22.2.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/1

RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

of 23 January 2014

amending Recommendation ECB/2011/24 on the statistical reporting requirements of the European Central Bank in the field of external statistics

(ECB/2014/2)

(2014/C 51/01)

THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,

Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Article 5.1 and the third indent of Article 34.1 thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2533/98 of 23 November 1998 concerning the collection of statistical information by the European Central Bank (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Whereas:

(1)

The first sentence of Article 5.1 of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank (hereinafter the ‘Statute of the ESCB’) requires the European Central Bank (ECB), assisted by national central banks (NCBs), to collect either from the competent authorities other than NCBs, or directly from economic agents, the statistical information necessary for it to undertake the tasks of the ESCB. The second sentence of Article 5.1 provides that for these purposes it will cooperate with Union institutions or bodies, with the competent authorities of the Member States or third countries, and with international organisations. Article 5.2 stipulates that the NCBs will carry out, to the extent possible, the tasks described in Article 5.1.

(2)

In cases where, in accordance with national rules and established practices, the reporting agents provide the necessary information to competent authorities other than NCBs, such authorities and their respective NCBs have to cooperate with each other to ensure that the ECB’s statistical requirements are met. Such cooperation should include the establishment of a permanent structure for transmission of data, unless the same result is already achieved by national legislation. At present, this requirement concerns cooperation between the Central Statistics Office in Ireland and the Central Bank of Ireland, and between the National Statistics Office in Malta and the Central Bank of Malta. Moreover, in Finland, from 1 January 2014, Statistics Finland will take over from Suomen Pankki the task of collecting and compiling the necessary information in the field of external statistics. In order to meet the abovementioned statistical requirements, Suomen Pankki and Statistics Finland should cooperate with each other.

(3)

In view of the need to address Recommendation ECB/2011/24 to Statistics Finland and the fact the ECB will establish, maintain and publish on its website a list of competent authorities in Member States that have been notified to the ECB by the relevant NCBs as being involved in the collection and/or compilation of external statistics and to which Recommendation ECB/2011/24 should be addressed in future, Recommendation ECB/2011/24 should be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:

SECTION I

Amendment

Section IV of Recommendation ECB/2011/24 is replaced by the following from the day following the date of publication of this Recommendation in the Official Journal of the European Union:

‘SECTION IV

Final provisions

This Recommendation replaces Recommendation ECB/2004/16 from 1 June 2014.

References to Recommendation ECB/2004/16 should be construed as references to this Recommendation.

This Recommendation is addressed to the Central Statistics Office in Ireland, the National Statistics Office in Malta, Statistics Finland in Finland, and to such other competent authorities that may be entrusted from time to time with the collection and/or compilation of external statistics in Member States and are included in a list of competent authorities that is established, maintained and published by the ECB on its website.

The addressees are requested to give effect to this Recommendation from 1 June 2014, or from the date of their inclusion in the list of competent authorities referred to in paragraph 3, where such date is after 1 June 2014.’.

SECTION II

Addressees

This Recommendation is addressed to the Central Statistics Office in Ireland, the National Statistics Office in Malta, and Statistics Finland in Finland.

Done at Frankfurt am Main, 23 January 2014.

The President of the ECB

Mario DRAGHI

(1) OJ L 318, 27.11.1998, p. 8.

22.2.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/3

OPINION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

of 19 November 2013

on a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the comparability of fees related to payment accounts, payment account switching and access to payment accounts with basic features

(CON/2013/77)

(2014/C 51/02)

Introduction and legal basis

On 24 September 2013, the European Central Bank (ECB) received a request from the Council for an opinion on a proposal for a directive on the comparability of fees related to payment accounts, payment account switching and access to payment accounts with basic features (1) (hereinafter the ‘proposed directive’).

The ECB’s competence to deliver an opinion is based on Articles 127(4) and 282(5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, since the proposed directive contains provisions affecting the European System of Central Banks’ tasks to promote the smooth operation of payment systems and to contribute to the smooth conduct of policies relating to the stability of the financial system, as referred to in the fourth indent of Article 127(2) and Article 127(5) of the Treaty. In accordance with the first sentence of Article 17.5 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Central Bank, the Governing Council has adopted this opinion.

1. Purpose and content of the proposed directive

The proposed directive establishes a common Union framework for the protection of consumer rights related to access and use of payment accounts. This framework will comprise rules on all of the following: (a) the transparency and comparability of fees charged to consumers in connection with their payment accounts in the Union (2); (b) services for switching payment accounts provided by payment service providers to consumers (3); (c) the right of consumers legally resident in the Union to open and use a payment account with basic features in the Union irrespective of their nationality or Member State of residence (4); (d) related matters such as designation and duties of competent authorities and sanctions in the event of non-compliance by payment service providers (5).

2. General observations

The ECB strongly supports the proposed directive. Previously in other instances, the ECB has supported the imposition of specific transparency requirements for financial transactions, accompanied by effective monitoring of compliance with those requirements, to make it easier to compare different products and services and therefore to improve competition among financial actors (6). The ECB has also promoted setting standards as a means of facilitating the execution of cross-border payments (7). Finally, the proposed directive should give consumers easier access to payment accounts and contribute to the creation of a Union-wide payment area, a goal that the ECB has consistently supported (8).

3. Specific observations

3.1. Defined terms

The terms defined in the proposed directive (9) should be aligned with those of Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (hereinafter the ‘Payment Services Directive’ (PSD)) and Regulation (EU) No 260/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (10) (hereinafter the ‘SEPA Regulation’), unless there are objective reasons for departing from such defined terms. This concerns in particular the definitions of the terms ‘durable medium’ and ‘direct debit’. The use of standardised terminology based on existing Union legislation for payment services will improve consistency and facilitate the understanding of Union legal acts. In the interests of clarity and consistency, it also appears sensible to define ‘switching’ simply in terms of the services provided under Article 10 of the proposed directive (11).

3.2. List of covered services and powers of the authorities to obtain information

The list of basic payment services covered by the proposed directive should reflect payment services accounting for at least 80 % of the most representative payment services subject to a fee at national level. However, more far-reaching conditions, mandating a certain number of services on such a list, may prove excessive. Moreover, it should be clarified that the competent authorities are entitled to obtain information from payment service providers on the profitability of individual services provided in connection with payment accounts for the purpose of compiling the list of the most representative payment services (12). Specific reporting obligations may need to be established for this purpose, which should at the same time ensure the right of payment service providers to protect business secrets from their competitors (13).

3.3. Right to open a payment account with basic features — limitation in terms of currency of account

The proposed directive introduces a right for consumers legally resident in the Union to open and use a payment account with basic features in any Member State (14). However, the wording of Article 15 of the proposed directive might be understood to imply that payment service providers may be required on request to open a payment account with basic features denominated in any Member State currency. Given that the implementation of such a broad requirement may not be economically viable, it suffices to limit this right to open and use a payment account to payment accounts in the currency of the Member State where the payment service provider is located (15).

3.4. Cross-border cooperation

Finally, the proposed obligation on the competent national authorities within a Member State to cooperate to ensure effective compliance with the proposed directive (16) should be expanded to include an obligation on competent authorities from different Member States to cooperate on a cross-border basis. This is to ensure that national implementation measures and practices do not diverge to an extent that jeopardises the proposed directive’s aim to approximate laws and measures to bring about a single market in payment account services within the Union (17).

Where the ECB recommends that the proposed directive is amended, specific drafting proposals are set out in the Annex accompanied by explanatory text to this effect.

Done at Frankfurt am Main, 19 November 2013.

The President of the ECB

Mario DRAGHI

(1) COM(2013) 266 final.

(2) See Chapter II of the proposed directive.

(3) See Chapter III of the proposed directive.

(4) See Chapter IV of the proposed directive.

(5) See Chapters V and VI of the proposed directive.

(6) See paragraph 2.4 of Opinion CON/2007/29, paragraph 1.1 of Opinion CON/2012/103 and paragraph 3 of the general observations in Opinion CON/2012/10. All ECB opinions are published on the ECB website at: http://www.ecb.europa.eu

(7) See paragraph 11 of Opinion CON/2001/34.

(8) See Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market (OJ L 319, 5.12.2007, p. 1).

(9) See Article 2 of the proposed directive.

(10) Regulation (EU) No 260/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2012 establishing technical and business requirements for credit transfers and direct debits in euro (OJ L 94, 30.3.2012, p. 22).

(11) See proposed amendments 1 to 3. See also paragraph 3.3 of Opinion CON/2013/32.

(12) See points (4) and (5) of Article 3(2) of the proposed directive.

(13) See proposed amendment 4.

(14) See Article 15 of the proposed directive.

(15) See proposed amendment 5.

(16) See Article 20(2) of the proposed directive.

(17) See proposed amendment 6.

ANNEX

Drafting proposals

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendments proposed by the ECB (1)

Amendment 1

Article 2(l)

‘(l)

“durable medium” means any instrument which enables the consumer or the payment services provider to store information addressed personally to him in a way accessible for future reference for a period of time adequate for the purposes of the information and which allows the unchanged reproduction of the information stored;’

‘(l)

Explanation

This definition should be aligned with that in Article 4(25) of the PSD, which does not refer to the payment service provider. According to that definition, ‘durable medium’ refers only to instruments available to the payment service user, i.e. the consumer in the present case.

Amendment 2

Article 2(m)

‘(m)

“switching” means, upon a consumer’s request, transferring from one payment service provider to another the information about all or some standing orders for credit transfers, recurring direct debits and recurring incoming credit transfers executed on a payment account, with or without transferring the positive account balance from one payment account to the other or closing the former account;’

‘(m)

“switching” means, the service provided under Article 10 of this Directive upon a consumer's request, transferring from one payment service provider to another the information about all or some standing orders for credit transfers, recurring direct debits and recurring incoming credit transfers executed on a payment account, with or without transferring the positive account balance from one payment account to the other or closing the former account;’

Explanation

The proposed definition of ‘switching’ suggests that the payment account itself is being moved, which would not be correct. If this definition is necessary, it should only contain a simple reference to Article 10, rather than a condensed description.

Amendment 3

Article 2(n)

‘(n)	“direct debit” means a payment service debiting a payer’s payment account, where a payment transaction is initiated by the payee with the payer’s consent;’

‘(n)	“direct debit” means a national or cross-border payment service for debiting a payer’s payment account, where a payment transaction is initiated by the payee with on the basis of the payer’s consent;’

Explanation

This term should be aligned with the definitions of ‘direct debit’ in the PSD and the SEPA Regulation, which refer to this form of payment arrangement covering either a national or cross-border payment service for debiting a payer’s payment account.

Amendment 4

Article 3

‘Article 3

List of the most representative payment services subject to a fee at national level and standardised terminology

1. Member States shall ensure that the competent authorities referred to in Article 20, determine a provisional list of at least 20 payment services accounting for at least 80 % of the most representative payment services subject to a fee at national level. The list shall contain terms and definitions for each of the services identified.

[…]

3. Member States shall notify to the Commission the provisional lists referred to in paragraph 1 within 6 months of the entry into force of this Directive.

4. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts, in accordance with Article 24, concerning the setting out, on the basis of the provisional lists submitted pursuant to paragraph 3, of an EU standardised terminology for those payment services that are common to at least a majority of Member States. The EU standardised terminology will include common terms and definitions for the common services.

5. After the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the delegated acts referred to in paragraph 4, each Member State shall without delay integrate the EU standardised terminology adopted pursuant to paragraph 4 into the provisional list referred to in paragraph 1 and shall publish this list.’

‘Article 3

List of the most representative payment services subject to a fee at national level and standardised terminology

[…]

3. The competent authorities shall be entitled to obtain from payment service providers the information necessary to determine indicators set out in points (1) to (5) of paragraph 2. In doing so, they shall ensure the protection of confidential business information.

3 4. Member States shall notify to the Commission the provisional lists referred to in paragraph 1 within six months of the entry into force of this Directive.

4 5. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts, in accordance with Article 24, concerning the setting out, on the basis of the provisional lists submitted pursuant to paragraph 3 4, of an EU standardised terminology for those payment services that are common to at least a majority of Member States. The EU standardised terminology will include common terms and definitions for the common services.

5 6. After the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the delegated acts referred to in paragraph 4 5, each Member State shall without delay integrate the EU standardised terminology adopted pursuant to paragraph 4 5 into the provisional list referred to in paragraph 1 and shall publish this list.’

Explanation

It should be clarified how the competent authorities may obtain data relevant to the compilation of the list of the most representative payment services, in particular in relation to the indicators mentioned in points (4) and (5) of Article 3(2). Since some categories of such data generally constitute confidential business information, appropriate safeguards for payment service providers need to be ensured.

Amendment 5

Article 15(1)

‘1. Member States shall ensure that at least one payment service provider in their territory offers a payment account with basic features to consumers. Member States shall ensure that payment accounts with basic features are not only offered by payment service providers that provide the account solely with online banking facilities.’

‘1. Member States shall ensure that at least one payment service provider located in their territory offers to consumers a payment account with basic features in the currency of the Member State concerned to consumers. Member States shall ensure that payment accounts with basic features are not only offered by payment service providers that provide the account solely with online banking facilities.’

Explanation

Requiring payment service providers to open, if requested, a payment account in any Member State currency may not be economically viable for them. It is sufficient that this right of access comprises the right to open and use a payment account with basic features in the currency of the Member State in which the payment service provider is located.

Amendment 6

Article 20(2)

‘2. The authorities referred to in paragraph 1 shall possess all the powers necessary for the performance of their duties. Where more than one competent authority is empowered to ensure and monitor effective compliance with this Directive, Member States shall ensure that those authorities collaborate closely so that they can discharge their respective duties effectively.’

Explanation

In line with the objective of the proposed directive to enhance the single market, national competent authorities should also be required to cooperate on a cross-border basis within the Union as currently required under the PSD to ensure that divergences between the national transpositions of the proposed directive are mitigated.

(1) Bold in the body of the text indicates where the ECB proposes inserting new text. Strikethrough in the body of the text indicates where the ECB proposes deleting text.

22.2.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/10

Euro exchange rates (1)

21 February 2014

(2014/C 51/04)

1 euro =

	Currency	Exchange rate
USD	US dollar	1,3707
JPY	Japanese yen	140,50
DKK	Danish krone	7,4625
GBP	Pound sterling	0,82183
SEK	Swedish krona	8,9953
CHF	Swiss franc	1,2195
ISK	Iceland króna
NOK	Norwegian krone	8,3670
BGN	Bulgarian lev	1,9558
CZK	Czech koruna	27,368
HUF	Hungarian forint	311,89
LTL	Lithuanian litas	3,4528
PLN	Polish zloty	4,1661
RON	Romanian leu	4,5222
TRY	Turkish lira	3,0097
AUD	Australian dollar	1,5283
CAD	Canadian dollar	1,5304
HKD	Hong Kong dollar	10,6313
NZD	New Zealand dollar	1,6558
SGD	Singapore dollar	1,7376
KRW	South Korean won	1 469,53
ZAR	South African rand	15,1355
CNY	Chinese yuan renminbi	8,3495
HRK	Croatian kuna	7,6685
IDR	Indonesian rupiah	16 097,50
MYR	Malaysian ringgit	4,5158
PHP	Philippine peso	61,092
RUB	Russian rouble	49,0415
THB	Thai baht	44,603
BRL	Brazilian real	3,2577
MXN	Mexican peso	18,2348
INR	Indian rupee	85,1580

(1) Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

22.2.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/12

Executive summary of the Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the proposals for Council decisions on the conclusion and the signature of the agreement between Canada and the European Union on the transfer and processing of passenger name record data

(The full text of this Opinion can be found in English, French and German on the EDPS website: http://www.edps.europa.eu)

(2014/C 51/06)

I. Consultation of the EDPS

On 19 July 2013, the European Commission adopted the proposals for Council decisions on the conclusion and the signature of the agreement between Canada and the European Union on the transfer and processing of passenger name record data (1) (hereinafter: ‘the proposals’), which contain the text of the proposed agreement between Canada and the European Union (hereinafter: ‘the agreement’). The proposals were sent to the EDPS on 23 July 2013.

The EDPS also had the opportunity to provide his advice before the adoption of the proposals. The EDPS welcomes this previous consultation. However, as it took place after the closing of the negotiations, the EDPS input could not be taken into account. The present opinion builds on the comments provided at that occasion.

II. General remarks

As stated on earlier occasions (2), the EDPS questions the necessity and proportionality of PNR schemes and of bulk transfers of PNR data to third countries. Both are conditions required by the EU Charter and the European Convention of Human Rights for any limitation to fundamental rights, including to the rights respect for private life and the protection of personal data (3). According to the jurisprudence, not only the reasons put forward by the public authority to justify any such restriction should be relevant and sufficient (4), but it should also be demonstrated that other less intrusive methods are not available (5). To date, the EDPS has not seen convincing elements showing the necessity and proportionality of the massive and routine processing of data of non-suspicious passengers for law enforcement purposes.

Nevertheless, the EDPS welcomes the data protection safeguards provided in the agreement, although he regrets the fact that the retention period has been extended in comparison with the previous PNR agreement with Canada.

The EDPS also welcomes the efforts undertaken by the Commission as regards oversight and redress under the constraints entailed by the nature of the agreement. However, he is concerned about the limitations of judicial review and about the fact that administrative redress can be provided in some cases by an internal authority which is not independent. He also questions the appropriateness of an executive agreement to provide adequate and effective rights to data subjects.

The agreement regulates the use by the ‘Canadian competent authority’ of PNR data transferred by EU air carriers and other carriers operating flights from the EU (6). The EDPS recommends requiring confirmation that no other Canadian authority can directly access or request PNR data to those carriers, thus circumventing the agreement.

IV. Conclusions

47.

As previously stated, the EDPS questions the necessity and proportionality of PNR schemes and of the bulk transfers of PNR data to third countries. He also questions the choice of the legal basis and recommends that the proposals be based on Article 16 of the TFEU, in conjunction with Article 218(5) and Article 218(6)(a) of the TFEU.

48.

The EDPS is also concerned about the limited availability of independent administrative redress and full judicial redress for EU citizens not present in Canada and questions the appropriateness of an executive agreement to achieve them. He also recommends requiring confirmation that no other Canadian authority can directly access or request PNR data to the carriers covered by the agreement.

49.

As regards the specific provisions of the agreement, the EDPS welcomes the data protection safeguards included. However, the agreement should:

—	completely exclude the processing of sensitive data,

—	provide for deletion or anonymisation of the data immediately after analysis and 30 days after reception as a maximum and, in any case, reduce and justify the proposed retention period, which has been extended in comparison with the previous PNR agreement with Canada,

—	limit the categories of PNR data to be processed,

—	explicitly mention that overall oversight will be carried out by an independent authority.

50.

In addition, the EDPS recommends specifying the following, either in the agreement or in the accompanying documents:

—	further narrowing and clarifying the concepts defining the purposes of the agreement,

—	clarifying which types of ‘lawful’ discrimination would be possible,

—	providing for an obligation to notify data breaches to the European Commission and to data protection authorities,

—	completing the provisions on transparency,

—	extending the prohibition of deciding solely on the basis of automated processing to all decisions affecting passengers on the basis of the agreement,

—

specifying to which authorities in Canada PNR data can be further transferred, adding the requirement of prior judicial authorisation or of the existence of an immediate threat, providing for an obligation of including adequate data protection safeguards in agreements or arrangements with other recipient countries or authorities and for their notification to the European Commission and to EU data protection authorities,

—	naming the relevant authorities and laying down dissuasive sanctions for non-compliance with the agreement,

—	specifying which are the mechanisms available to persons not resident in Canada to seek judicial review under Canadian law,

—	clarifying if the right to judicial review could be exercised even if the relevant decision or action has not been communicated to the individual concerned, in particular if provisions of the agreement other than those related to access and rectification/notation are infringed,

—	specifying to which ‘other remedy which may include compensation’ Article 14(2) refers,

—	specifying the frequency of reviews of the implementation of the agreement, their content (which should include on the evaluation of its necessity and proportionality) and explicitly including EU data protection authorities in the EU review team.

Done at Brussels, 30 September 2013.

Peter HUSTINX

European Data Protection Supervisor

(1) COM(2013) 529 final.

(2) See the EDPS Opinion of 9 December 2011 on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the agreement between the United States of America and the European Union on the use and transfer of passenger name records to the United States Department of Homeland Security (OJ C 35, 9.2.2012, p. 16); Opinion of 15 July 2011 on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of an agreement between the European Union and Australia on the processing and transfer of passenger name record (PNR) data by air carriers to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (OJ C 322, 23.12.2011, p. 1); Opinion of the EDPS of 25 March 2011 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the use of passenger name record data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime; Opinion of 19 October 2010 on the global approach to transfers of passenger name record (PNR) data to third countries; Opinion of 20 December 2007 on the proposal for a Council framework decision on the use of passenger name record (PNR) data for law enforcement purposes (OJ C 110, 1.5.2008, p. 1); Opinion of 15 June 2005 on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of an agreement between the European Community and the Government of Canada on the processing of advance passenger information (API)/passenger name record (PNR) data (OJ C 218, 6.9.2005, p. 6) (all available on: http://www.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/edps/cache/bypass/Consultation/OpinionsC). See also the Article 29 Working Party's opinions on PNR are available on: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/workinggroup/wpdocs/index_en.htm#data_transfers

(3) See Article 7, Article 8 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ C 83, 30.3.2010, p. 389) and Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ETS No 5), Council of Europe, 4.11.1950.

(4) See European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 4 December 2008, S. and Marper v. the UK.

(5) See European Court of Justice, judgment of 9 November 2010, C-92/09 Volker and Markus Schecke GbR v. Land Hessen and C-93/09 Eifert v. Land Hessen and Bundesansalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung.

(6) See Explanatory Memorandum of the proposals and Article 3(1) of the agreement.

22.2.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/17

CALL FOR PROPOSALS — EACEA/10/14

Erasmus+ programme

Key action 3: Support for policy reform — Prospective initiatives

European policy experimentations in the fields of education and training and youth: transnational cooperation for the implementation of innovative policies under the leadership of high-level public authorities

(2014/C 51/08)

1. Description, objectives, and priority themes

The general objective of the call for proposals is to encourage the assessment of the systemic impact of innovative policy measures through field trials in order to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of education and training systems and youth policies. This call aims at involving high-level public authorities of the eligible countries in the collection and evaluation of relevant evidence to back and monitor policy reform using sound and widely recognised evaluation methods based on large-scale field trials.

The specific objectives of this call are to:

—	promote transnational cooperation and mutual learning between competent authorities at the highest level in order to test and improve policy implementation systems, structures and processes, with a potentially significant impact,

—	facilitate the collection and analysis of substantive evidence allowing the responsible public authorities to assess and monitor the implementation of innovative policies,

—	identify key criteria and conditions for effective policy implementation and monitoring,

—	facilitate transferability and scalability.

The priority themes for this call are:

—	assessment of transversal skills in basic and secondary education,

—	practical entrepreneurial experience at school,

—	cooperation on innovative methods for fast and smooth academic recognition across borders in higher education,

—	reducing the number of low-skilled adults,

—	encouraging the development and internationalisation of young people’s volunteering.

2. Eligible countries

Proposals from legal entities established in one of the following programme countries are eligible:

—	the 28 Member States of the European Union,

—	the EFTA/EEA countries: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway (1),

—	EU candidate countries: Turkey, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (2);

—	the Swiss Confederation (3).

3. Eligible applicants

The term ‘applicants’ refers to all organisations and institutions participating in a proposal regardless of their role in the project.

Applicants considered eligible to respond to this call are:

(a)

public authorities (Ministry or equivalent) responsible for education, training or youth at the highest level in the relevant national or regional context (reference to highest level considers NUTS codes 1 or 2; for countries where NUTS codes 1 or 2 are not available, please apply the highest NUTS code available (4)). Public authorities at the highest level responsible for sectors other than education, training and youth (e.g. employment, finance, social affairs, health, etc.) are considered eligible as long as they demonstrate that they have a specific competence in the area in which the experimentation is to be carried out. Public authorities can delegate to be represented by other public or private organisations, as well as legally established networks or associations of public authorities, provided that the delegation is in writing and makes explicit reference to the proposal being submitted;

(b)	public or private organisations or institutions active in the fields of education, training or youth;

(c)	public or private organisations or institutions carrying out activities linked to education, training and/or youth in other socio-economic sectors (e.g. recognition centres, chambers of commerce, trade organisations, cultural organisations, evaluation entities, research entities, etc.).

4. Minimum partnership composition

The minimum partnership requirement for this call is four entities representing three eligible countries. Specifically:

(a)

at least one public authority (Ministry or equivalent) or delegated body — as described in point 3(a) — from three different eligible countries, or a legally established network/association of public authorities representing at least three different eligible countries. The network or association must have a mandate from at least three relevant public authorities — as described under point 3(a) — to operate on their behalf for the specific proposal.

Proposals must include at least one public authority as indicated under point 3(a) from a Member State.

Public authorities participating or represented in the proposal shall be responsible for strategic leadership of the project and for steering the experimentation in their own jurisdiction;

(b)	at least one public or private entity with expertise in evaluation of policy impact. Such entity shall be responsible for the methodological aspects and the evaluation protocols. The proposal can involve more than one evaluation entity, as long as the work is coordinated and consistent.

5. Coordination

A proposal can only be coordinated and submitted — on behalf of all applicants — by one of the following:

(a)	a public authority as described under point 3(a);

(b)	a legally established network or association of public authorities indicated under point 3(a);

(c)	a public or private entity delegated by public authorities indicated under point 3(a) to reply to the call. Delegated entities must have an explicit endorsement in writing by a public authority as described under point 3(a) to submit and coordinate the proposal on their behalf.

Proposals must be submitted by the legal representative of the coordinating authority on behalf of all applicants. Natural persons may not apply for a grant.

6. Eligible activities

Activities must start between 1 December 2014 and 1 March 2015.

The project duration must be between 24 and 36 months.

The activities to be financed under this call include as a minimum:

—

development of field trials on the implementation of innovative measures. Appropriate attention has to be given to developing a robust evidence base and involving reliable monitoring, evaluation and reporting procedures based on recognised methodological approaches, developed by a competent and experienced policy impact evaluator in consultation with the relevant project partners.

This should include (the list is not exhaustive): identifying and selecting the measure(s) to be tested, the samples and the set of actions envisaged; defining the expected impact of the measure in measurable terms and assessing its relevance with regard to the expected results, including by thoroughly searching for examples of similar policy interventions that have been conducted domestically or abroad; defining a robust methodology and indicators to measure the impact of the tested measure at national and European level,

—

parallel implementation of the field trials in various countries participating in the project under the leadership of the respective authorities (Ministry or equivalent). A sufficiently representative number of participating entities/establishments should be involved to reach a reasonable and representative critical mass and provide a significant evidence base,

—	analysis and evaluation: effectiveness, efficiency and impact of the tested measure, but also of the experimentation methodology, of the conditions for scalability and the transnational transfer of the lessons learned and good practice (peer learning),

—	awareness-raising, dissemination and exploitation of the project concept and its results at regional, national and European level throughout the project duration and in the longer term, and to foster transferability between different sectors, systems and policies.

An exploitation plan of the experimentation results through the Open Methods of Coordination in education and training and in youth, in connection with the objectives of the ‘Europe 2020’ strategy, is recommended.

7. Award criteria

The award criteria (see Section 8 of the Guide for applicants) for the funding of a proposal are:

1.	relevance (20 %);

2.	quality of the project design and implementation (30 %);

3.	quality of the partnership (20 %);

4.	impact, dissemination, exploitation (30 %).

The present call is divided in two submission/evaluation stages: (1) pre-proposal stage; and (2) full proposal stage. This approach intends to simplify the process by requesting in the first phase only basic information on the proposal. Only those pre-proposals satisfying the eligibility criteria and reaching the minimum threshold of 60 % on the score for the award criterion ‘relevance’ will access the second phase for which applicants will be requested to submit a full application package.

Eligible pre-proposals will be assessed on the basis of the award criterion ‘relevance’. Full proposals will be assessed on the basis of exclusion, selection, and the three remaining award criteria: ‘quality of the project design and implementation’, ‘quality of the partnership’, and ‘impact, dissemination, and sustainability’.

The final score for a proposal will be the total score obtained at the pre-proposal stage and the full proposal stage (by applying the weighting indicated).

8. Budget

The total budget available for the co-financing of projects under the present call is EUR 10 000 000, and is divided in the following way among the two fields of operation:

—	education and training: EUR 8 000 000,

—	youth: EUR 2 000 000.

Financial contribution from the EU cannot exceed 75 % of the total eligible costs.

The maximum grant per project will be EUR 2 000 000.

The Agency reserves the right not to distribute all the funds available.

9. Procedure for submission and deadlines

Before submitting an application, applicants will have to register their organisation in the Unique Registration Facility (URF) and receive a participant identification code (PIC). The PIC will be requested in the application form.

The Unique Registration Facility is the tool through which all legal and financial information related to organisations will be managed. It is accessible via the Education, Audiovisual, Culture, Citizenship and Volunteering Participant Portal. Information on how to register can be found in the portal under the following address:

http://ec.europa.eu/education/participants/portal

Grant applications must be drawn up in one of the official EU languages and using the official application package. Please ensure you are using the correct application form for respectively the pre-proposal stage and the full proposal stage.

The application package is available on the Internet at the following address:

https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/erasmus-plus/funding/prospective-initiatives-eacea-102014_en

Only applications submitted on the correct form, duly completed, dated and signed by the person authorised to enter into legally binding commitments on behalf of the coordinator will be accepted.

Deadlines:

—	pre-proposals: 20 May 2014 — as per postmark,

—	full proposals: 2 October 2014 — as per postmark.

Application forms will be submitted as a package by post. Each package will contain only one complete paper version signed by the legal representative of the coordinating organisation. In addition, a complete scanned version of the signed application will be sent by e-mail to the address below immediately after posting the paper version. Both versions will contain all relevant and applicable annexes and supporting documents.

The package will be sent by express courier service (the registered delivery receipt of the mail service serves as proof) to the following address:

Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

Unit A.1 — Erasmus+: Schools, Prospective initiatives, Programme coordination

Call for Proposals EACEA/10/14

BOU2 02/109

Avenue du Bourget/Bourgetlaan 1

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

and by e-mail to: EACEA-Policy-Support@ec.europa.eu

Applications which do not include all the stipulated documents and which are not submitted before the deadline will not be considered.

For more details please refer to the Guidelines for applicants.

10. Further information

Detailed Guidelines for applicants and the complete application package are available on the following website:

https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/erasmus-plus/funding/prospective-initiatives-eacea-102014_en

(1) The participation of Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway is subject to an EEA Joint Committee Decision. If, at the time of the grant award decision, the Erasmus+ Regulation has not been incorporated in the EEA Agreement, participants from these countries will not be funded and will not be taken into account with regard to the minimum size of consortia/partnerships.

(2) The participation of Turkey and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in the present call for proposals is subject to the signature of a memorandum of understanding between the Commission and the competent authorities of each of these countries respectively. If, at the time of the grant award decision, the memorandum of understanding has not been signed, participants from this country will not be funded and will not be taken into account with regard to the minimum size of consortia/partnerships.

(3) The participation of the Swiss Confederation is subject to the conclusion of a bilateral agreement to be concluded with this country. If, at the time of the grant award decision, this bilateral agreement has not been signed, participants from the Swiss Confederation will not be funded and will not be taken into account with regard to the minimum size of consortia/partnerships.

(4) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/nuts_nomenclature/correspondence_tables/national_structures_eu

22.2.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/22

INFORMATION NOTICE — PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Geographical indications from the Republic of South Africa

(2014/C 51/09)

Within the ongoing negotiations with the Republic of South Africa for an agreement in the form of a Protocol on protection of geographical indications (hereafter ‘the Protocol’), the South African authorities have presented, for protection under the Protocol, the attached lists of geographical indications (GIs) for agricultural products and for wines. The European Commission is currently considering whether these GIs shall be protected under the Protocol as GIs within the meaning of Article 22(1) of the TRIPS Agreement.

The Commission invites any Member State or third country or any natural or legal person having a legitimate interest, resident or established in a Member State or in a third country, to submit oppositions to such protection by lodging a duly substantiated statement.

Statements of opposition must reach the Commission within two months of the date of this publication. Statements of opposition should be sent to the following e-mail address:

AGRI-A3-GI@ec.europa.eu

Statements of opposition shall be examined only if they are received within the time limit set out above and if they show that the protection of the name proposed would:

(a)	conflict with the name of a plant variety or an animal breed and as a result is likely to mislead the consumer as to the true origin of the product;

(b)

be wholly or partially homonymous with that of a name already protected in the Union under Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products (2) and Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of spirit drinks (3), or contained in the agreements the Union has concluded with the following countries:

—	Australia (4),

—	Chile (5),

—	Switzerland (6),

—	Mexico (7),

—	Korea (8),

—	Central America (9),

—	Colombia and Peru (10),

—	former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (11),

—	Croatia (12),

—	Canada (13),

—	United States (14),

—	Albania (15),

—	Montenegro (16),

—	Bosnia and Herzegovina (17),

—	Serbia (18),

—	Moldova (19),

—	Georgia (20);

(c)	in the light of a trade mark's reputation and renown and the length of time it has been used, be liable to mislead the consumer as to the true identity of the product;

(d)	jeopardise the existence of an entirely or partly identical name or of a trade mark or the existence of products which have been legally on the market for at least five years preceding the date of the publication of this notice;

(e)	or if they can give details from which it can be concluded that the name for which protection is considered is generic.

The criteria referred to above shall be evaluated in relation to the territory of the Union, which in the case of intellectual property rights refers only to the territory or territories where the said rights are protected. The possible protection of these names in the European Union is subject to the successful conclusion of these negotiations and subsequent legal act.

List of GIs for agricultural products and wines (21)

Type of product	Name as protected in South Africa
Infusion	Honeybush/Heunningbos/Honeybush Tea/Heuningbos Tee
Infusion	Rooibos/Red Bush/Rooibos Tea/Rooitee/Rooibosch
Wines	Banghoek
Wines	Bot River
Wines	Breedekloof
Wines	Cape Agulhas
Wines	Cape South Coast
Wines	Central Orange River
Wines	Ceres Plateau
Wines	Citrusdal Mountain
Wines	Citrusdal Valley
Wines	Eastern Cape
Wines	Elandskloof
Wines	Franschhoek Valley
Wines	Greyton
Wines	Hemel-en-Aarde Ridge
Wines	Hemel-en-Aarde Valley
Wines	Hex River Valley
Wines	Hout Bay
Wines	Klein River
Wines	Kwazulu-Natal
Wines	Lamberts Bay
Wines	Langeberg-Garcia
Wines	Limpopo
Wines	Malgas
Wines	Napier
Wines	Northern Cape
Wines	Outeniqua
Wines	Philadelphia
Wines	Plettenberg Bay
Wines	Polkadraai Hills
Wines	St Francis Bay
Wines	Stanford Foothills
Wines	Stilbaai East
Wines	Sunday's Glen
Wines	Sutherland-Karoo
Wines	Theewater
Wines	Tradouw Highlands
Wines	Upper Hemel-en-Aarde Valley
Wines	Upper Langkloof
Wines	Voor Paardeberg
Wines	Western Cape

(1) OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

(3) OJ L 39, 13.2.2008, p. 16.

(4) Council Decision 2009/49/EC of 28 November 2008 concerning the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Community and Australia on trade in wine (OJ L 28, 30.1.2009, p. 1).

(5) Council Decision 2002/979/EC of 18 November 2002 on the signature and provisional application of certain provisions of an Agreement establishing an association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Chile, of the other part (OJ L 352, 30.12.2002, p. 1).

(6) Decision 2002/309/EC, Euratom of the Council and of the Commission as regards the Agreement on Scientific and Technological Cooperation of 4 April 2002 on the conclusion of seven Agreements with the Swiss Confederation (OJ L 114, 30.4.2002, p. 1) and in particular the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Federation on trade in agricultural products — Annex 7.

(7) Council Decision 97/361/EC of 27 May 1997 concerning the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Community and the United Mexican States on the mutual recognition and protection of designations for spirit drinks (OJ L 152, 11.6.1997, p. 15).

(8) Council Decision 2011/265/EU of 16 September 2010 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and provisional application of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part (OJ L 127, 14.5.2011, p. 1).

(9) Agreement establishing an Association between the European Union and its Member States, on the one hand, and Central America on the other (OJ L 346, 15.12.2012, p. 3).

(10) Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Colombia and Peru, of the other part (OJ L 354, 21.12.2012, p. 3).

(11) Council Decision 2001/916/EC of 3 December 2001 on the conclusion of an Additional Protocol adjusting the trade aspects of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Community and their Member States, of the one part, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, of the other part, to take account of the outcome of the negotiations between the parties on reciprocal preferential concessions for certain wines, the reciprocal recognition, protection and control of wine names and the reciprocal recognition, protection and control of designations for spirits and aromatised drinks (OJ L 342, 27.12.2001, p. 6).

(12) Council Decision 2001/918/EC of 3 December 2001 on the conclusion of an Additional Protocol adjusting the trade aspects of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Community and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Croatia, of the other part, to take account of the outcome of the negotiations between the parties on reciprocal preferential concessions for certain wines, the reciprocal recognition, protection and control of wine names and the reciprocal recognition, protection and control of designations for spirits and aromatised drinks (OJ L 342, 27.12.2001, p. 42).

(13) Council Decision 2004/91/EC of 30 July 2003 on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and Canada on trade in wines and spirit drinks (OJ L 35, 6.2.2004, p. 1).

(14) Council Decision 2006/232/EC of 20 December 2005 on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on trade in wine (OJ L 87, 24.3.2006, p. 1).

(15) Council Decision 2006/580/EC of 12 June 2006 concerning the signing and conclusion of the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Albania, of the other part — Protocol 3 on reciprocal preferential concessions for certain wines, the reciprocal recognition, protection and control of wine, spirit drinks and aromatised wine names (OJ L 239, 1.9.2006, p. 1).

(16) Council Decision 2007/855/EC of 15 October 2007 concerning the signing and conclusion of the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Montenegro, of the other part (OJ L 345, 28.12.2007, p. 1).

(17) Council Decision 2008/474/EC of 16 June 2008 on the signing and conclusion of the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, of the one part, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, of the other part (OJ L 169, 30.6.2008, p. 10) — Protocol 6.

(18) Council Decision 2010/36/EC of 29 April 2008 concerning the signing and conclusion of the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Serbia, of the other part (OJ L 28, 30.1.2010, p. 1).

(19) Council Decision 2013/7/EU of 3 December 2012 on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on the protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 10, 15.1.2013 p. 3).

(20) Council Decision 2012/164/EU of 14 February 2012 on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and Georgia on the protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 93, 30.3.2012 p. 1).

(21) List provided by the South African authorities in the framework of the ongoing negotiations, protected in the Republic of South Africa.

		ISSN 1977-091X doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2014.051.eng
Official Journal of the European Union		C 51

English edition	Information and Notices	Volume 57 22 February 2014

Notice No	Contents	page
	I Resolutions, recommendations and opinions
	RECOMMENDATIONS
	European Central Bank
2014/C 051/01	Recommendation of the European Central Bank of 23 January 2014 amending Recommendation ECB/2011/24 on the statistical reporting requirements of the European Central Bank in the field of external statistics (ECB/2014/2)	1

	III Preparatory acts
	European Central Bank
2014/C 051/02	Opinion of the European Central Bank of 19 November 2013 on a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the comparability of fees related to payment accounts, payment account switching and access to payment accounts with basic features (CON/2013/77)	3

	IV Notices
	NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES
	Council
2014/C 051/03	Council Decision of 17 February 2014 appointing and replacing members of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training	9
	European Commission
2014/C 051/04	Euro exchange rates	10
2014/C 051/05	New national side of euro coins intended for circulation	11
	European Data Protection Supervisor
2014/C 051/06	Executive summary of the Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the proposals for Council decisions on the conclusion and the signature of the agreement between Canada and the European Union on the transfer and processing of passenger name record data	12
	NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES
	European Commission
2014/C 051/07	Communication from the Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic pursuant to Article 3(2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons	15

	V Announcements
	ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
	European Commission
2014/C 051/08	Call for proposals — EACEA/10/14 — Erasmus+ programme — Key action 3: Support for policy reform — Prospective initiatives — European policy experimentations in the fields of education and training and youth: transnational cooperation for the implementation of innovative policies under the leadership of high-level public authorities	17
	OTHER ACTS
	European Commission
2014/C 051/09	Information notice — Public consultation — Geographical indications from the Republic of South Africa	22

REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYEES' ORGANISATIONS:
BULGARIA	Ms Yuliya SIMEONOVA