant is awarded, to accompany the request for the balance, following completion of the work, by the documents indicated in Article 6.2(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Rules on processing the papers of Members of the European Parliament handed over in the form of legal donations or legacies to an institute, association or foundation, adopted by the Bureau of the European Parliament on 2 June 2003.

The applicant undertakes, if a grant is awarded, not to incur any expenditure before a specific financing agreement has been signed.

The applicant undertakes, if a grant is awarded, to respect in full the rules and regulations that constitute the legal basis for work covered by the funding (paragraph 'Legal basis' of the call for proposals:

—	Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities;

—	Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities;

—	Rules on processing the papers of Members of the European Parliament handed over in the form of legal donations or legacies to an institute, association or foundation, adopted by the Bureau of the European Parliament on 2 June 2003).

Signature of the legal representative certifying the accuracy of the information provided above

Done on . . . . . . . . . . at . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Signature

1.4.2005

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/29

Call(s) for proposals for indirect RTD actions under the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration: ‘Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area’

(2005/C 79/12)

In accordance with Decision No 1513/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 27 June 2002, concerning the sixth framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002 to 2006) (1), the Council adopted on 30 September 2002 the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration: ‘Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area’ (2002-2006) (2) (referred to as ‘the specific programme’).

In accordance with Article 5(1) of the specific programme, the Commission of the European Communities (referred to as ‘the Commission’) has adopted on 9 December 2002 a work programme (3) (referred to as ‘the work programme’) setting out in greater detail the objectives and scientific and technological priorities of the specific programme, and the timetable for implementation.

In accordance with Article 9(1) of the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 16 December 2002, concerning the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in, and for the dissemination of research results for, the implementation of the European Community Sixth Framework Programme (2002 to 2006) (4) (referred to as ‘the rules for participation’), proposals for indirect RTD actions should be submitted under the terms of calls for proposals.

The present call(s) for proposals for indirect RTD actions (referred to as ‘the call(s)’) comprise(s) the present general part and the specific conditions that are described in the annex(es). The annex(es) indicate(s) in particular, the date(s) of closure for the submission of proposals for indirect RTD actions, an indicative date for the completion of the evaluations, the indicative budget, the instruments and the areas concerned, the evaluation criteria for the evaluation of proposals for indirect RTD actions, the minimum number of participants, and any applicable restrictions.

Natural or legal persons fulfilling the conditions stated in the rules for participation and that do not fall under any of the exclusion cases in the rules for participation or in Article 114(2) of the Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (5) (referred to as ‘the proposers’) are invited to submit to the Commission proposals for indirect RTD actions subject to the conditions in the rules for participation and in the call concerned being fulfilled.

The conditions of participation of the proposers will be verified within the framework of the negotiation of the indirect RTD action. Before that however, proposers will have signed a declaration stating that they do not fall under any of the cases given by Article 93(1) of the Financial Regulation. They will also have given the Commission the information listed in Article 173(2) of the Commission Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No2342/2002, of 23 December 2002, laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (6).

The European Community has adopted an equal opportunities policy and, on this basis, women are particularly encouraged to either submit proposals for indirect RTD actions or participate in the submission of proposals for indirect RTD actions.

The Commission makes available to proposers guides for proposers relating to the call(s) which contain information on the preparation and the submission of a proposal for an indirect RTD action. The Commission also makes available Guidelines on Proposal Evaluation and Selection Procedures (7). These guides and guidelines, as well as the work programme and other information relating to the call(s), can be obtained from the Commission via the following addresses:

European Commission

The FP6 Information Desk

Directorate General RTD

B-1049 Brussels, Belgium

Internet address: www.cordis.lu/fp6

Proposals for indirect RTD actions are invited to be submitted only as an electronic proposal via the web-based Electronic Proposal Submission System (EPSS (8)). In exceptional cases, however, a co-ordinator may request permission from the Commission to submit on paper in advance of a call deadline. This should be done by writing to one of the following addresses:

European Commission

Directorate General RTD – Unit A1

B-1049 Brussels

or rtd-policies@cec.eu.int. The request must be accompanied by an explanation of why the exception is being sought. Proposers wishing to use paper submission take the responsibility for ensuring that such requests for exemption and the associated procedures are completed in time for them to meet the call deadline.

All proposals for indirect RTD actions must contain two parts: the forms (Part A) and the content (Part B).

Proposals for indirect RTD actions may be prepared off-line or on-line and submitted on-line. Part B of proposals for indirect RTD actions can only be submitted in PDF (‘portable document format’, compatible with Adobe Version 3 or higher with embedded fonts). Compressed (‘zipped’) files will be excluded.

The EPSS software tool (for off-line or on-line usage) is available via the Cordis website www.cordis.lu.

Proposals for indirect RTD actions that are submitted on-line and which are incomplete, illegible or contain viruses will be excluded.

Versions of proposals for indirect RTD actions submitted on a removable electronic storage medium (eg, CD-ROM, diskette), by email or by fax will be excluded.

Any proposal for indirect RTD actions that has been allowed to be submitted on paper and which is incomplete will be excluded.

Further details on the various proposal submission procedures are given in Annex J of the Guidelines on Proposal Evaluation and Selection Procedures.

Proposals for indirect RTD actions have to reach the Commission at the latest on the closure date and at the time specified in the call concerned. Proposals for indirect RTD actions arriving after this date and time will be excluded.

Proposals for indirect RTD actions not satisfying the conditions relating to the minimum number of participants indicated in the call concerned will be excluded.

This also applies regarding any additional eligibility criteria given in the work programme.

7.	In the case of successive submissions of the same proposal for an indirect RTD action, the Commission will examine the last version received before the closure date and time specified in the call concerned.

8.	If foreseen in the relevant call, proposals for indirect RTD actions could be evaluated in the framework of a future evaluation.

9.	In all correspondence relating to a call (e.g. when requesting information, or submitting a proposal for an indirect RTD action), proposers are invited to cite the relevant call identifier.

(1) OJ L 232, 29.8.2002, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 294, 29.10.2002, p. 1

(3) Commission Decision C(2002)4789, as modified by C(2003)577, C(2003)955, C(2003)1952, C(2003)3543, C(2003)3555, C(2003)4609, C(2003)5183, C(2004)433, C(2004)2002, C(2004)2727, C(2004)3324, C(2004)4178, C(2004)5286, C(2005)27, and C(2005)961 all decisions unpublished.

(4) OJ L 355, 30.12.2002, p. 23

(5) OJ L 248, of 16.9.2002, p. 1.

(6) OJ L 357, of 31.12.2002, p. 1.

(7) C(2003)883 of 27 March 2003, as last modified by C(2004)1855 of 18 May 2004.

(8) The EPSS is a tool to assist proposers to develop and submit their proposals electronically.

ANNEX 1

1. Specific Programme: Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area

2. Activities: Priority thematic area of research ‘Aeronautics and Space’.

3. Call title: Periodic call in the area of ‘Aeronautics and Space’

4. Call identifier (1): FP6-2005-Aero-1

5. Date of publication (2): 31 March 2005.

6. Closure date(s) (3): 13 July 2005 at 17.00h (Brussels local time).

7. Total indicative budget: EUR 245 million, broken down as follows

8. Areas called and Instruments:

Area	Topic	Instrument
‘Strengthening Competitiveness’	Open Upstream Research: Research Domains from 1.a to 1.l (See Section 1.3.1.1)	STREP and CA
	Focused Downstream Research: Subjects from 1 to 4 (See Section 1.3.2)	IP
	Structuring European Aeronautics Research: Subject 1 (See Section 1.3.3)	NoE
‘Improving environmental impact with regard to emissions and noise’	Open Upstream Research: Research Domains from 2.a to 2.i (See Section 1.3.1.2)	STREP and CA
	Focused Downstream Research: Subject 5 (See Section 1.3.2)	IP
‘Improving aircraft safety and security’	Open Upstream Research: Research Domains from 3.a to 3.e (See Section 1.3.1.3)	STREP and CA
‘Improving aircraft safety and security’	Structuring European Aeronautics Research: Subject 2 (See Section 1.3.3)	NoE
‘Increasing the operational capacity and safety of the air transport system’	Open Upstream Research: Research Domains 4.a, 4.b, 4.c and 4.g (See Section 1.3.1.4)	STREP and CA

9. Minimum number of participants (5):

Instrument	Minimum number of participants
IP, NOE, STREP and CA	3 independent legal entities from 3 different MS or AS, with at least 2 MS or ACC.

10. Restriction on participation: None.

11. Consortia agreements:

—	Participants in IP are required to conclude a consortium agreement.

—	Participants in STREP, CA and SSA resulting from this call are encouraged, and may be required, to conclude a consortium agreement.

12. Evaluation procedure:

—	The evaluation shall follow a single stage procedure

—	Proposals will not be evaluated anonymously.

13. Evaluation criteria: See Annex B of the work programme for the applicable criteria (including their individual weights and thresholds and the overall threshold) per instrument.

14. Indicative evaluation and contractual timetable:

—	Evaluation results: estimated to be available within some 3 months after the closure date;

—	Conclusion of first contracts: it is estimated that the first contracts related to this call will come into force 8 months after the closure date.

(1) The call identifier shall be given in the published version of this call.

(2) The Director-General responsible for the publication of this call may publish it up to one month prior or after its envisaged publication date.

(3) When the envisaged publication date is advanced or delayed (see previous footnote), closure date(s) will be adjusted accordingly, if needed, in the published call for proposals.

(4) IP = Integrated project; NOE = Network of excellence; STREP = Specific targeted research project; CA = Coordination action; SSA = Specific support action

(5) MS = Member States of the EU; AS (incl. ACC) = Associated States; ACC = Associated candidate countries.

Any legal entity established in a Member State or Associated State and which is made up of the requested number of participant may be the sole participant in an indirect action.

ANNEX 2

1. Specific Programme: ‘Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area’

2. Activity: Priority thematic area of research ‘Aeronautics and Space’

3. Call title: Thematic call in the area of ‘Aeronautics Specific Support Actions’

4. Call identifier (1): FP6-2002-Aero-2

5. Date of publication (2):

6. Intermediary and final closure dates (3): 30 June 2005, 20 October 2005 at 17.00 h (Brussels local time). The final closure date will be in March 2006

7. Total indicative budget (2002-2006): EUR 7 Million (2005: EUR 1 M + EUR 1 M)

8. Areas called:

Area	Topic	Instrument
All	Promoting SME participation	SSA
	Stimulating dissemination and exploitation of results
	Realising the European Research Area
	Promoting Candidate Countries participation
	Stimulating international co-operation
	Developing a EU research strategy in the sector

9. Minimum number of participants:

Instrument	Minimum number of participants
SSA	1 legal entity from a MS or AS

10. Restriction on participation: None.

11. Consortia agreements: Participants in RTD actions resulting from this call are not required to conclude a consortium agreement

12. Evaluation procedure:

—	The evaluation shall follow a single stage procedure

—	Proposals will not be evaluated anonymously

13. Evaluation criteria: See Annex B of the work programme for the applicable criteria (including their individual weights and thresholds and the overall threshold) per instrument

14. Indicative evaluation and contractual timetable:

—	Evaluation results: estimated to be available within some 2 months after the closure date;

—	Conclusion of first contracts: it is estimated that the first contracts related to this call will come into force 6 months after the closure date.

(1) The call identifier shall be given in the published version of this call.

(2) The Director-General responsible for the publication of this call may publish it up to one month prior or after its envisaged publication date.

(3) When the envisaged publication date is advanced or delayed (see previous footnote), closure date(s) will be adjusted accordingly, if needed, in the published call for proposals.

(4) IP = Integrated project; NOE = Network of excellence; STREP = Specific targeted research project; CA = Coordination action; SSA = Specific support action

ANNEX 3

1. Specific Programme: Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area.

2. Activity: Priority thematic area of research ‘Aeronautics and Space’

3. Call title: Thematic call in the area of ‘Space 2005’.

4. Call identifier (1): FP6-2005-Space-1.

5. Date of publication (2): 31 March 2005.

6. Closure date(s) (3): 13 July 2005, at 17.00h (Brussels local time).

7. Total indicative budget: EUR 45 Million, broken down as follows.

8. Areas called and Instruments:

Area	Topic	Preferred Instrument
GMES	Water resources	IP
	Security	IP
	Long-term sustainability of GMES	IP
	Data harmonisation for geo-information in support of integrated GMES/INSPIRE services	IP
	Education and training	CA, SSA
	Networking the users	CA, SSA
	International cooperation	STREP, CA, SSA
Satellite Telecommunications	Convergence and integration of satellite telecommunications with GMES	IP, STREP
	Convergence and integration of satellite telecommunications with Galileo	IP, STREP
	End-to-end satellite telecommunications systems	STREP, IP
	Analysis of future potential combined Galileo/satellite telecommunications services	SSA
	International cooperation	STREP, CA, SSA

9. Minimum number of participants (5):

Instrument	Minimum number of participants
IP, STREP and CA	3 independent legal entities from 3 different MS or AS, with at least 2 MS or ACC.
SSA	1 legal entity from a MS or AS.

10. Restriction on participation: None.

11. Consortia agreements: Participants in RTD actions resulting from this call are required to conclude a consortium agreement.

12. Evaluation procedure:

—	The evaluation shall follow a single stage procedure.

—	Proposals will not be evaluated anonymously.

13. Evaluation criteria: See Annex B of the work programme for the applicable criteria (including their individual weights and thresholds and the overall threshold) per instrument.

14. Indicative evaluation and contractual timetable:

—	Evaluation results: estimated to be available within some 3 months after the closure date.

—	Conclusion of first contracts: it is estimated that the first contracts related to this call will come into force in 2006.

(1) The call identifier shall be given in the published version of this call.

(2) The Director-General responsible for the publication of this call may publish it up to one month prior or after its envisaged publication date.

(3) When the envisaged date of publication is either advanced or delayed (see previous footnote), closure date(s) will be adjusted accordingly.

(4) IP = Integrated project; STREP = Specific targeted research project; CA = Co-ordination action; SSA = Specific support action.

(5) MS = Member States of the EU; AS (incl. ACC) = Associated States; ACC = Associated candidate countries.

Any legal entity established in a Member State or Associated State and which is made up of the requested number of participant may be the sole participant in an indirect action.

ANNEX 4

1. Specific Programme: Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area

2. Activity: Priority thematic area of research ‘Sustainable Surface Transport’.

3. Call title: Thematic call in the area of ‘Surface Transport 3B’.

4. Call identifier (1): FP6-2005-Transport-4

5. Date of publication (2): 31 March 2005.

6. Closure date(s) (3): 1 September 2005 at 17.00 h (Brussels local time).

7. Total indicative budget: EUR 150 million, broken down as follows

8. Areas called and Instruments:

Area	Topic	Instrument
Objective 1 ‘New technologies and concepts for all surface transport modes (road, rail and waterborne)’	Low cost power-integrated advanced hybrid configurations	IP
	Towards advanced road transport for urban environment	IP
	Efficient rail traction and sustainable energy supply	IP
	Research domain 1.4 (for all transport modes and for road transport with emphasis on after-treatment) and research domain 1.8	STREP
	Research domains 1.4 to 1.10	CA
Objective 2 ‘Advanced design and production techniques’	Future road vehicle production structures (the 5 day car initiative)	IP
	Development of cost-effective high performance track infrastructure for heavy and light rail systems	IP
	Structuring the European Marine Testing capacity for increased competitiveness	NoE
	Research domain 2.2(only for a new generation of products and systems in waterborne transport), research domain 2.3 (for all types of transport vehicles and vessels excluding passenger cars), research domain 2.4 and research domain 2.6 (with special consideration of the needs of New Member States)	STREP
	Research domains 2.1 to 2.7	CA
Objective 3 ‘Re-balancing and integrating different transport modes’	Effective operations in ports	IP
	Research domain 3.14 (only for rail transport) and research domain 3.16	STREP
	Research domains 3.14 to 3.17	CA
Objective 4 ‘Increasing road, rail and waterborne safety and avoiding traffic congestion’	Safe maritime operations	IP
	Research domain 4.13 (only for rail transport and powered two-wheelers) and research domains 4.15 and 4.16	STREP
	Research domains 4.11 to 4.16	CA

9. Minimum number of participants (5):

Instrument	Minimum number of participants
IP, NOE, STREP and CA	3 independent legal entities from 3 different MS or AS, with at least 2 MS or ACC

10. Restriction on participation: None.

11. Consortia agreements: Participants in RTD actions resulting from this call are required to conclude a consortium agreement.

12. Evaluation procedure:

—	The evaluation shall follow a single stage procedure.

—	Proposals will not be evaluated anonymously.

13. Evaluation criteria: See Annex B of the work programme for the applicable criteria (including their individual weights and thresholds and the overall threshold) per instrument.

14. Indicative evaluation and contractual timetable:

—	Evaluation results: estimated to be available within some 3 months after the closure date;

—	Conclusion of first contracts: it is estimated that the first contracts related to this call will come into force 8 months after the closure.

(1) The call identifier shall be given in the published version of this call.

(2) The Director-General responsible for the publication of this call may publish it up to one month prior or after its envisaged publication date.

(3) When the envisaged publication date is advanced or delayed (see previous footnote), this deadline will be adjusted accordingly.

(4) IP = Integrated project; NOE = Network of excellence; STREP = Specific targeted project; CA = Coordination action; SSA = Specific support action

(5) MS = Member States of the EU; AS (incl. ACC) = Associated States; ACC = Associated candidate countries.

Any legal entity established in a Member State or Associated State and which is made up of the requested number of participant may be the sole participant in an indirect action.

ANNEX 5

1. Specific Programme: Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area

2. Activity: Priority thematic area of research ‘Sustainable Surface Transport’.

3. Call title: Thematic call in the area of ‘Sustainable Surface Transport Specific Support Actions’.

4. Call identifier: FP6-2002-Transport-2

5. Date of publication (1): 17 December 2002.

6. Intermediary and final closure dates (2): 1 September 2005, at 17.00h (Brussels local time). The final closure date will be in March 2006.

7. Total indicative budget (2002-2006): EUR 5 million (2005: EUR 1M)

8. Areas called:

Area	Topic	Instrument
All research domains for research, technological development and integration	Promoting SME participation	SSA
	Stimulating dissemination and exploitation of results
	Realising the European Research Area
	Promoting Candidate Countries participation
	Stimulating international co-operation

9. Minimum number of participants (4):

Instrument	Minimum number of participants
SSA	1 legal entity from a MS or AS

10. Restriction on participation: None.

11. Consortia agreements: Participants in RTD actions resulting from this call are required to conclude a consortium agreement.

12. Evaluation procedure:

—	The evaluation shall follow a single stage procedure

—	Proposals will not be evaluated anonymously.

13. Evaluation criteria: See Annex B of the work programme for the applicable criteria (including their individual weights and thresholds and the overall threshold) per instrument.

14. Indicative evaluation and contractual timetable:

—	Evaluation results: estimated to be available within some 2 months after the closure date.

—	Conclusion of first contracts: it is estimated that the first contracts related to this call will come into force 6 months after the closure date.

(1) The Director-General responsible for the publication of this call may publish it up to one month prior or after its envisaged publication date.

(2) Where the envisaged date of publication is either advanced or delayed (see previous footnote), closure date(s) will be adjusted accordingly, if needed, in the published call for proposals.

(3) IP = Integrated project; NOE = Network of excellence; STREP = Specific targeted project; CA = Coordination action; SSA = Specific support action

(4) MS = Member States of the EU; AS (incl. ACC) = Associated States; ACC = Associated candidate countries.

Any legal entity established in a Member State or Associated State and which is made up of the requested number of participant may be the sole participant in an indirect action.

		ISSN 1725-2423
Official Journal of the European Union		C 79

English edition	Information and Notices	Volume 48 1 April 2005

Notice No	Contents	page
	I Information
	Council
2005/C 079/1	Council Opinion of 18 January 2005 on the updated Stability Programme of Luxembourg, 2004-2007	1

2005/C 079/2	Council Opinion of 18 January 2005 on the updated convergence programme of the Czech Republic, 2004-2007	3

2005/C 079/3	Council Opinion of 18 January 2005 on the updated stability programme of Austria, 2004-2008	5

2005/C 079/4	Council Opinion of 18 January 2005 on the updated convergence programme of Sweden, 2004-2007	7

2005/C 079/5	Declaration by the Kingdom of Spain pursuant to Article 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to their families moving within the Community	9

2005/C 079/6	Council Opinion of 18 January 2005 on the updated Stability Programme of the Netherlands, 2004-2007	11

	Commission
2005/C 079/7	Euro exchange rates	13

2005/C 079/8	Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3748 — Mitsubishi Tokyo/UFJ) — Candidate case for simplified procedure ( 1 )	14

2005/C 079/9	Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of the Council Directive 89/106/EEC on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products ( 1 )	15

2005/C 079/0	Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3656 — Achmea/Athlon/Partsplan JV) ( 1 )	16

	Currency	Exchange rate
USD	US dollar	1,2964
JPY	Japanese yen	138,44
DKK	Danish krone	7,4495
GBP	Pound sterling	0,68850
SEK	Swedish krona	9,1430
CHF	Swiss franc	1,5486
ISK	Iceland króna	78,64
NOK	Norwegian krone	8,2060
BGN	Bulgarian lev	1,9559
CYP	Cyprus pound	0,5846
CZK	Czech koruna	29,955
EEK	Estonian kroon	15,6466
HUF	Hungarian forint	247,20
LTL	Lithuanian litas	3,4528
LVL	Latvian lats	0,6960
MTL	Maltese lira	0,4306
PLN	Polish zloty	4,0807
ROL	Romanian leu	36 767
SIT	Slovenian tolar	239,73
SKK	Slovak koruna	38,672
TRY	Turkish lira	1,7572
AUD	Australian dollar	1,6763
CAD	Canadian dollar	1,5737
HKD	Hong Kong dollar	10,1110
NZD	New Zealand dollar	1,8237
SGD	Singapore dollar	2,1377
KRW	South Korean won	1 316,49
ZAR	South African rand	8,0898

ESO (1)	Reference	Title of the harmonised standard	Date of applicability of the standard as a harmonised European standard	Date of the end of the co-existence period (2)
CEN	EN 771-1:2003/A1:2005	Specification for masonry units — Part 1: Clay masonry units	1.4.2005	1.4.2006
CEN	EN 771-2:2003/A1:2005	Specification for masonry units — Part 2: Calcium silicate masonry units	1.4.2005	1.4.2006
CEN	EN 771-3:2003/A1:2005	Specification for masonry units — Part 3: Aggregate concrete masonry units (Dense and light-weight aggregates)	1.4.2005	1.4.2006
CEN	EN 771-4:2003/A1:2005	Specification for masonry units — Part 4: Autoclaved aerated concrete masonry units	1.4.2005	1.4.2006
CEN	EN 771-5:2003/A1:2005	Specification for masonry units — Part 5: Manufactured stone masonry units	1.4.2005	1.4.2006

	III Notices
	European Parliament
2005/C 079/1	Call for proposals relating to the processing of papers of Members of the European Parliament accumulated in the exercise of their duties and handed over in the form of legal donations or legacies (2005-002)	17

	Commission
2005/C 079/2	Call(s) for proposals for indirect RTD actions under the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration: Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area	29


	(1) Text with EEA relevance