21.5.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 125/1

21.5.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 125/2

(1)

When carrying out an expanded inspection of a ship, the port State control officer should be guided by a list of specific items to be verified, subject to their practical feasibility or any constraints relating to the safety of persons, the ship or the port.

(2)

With regard to the identification of the specific items to be verified in the course of an expanded inspection of any of the risk areas listed in Annex VII to Directive 2009/16/EC, it appears necessary to build upon the expertise of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control.

(3)

The Port State Control Officers should use their professional judgement to determine the applicability of and the appropriate depth of examination of, each specific item.

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (COSS),

21.5.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 125/8

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain’s application to register the name ‘Pemento de Oímbra’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union  (2).

(2)

As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,

21.5.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 125/10

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 648/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) introduced in Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 the obligation to lodge entry or exit summary declarations by electronic means. Commission Regulation (EC) No 273/2009 (3) derogating from certain provisions of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (4) provides for a transitional phase expiring on 31 December 2010 during which economic operators are able, but not obliged, to lodge entry and exit summary declarations by electronic means.

(2)

It is appropriate to make some adjustments to the rules concerning entry and exit summary declarations aiming at reducing administrative burdens in cases where, for the purpose of safety and security, such declarations are not necessary. Furthermore, for the purpose of better risk analysis, household effects as defined in Article 2(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 of 16 November 2009 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (5) should not be exempted from such declarations if they are carried under a transport contract.

(3)

In certain cases the provision of safety and security data in customs declarations and the requirement of a specific deadline for providing such declarations are not necessary for safety and security purposes so that further waivers should be introduced in this regard; such waivers should, however, not affect the general rules on customs declarations, in whatever form they may be lodged.

(4)

In certain cases where the safety and security related deadlines for export declarations do not apply, such as ship and aircraft supplies, it should be possible for the customs authorities to authorise reliable economic operators to enter the goods exported in their records and to report their export operations on a periodic basis after the goods have left the customs territory of the Community.

(5)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1192/2008 (6) amending Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 introduced common criteria and a common application form for the granting of authorisations for simplified declarations and the local clearance procedure. It should be clarified that these rules apply to all customs procedures. The same Regulation introduced in Article 253a with effect from 1 January 2011 the requirement that the use of simplified declarations or the local clearance procedure will be conditional on the lodging of electronic customs declarations and notifications. Some Member States have informed the Commission that such systems may not be available in all cases by that date. Provided that effective risk analysis is carried out, it should be possible for those Member States, under conditions which they prescribe, to accept customs declarations and notifications in other than electronic form until Regulation (EC) No 450/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 laying down the Community Customs Code (modernised Customs Code) (7) will apply.

(6)

In cases where goods in temporary storage or in a control type I free zone are re-exported from the customs territory of the Community without an exit summary declaration being required, an alternative means for recording or notifying the re-exportation and the person responsible need to be laid down.

(7)

It should be clarified that the export formalities are not only to be used for Community goods which are to be brought to a destination outside the customs territory of the Community, but also with regard to tax exempt aircraft and ship supplies so that persons delivering such supplies can receive a proof of exit from the customs territory of the Community needed for the purposes of tax exemption. The same rules should apply where non-Community goods are to be re-exported under cover of a re-export declaration.

(8)

Articles 278, 279 and 280 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (8) and Article 3 of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (9) require the use of the import and export formalities where Community goods are moved to and from territories within the customs territory of the Community in which those Directives do not apply. It is appropriate to refer to those provisions and to exempt such movements from the requirement to provide safety and security related data and to respect the special deadlines for safety and security related controls given that those provisions should apply only for goods brought into and out of the customs territory of the Community. Due to their geographical situation, the special deadlines for safety and security related controls and the provision of safety and security related data are also not necessary in cases where goods are brought to Heligoland, the Republic of San Marino and the Vatican City State.

(9)

The customs office at which the exit summary declaration is to be lodged and the person responsible for lodging such declaration should be specified. This clarification should include situations in which, instead of an exit summary declaration, a transit declaration containing the data of an exit summary declaration is lodged.

(10)

In order to facilitate customs supervision at the customs office of exit, it is necessary to specify the obligations of persons handing over goods to another person before the goods are carried out of the customs territory of the Community and the obligations of persons having to provide information on the exit of goods to the customs office of exit. The same obligations should apply in cases where goods declared for export and presented at the customs office of exit are no longer destined to be brought out of the customs territory of the Community and are removed from the customs office of exit.

(11)

By virtue of Directive 2008/118/EC the use of the Excise Movement Computerised System (EMCS) is mandatory for the movement of excise goods under suspension of excise duty as of 1 January 2011. According to that Directive, the movement of Community goods under suspension of excise duty with a destination outside the customs territory of the Community has to take place under the export procedure for which a computerised system is to be used. The special rules concerning the use of the administrative accompanying document provided for by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2719/92 of 11 September 1992 on the accompanying administrative document for the movement under duty-suspension arrangements of products subject to excise duty (10) should therefore be deleted with effect from 1 January 2011. Export procedures which started under cover of an administrative accompanying document before that date should be terminated in accordance with Article 793c of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 as it was applicable on 31 December 2010.

(12)

These amendments should not require any changes to those electronic systems which are or have to be in place when this Regulation becomes applicable.

(13)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,

1.

in Article 1 the following point 18 is added:

2.

Article 181c is amended as follows:

3.

in Article 184d(3) the phrase ‘Article 181c(c) to (i), (l) to (n)’ is replaced by ‘Article 181c(c) to (i), (l) to (o)’;

4.

in Article 189 the following paragraph is added:

‘However, goods brought into the customs territory of the Community which are unloaded and reloaded onto the same means of transport during its current voyage in order to enable the unloading or loading of other goods, shall not be presented to customs.’;

5.

in Article 253a the following paragraph is added:

‘However, in cases where the customs authorities’ or the economic operators’ computerised systems are not in place for the lodgement or receipt of simplified customs declarations or local clearance notifications using a data-processing technique, the customs authorities may accept other forms of declarations and notifications as prescribed by them, provided effective risk analysis is carried out.’;

6.

in Article 261, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

‘1.   Authorisation to use the simplified declaration procedure shall be granted to the applicant if the conditions and criteria referred to in Articles 253, 253a, 253b and 253c are fulfilled.’;

7.

in Article 264, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

‘1.   Authorisation to use the local clearance procedure shall be granted to the applicant if the conditions and criteria referred to in Articles 253, 253a, 253b and 253c are fulfilled.’;

8.

in Article 269, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

‘1.   Authorisation to use the simplified declaration procedure shall be granted to the applicant if the conditions and criteria referred to in Articles 253, 253a, 253b, 253c and 270 are fulfilled.’;

9.

in Article 272, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

‘1.   Authorisation to use the local clearance procedure shall be granted to the applicant if the conditions and criteria referred to in paragraph 2 and Articles 253, 253a, 253b, 253c and 274 are fulfilled.’;

10.

Article 279 is replaced by the following:

‘Article 279

The export formalities provided for in Articles 786 to 796e may be simplified in accordance with this Chapter.’;

11.

in Article 282, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

‘1.   Authorisation to use the simplified declaration procedure shall be granted according to the conditions and in the manner laid down in Articles 253, 253a, 253b, 253c, 261(2) and, mutatis mutandis, Article 262.’;

12.

Article 283 is replaced by the following:

‘Article 283

Authorisation to use the local clearance procedure shall be granted according to the conditions and in the manner laid down in Articles 253, 253a, 253b and 253c to any person, hereinafter referred to as an “approved exporter”, wishing to carry out export procedures at his premises or at the other places designated or approved by the customs authorities.’;

13.

Article 284 is deleted;

14.

in Article 285a, the following paragraph 1a is added:

‘1a.   In cases where Article 592a or 592d applies, the customs authorities may authorise an economic operator to enter in his records immediately each export operation and to report all of them to the authorising customs office in a supplementary declaration on a periodic basis of up to one month after the goods have left the customs territory of the Community. Such authorisation may be granted under the following conditions:

Where the arrangement referred to in the first subparagraph is used, entry of the goods in the records shall be deemed to be release for export and exit.’;

15.

Article 592a is amended as follows:

16.

Article 592b is amended as follows:

17.

in Article 592g the phrase ‘Article 592a(c) to (m)’ is replaced by ‘Article 592a(c) to (p)’;

18.

in Chapter 2 of Title IV the following Article 786 is inserted:

‘Article 786

1.   The export procedure, within the meaning of Article 161(1) of the Code, shall be used where Community goods are to be brought to a destination outside the customs territory of the Community.

2.   The formalities concerning the export declaration laid down in this Chapter shall also be used in cases:

However, in the cases referred to under points (a) and (b), it shall not be necessary to include in the export declaration the particulars for an exit summary declaration set out in Annex 30A.’;

19.

in Article 792a(2) the phrase ‘Article 793a(6)’ is replaced by ‘point (b) of the second subparagraph of Article 793(2)’;

20.

in Article 793 the following paragraph 3 is added:

‘3.   In the cases referred to in point (b) of the second subparagraph of paragraph 2, where goods taken over under a single transport contract arrive at the customs office at the actual point of exit from the customs territory of the Community, the carrier shall, on request, make available to that office one of the following:

21.

in Article 793a paragraph 6 is deleted;

22.

Article 793c is deleted;

23.

in Article 796c the second paragraph is replaced by the following:

‘Such notification shall contain the movement reference number of the export declaration.’;

24.

Article 796d is amended as follows:

25.

in Article 796da(4) point (e) is replaced by the following:

26.

in Article 841(1) the phrase ‘Articles 787 to 796e’ is replaced by ‘Articles 786(1), (2)(b) and 787 to 796e’;

27.

Article 841a is replaced by the following:

‘Article 841a

1.   In cases other than those defined in the third sentence of Article 182(3) of the Code, re-exportation shall be notified by an exit summary declaration in accordance with Articles 842a to 842e, except where this requirement is waived in accordance with Article 842a(3) or (4).

2.   Where goods under temporary storage or in a control type I free zone are re-exported and no customs declaration or exit summary declaration is required, re-exportation shall be notified to the customs office competent for the place from where the goods will leave the customs territory of the Community prior to the exit of the goods in the form prescribed by the customs authorities.

The person referred to in paragraph 3 shall at its request, be authorised to amend one or more particulars of the notification. Such amendment is no longer possible after the goods mentioned in the notification have left the customs territory of the Community.

3.   The notification referred to under the first subparagraph of paragraph 2 shall be made by the carrier. However, such notification shall be lodged by the holder of the temporary storage facility or the holder of a storage facility in a control type I free zone, or any other person able to present the goods, where the carrier has been informed, and given its consent under a contractual arrangement, that the person referred to in the second sentence of this paragraph lodges the notification. The customs office of exit may assume, except where there is evidence to the contrary, that the carrier has given its consent under a contractual arrangement and that the notification has been lodged with its knowledge.

The last subparagraph of Article 796d(1) shall apply with regard to the definition of the carrier.

4.   In cases where, following the notification referred to under the first subparagraph of paragraph 2, the goods are no longer destined to be brought out of the customs territory of the Community, Article 796d(4) shall apply mutatis mutandis.’;

28.

Article 842a is replaced by the following:

‘Article 842a

1.   Without prejudice to paragraphs 3 and 4, where bringing goods out of the customs territory of the Community does not require a customs declaration, the exit summary declaration shall be lodged at the customs office of exit.

2.   For the purpose of this Chapter, the “customs office of exit” shall be:

3.   No exit summary declaration is required when an electronic transit declaration contains the exit summary declaration data provided the office of destination is also the customs office of exit or the office of destination is outside the customs territory of the Community.

4.   An exit summary declaration shall not be required in the following cases:

Without prejudice to Article 842d(2), in the cases referred to in points (a) to (f), the customs controls shall take into account the special nature of the situation.

5.   The exit summary declaration, where required, shall be lodged by the carrier. However, such declaration shall be lodged by the holder of the temporary storage facility or the holder of a storage facility in a control type I free zone, or any other person able to present the goods, where the carrier has been informed, and given its consent under a contractual arrangement, that the person referred to in the second sentence of this paragraph lodges the declaration. The customs office of exit may assume, except where there is evidence to the contrary, that the carrier has given its consent under a contractual arrangement and that the declaration has been lodged with its knowledge.

The last subparagraph of Article 796d(1) shall apply with regard to the definition of the carrier.

6.   In cases where, following the lodgement of an exit summary declaration, the goods are no longer destined to be brought out of the customs territory of the Community, Article 796 d(4) shall apply mutatis mutandis.’;

29.

the second subparagraph of Article 842d(2) is replaced by the following:

‘Where goods covered by one of the exemptions from the requirement for an exit summary declaration laid down in Article 842a(4) are brought out of the customs territory of the Community, risk analysis shall be carried out upon presentation of the goods where required and on the basis of documentation or other information covering the goods.’

21.5.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 125/19

21.5.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 125/21

(1)

Article 162(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products listed in Part XVI of Annex I to that Regulation and prices for those products on the Community market may be covered by an export refund.

(2)

Given the present situation on the market in milk and milk products, export refunds should be fixed in accordance with the rules and certain criteria provided for in Articles 162, 163, 164, 167, 169 and 170 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.

(3)

Article 164(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that export refunds may vary according to destination, especially where the world market situation, the specific requirements of certain markets or obligations resulting from agreements concluded in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty make this necessary.

(4)

Export refunds for the Dominican Republic have been differentiated to take into account the reduced custom duties applied on imports under the import tariff quota under the Memorandum of Understanding between the European Community and the Dominican Republic on import protection for milk powder in the Dominican Republic (2), approved by Council Decision 98/486/EC (3). Due to a changed market situation in the Dominican Republic, characterised by increased competition for milk powder, the quota is no longer fully used. In order to maximise the use of the quota, the differentiation of export refunds for the Dominican Republic should be abolished.

(5)

Commission Regulation (EU) No 326/2010 (4) amending Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 of 17 December 1987 establishing an agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds (5) added certain product codes concerning cheeses to the agricultural product nomenclature. Consequently, those codes should be included in the Annex to this Regulation.

(6)

The Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,

21.5.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 125/25

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 619/2008 of 27 June 2008 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds concerning certain milk products (2) provides for a permanent tender.

(2)

Pursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1454/2007 of 10 December 2007 laying down common rules for establishing a tender procedure for fixing export refunds for certain agricultural products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate not to grant any refund for the tendering period ending on 18 May 2010.

(3)

The Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,

21.5.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 125/26

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 619/2008 of 27 June 2008 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds concerning certain milk products (2) provides for a standing invitation to tender procedure.

(2)

Pursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1454/2007 of 10 December 2007 laying down common rules for establishing a tender procedure for fixing export refunds for certain agricultural products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate not to grant any refund for the tendering period ending on 18 May 2010.

(3)

The Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,

21.5.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 125/27

(1)

Article 162(1)b of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that the difference between prices in international trade for the products referred to in Article 1(1)(p) and listed in Part XVI of Annex I to that Regulation and prices within the Union may be covered by an export refund where these goods are exported in the form of goods listed in Part IV of Annex XX to that Regulation.

(2)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1043/2005 of 30 June 2005 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 3448/93 as regards the system of granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds (2), specifies the products for which a rate of refund is to be fixed, to be applied where these products are exported in the form of goods listed in Part IV of Annex XX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.

(3)

In accordance with the second paragraph, subparagraph (a) of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1043/2005, the rate of the refund per 100 kilograms for each of the basic products in question is to be fixed for a period of the same duration as that for which refunds are fixed for the same products exported unprocessed.

(4)

Article 162(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 lays down that the export refund for a product contained in a good may not exceed the refund applicable to that product when exported without further processing.

(5)

In the case of certain milk products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, there is a danger that, if high refund rates are fixed in advance, the commitments entered into in relation to those refunds may be jeopardised. In order to avert that danger, it is therefore necessary to take appropriate precautionary measures, but without precluding the conclusion of long-term contracts. The fixing of specific refund rates for the advance fixing of refunds in respect of those products should enable those two objectives to be met.

(6)

Article 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1043/2005 provides that, when the rate of the refund is being fixed, account is to be taken, where appropriate, of aids or other measures having equivalent effect applicable in all Member States in accordance with the Regulation on the common organisation of the agricultural markets to the basic products listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1043/2005 or to assimilated products.

(7)

Article 100(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides for the payment of aid for Union-produced skimmed milk processed into casein if such milk and the casein manufactured from it fulfil certain conditions.

(8)

The Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,

21.5.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 125/30

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 (3) lays down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixes representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin.

(2)

Regular monitoring of the data used to determine representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin shows that the representative import prices for certain products should be amended to take account of variations in price according to origin. The representative prices should therefore be published.

(3)

In view of the situation on the market, this amendment should be applied as soon as possible.

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,

21.5.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 125/32

(1)

According to Article 126(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Member States shall avoid excessive government deficits.

(2)

The Stability and Growth Pact is based on the objective of sound government finances as a means of strengthening the conditions for price stability and for strong sustainable growth conducive to employment creation.

(3)

The excessive deficit procedure (EDP) under Article 126 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as clarified by Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure (1) (which is part of the Stability and Growth Pact), provides for a decision on the existence of an excessive deficit. Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 also establishes provisions for the implementation of Article 104 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which has become Article 126 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union sets out further provisions relating to the implementation of the EDP. Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2009 (2) lays down detailed rules and definitions for the application of the provisions of that Protocol.

(4)

The 2005 reform of the Stability and Growth Pact sought to strengthen its effectiveness and economic underpinnings as well as to safeguard the sustainability of the public finances in the long run. It aimed at ensuring that, in particular, the economic and budgetary background was taken into account fully in all steps in the EDP. In this way, the Stability and Growth Pact provides the framework supporting government policies for a prompt return to sound budgetary positions taking account of the economic situation.

(5)

Article 104(5) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which has become Article 126(5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, required the Commission to address an opinion to the Council if the Commission considered that an excessive deficit in a Member State existed or might occur. Having taken into account its report in accordance with Article 104(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which has become Article 126(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Financial Committee in accordance with Article 104(4) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which has become Article 126(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Commission concluded that an excessive deficit existed in Austria. The Commission therefore addressed such an opinion to the Council in respect of Austria on 11 November 2009 (3).

(6)

Article 126(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union of the Treaty states that the Council should consider any observations which the Member State concerned may wish to make before deciding, after an overall assessment, whether an excessive deficit exists. In the case of Austria, this overall assessment leads to the conclusions set out in this Decision.

(7)

According to data notified by the Austrian authorities in October 2009, the general government deficit in Austria is planned to reach 3,9 % of GDP in 2009, thus remaining above and not close to the 3 % of GDP reference value. Based on the Commission services’ autumn 2009 forecast, the planned excess over the reference value qualifies as exceptional within the meaning of the Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact. In particular, it results from a severe economic downturn in the sense of the Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact. According to the Commission services’ 2009 autumn forecast, real GDP in Austria is projected to contract sharply in 2009 by – 3,7 %. The recession reflects the abrupt decline in private investment and foreign trade in the export-oriented manufacturing sector as a consequence of the financial crisis and the global slowdown, in particular the much lower growth prospects of the main trading partners (Euro area, Central and Eastern Europe). Furthermore, the planned excess over the reference value cannot be considered temporary. According to the Commission services’ autumn 2009 forecast, taking into account the fiscal measures adopted in the current year, the deficit would widen to 5,5 % in 2010 and 5,3 % of GDP in 2011 on a no-policy change basis. The deficit criterion in the Treaty is not fulfilled.

(8)

According to data notified by the Austrian authorities in October 2009, the general government gross debt has been above the 60 % of GDP reference value since 2008 and is planned to stand at 68,2 % of GDP in 2009. According to the Commission services’ autumn 2009 forecast, the debt ratio is expected to rise further to 73,9 % in 2010 and 77 % of GDP in 2011. The debt ratio cannot be considered as diminishing sufficiently and approaching the reference value at a satisfactory pace within the meaning of the Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact. The debt criterion in the Treaty is not fulfilled.

(9)

According to Article 2(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1467/97, ‘relevant factors’ can only be taken into account in the steps leading to the Council decision on the existence of an excessive deficit in accordance with Article 126(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union if the double condition — that the deficit remains close to the reference value and that its excess over the reference value is temporary — is fully met. In the case of Austria, this double condition is not met. Therefore, relevant factors are not taken into account in the steps leading to this Decision,

21.5.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 125/34

(1)

According to Article 126(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Member States shall avoid excessive government deficits.

(2)

The Stability and Growth Pact is based on the objective of sound government finances as a means of strengthening the conditions for price stability and for strong sustainable growth conducive to employment creation.

(3)

The excessive deficit procedure (EDP) under Article 126 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as clarified by Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure (1) (which is part of the Stability and Growth Pact), provides for a decision on the existence of an excessive deficit. Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 also establishes provisions for the implementation of Article 104 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which has become Article 126 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union sets out further provisions relating to the implementation of the EDP. Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2009 (2) lays down detailed rules and definitions for the application of the provisions of that Protocol.

(4)

The 2005 reform of the Stability and Growth Pact sought to strengthen its effectiveness and economic underpinnings as well as to safeguard the sustainability of the public finances in the long run. It aimed at ensuring that, in particular, the economic and budgetary background was taken into account fully in all steps in the EDP. In this way, the Stability and Growth Pact provides the framework supporting government policies for a prompt return to sound budgetary positions taking account of the economic situation.

(5)

Article 104(5) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which has become Article 126(5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, required the Commission to address an opinion to the Council if the Commission considered that an excessive deficit in a Member State existed or might occur. Having taken into account its report in accordance with Article 104(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which has become Article 126(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Financial Committee in accordance with Article 104(4) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which has become Article 126(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Commission concluded that an excessive deficit existed in Belgium. The Commission therefore addressed such an opinion to the Council in respect of Belgium on 11 November 2009 (3).

(6)

Article 126(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states that the Council should consider any observations which the Member State concerned may wish to make before deciding, after an overall assessment, whether an excessive deficit exists. In the case of Belgium, this overall assessment leads to the conclusions set out in this Decision.

(7)

According to data notified by the Belgian authorities in October 2009, the general government deficit in Belgium is planned to reach 5,9 % of GDP in 2009, thus exceeding and not close to the 3 % of GDP reference value. The planned excess over the reference value can be qualified as exceptional within the meaning of the Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact. In particular, it results, among other things, from a severe economic downturn in the sense of the Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact. In the Commission services’ autumn 2009 forecast, GDP is projected to decrease by 2,9 % in 2009 and to expand by 0,6 % in 2010. Furthermore, also on the basis of the autumn 2009 forecast, the planned excess over the reference value cannot be considered temporary, since the deficit is expected to stabilise at 5,8 % of GDP in 2010 and 2011, taking into account the already sufficiently specified consolidation measures. The deficit criterion in the Treaty is not fulfilled.

(8)

General government gross debt has been continuously declining from 134 % of GDP in 1993 to 84 % of GDP in 2007. In 2008, the operations to stabilise the financial sector led to an increase in the debt-to-GDP ratio to almost 90 %. Hence, the ratio remained well above the 60 % reference value. According to data notified by the Belgian authorities in October 2009, the general government gross debt is planned to stand at 97,6 % of GDP in 2009. The Commission services’ autumn 2009 forecast projects the debt ratio to increase to around 97 % in 2009, 101 % in 2010 and 104 % in 2011. The debt ratio cannot be considered as diminishing sufficiently and approaching the reference value at a satisfactory pace within the meaning of the Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact. The debt criterion in the Treaty is not fulfilled.

(9)

According to Article 2(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1467/97, ‘relevant factors’ can only be taken into account in the steps leading to the Council decision on the existence of an excessive deficit in accordance with Article 126(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union if the double condition — that the deficit remains close to the reference value and that its excess over the reference value is temporary — is fully met. In the case of Belgium, this double condition is not met. Therefore, relevant factors are not taken into account in the steps leading to this Decision,

21.5.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 125/36

(1)

According to Article 126(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Member States shall avoid excessive government deficits.

(2)

The Stability and Growth Pact is based on the objective of sound government finances as a means of strengthening the conditions for price stability and for strong sustainable growth conducive to employment creation.

(3)

The excessive deficit procedure (EDP) under Article 126 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as clarified by Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure (1) (which is part of the Stability and Growth Pact), provides for a decision on the existence of an excessive deficit. Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 also establishes provisions for the implementation of Article 104 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which has become Article 126 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union sets out further provisions relating to the implementation of the EDP. Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2009 (2) lays down detailed rules and definitions for the application of the provisions of that Protocol.

(4)

The 2005 reform of the Stability and Growth Pact sought to strengthen its effectiveness and economic underpinnings as well as to safeguard the sustainability of the public finances in the long run. It aimed at ensuring that, in particular, the economic and budgetary background was taken into account fully in all steps in the EDP. In this way, the Stability and Growth Pact provides the framework supporting government policies for a prompt return to sound budgetary positions taking account of the economic situation.

(5)

Article 104(5) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which has become Article 126(5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, required the Commission to address an opinion to the Council if the Commission considered that an excessive deficit in a Member State existed or might occur. Having taken into account its report in accordance with Article 104(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which has become Article 126(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Financial Committee in accordance with Article 104(4) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which has become Article 126(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Commission concluded that an excessive deficit existed in the Czech Republic. The Commission therefore addressed such an opinion to the Council in respect of the Czech Republic on 11 November 2009 (3).

(6)

Article 126(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states that the Council should consider any observations which the Member State concerned may wish to make before deciding, after an overall assessment, whether an excessive deficit exists. In the case of the Czech Republic, this overall assessment leads to the conclusions set out in this Decision.

(7)

According to data notified by the Czech authorities in October 2009, the general government deficit in the Czech Republic is planned to reach 6,6 % of GDP in 2009, thus above and not close to the 3 % of GDP reference value. Based on the Commission services’ autumn 2009 forecast, the planned excess over the reference value qualifies as exceptional within the meaning of the Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact. In particular, it results, among other things, from a severe economic downturn in the sense of the Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact. The Commission services’ autumn 2009 forecast projects real GDP to contract by 4,8 % in 2009 compared to positive growth of 2,5 % in 2008, largely reflecting the impact of the global economic crisis. While the headline deficit started to increase only in 2008, the structural deterioration started earlier when the economy was still in good times. Furthermore, the planned excess over the reference value cannot be considered temporary, since the Commission services’ autumn 2009 forecast projects the general government deficit to reach 5,5 % of GDP in 2010 and, based on the no-policy-change assumption, 5,7 % of GDP in 2011. The forecast takes into account the effect of anti-crisis measures that will still be in place in 2010 (two measures amounting to approximately 0,7 % of GDP are permanent), as well as the fiscal consolidation package for 2010 adopted by the Czech authorities in October 2009. The deficit criterion in the Treaty is not fulfilled.

(8)

According to data notified by the Czech authorities in October 2009, the general government gross debt remains well below the 60 % of GDP reference value and is planned to stand at 35,5 % of GDP in 2009. According to the Commission services’ autumn 2009 forecast, the debt ratio is set to increase rapidly, reaching 44 % of GDP in 2011 under the no policy change assumption.

(9)

According to Article 2(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1467/97, ‘relevant factors’ can only be taken into account in the steps leading to the Council decision on the existence of an excessive deficit in accordance with Article 126(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union if the double condition — that the deficit remains close to the reference value and that its excess over the reference value is temporary — is fully met. In the case of the Czech Republic, this double condition is not met. Therefore, relevant factors are not taken into account in the steps leading to this Decision,

21.5.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 125/38

(1)

According to Article 126(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Member States shall avoid excessive government deficits.

(2)

The Stability and Growth Pact is based on the objective of sound government finances as a means of strengthening the conditions for price stability and for strong sustainable growth conducive to employment creation.

(3)

The excessive deficit procedure (EDP) under Article 126 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as clarified by Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure (1) (which is part of the Stability and Growth Pact), provides for a Decision on the existence of an excessive deficit. Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 also establishes provisions for the implementation of Article 104 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which has become Article 126 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union sets out further provisions relating to the implementation of the EDP. Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2009 (2) lays down detailed rules and definitions for the application of the provisions of that Protocol.

(4)

The 2005 reform of the Stability and Growth Pact sought to strengthen its effectiveness and economic underpinnings as well as to safeguard the sustainability of the public finances in the long run. It aimed at ensuring that, in particular, the economic and budgetary background was taken into account fully in all steps in the EDP. In this way, the Stability and Growth Pact provides the framework supporting government policies for a prompt return to sound budgetary positions taking account of the economic situation.

(5)

Article 104(5) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which has become Article 126(5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, required the Commission to address an opinion to the Council if the Commission considered that an excessive deficit in a Member State existed or might occur. Having taken into account its report in accordance with Article 104(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which has become Article 126(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Financial Committee in accordance with Article 104(4) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which has become Article 126(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Commission concluded that an excessive deficit existed in Germany. The Commission therefore addressed such an opinion to the Council in respect of Germany on 11 November 2009 (3).

(6)

Article 126(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states that the Council should consider any observations which the Member State concerned may wish to make before deciding, after an overall assessment, whether an excessive deficit exists. In the case of Germany, this overall assessment leads to the conclusions set out in this Decision.

(7)

According to data notified by the German authorities in October 2009, the general government deficit in Germany is planned to reach 3,7 % of GDP in 2009, thus exceeding and not close to the 3 % of GDP reference value. The planned excess over the reference value can be qualified as exceptional within the meaning of the Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact. According to the Commission services’ autumn 2009 forecast, real GDP in Germany is projected to contract sharply by 5 % in the year 2009. Furthermore, the planned excess over the reference value cannot be considered temporary, since according to the Commission services’ autumn 2009 forecast, taking into account the measures adopted in the current year affecting the budget for 2010 and for 2011, the deficit would widen to 5,0 % of GDP in 2010 to fall down to 4,6 % of GDP in 2011 on a no-policy change basis. The deficit criterion in the Treaty is not fulfilled.

(8)

According to data notified by the German authorities in October 2009, the general government gross debt (which has been above the 60 % of GDP reference value since 2002) is planned to stand at 74,2 % of GDP in 2009. According to the Commission services’ autumn 2009 forecast, the debt ratio is expected to rise further to 73,1 % of GDP in 2009 and reach 79,7 % of GDP in 2011. The debt ratio cannot be considered as diminishing sufficiently and approaching the reference value at a satisfactory pace within the meaning of the Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact. The debt criterion in the Treaty is not fulfilled.

(9)

According to Article 2(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1467/97, ‘relevant factors’ can only be taken into account in the steps leading to the Council Decision on the existence of an excessive deficit in accordance with Article 126(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union if the double condition — that the deficit remains close to the reference value and that its excess over the reference value is temporary — is fully met. In the case of Germany, this double condition is not met. Therefore, relevant factors are not taken into account in the steps leading to this Decision,

21.5.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 125/40

(1)

According to Article 126(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Member States shall avoid excessive government deficits.

(2)

The Stability and Growth Pact is based on the objective of sound government finances as a means of strengthening the conditions for price stability and for strong sustainable growth conducive to employment creation.

(3)

The excessive deficit procedure (EDP) under Article 126 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as clarified by Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure (1) (which is part of the Stability and Growth Pact), provides for a decision on the existence of an excessive deficit. Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 also establishes provisions for the implementation of Article 104 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which has become Article 126 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union sets out further provisions relating to the implementation of the EDP. Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2009 (2) lays down detailed rules and definitions for the application of the provisions of that Protocol.

(4)

The 2005 reform of the Stability and Growth Pact sought to strengthen its effectiveness and economic underpinnings as well as safeguard the sustainability of the public finances in the long run. It aimed at ensuring that, in particular, the economic and budgetary background was taken into account fully in all steps in the EDP. In this way, the Stability and Growth Pact provides the framework supporting government policies for a prompt return to sound budgetary positions taking account of the economic situation.

(5)

Article 104(5) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which has become Article 126(5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, required the Commission to address an opinion to the Council if the Commission considered that an excessive deficit in a Member State existed or might occur. Having taken into account its report in accordance with Article 104(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which has become Article 126(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Financial Committee in accordance with Article 104(4)of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which has become Article 126(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Commission concluded that an excessive deficit existed in Italy. The Commission therefore addressed such an opinion to the Council in respect of Italy on 11 November 2009 (3).

(6)

Article 126(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states that the Council should consider any observations which the Member State concerned may wish to make before deciding, after an overall assessment, whether an excessive deficit exists. In the case of Italy, this overall assessment leads to the conclusions set out in this Decision.

(7)

According to data notified by the Italian authorities in October 2009, the general government deficit in Italy is planned to reach 5,3 % of GDP in 2009, thus exceeding and not close to the 3 % of GDP reference value. The planned excess over the reference value can be qualified as exceptional within the meaning of the Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact. In particular, it results from a severe economic downturn in the sense of the Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact. The Commission services’ autumn 2009 forecast projects real GDP in Italy to contract by 4,7 % in 2009, after decreasing by 1 % in 2008. A moderate recovery is anticipated for 2010, strengthening in 2011. Furthermore, the planned excess over the reference value cannot be considered temporary, since the deficit is projected to increase further in 2010 and, on a no-policy change basis, to decrease marginally in 2011. The discretionary measures taken with the successive recovery packages to respond to the crisis in line with the European Economic Recovery Plan (targeted to support low-income groups and key industrial sectors) are not expected to appreciably weigh on the government balance, as they are, according to the Italian authorities, fully financed mainly by the reallocation of existing funds. The deficit criterion in the Treaty is not fulfilled.

(8)

According to data notified by the Italian authorities in October 2009, general government gross debt has been well above the 60 % of GDP reference value since before the start of stage III of the economic and monetary union and is planned to stand at 115,1 % of GDP in 2009. The Commission services’ autumn 2009 forecast projects the debt ratio to rise further, to 117,8 % in 2011. The debt ratio cannot be considered as diminishing sufficiently and approaching the reference value at a satisfactory pace within the meaning of the Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact. The debt criterion in the Treaty is not fulfilled.

(9)

According to Article 2(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1467/97, ‘relevant factors’ can only be taken into account in the steps leading to the Council decision on the existence of an excessive deficit in accordance with Article 126(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union if the double condition — that the deficit remains close to the reference value and that its excess over the reference value is temporary — is fully met. In the case of Italy, this double condition is not met. Therefore, relevant factors are not taken into account in the steps leading to this Decision,

21.5.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 125/42

(1)

According to Article 126(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Member States shall avoid excessive government deficits.

(2)

The Stability and Growth Pact is based on the objective of sound government finances as a means of strengthening the conditions for price stability and for strong sustainable growth conducive to employment creation.

(3)

The excessive deficit procedure (EDP) under Article 126 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as clarified by Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure (1) (which is part of the Stability and Growth Pact), provides for a decision on the existence of an excessive deficit. Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 also establishes provisions for the implementation of Article 104 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which has become Article 126 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union sets out further provisions relating to the implementation of the EDP. Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2009 (2) lays down detailed rules and definitions for the application of the provisions of that Protocol.

(4)

The 2005 reform of the Stability and Growth Pact sought to strengthen its effectiveness and economic underpinnings as well as to safeguard the sustainability of the public finances in the long run. It aimed at ensuring that, in particular, the economic and budgetary background was taken into account fully in all steps in the EDP. In this way, the Stability and Growth Pact provides the framework supporting government policies for a prompt return to sound budgetary positions taking account of the economic situation.

(5)

Article 104(5) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which has become Article 126(5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, required the Commission to address an opinion to the Council if the Commission considered that an excessive deficit in a Member State existed or might occur. Having taken into account its report in accordance with Article 104(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which has become Article 126(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Financial Committee in accordance with Article 104(4) thereof, which has become Article 126(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Commission concluded that an excessive deficit existed in the Netherlands. The Commission therefore addressed such an opinion to the Council in respect of the Netherlands on 11 November 2009 (3).

(6)

Article 126(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states that the Council should consider any observations which the Member State concerned may wish to make before deciding, after an overall assessment, whether an excessive deficit exists. In the case of the Netherlands, this overall assessment leads to the conclusions set out in this Decision.

(7)

According to data notified by the Dutch authorities in October 2009, the general government deficit in the Netherlands is planned to reach 4,8 % of GDP in 2009, thus above and not close to the 3 % of GDP reference value. The planned excess over the reference value can be qualified as exceptional within the meaning of the Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact. It results mainly from a severe economic downturn in the sense of the Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact. In the Commission services’ 2009 autumn forecast GDP is expected to contract by 4,5 % in 2009 and to grow by only ¼ % in 2010. Furthermore, also on the basis of the Commission services’ autumn 2009 forecast, the planned excess over the reference value cannot be considered temporary, since the general government deficit is projected to increase from 4,7 % of GDP in 2009 to 6,1 % of GDP in 2010 before it declines slightly to 5,6 % of GDP in 2011 based on the usual no-policy change assumption. The deficit criterion in the Treaty is not fulfilled.

(8)

According to data notified by the Dutch authorities in October 2009, the general government gross debt is below the 60 % of GDP reference value, at 59,7 % (4) of GDP in 2009. The Commission services’ autumn 2009 forecast expects the general government gross debt to come out at 59,8 % of GDP in 2009 and to increase to around 66 % of GDP in 2010 and 70 % of GDP in 2011, thus exceeding the 60 % of GDP reference value. This increase stems in large part from an important expected deterioration of the primary balance.

(9)

According to Article 2(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1467/97, ‘relevant factors’ can only be taken into account in the steps leading to the Council decision on the existence of an excessive deficit in accordance with Article 126(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union if the double condition — that the deficit remains close to the reference value and that its excess over the reference value is temporary — is fully met. In the case of the Netherlands, this double condition is not met. Therefore, relevant factors are not taken into account in the steps leading to this Decision,

21.5.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 125/44

(1)

According to Article 126(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Member States shall avoid excessive government deficits.

(2)

The Stability and Growth Pact is based on the objective of sound government finances as a means of strengthening the conditions for price stability and for strong sustainable growth conducive to employment creation.

(3)

The excessive deficit procedure (EDP) under Article 126 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as clarified by Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure (1) (which is part of the Stability and Growth Pact), provides for a decision on the existence of an excessive deficit. Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 also establishes provisions for the implementation of Article 104 of the Treaty establishing the European Community — which has become Article 126 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union sets out further provisions relating to the implementation of the EDP. Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2009 (2) lays down detailed rules and definitions for the application of the provisions of that Protocol.

(4)

The 2005 reform of the Stability and Growth Pact sought to strengthen its effectiveness and economic underpinnings as well as to safeguard the sustainability of the public finances in the long run. It aimed at ensuring that, in particular, the economic and budgetary background was taken into account fully in all steps in the EDP. In this way, the Stability and Growth Pact provides the framework supporting government policies for a prompt return to sound budgetary positions taking account of the economic situation.

(5)

Article 104(5) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which has become Article 126(5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, required the Commission to address an opinion to the Council if the Commission considered that an excessive deficit in a Member State existed or might occur. Having taken into account its report in accordance with Article 104(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which has become Article 126(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Financial Committee in accordance with Article 104(4) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which has become Article 126(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Commission concluded that an excessive deficit existed in Portugal. The Commission therefore addressed such an opinion to the Council in respect of Portugal on 11 November 2009 (3).

(6)

Article 126(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states that the Council should consider any observations which the Member State concerned may wish to make before deciding, after an overall assessment, whether an excessive deficit exists. In the case of Portugal, this overall assessment leads to the conclusions set out in this Decision.

(7)

According to data notified by the Portuguese authorities in October 2009, the general government deficit in Portugal is planned to reach 5,9 % of GDP in 2009, thus exceeding and not close to the 3 % of GDP reference value. The planned excess over the reference value can be qualified as exceptional within the meaning of the Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact. In particular, it results, among other things, from a severe economic downturn in 2009 in the sense of the Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact. For the years 2009 and 2010, the Commission services’ autumn 2009 forecast foresees that annual GDP would contract by 2,9 % and grow by 0,3 % respectively. Furthermore, the planned excess over the reference value cannot be considered temporary, since according to the Commission services’ autumn 2009 forecast, taking into account the measures already adopted in the current year, the general government headline deficit will increase to 8 % of GDP in 2010. In 2010 and 2011, despite the discontinuation of most of the measures of extraordinary nature linked to the crisis in 2009, no improvement in the fiscal position is expected due to the continued recessionary environment, the working of automatic stabilisers and a marked growth in interest expenditure. The deficit criterion in the Treaty is not fulfilled.

(8)

According to data notified by the Portuguese authorities in October 2009, the general government gross debt (which has been above the 60 % of GDP reference value since 2005) is planned to stand at 74,5 % of GDP in 2009. According to the Commission services’ autumn 2009 forecast, the general government debt-to-GDP ratio is projected to significantly increase by 18 percentage points over the forecast period from 66,3 % in 2008 to 91,1 % in 2011. The debt ratio cannot be considered as diminishing sufficiently and approaching the reference value at a satisfactory pace within the meaning of the Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact. The debt criterion in the Treaty is not fulfilled.

(9)

According to Article 2(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1467/97, ‘relevant factors’ can only be taken into account in the steps leading to the Council Decision on the existence of an excessive deficit in accordance with Article 126(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union if the double condition — that the deficit remains close to the reference value and that its excess over the reference value is temporary — is fully met. In the case of Portugal, this double condition is not met. Therefore, relevant factors are not taken into account in the steps leading to this Decision,

21.5.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 125/46

(1)

According to Article 126(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Member States shall avoid excessive government deficits.

(2)

The Stability and Growth Pact is based on the objective of sound government finances as a means of strengthening the conditions for price stability and for strong sustainable growth conducive to employment creation.

(3)

The excessive deficit procedure (EDP) under Article 126 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as clarified by Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure (1) (which is part of the Stability and Growth Pact), provides for a decision on the existence of an excessive deficit. Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 also establishes provisions for the implementation of Article 104 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which has become Article 126 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union sets out further provisions relating to the implementation of the EDP. Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2009 (2) lays down detailed rules and definitions for the application of the provisions of that Protocol.

(4)

The 2005 reform of the Stability and Growth Pact sought to strengthen its effectiveness and economic underpinnings as well as to safeguard the sustainability of the public finances in the long run. It aimed at ensuring that, in particular, the economic and budgetary background was taken into account fully in all steps in the EDP. In this way, the Stability and Growth Pact provides the framework supporting government policies for a prompt return to sound budgetary positions taking account of the economic situation.

(5)

Article 104(5) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which has become Article 126(5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, required the Commission to address an opinion to the Council if the Commission considered that an excessive deficit in a Member State existed or might occur. Having taken into account its report in accordance with Article 104(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which has become Article 126(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Financial Committee in accordance with Article 104(4) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which has become Article 126(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Commission concluded that an excessive deficit existed in Slovenia. The Commission therefore addressed such an opinion to the Council in respect of Slovenia on 11 November 2009 (3).

(6)

Article 126(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states that the Council should consider any observations which the Member State concerned may wish to make before deciding, after an overall assessment, whether an excessive deficit exists. In the case of Slovenia, this overall assessment leads to the conclusions set out in this Decision.

(7)

According to data notified by the Slovenian authorities in October 2009, the general government deficit in Slovenia is planned to reach 5,9 % of GDP in 2009, thus exceeding and not close to the 3 % of GDP reference value. The planned excess over the reference value can be qualified as exceptional within the meaning of the Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact. In particular, it results, among other things, from a severe economic downturn in the sense of the Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact. Real GDP growth, which halved between 2007 and 2008, is projected to be sharply negative in 2009 (– 7,4 %) according to the Commission services’ autumn 2009 forecast. Although Slovenia’s budgetary outcomes have been good in the recent past when economic conditions were still favourable, thanks to higher-than-budgeted revenue growth, budgetary execution was marked by expenditure overruns. Furthermore, the planned excess over the reference value cannot be considered temporary since, according to the Commission services’ autumn 2009 forecast, the deficit would widen from 6,3 % of GDP in 2009 to around 7 % of GDP in 2011 on a no-policy change assumption, while real GDP is forecast to recover to moderate positive growth. This assumption takes into account that, according to government plans, most measures of extraordinary nature linked to the crisis in line with the European Economic Recovery Plan, amounting to almost 1,25 % of GDP in 2009, will be gradually rolled back in 2010 and 2011. The deficit criterion in the Treaty is not fulfilled.

(8)

According to data notified by the Slovenian authorities in October 2009, the general government gross debt remains well below the 60 % of GDP reference value and is planned to stand at 34,2 % of GDP in 2009. According to the Commission services’ autumn 2009 forecast, the debt ratio would, on a no-policy change basis, rise further, to some 48 % of GDP by 2011.

(9)

According to Article 2(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1467/97, ‘relevant factors’ can only be taken into account in the steps leading to the Council decision on the existence of an excessive deficit in accordance with Article 126(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union if the double condition — that the deficit remains close to the reference value and that its excess over the reference value is temporary — is fully met. In the case of Slovenia, this double condition is not met. Therefore, relevant factors are not taken into account in the steps leading to this Decision,

21.5.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 125/48

(1)

According to Article 126(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Member States shall avoid excessive government deficits.

(2)

The Stability and Growth Pact is based on the objective of sound government finances as a means of strengthening the conditions for price stability and for strong sustainable growth conducive to employment creation.

(3)

The excessive deficit procedure (EDP) under Article 126 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as clarified by Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure (1) (which is part of the Stability and Growth Pact), provides for a decision on the existence of an excessive deficit. Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 also establishes provisions for the implementation of Article 104 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which has become Article 126 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union sets out further provisions relating to the implementation of the EDP. Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2009 (2) lays down detailed rules and definitions for the application of the provisions of that Protocol.

(4)

The 2005 reform of the Stability and Growth Pact sought to strengthen its effectiveness and economic underpinnings as well as to safeguard the sustainability of the public finances in the long run. It aimed at ensuring that, in particular, the economic and budgetary background was taken into account fully in all steps in the EDP. In this way, the Stability and Growth Pact provides the framework supporting government policies for a prompt return to sound budgetary positions taking account of the economic situation.

(5)

Article 104(5) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which has become Article 126(5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, required the Commission to address an opinion to the Council if the Commission considered that an excessive deficit in a Member State existed or might occur. Having taken into account its report in accordance with Article 104(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which has become Article 126(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Financial Committee in accordance with Article 104(4) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which has become Article 126(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Commission concluded that an excessive deficit existed in Slovakia. The Commission therefore addressed such an opinion to the Council in respect of Slovakia on 11 November 2009 (3).

(6)

Article 126(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states that the Council should consider any observations which the Member State concerned may wish to make before deciding, after an overall assessment, whether an excessive deficit exists. In the case of Slovakia, this overall assessment leads to the conclusions set out in this Decision.

(7)

According to data notified by the Slovak authorities in October 2009, the general government deficit in Slovakia is planned to reach 6,3 % of GDP in 2009, thus exceeding and not close to the 3 % of GDP reference value. The planned excess over the reference value can be qualified as exceptional within the meaning of the Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact. In particular, it results, among other things, from a severe economic downturn in the sense of the Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact. The Commission services’ 2009 autumn forecast projects real GDP to contract by 5,8 % in 2009. While the excess over the 3 % reference value mainly reflects the severity of the economic downturn, it also results from the significant deterioration of the structural balance since 2005. Furthermore, the planned excess over the reference value cannot be considered temporary, since the Commission services’ 2009 forecast projects the general government deficit to reach 6 % of GDP in 2010 based on the no-policy change assumption. The deficit criterion in the Treaty is not fulfilled.

(8)

According to data notified by the Slovak authorities in October 2009, the general government gross debt remains well below the 60 % of GDP reference value and is planned to stand at around 30 % of GDP in 2009. According to the Commission services’ autumn forecast, the debt ratio is set to increase rapidly, reaching 42,7 % of GDP in 2011 under the no policy change assumption.

(9)

In line with the provisions in the Stability and Growth Pact, the Commission in its report gave due consideration to systemic pension reforms introducing a multi-pillar system that includes a mandatory, fully-funded pillar. While the implementation of these reforms leads to a temporary deterioration of the budgetary position, the long-term sustainability of public finances clearly improves. Based on the estimates of the Slovak authorities, the net costs of this reform amount to 1,1 % of GDP in 2009-2011, rising to 1,2 % in 2012. According to the Stability and Growth Pact, these can be taken into account on a linear degressive basis for a transitory period and only in case the deficit remains close to the reference value. Since the deficit does not remain close to the reference value in 2009-2011, the cost of the pension reform cannot be taken into account.

(10)

According to Article 2(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1467/97, ‘relevant factors’ can only be taken into account in the steps leading to the Council decision on the existence of an excessive deficit in accordance with Article 126(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union if the double condition — that the deficit remains close to the reference value and that its excess over the reference value is temporary — is fully met. In the case of Slovakia, this double condition is not met. Therefore, relevant factors are not taken into account in the steps leading to this Decision,

21.5.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 125/50

(1)

According to Article 126(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Member States are to avoid excessive government deficits.

(2)

The Stability and Growth Pact is based on the objective of sound government finances as a means of strengthening the conditions for price stability and for strong sustainable growth conducive to employment creation. The Stability and Growth Pact includes Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 of 7 July 1997 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure (1), which was adopted in order to further the prompt correction of excessive general government deficits.

(3)

The 2005 reform of the Stability and Growth Pact sought to strengthen its effectiveness and economic underpinnings as well as to safeguard the sustainability of the public finances in the long run. It aimed at ensuring that, in particular, the economic and budgetary background was taken into account fully in all steps in the excessive deficit procedure. In this way, the Stability and Growth Pact provides the framework supporting government policies for a prompt return to sound budgetary positions taking account of the economic situation.

(4)

The Council, acting upon a recommendation by the Commission, decided on 27 April 2009, in accordance with Article 104(6) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, that an excessive deficit existed in Greece (2).

(5)

On 27 April 2009, the Council, also on the basis of a Commission recommendation, adopted a recommendation (3) in accordance with Article 104(7) of the Treaty establishing the European Community to the Greek authorities calling on them to put an end to the excessive deficit situation by 2010 at the latest, by bringing the general government deficit below 3 % of GDP in a credible and sustainable manner. To that end, the Council established the deadline of 27 October 2009 for the Greek government to take effective action.

(6)

The progress with improving the collection and processing of statistical data and their reporting, in particular general government data, as requested by the Council, has been deficient. The latest revision of the October 2009 notification has not been validated by Eurostat due to the significant uncertainties over the figures notified by the Greek authorities. The procedures in place to ensure a prompt and correct supply of general government data required by the existing legal framework are manifestly inadequate.

(7)

The assessment of the action taken by Greece to correct the excessive deficit by 2010 in response to the Council Recommendation under Article 104(7) of the Treaty establishing the European Community leads to the following conclusions:

(8)

This leads to the conclusion that significant revenue shortfalls and expenditure overruns have led to a strong deterioration in Greece’s budgetary position in 2009, which can only partly be attributed to the deterioration of the macroeconomic conditions and, hence, are mainly due to an insufficient response by the Greek authorities to the April 2009 Council Recommendation under Article 104(7) of the Treaty establishing the European Community,

21.5.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 125/52

(1)

Pursuant to Article 10(1) of Decision 2010/279/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of political control and strategic direction of the EUPOL Afghanistan mission, including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.

(2)

The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has proposed the appointment of the current Deputy Head of Mission, Chief Superintendent Nigel THOMAS, as Head of Mission ad interim from 31 May 2010 until the subsequent appointment of a new Head of Mission,

21.5.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 125/53

(1)

The Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and the Government of the United States of America (‘the Agreement’) was approved by Council Decision 98/591/EC (2), and entered into force on 14 October 1998. It is renewable for periods of five years (3), and was extended and amended on 14 October 2008 (4).

(2)

Transatlantic cooperation in the field of homeland/civil security research is desirable and of mutual benefit.

(3)

The consensus view emerging from exploratory discussions was that an Implementing Arrangement would constitute a mechanism for simplifying joint technical and scientific activity.

(4)

An Implementing Arrangement to cover cooperative activities in the interdisciplinary field of homeland/civil security research (‘the Implementing Arrangement’) has been successfully established between the Commission and the Government of the United States of America.

(5)

The Implementing Arrangement has no direct financial implications. Joint projects will compete for funding through normal RTD and support measures in the relevant research programmes of the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013) (5). In accordance with the Agreement, European Union funding will be limited to the European partners.

(6)

The Implementing Arrangement should be approved,