NTEU_TestSet.en

The beneficiaries of the Marrakesh Treaty are persons who are blind, persons who have a visual impairment which cannot be improved so as to give them visual function substantially equivalent to that of a person who has no such impairment, persons who have a perceptual or reading disability, including dyslexia or any other learning disability preventing them from reading printed works to substantially the same degree as persons without such disability, and persons who are unable, due to a physical disability, to hold or manipulate a book or to focus or move the eyes to the extent that would be normally acceptable for reading, insofar as, as a result of such impairments or disabilities, those persons are unable to read printed works to substantially the same degree as persons without such impairments or disabilities.
Persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print-disabled continue to face many barriers to accessing books and other printed material which are protected by copyright and related rights.
The need to increase the number of works and other protected subject matter in accessible formats available to such persons, and to significantly improve the circulation and dissemination of such works and other protected subject matter has been recognised at international level.
According to Opinion 3/15 of the Court of Justice of the European Union [4], the exceptions or limitations to copyright and related rights for the making and dissemination of copies, in accessible formats, of certain works and other subject matter, provided for by the Marrakesh Treaty, have to be implemented within the field harmonised by Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council [5].
The same is true of the export and import arrangements prescribed by that treaty, inasmuch as they are ultimately intended to permit the communication to the public or the distribution, in the territory of a party, of accessible format copies published in the territory of another party, without the consent of the rightholders being obtained.
Directive (EU) 2017/1564 of the European Parliament and of the Council [6] aims to implement the obligations that the Union has to meet under the Marrakesh Treaty in a harmonised manner in order to improve the availability of accessible format copies for beneficiary persons in all of the Member States of the Union and the circulation of such copies within the internal market, and requires Member States to introduce a mandatory exception to certain rights that are harmonised by Union law.
This Regulation aims to implement the obligations under the Marrakesh Treaty with respect to the export and import arrangements for accessible format copies for non-commercial purposes for the benefit of beneficiary persons between the Union and third countries that are parties to the Marrakesh Treaty, and to lay down the conditions for such export and import in a uniform manner within the field harmonised by Directives 2001/29/EC and (EU) 2017/1564 in order to ensure that those measures are applied consistently throughout the internal market and do not jeopardise the harmonisation of exclusive rights and exceptions contained within those Directives.
This Regulation should ensure that accessible format copies of books, including e-books, journals, newspapers, magazines and other kinds of writing, notation, including sheet music, and other printed material, including in audio form, whether digital or analogue, which have been made in any Member State in accordance with the national provisions adopted pursuant to Directive (EU) 2017/1564 can be distributed, communicated, or made available, to a beneficiary person or authorised entity, as referred to in the Marrakesh Treaty, in third countries that are parties to the Marrakesh Treaty.
Accessible formats include, for example, Braille, large print, adapted e-books, audio books and radio broadcasts.
Taking into account the ‘non-commercial objective of the Marrakesh Treaty’ [7], the distribution, communication to the public or making available to the public of accessible format copies to persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print-disabled or to authorised entities in the third country should only be carried out on a non-profit basis by authorised entities established in a Member State.
This Regulation should also allow for the importation of, and access to, accessible format copies made in accordance with the implementation of the Marrakesh Treaty, from a third country, by beneficiary persons in the Union and authorised entities established in a Member State, for non-commercial purposes for the benefit of persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print-disabled.
It should be possible for those accessible format copies to circulate in the internal market under the same conditions as accessible format copies made in the Union in accordance with Directive (EU) 2017/1564.
In order to improve the availability of accessible format copies and to prevent the unauthorised dissemination of works or other subject matter, authorised entities which engage in the distribution, communication to the public or making available to the public of accessible format copies should comply with certain obligations.
Initiatives by Member States to promote the objectives of the Marrakesh Treaty and the exchange of accessible format copies with third countries that are parties to that treaty, and to support authorised entities to exchange and make information available, should be encouraged.
Such initiatives could include the development of guidelines or best practices on the making and dissemination of accessible format copies in consultation with representatives of authorised entities, beneficiary persons and rightholders.
It is essential that any processing of personal data under this Regulation respect fundamental rights, including the right to respect for private and family life and the right to protection of personal data under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the ‘Charter’), and it is imperative that any such processing also be in compliance with Directives 95/46/EC [8] and 2002/58/EC [9] of the European Parliament and of the Council, which govern the processing of personal data, as may be carried out by authorised entities within the framework of this Regulation and under the supervision of the Member States' competent authorities, in particular the public independent authorities designated by the Member States.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (the ‘UNCRPD’), to which the Union is a party, guarantees persons with disabilities the right of access to information and education and the right to participate in cultural, economic and social life, on an equal basis with others.
The UNCRPD requires parties to the Convention to take all appropriate steps, in accordance with international law, to ensure that laws protecting intellectual property rights do not constitute an unreasonable or discriminatory barrier to access by persons with disabilities to cultural materials.
Under the Charter, all forms of discrimination, including on grounds of disability, are prohibited and the right of persons with disabilities to benefit from measures designed to ensure their independence, social and occupational integration and participation in the life of the community is recognised and respected by the Union.
Since the objective of this Regulation, namely to implement in a uniform manner the obligations under the Marrakesh Treaty with respect to the export and import between the Union and third countries that are parties to the Marrakesh Treaty of accessible format copies of certain works and other subject matter for non-commercial purposes for the benefit of beneficiary persons, and to lay down the conditions for such export and import, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, but can rather, by reason of its scale and effects, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union.
In accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.
Regulation (EU) 2016/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishes a multiannual plan for the stocks of cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea (‘the plan’).
The purpose of the plan is to contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the common fisheries policy and, in particular, to ensure that the exploitation of living marine biological resources restores and maintains populations of harvested species above levels which can produce maximum sustainable yield (MSY).
Article 1 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1139 sets out the Baltic fish stocks concerned, including the Bothnian Sea herring stock and the Bothnian Bay herring stock.
In order to safeguard the full reproductive capacity of those stocks, Annexes I and II to that Regulation establish certain conservation reference points, including fishing mortality ranges and spawning stock biomass reference points.
The scientific evaluation of the Bothnian Sea herring stock and the Bothnian Bay herring stock conducted in 2017 by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) showed that those two stocks are similar.
As a consequence, ICES combined the two stocks into one, changed the boundaries of its geographic distribution area and re-estimated the MSY fishing mortality ranges, as well as the relevant conservation reference points.
This led to different stock definition and numerical values than the ones established in Article 1 of, and Annexes I and II to, Regulation (EU) 2016/1139.
Article 5(6) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1139 provides that where, on the basis of scientific advice, the Commission considers that the conservation reference points set out in Annex II to that Regulation no longer correctly express the objectives of the plan, those points may, as a matter of urgency, be submitted for revision to the European Parliament and to the Council.
It is appropriate to amend urgently points (e) and (f) of Article 1(1) of, and Annexes I and II to, Regulation (EU) 2016/1139 in order to ensure that the fishing opportunities for the relevant stocks are fixed in accordance with updated conservation reference points.
Regulation (EU) 2016/1139 should therefore be amended accordingly,
HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 is amended as follows:
the text of the privacy statement set out in the model for statement of support form at the end of part A is replaced by the following:
‘Privacy statement: In accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation, your personal data provided on this form will only be used for the support of the initiative and made available to the competent national authorities for the purpose of verification and certification.
You are entitled to request from the organisers of this initiative access to, rectification of, erasure and restriction of processing of your personal data.
Your data will be stored by the organisers for a maximum retention period of 18 months after the date of registration of the proposed citizens’ initiative, or one month after submitting that initiative to the Commission, whichever is the earlier.
It might be retained beyond these time limits in the case of administrative or legal proceedings, for a maximum of one week after the date of conclusion of these proceedings.
Without prejudice to any other administrative or judicial remedy, you have the right to lodge at any time a complaint with a data protection authority, in particular in the Member State of your habitual residence, place of work or place of the alleged infringement if you consider that your data is unlawfully processed.
The organisers of the citizens’ initiative are the controllers in the meaning of the General Data Protection Regulation and they can be contacted using the details provided on this form.
The contact details of the data protection officer (if any) are available at the web address of this initiative in the European Commission’s register, as provided on this form.
The contact details of the national authority which will receive and process your personal data and the contact details of the national data protection authorities can be consulted at: http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/data-protection.’;
Council Regulation (EC) No 1683/95 [2] laid down a uniform format for visas.
The common design for the visa sticker, which has been in circulation for 20 years, is considered to be compromised in view of serious incidents of counterfeiting and fraud.
A new common design should therefore be established with more modern security features to render the visa sticker more secure and to prevent forgery.
Upon request from Ireland or the United Kingdom, the Commission should enter into appropriate arrangements with the requesting Member State to exchange technical information with that Member State for the purposes of issuing national visas by that Member State.
This Regulation respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
This Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2000/365/EC [3]; the United Kingdom is therefore not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and is not bound by it or subject to its application.
TThis Regulation constitutes an act building upon, or otherwise related to, the Schengen acquis within, respectively, the meaning of Article 3(1) of the 2003 Act of Accession, of Article 4(1) of the 2005 Act of Accession and of Article 4(1) of the 2011 Act of Accession.
As regards Iceland and Norway, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the latters' association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis [5] which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point B of Council Decision 1999/437/EC [6].
As regards Switzerland, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation's association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis [7], which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point B, of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2008/146/EC [8].
As regards Liechtenstein, this Regulation constitutes a development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis within the meaning of the Protocol between the European Union, the European Community, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on the accession of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Agreement between the European Union, the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Swiss Confederation's association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis [9], which fall within the area referred to in Article 1, point B, of Decision 1999/437/EC read in conjunction with Article 3 of Council Decision 2011/350/EU [10].
the operation of the emergency fire-pump with two firehoses connected to the fire main line in operation,
the testing of the remote emergency stop controls for fuel supply to boilers, main and auxiliary engines, and for ventilation fans,
the testing of remote and local controls for the closing of fire dampers,
the testing of fire detection and alarm systems,
the testing of proper closing of fire doors,
the operation of bilge pumps,
the closing of watertight bulkhead doors; both from the local and remote control positions,
a demonstration that shows that key crew members are acquainted with the damage control plan,
the lowering of at least one rescue boat and one lifeboat to the water, starting and testing their propulsion and steering system, and recovering them from the water into their stowed position on board,
the checking that all lifeboats and rescue boats correspond to the inventory,
the testing of the ship's or craft's steering gear and auxiliary steering gear.
Inspections shall focus on the familiarisation of crew members with, and their effectiveness in, safety procedures, emergency procedures, maintenance, working practices, passenger safety, bridge procedures and cargo and vehicle-related operations.
Seafarers' ability to understand and, where appropriate, give orders and instructions and report back in the common working language, as recorded in the ship's logbook shall be checked.
The documented evidence that crew members have successfully followed a special training shall be checked, in particular with regard to:
deposit guarantee schemes subrogating to the rights and obligations of covered depositors in insolvency.
Member States shall ensure that, for entities referred to in points (a) to (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 1(1), ordinary unsecured claims have, in their national laws governing normal insolvency proceedings, a higher priority ranking than that of unsecured claims resulting from debt instruments that meet the following conditions:
the original contractual maturity of the debt instruments is of at least one year;
the debt instruments contain no embedded derivatives and are not derivatives themselves;
the relevant contractual documentation and, where applicable, the prospectus related to the issuance explicitly refer to the lower ranking under this paragraph.
Member States shall ensure that unsecured claims resulting from debt instruments that meet the conditions laid down in points (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 of this Article have a higher priority ranking in their national laws governing normal insolvency proceedings than the priority ranking of claims resulting from instruments referred to in points (a) to (d) of Article 48(1).
Without prejudice to paragraphs 5 and 7, Member States shall ensure that their national laws governing normal insolvency proceedings as they were adopted at 31 December 2016 apply to the ranking in normal insolvency proceedings of unsecured claims resulting from debt instruments issued by entities referred to in points (a) to (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 1(1) of this Directive prior to the date of entry into force of measures under national law transposing Directive (EU) 2017/2399 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Where, after 31 December 2016 and before 28 December 2017, a Member State adopted a national law governing the ranking in normal insolvency proceedings of unsecured claims resulting from debt instruments issued after the date of application of such national law, paragraph 4 of this Article shall not apply to claims resulting from debt instruments issued after the date of application of that national law, provided that all of the following conditions are met:
under that national law, unsecured claims resulting from debt instruments that meet the conditions laid down in point (a) of this subparagraph have, in normal insolvency proceedings, a higher priority ranking than the priority ranking of claims resulting from instruments referred to in points (a) to (d) of Article 48(1).
On the date of entry into force of measures under national law transposing Directive (EU) 2017/2399, the unsecured claims resulting from debt instruments referred to in point (b) of the first subparagraph shall have the same priority ranking as the one referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 and in paragraph 3 of this Article.
For the purposes of point (b) of paragraph 2 and point (a)(ii) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 5, debt instruments with variable interest derived from a broadly used reference rate and debt instruments not denominated in the domestic currency of the issuer, provided that principal, repayment and interest are denominated in the same currency, shall not be considered to be debt instruments containing embedded derivatives solely because of those features.
Member States that, prior to 31 December 2016, adopted a national law governing normal insolvency proceedings whereby ordinary unsecured claims resulting from debt instruments issued by entities referred to in points (a) to (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 1(1) are split into two or more different priority rankings, or whereby the priority ranking of ordinary unsecured claims resulting from such debt instruments is changed in relation to all other ordinary unsecured claims of the same ranking, may provide that debt instruments with the lowest priority ranking among those ordinary unsecured claims have the same ranking as that of claims that meet the conditions of points (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 and of paragraph 3 of this Article.
Increasingly globalised production makes it necessary to develop a consistent framework that facilitates the interpretation and integration of statistics from different areas.’;
in objective 2.1.1, the second paragraph is amended as follows:
the second indent is replaced by the following:
the production of indicators on income, consumption and wealth distribution across households, and the reconciliation of national accounts aggregates with household survey data or administrative data;’;
the reinforcement of links with national accounts in the areas of social protection, health and education;
the development of a framework for measuring quality of life, reinforcing the household perspective in national accounts;
the development of GDP and beyond related indicators measuring environmental sustainability and external effects with a national account perspective;’;
the following indents are inserted after the fifth indent:
the further development of timely social indicators, including advanced techniques for nowcasting and flash estimates;
the support for international data sharing for macroeconomic data to reduce the burden for data producers and improve the availability of comparable and consistent data to users;
the development and fine-tuning of aggregated indicators of income and aspects of wealth inequality;
the measurement and analysis of gender inequality, including the wage gap;’;
in objective 2.1.2, the last indent of the second paragraph is replaced by the following:
the availability and extension of harmonised housing price statistics for all Member States.’;
The current uniform format for residence permits, which has been used for 20 years, is considered to be compromised in view of serious incidents of counterfeiting and fraud.
A new common design for residence permits for third-country nationals should therefore be established, with more modern security features in order to render such permits more secure and to prevent forgery.
Third-country nationals who hold a valid residence permit drawn up in the uniform format issued by one of the Member States which apply the Schengen acquis in full have the right to move freely for up to 90 days within the Schengen area, provided that they fulfil the entry conditions referred to in Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council [3] (Schengen Borders Code).
Union legislation on the entry and residence of third-country nationals sets out schemes granting additional mobility rights, with specific conditions for entry and stay in Member States which are bound by that acquis.
Residence permits issued in accordance with that legislation use the uniform format laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002.
Therefore, in order to enable the competent authorities to identify third-country nationals who may benefit from those specific mobility rights, it is important that those residence permits clearly display the relevant entries, such as ‘researcher’, ‘student’ or ‘ICT’ in accordance with the relevant Union legislation.
In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and is not bound by it or subject to its application.
Given that this Regulation builds upon the Schengen acquis, Denmark shall, in accordance with Article 4 of that Protocol, decide within a period of six months after the Council has decided on this Regulation whether it will implement this Regulation in its national law.
In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 and Article 4a(1) of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, those Member States are not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and are not bound by it or subject to its application.
To allow Member States to use up existing stocks of residence permits, a transitional period should be provided for within which Member States can still use the old residence permits.
For the Council
Position of the European Parliament of 13 June 2018 (not yet published in the Official Journal) and Decision of the Council of 26 June 2018.
Association Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part (OJ L 161, 29.5.2014, p. 3).
Council Decision 2002/639/EC of 12 July 2002 providing supplementary macro-financial assistance to Ukraine (OJ L 209, 6.8.2002, p. 22).
Decision No 646/2010/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 providing macrofinancial assistance to Ukraine (OJ L 179, 14.7.2010, p. 1).
Council Decision 2014/215/EU of 14 April 2014 providing macro-financial assistance to Ukraine (OJ L 111, 15.4.2014, p. 85).
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers (OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13).
Council Decision 2010/427/EU of 26 July 2010 establishing the organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service (OJ L 201, 3.8.2010, p. 30).
Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 480/2009 of 25 May 2009 establishing a Guarantee Fund for external actions (OJ L 145, 10.6.2009, p. 10).
Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ L 298, 26.10.2012, p. 1).
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ L 362, 31.12.2012, p. 1).
Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ L 312, 23.12.1995, p. 1).
Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 of 11 November 1996 concerning on-the-spot checks and inspections carried out by the Commission in order to protect the European Communities' financial interests against fraud and other irregularities (OJ L 292, 15.11.1996, p. 2).
Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September 2013 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999 (OJ L 248, 18.9.2013, p. 1).
JOINT STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, AND THE COMMISSION
The Parliament, the Council and the Commission recall that a pre-condition for granting macro-financial assistance is that the beneficiary country respects effective democratic mechanisms – including a multi-party parliamentary system – and the rule of law, and guarantees respect for human rights.
The Commission and the European External Action Service shall monitor the fulfilment of this pre-condition throughout the life-cycle of the Union's macro-financial assistance.
On the basis of Regulation (EU) No 258/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council [3], the International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation (the ‘IFRS Foundation’), which is the legal successor to the International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation, and the Public Interest Oversight Board (PIOB) benefit from Union co-financing in the form of operating grants until 31 December 2020.
The European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG), on the basis of Regulation (EU) No 258/2014, benefitted from Union co-financing in the form of operating grants until 31 December 2016.
On 12 November 2013, the Commission published the report of Philippe Maystadt, special advisor to the Commissioner responsible for internal market and services (the ‘special advisor's report’), in which he outlined potential reforms to EFRAG's governance aimed at reinforcing the Union's contribution to the development of international accounting standards.
The Commission closely monitored the implementation of the reform of EFRAG's governance and duly informed the European Parliament and the Council of the progress in that regard.
On that basis, it is appropriate to continue the financing of EFRAG for the period 2017 to 2020 in order to meet the long-term objectives of the Union programme to support specific activities in the field of financial reporting and auditing.
The Board of EFRAG, reflecting a balanced representation of both public and private interests, should ensure that its Board members commit to act in the European public interest.
The European Securities and Markets Authority, the European Banking Authority, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority and the European Central Bank are invited to contribute actively to the work of the Board of EFRAG, as far as possible.
The Commission should report annually to the European Parliament and the Council on EFRAG's main achievements and activities in the previous year.
That report should also examine developments in respect of the expanded public good criterion and provide a detailed overview of the developments in the field of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).
Accounting standards should neither jeopardise financial stability in the Union nor hinder the economic development of the Union.
As regards the development of IFRS, of PIOB and of EFRAG, the Commission's annual report should also refer to the follow-up to and the implementation of the recommendations of the European Parliament.
In addition, the IFRS Foundation, PIOB and EFRAG are encouraged to participate regularly, at least annually, in hearings organised by the European Parliament in order to provide a full account of the development of international financial reporting and auditing standards.
The Commission should provide the European Parliament and the Council with more regular information on the joint endeavours of the IFRS Foundation, of PIOB and of EFRAG, given that those three bodies are co-funded by the Union and are working towards the same objectives.
The Commission should also consider possible changes to the functioning and the private legal status of EFRAG in the long term.
Since the objective of this Regulation, namely increasing the budget of a Union programme for the period 2017 to 2020 in order to support the activities of EFRAG which contribute to the achievement of the policy objectives of the Union in relation to financial reporting, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, but can rather, by reason of its scale and effects, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union.
To ensure the continuity of the funding for EFRAG, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication and should apply as of 1 January 2017,
The sanctions are intended to serve as a strong deterrent for potential offenders, with effect throughout the Union.
Member States should ensure that the fact that a criminal offence is committed within a criminal organisation as defined in Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA [10] is considered to be an aggravating circumstance in accordance with the applicable rules established by their legal systems.
They should ensure that the aggravating circumstance is made available to judges for their consideration when sentencing offenders, although there is no obligation on judges to take the aggravating circumstance into account in their sentence.
Member States are not obliged to provide for the aggravating circumstance where national law provides for the criminal offences as defined in Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA to be punishable as a separate criminal offence and this may lead to more severe sanctions.
Given, in particular, the mobility of perpetrators and of the proceeds stemming from illegal activities at the expense of the Union's financial interests, as well as the complex cross-border investigations which this entails, each Member State should establish its jurisdiction in order to enable it to counter such activities.
Each Member State should thereby ensure that its jurisdiction covers criminal offences which are committed using information and communication technology accessed from its territory.
Given the possibility of multiple jurisdictions for cross-border criminal offences falling under the scope of this Directive, the Member States should ensure that the principle of ne bis in idem is respected in full in the application of national law transposing this Directive.
Member States should lay down rules concerning limitation periods necessary in order to enable them to counter illegal activities at the expense of the Union's financial interests.
In cases of criminal offences punishable by a maximum sanction of at least four years of imprisonment, the limitation period should be at least five years from the time when the criminal offence was committed.
This should be without prejudice to those Member States which do not set limitation periods for investigation, prosecution and enforcement.
Without prejudice to the rules on cross-border cooperation and mutual legal assistance in criminal matters and to other rules under Union law, in particular under Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council [11], there is a need for appropriate provision to be made for cooperation to ensure effective action against the criminal offences defined in this Directive affecting the Union's financial interests, including exchange of information between the Member States and the Commission as well as technical and operational assistance provided by the Commission to the competent national authorities as they may need to facilitate coordination of their investigations.
Such assistance should not entail the participation of the Commission in the investigation or prosecution procedures of individual criminal cases conducted by the national authorities.
The Court of Auditors and the auditors responsible for auditing the budgets of the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies should disclose to the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and to other competent authorities any fact which could be qualified as a criminal offence under this Directive, and Member States should ensure that national audit bodies within the meaning of Article 59 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 do the same, in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013.
The Commission should report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the measures taken by Member States to comply with this Directive.
The report may be accompanied, if necessary, by proposals taking into consideration possible evolutions, in particular regarding the financing of the Union budget.
The Convention should be replaced by this Directive for the Member States bound by it.
For the application of point (d) of Article 3(4) of Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council [12], the reference to serious fraud affecting the Union's financial interests as defined in Article 1(1) and Article2(1) of the Convention should be construed as fraud affecting the Union's financial interests as defined in Article 3 and in Article 7(3) of this Directive or, as regards offences against the common VAT system, as defined in Article 2(2) of this Directive.
Proper implementation of this Directive by the Member States includes the processing of personal data by the competent national authorities, and the exchange of such data between Member States on the one hand, and between competent Union bodies on the other.
The processing of personal data at national level between national competent authorities should be regulated by the acquis of the Union.
The exchange of personal data between Member States should be carried out in accordance with Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council [13].
To the extent that the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies process personal data, Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council [14] or, where applicable, other Union legal acts regulating the processing of personal data by those bodies, offices and agencies as well as the applicable rules concerning the confidentiality of judicial investigations, should apply.
It should not lay down any accounting or reporting obligations for private parties, including farmers and foresters.
The LULUCF sector, including agricultural land, has a direct and significant impact on biodiversity and ecosystems services.
For this reason, an important objective of policies affecting this sector is to ensure that there is coherence with the Union’s biodiversity strategy objectives.
Actions should be taken to implement and support activities in this sector relating to both mitigation and adaptation.
Coherence between the Common Agricultural Policy and this Regulation should also be ensured.
All sectors need to deliver their fair share as regards the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
Wetlands are effective ecosystems for storing carbon.
Therefore, protecting and restoring wetlands could reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the LULUCF sector.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (‘IPCC’) Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories relating to wetlands should be taken into account in this context.
To ensure the contribution of the LULUCF sector to the achievement of the Union’s emission reduction target of at least 40 % and to the long-term goal of the Paris Agreement, a robust accounting system is needed.
In order to obtain accurate accounts of emissions and removals in accordance with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (‘IPCC Guidelines’), the annually reported values under Regulation (EU) No 525/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council for land use categories and the conversion between land use categories should be utilised, thereby streamlining the approaches used under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol.
Land that is converted to another land use category should be considered to be in the process of transitioning to that category for the default value of 20 years referred to in the IPCC Guidelines.
Member States should only be able to derogate from that default value for afforested land and only in limited circumstances justified under the IPCC Guidelines.
Changes in the IPCC Guidelines as adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC or the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement should be reflected, as appropriate, in the reporting requirements under this Regulation.
The internationally agreed IPCC Guidelines state that emissions from the combustion of biomass can be accounted for as zero in the energy sector on condition that such emissions are accounted for in the LULUCF sector.
In the Union, emissions from biomass combustion are currently accounted for as zero pursuant to Article 38 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 and the provisions set out in Regulation (EU) No 525/2013, therefore consistency with the IPCC Guidelines would only be ensured if such emissions were reflected accurately in this Regulation.
Emissions and removals from forest land depend on a number of natural circumstances, dynamic age-related forest characteristics, as well as on past and present management practices that differ substantially between the Member States.
The use of a base year would not make it possible to reflect those factors and resulting cyclical impacts on, or the interannual variation of, emissions and removals.
The relevant accounting rules should instead provide for the use of reference levels to exclude the effects of natural and country-specific characteristics.
Forest reference levels should take account of any unbalanced age structure of forests and should not unduly constrain future forest management intensity, so that long-term carbon sinks can be maintained or strengthened.
Given the particular historical situation of Croatia, its forest reference level could also take into account the occupation of its territory, and wartime and post-war circumstances that had an impact on forest management during the reference period.
The relevant accounting rules take account of the principles of sustainable forest management as adopted in the Ministerial Conferences on the Protection of Forests in Europe (‘Forest Europe’).
The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, designate a European Union reference laboratory for Newcastle disease.
Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 25.
The functions and duties of the European Union reference laboratory for Newcastle disease shall be:
to coordinate, in consultation with the Commission, the methods employed in the Member States for diagnosing Newcastle disease, specifically by:
typing, storing and supplying strains of Newcastle disease virus for serological tests and the preparation of antisera;
supplying standard sera and other reference reagents to the national reference laboratories in order to standardise the tests and reagents used in the Member States;
building up and retaining a collection of Newcastle disease virus strains and isolates;
organising periodical comparative tests of diagnostic procedures at Union level;
collecting and collating data and information on the methods of diagnosis used and the results of tests carried out in the Union;
characterising isolates of Newcastle disease viruses by the most up-to-date methods available to promote a greater understanding of the epidemiology of Newcastle disease;
keeping abreast of developments in Newcastle disease surveillance, epidemiology and prevention throughout the world;
retaining expertise on Newcastle disease virus and other pertinent viruses to enable a rapid differential diagnosis;
acquiring a thorough knowledge of the preparation and use of the products of veterinary immunology used to eradicate and control Newcastle disease;
to actively assist in the diagnosis of outbreaks of Newcastle disease in Member States by receiving virus isolates for confirmatory diagnosis, characterisation and epidemiology studies;
to facilitate the training or retraining of experts in laboratory diagnosis with a view to the harmonisation of techniques throughout the Union.’;
Article 19 is amended as follows:
paragraph 5 is replaced by the following:
To the extent that it is required for the proper application of the measures laid down in this Article, the Member States shall submit to the Commission, within the framework of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed, information on the disease situation and the control measures applied.’;
the following paragraph is added:
The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, lay down rules regarding the information to be submitted by the Member States to the Commission as provided for in paragraph 5 of this Article.
Article 21 is replaced by the following:
Regulation (EU) No 1295/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council established the Creative Europe Programme (2014 to 2020) to support the European cultural and creative sectors.
The particularity of the European Union Youth Orchestra (EUYO) lies in the fact that it is a European orchestra that transcends cultural boundaries and is composed of young musicians selected in accordance with demanding quality criteria through a rigorous annual audition process in all Member States.
It is the only orchestra in the Union that recruits from all Member States.
Since its creation, the EUYO has contributed to promoting intercultural dialogue and mutual respect and understanding.
The EUYO has acted as a cultural ambassador for the Union in showcasing the richness and diversity of European cultures, and emerging talents.
It has also contributed to the knowledge of European musical heritage, the circulation of European works and the mobility of young European talents beyond national and European borders.
The EUYO provides regular training for young musicians through a residence programme and offers performance opportunities, thus reinforcing their international careers and developing their skills under the guidance of renowned conductors.
The EUYO should continuously diversify its revenues by actively seeking financial support from sources other than Union funding in order to guarantee its sustainability and with a view to reducing its dependence on Union funding.
The EUYO should therefore ensure cost efficiency in its management.
The EUYO should seek to increase its visibility, including in both traditional and digital media, and to perform at European events and across more Member States.
The EUYO should, in collaboration with its national associate partners, increase awareness of annual auditions with a view to achieving a more balanced representation of musicians from all Member States within the orchestra.
The EUYO's activities should be in line with the objectives of the Creative Europe Programme, in particular its objective of supporting audience development, and with the priorities of the Culture Sub-programme.
The EUYO should therefore actively engage in audience development, paying particular attention to young people.
The EUYO was founded following a resolution of the European Parliament of 8 March 1976 and is thus distinct among orchestras in Europe.
The contribution of the EUYO has been recognised by Member States and by Union institutions, including by successive Presidents of the Commission and of the European Parliament.
Due to its specific status, strategic objectives and activities that go beyond the sole interest and benefit of one or several Member States and clearly demonstrate a European added value, the EUYO qualifies as a body identified by a basic act within the meaning of point (d) of Article 190(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012, which allows grants to be awarded without a call for proposals.
Financing should be exceptionally granted to the EUYO until the end of the Creative Europe Programme on 31 December 2020.
The EUYO should therefore be included, as an exception, among the measures benefitting from support from both the Culture Sub-programme and the Cross-sectoral Strand of the Creative Europe Programme.
In order to ensure the smooth functioning of the EUYO, it should be able to benefit from support as soon as possible, in particular for costs incurred in 2018 prior to the entry into force of this Regulation.
This Regulation should therefore apply retroactively from 1 January 2018.
Waste management in the Union should be improved, with a view to protecting, preserving and improving the quality of the environment, protecting human health, ensuring prudent, efficient and rational utilisation of natural resources and promoting the principles of the circular economy.
To reduce the regulatory burden on small establishments or undertakings, simplification of the permitting and registration requirements for small establishments or undertakings should be introduced.
Implementation reports prepared by Member States every three years have not proved to be an effective tool for verifying compliance or ensuring good implementation, and are generating unnecessary administrative burdens.
It is therefore appropriate to repeal provisions obliging Member States to produce such reports.
Instead, compliance monitoring should be exclusively based on the data which Member States report every year to the Commission.
Data reported by Member States are essential for the Commission to assess compliance with Union waste law by Member States.
The quality, reliability and comparability of data should be improved by introducing a single entry point for all waste data, deleting obsolete reporting requirements, benchmarking national reporting methodologies and introducing a data quality check report.
Reliable reporting of data concerning waste management is paramount to efficient implementation and to ensuring comparability of data among Member States.
Therefore, when reporting on attainment of the targets set out in Directives 2000/53/EC, 2006/66/EC and 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, Member States should use the most recent rules developed by the Commission and methodologies developed by the respective national competent authorities responsible for implementing those Directives.
The waste hierarchy laid down in Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council applies as an order of priority in Union waste prevention and management legislation.
When complying with the objectives of this Directive, Member States should take the necessary measures to take the order of priorities of the waste hierarchy into account and ensure the practical implementation of those priorities.
In the context of the Union’s commitment to making the transition towards a circular economy, Directives 2000/53/EC, 2006/66/EC and 2012/19/EU should be reviewed and, if necessary, amended, taking account of their implementation and giving consideration, inter alia, to the feasibility of setting targets for specific materials contained in the relevant waste streams.
During the review of Directive 2000/53/EC, attention should also be paid to the problem of end-of-life vehicles that are not accounted for, including the shipment of used vehicles suspected to be end-of-life vehicles, and to the application of the Correspondents’ Guidelines No 9 on shipments of waste vehicles.
During the review of Directive 2006/66/EC, the technical development of new types of batteries that do not use hazardous substances should also be taken into account.
In order to amend and supplement Directive 2000/53/EC and to amend Directive 2012/19/EU, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of point (b) of Article 4(2) and Articles 5(5), 6(6) and 8(2) of Directive 2000/53/EC, as amended by this Directive, and Article 19 of Directive 2012/19/EU, as amended by this Directive.
It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making.
In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States’ experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts.
In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of Directive 2000/53/EC in respect of Articles 7(2) and 9(1d) thereof as amended by this Directive, and for the implementation of Directive 2012/19/EU in respect of Article 16(9) thereof as amended by this Directive, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission.
Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Since the objectives of this Directive, namely to improve the waste management in the Union, and thereby to contribute to the protection, preservation and improvement of the quality of the environment and to the prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, but can rather, by reason of the scale and effects of the measures, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union.
Directives 2000/53/EC, 2006/66/EC and 2012/19/EU should therefore be amended accordingly.
In accordance with the Joint Political Declaration of 28 September 2011 of Member States and the Commission on explanatory documents, Member States have undertaken to accompany, in justified cases, the notification of their transposition measures with one or more documents explaining the relationship between the components of a directive and the corresponding parts of national transposition instruments.
The underlying data should be extracted from the relevant Commission databases.
The methodology for the usage share for each individual tariff rate quota has been established and agreed by the Union and the United Kingdom, in line with the requirements of Article XXVIII of GATT 1994, and therefore, that methodology should be wholly maintained to ensure its consistent application.
In those cases where no trade is observed for a specific tariff rate quota over the representative period, two alternative approaches should be pursued in order to establish the United Kingdom’s usage share.
In those cases where there is another tariff rate quota with the identical product definition, the usage share of that identical tariff rate quota should be applied to the tariff rate quota that is without observed trade over the representative period.
In those cases where there is no tariff rate quota with an identical product definition, the formula to calculate the usage share should be applied to Union imports in the corresponding tariff lines outside of the tariff rate quota.
For the agricultural tariff rate quotas concerned, Articles 184 to 188 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council provide the necessary legal basis for the administration of the tariff rate quotas once apportioned by this Regulation.
In this regard, the tariff rate quota quantities concerned are set out in Part A of the Annex to this Regulation.
That administration should therefore be carried out having due regard to the objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy, as laid down in the TFEU, and the multi-functionality of agricultural activities.
For the tariff rate quotas covering most fisheries products, industrial products and certain processed agricultural products, the administration of the tariff rate quotas is carried out pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 32/2000.
The tariff rate quotas quantities concerned are set out in Annex I to that Regulation and that Annex should therefore be replaced by the quantities set out in Part B of the Annex to this Regulation.
Four fisheries tariff rate quotas are not administered under Regulation (EC) No 32/2000 but under Commission Regulation (EC) No 847/2006, which implements Council Decision 2006/324/EC.
Implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission to adapt the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 847/2006 in respect of those four fisheries tariff rate quotas in line with the apportioned quantities established by this Regulation.
In order to take into account the fact that negotiations with affected WTO Members have been taking place in parallel with the ordinary legislative procedure for the adoption of this Regulation, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU should be delegated to the Commission to amend Parts A and C of the Annex to this Regulation with respect to the quantities of the apportioned tariff rate quotas listed therein, in order to take account of any agreements concluded or of pertinent information that it might receive in the context of those negotiations which would indicate that specific factors that were not previously known require an adjustment to the apportionment of the tariff quotas between the Union and the United Kingdom, while ensuring consistency with the common methodology agreed jointly with the United Kingdom.
That power to adopt acts should also be delegated to the Commission where such pertinent information becomes available from other sources with an interest in a specific tariff rate quota.
In addition, Regulation (EC) No 32/2000 should be amended in order to delegate to the Commission the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU to amend Annex I to that Regulation.
In accordance with the principle of proportionality and in light of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the Union, it is necessary and appropriate to lay down rules to apportion tariff rate quotas included in the WTO schedule of the Union.
This Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve the objectives pursued, in accordance with Article 5(4) TEU.
In accordance with Article 4(3) of Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1182/71 of the Council, the cessation of application of acts fixed at a given date shall occur on the expiry of the last hour of the day falling on that date.
This Regulation should therefore apply from the day following that on which Regulation (EC) No 32/2000 ceases to apply to the United Kingdom given that from that day both the Union and the United Kingdom need to know what their WTO obligations are.
However, the provisions of this Regulation setting out the delegation of power and the conferral of implementing powers should apply from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.
Taking into account the procedural requirements of the ordinary legislative procedure and the need to subsequently adopt implementing acts for the application of this Regulation on the one hand, and the necessity to have the apportioned tariff rate quotas in place and ready to be applied at the moment that the United Kingdom ceases to be covered by the schedule of concessions and commitments of the Union, which could be as early as 30 March 2019, on the other hand, it is essential for this Regulation to enter into force as soon as possible,
Regulation (EC) No 91/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council has been substantially amended several times.
Since further amendments are to be made, that Regulation should be recast in the interests of clarity.
Railways are an important part of the Union's transport networks.
Statistics on the transport of goods and passengers by rail are necessary to enable the Commission to monitor and develop the common transport policy, as well as the transport elements of policies relating to the regions and to trans-European networks.
Statistics on rail safety are also necessary to enable the Commission to prepare and monitor Union action in the field of transport safety.
The European Union Agency for Railways collects data on accidents under Annex I to Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards common safety indicators and common methods of calculating accident costs.
Statistics at Union level on rail transport are also required in order to fulfil the monitoring tasks provided for in Article 15 of Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Statistics at Union level on all modes of transport should be collected according to common concepts and standards, with the aim of achieving the fullest practicable comparability between transport modes.
It is important to avoid duplication of work and to optimise the use of existing information that is capable of being used for statistical purposes.
To that end, and with a view to providing easily accessible and useful information to Union citizens and other stakeholders on rail transport safety and interoperability of the rail system, including the rail infrastructure, appropriate cooperation agreements on statistical activities should be established between the Commission's services and relevant entities, including at international level.
A balance should be struck between the needs of the users and the burden on respondents when producing European statistics.
In its report to the European Parliament and to the Council on its experience acquired in applying Regulation (EC) No 91/2003, the Commission referred to the fact that long-term developments will probably result in the suppression or the simplification of the data already collected under that Regulation, and that the aim is to reduce the data transmission period for annual data on rail passengers.
The Commission should continue to provide reports at regular intervals on the implementation of this Regulation.
The coexistence of publicly and privately owned railway undertakings operating in a commercial rail transport market requires an explicit specification of the statistical information which should be provided by all railway undertakings and disseminated by Eurostat.
Since the objective of this Regulation, namely the creation of common statistical standards which permit the production of harmonised data and which are to be implemented in each Member State under the authority of the bodies and institutions in charge of producing official statistics, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather, by reason of its scale and effects, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union.
Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council provides a reference framework for the provisions laid down by this Regulation.
In order to reflect new developments in the Member States while, at the same time, maintaining the harmonised collection of rail transport data across the Union, and with a view to maintaining the high quality of the data transmitted by the Member States, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of amending this Regulation to adapt the technical definitions and to provide for additional technical definitions.
The Commission should ensure that those delegated acts do not impose a significant additional burden on the Member States or on the respondents.
In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission as regards the specification of the information to be supplied for the reports on the quality and comparability of the results, and the arrangements for the dissemination of those results by the Commission (Eurostat).
The European Statistical System Committee has been consulted,
List of substances referred to in point (b) of point 1 of Article 1
P-Methylthioamphetamine or 4-Methylthioamphetamine, as referred to in Council Decision 1999/615/JHA [1].
Paramethoxymethylamphetamine or N-methyl-1-(4-methoxyphenyl)-2-aminopropane, as referred to in Council Decision 2002/188/JHA [2].
2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodophenethylamine, 2,5-dimethoxy-4-ethylthiophenethylamine, 2,5-dimethoxy-4-(n)-propylthiophenethylamine and 2,4,5-trimethoxyamphetamine, as referred to in Council Decision 2003/847/JHA [3].
enzylpiperazine or 1-benzyl-1,4-diazacyclohexane or N-benzylpiperazine or benzylpiperazine, as referred to in Council Decision 2008/206/JHA [4].
ethylmethcathinone, as referred to in Council Decision 2010/759/EU [5].
ethyl-5-(4-methylphenyl)-4,5-dihydrooxazol-2-amine (4,4′-DMAR) and 1-cyclohexyl-4-(1,2-diphenylethyl)piperazine (MT-45), as referred to in Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1873 [6].
ethylamphetamine, as referred to in Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1874 [7].
odo-2,5-dimethoxy-N-(2-methoxybenzyl)phenethylamine (25I-NBOMe), 3,4-dichloro-N-[[1-(dimethylamino)cyclohexyl]methyl]benzamide (AH-7921), 3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV) and 2-(3-methoxyphenyl)-2-(ethylamino)cyclohexanone (methoxetamine), as referred to in Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1875 [8].
5-(2-aminopropyl)indole, as referred to in Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1876 [9].
henyl-2-(pyrrolidin-1-yl)pentan-1-one (α-pyrrolidinovalerophenone, α-PVP), as referred to in Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1070 [10].
Methyl 2-[[1-(cyclohexylmethyl)-1H-indole-3-carbonyl]amino]-3,3-dimethylbutanoate (MDMB-CHMICA), as referred to in Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/369 [11].
N-(1-phenethylpiperidin-4-yl)-N-phenylacrylamide (acryloylfentanyl), as referred to in Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1774 [12].
Council Decision 1999/615/JHA of 13 September 1999 defining 4-MTA as a new synthetic drug which is to be made subject to control measures and criminal penalties (OJ L 244, 16.9.1999, p. 1).
Council Decision 2002/188/JHA of 28 February 2002 concerning control measures and criminal sanctions in respect of the new synthetic drug PMMA (OJ L 63, 6.3.2002, p. 14).
Council Decision 2003/847/JHA of 27 November 2003 concerning control measures and criminal sanctions in respect of the new synthetic drugs 2C-I, 2C-T-2, 2C-T-7 and TMA-2 (OJ L 321, 6.12.2003, p. 64).
Council Decision 2008/206/JHA of 3 March 2008 on defining 1-benzylpiperazine (BZP) as a new psychoactive substance which is to be made subject to control measures and criminal provisions (OJ L 63, 7.3.2008, p. 45).
Council Decision 2010/759/EU of 2 December 2010 on submitting 4-methylmethcathinone (mephedrone) to control measures (OJ L 322, 8.12.2010, p. 44).
Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1873 of 8 October 2015 on subjecting 4-methyl-5-(4-methylphenyl)-4,5-dihydrooxazol-2-amine (4,4′-DMAR) and 1-cyclohexyl-4-(1,2-diphenylethyl)piperazine (MT-45) to control measures (OJ L 275, 20.10.2015, p. 32).
Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1874 of 8 October 2015 on subjecting 4-methylamphetamine to control measures (OJ L 275, 20.10.2015, p. 35).
Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1875 of 8 October 2015 on subjecting 4-iodo-2,5-dimethoxy-N-(2-methoxybenzyl)phenethylamine (25I-NBOMe), 3,4-dichloro-N-[[1-(dimethylamino)cyclohexyl]methyl]benzamide (AH-7921), 3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV) and 2-(3-methoxyphenyl)-2-(ethylamino)cyclohexanone (methoxetamine) to control measures (OJ L 275, 20.10.2015, p. 38).
Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1070 of 27 June 2016 on subjecting 1-phenyl-2-(pyrrolidin-1-yl)pentan-1-one (α-pyrrolidinovalerophenone, α-PVP) to control measures (OJ L 178, 2.7.2016, p. 18).
Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/369 of 27 February 2017 on subjecting methyl 2-[[1-(cyclohexylmethyl)-1H-indole-3-carbonyl]amino]-3,3-dimethylbutanoate (MDMB-CHMICA) to control measures (OJ L 56, 3.3.2017, p. 210).
Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1774 of 25 September 2017 on subjecting N-(1-phenethylpiperidin-4-yl)-N-phenylacrylamide (acryloylfentanyl) to control measures (OJ L 251, 29.9.2017, p. 21).
Council Directives 86/278/EEC and 87/217/EEC are based on Articles 100 and 235 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, now Articles 115 and 352 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
Amendments to those Directives in this Decision are related to Union policy on the environment and are a direct consequence of the repeal of Council Directive 91/692/EEC on the basis of Article 192(1) TFEU.
It is therefore appropriate to base those amendments on Article 192(1) TFEU.
European Parliament and Council Directive 94/63/EC is based on Article 100a of the Treaty establishing the European Community, now Article 114 TFEU.
Directive 91/692/EEC was adopted to rationalise and improve, on a sectoral basis, the provisions on the transmission of information and the publication of reports concerning certain directives on the protection of the environment.
To achieve that objective, Directive 91/692/EEC amended several directives by introducing uniform reporting requirements.
The implementation of the reporting requirements introduced by Directive 91/692/EEC has become burdensome and ineffective.
Moreover, many of the Union acts amended by Directive 91/692/EEC have been replaced and no longer contain the reporting requirements as introduced by that Directive.
For example, Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council repealed seven Union acts in the field of water policy and did not take over the reporting system introduced by Directive 91/692/EEC.
In addition, Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council contains no reference to Directive 91/692/EEC and instead provides for a separate system of reporting.
Directive 91/692/EEC does not provide for use of electronic tools.
With the successful development of the European Environmental Agency’s Reportnet and sectoral initiatives on streamlining of reporting, such as the Water Information System for Europe, the need for and effectiveness of a horizontal instrument on reporting has increasingly been called into question.
Finally, the adoption of Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and the related development of the Shared Environment Information System, introduced a more modern and effective horizontal approach to information management and reporting related to Union environmental policy.
Directive 91/692/EEC should therefore be repealed.
Most of the Directives amended by Directive 91/692/EEC are no longer in force.
However, Directives 86/278/EEC and 87/217/EEC are still in force.
Directive 86/278/EEC requires Member States to provide a report on the implementation of that Directive on the basis of a questionnaire or outline drafted by the Commission in accordance with the procedure laid down in Directive 91/692/EEC.
In order to avoid a legal vacuum due to the repeal of Directive 91/692/EEC, it is necessary to replace the reference to Directive 91/692/EEC with a reference to the procedure referred to in Directive 86/278/EEC.
Reporting by Member States under Directive 87/217/EEC is no longer necessary following the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, which provides for the phasing out of the production and use of raw asbestos and products containing asbestos in the Union.
It is therefore appropriate to delete those reporting requirements set out in that Directive.
After the entry into force of Directive 91/692/EEC, the following Regulations and Directives included a reference to that Directive: European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC, Directive 94/63/EC, Council Directive 1999/31/EC, Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EU) No 1257/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
As part of an EU action plan for the circular economy, the Commission proposed to amend Directives 94/62/EC, 1999/31/EC, 2000/53/EC and 2008/98/EC in order to replace the reference to Directive 91/692/EEC.
In order to ensure that certain provisions of the Annexes to Directive 86/278/EEC are up to date, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU should be delegated to the Commission in respect of the adaptation of those provisions to technical and scientific progress.
The adaptation of the Annexes to Directive 2009/31/EC should not result in a lowering of the level of safety, or in a weakening of the monitoring principles, provided by the criteria contained in those Annexes.
In accordance with Article 9 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in defining and implementing its policies and activities, the Union needs to take into account requirements linked to the promotion of a high level of employment, the guarantee of adequate social protection, the fight against social exclusion, and a high level of education, training and protection of human health.
In addition, and as set out in Article 11 TFEU, environmental protection requirements need to be integrated into the Union policies and activities, in particular with a view to promoting sustainable development.
Articles 120 and 121 TFEU provide that Member States are required to conduct their economic policies with a view to contributing to the achievement of the objectives of the Union and in the context of the broad guidelines that the Council formulates.
The coordination of the economic policies of the Member States is therefore a matter of common concern.
Several Member States have been undergoing and continue to undergo adjustment processes to correct macroeconomic imbalances accumulated in the past and many Member States are facing the challenge of low potential growth.
The Union has identified the implementation of structural reforms as being among its policy priorities to set the recovery on a sustainable path, unlock the growth potential to strengthen the adjustment capacity, and support the process of convergence.
Reforms are by their very nature complex processes that require a complete chain of highly specialised knowledge and skills, as well as a long-term vision.
Addressing structural reforms in a variety of public policy areas is challenging since their impact often takes time to materialise.
Therefore, timely and efficient design and implementation is crucial, be it for crisis-struck or structurally weak economies.
In that context, the provision of support by the Union in the form of technical assistance has been important in supporting the economic adjustment of Greece and Cyprus in the last few years.
Ownership of structural reforms on the ground is essential for their successful implementation.
Member States can benefit from support in addressing challenges as regards the design and implementation of growth-sustaining structural reforms in line with the Union's economic and social goals.
Those challenges could be dependent on various factors, such as limited administrative and institutional capacity, as well as inadequate application and implementation of Union law.
The Union has considerable experience in providing specific support to national administrations and other authorities of Member States as regards capacity building and similar actions in certain sectors (e.g. taxation, customs and support to small and medium-sized enterprises) and in relation to the implementation of cohesion policy.
The experience gained by the Union in assisting national authorities in carrying out reforms should be used in order to enhance the capacity of the Union to provide support to Member States.
Comprehensive and integrated action is indeed necessary in order to provide support to those Member States that are undertaking growth-enhancing reforms and request assistance from the Union in that respect.
The European Court of Auditors' Special Report (19/2015) entitled ‘More attention to results needed to improve the delivery of technical assistance to Greece’ includes useful recommendations with respect to the provision of technical assistance by the Commission to Member States.
Those recommendations are to be taken into account in the implementation of the support under this Regulation.
Against that background, it is necessary to establish a Structural Reform Support Programme (‘the Programme’) with the objective of strengthening the capacity of Member States to prepare and implement growth-enhancing administrative and structural reforms, including through assistance for the efficient and effective use of the Union funds.
The Programme is intended to contribute to the achievement of common goals of supporting economic recovery, cohesion and job creation, boosting Europe's competitiveness and productivity, and stimulating investment in the real economy.
That would also allow for a better response to the economic and social challenges of achieving a high level of social welfare as well as high-quality health and education services, and of combating poverty and social exclusion.
Support under the Programme should be provided by the Commission, upon request by a Member State, in areas related to cohesion, competitiveness, productivity, innovation, smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, jobs and investment, such as budget and taxation, public service, institutional and administrative reforms, justice systems, the fight against fraud, corruption, money laundering and tax evasion, business environment, private sector development, competition, public procurement, public participation in enterprises, privatisation processes, access to finance, financial sector policies, trade, sustainable development, education and training, labour policies, public health, asylum, migration policies, agriculture, rural development and fisheries.
Member States should be able to request support from the Commission under the Programme in relation to the implementation of reforms in the context of economic governance processes, in particular of country-specific recommendations in the context of the European Semester, to actions related to the implementation of Union law, as well as in relation to the implementation of economic adjustment programmes.
They should also be able to request support in relation to reforms undertaken at their own initiative, in order to achieve cohesion, investment, sustainable growth, job creation and competitiveness.
The Commission could provide guidance on the main elements of the request for support.
Further to a dialogue with the requesting Member State, including in the context of the European Semester, the Commission should analyse the request, taking into account the principles of transparency, equal treatment and sound financial management, and determine the support to be provided based on urgency, breadth and depth ofthe problems as identified, support needs in respect of the policy areas envisaged, analysis of socioeconomic indicators, and the general administrative capacity of the Member State.
Based on that analysis and taking into account the existing actions and activities financed by Union funds or Union programmes, the Commission should come to an agreement with the Member State concerned on the priority areas, the objectives, an indicative timeline, the scope of the support measures to be provided and the estimated global financial contribution for such support, to be set out in a cooperation and support plan.
For the purposes, inter alia, of transparency, the Commission should, under the conditions set out in this Regulation, provide the cooperation and support plans to the European Parliament and to the Council.
Both internally managed qualifying venture capital funds and external managers of qualifying venture capital funds shall have an initial capital of EUR 50000.’;
Own funds shall at all times amount to at least one eighth of the fixed overheads incurred by the manager in the preceding year.
The competent authority of the home Member State may adjust that requirement in the event of a material change to the manager’s business since the preceding year.
Where the manager of a qualifying venture capital fund has not completed a year of business, the requirement shall amount to one eighth of the fixed overheads expected in its business plan, unless the competent authority of the home Member State requires an adjustment to that plan.
Where the value of the qualifying venture capital funds managed by the manager exceeds EUR 250000000, the manager shall provide an additional amount of own funds.
That additional amount shall be equal to 0,02 % of the amount by which the total value of the qualifying venture capital funds exceeds EUR 250000000.
The competent authority of the home Member State may authorise the manager of qualifying venture capital funds not to provide up to 50 % of the additional amount of own funds referred to in paragraph 4 if that manager benefits from a guarantee for the same amount given by a credit institution or an insurance undertaking which has its registered office in a Member State, or in a third country where it is subject to prudential rules which the competent authority of the home Member State considers to be equivalent to those laid down in Union law.
Own funds shall be invested in liquid assets or assets readily convertible to cash in the short term and shall not include speculative positions.’.
In Article 12, the following paragraph is added:
The competent authority of the home Member State shall make available all information gathered under this Article to the competent authority of each qualifying venture capital fund concerned, to the competent authority of each host Member State concerned and to ESMA in a timely manner by means of the procedure referred to in Article 22.’.
In Article 13(1), point (b) is replaced by the following:
the amount of own funds available to that manager for maintaining the adequate human and technical resources necessary for the proper management of its qualifying venture capital funds;’.
in paragraph 1, point (e) is deleted;
The competent authority of the home Member State shall inform the manager as referred to in paragraph 1 whether it has been registered as a manager of a qualifying venture capital fund no later than two months after it has provided all the information referred to in that paragraph.
A registration in accordance with this Article shall constitute a registration for the purposes of Article 3(3) of Directive 2011/61/EU in respect of the management of qualifying venture capital funds.
A manager of a qualifying venture capital fund as referred to in this Article shall notify the competent authority of the home Member State of any material changes to the conditions for its initial registration in accordance with this Article before such changes are implemented.
If the competent authority of the home Member State decides to impose restrictions or reject the changes referred to in the first subparagraph, it shall inform the manager of the qualifying venture capital fund, within one month of receipt of notification of those changes.
The competent authority may extend that period by up to one month where it considers this to be necessary due to the specific circumstances of the case, after having notified the manager of the qualifying venture capital fund.
The changes may be implemented if the relevant competent authority does not oppose the changes within the relevant assessment period.
In order to ensure the uniform application of this Article, ESMA may develop draft regulatory technical standards to further specify the information to be provided to the competent authorities in the application for registration as set out in paragraph 1 and to further specify the conditions as set out in paragraph 2.
Power is delegated to the Commission to supplement this Regulation by adopting the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.
In order to ensure the uniform application of this Article, ESMA may develop draft implementing technical standards on standard forms, templates and procedures for the provision of information to the competent authorities in the application for registration set out in paragraph 1 and the conditions set out in paragraph 2.
Power is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.
ESMA shall organise and conduct peer reviews in accordance with Article 30 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 in order to strengthen the consistency of the registration processes carried out by competent authorities pursuant to this Regulation.’.
The following articles are inserted:
The Union contributes to ensuring a high level of consumer protection, and to placing consumers at the heart of the internal market, by supporting and complementing Member States' policies in seeking to ensure that citizens can fully reap the benefits of the internal market and, in so doing, that their legal and economic interests are properly addressed and defended.
A well-functioning and trustworthy financial services sector is a key component of the internal market and its cross-border capabilities.
It requires a solid framework for regulation and supervision, which simultaneously ensures financial stability and supports a sustainable economy.
At the same time, a well-functioning and trustworthy financial services sector should provide a high level of protection to consumers and other financial services end-users, including retail investors, savers, insurance policyholders, pension fund members and beneficiaries, individual shareholders, borrowers and SMEs.
Since 2007, the confidence of financial services end-users, in particular of consumers, has been shaken by the financial and economic crisis.
To restore their confidence in the soundness of the financial sector and to contribute to its best practices, it is therefore important to increase the level of active participation and involvement of consumers and other financial services end-users, including retail investors, savers, insurance policyholders, pension fund members and beneficiaries, individual shareholders, borrowers and SMEs, as well as of stakeholders representing their interests, in Union and in other relevant multilateral policy-making in the financial sector.
In order to achieve those objectives, following a cross-party initiative of the European Parliament, the Commission initiated at the end of 2011 a pilot project aimed at providing grants to support the development of a financial expertise centre for the benefit of consumers, other end-users and stakeholders who represent their interests, to enhance their ability to participate in Union policy-making in the area of financial services and to foster the development of a resilient banking system.
The main policy objectives were to ensure that Union policy-makers, when initiating new Union law, would be provided with views other than those expressed by financial sector professionals, to ensure that the interests of consumers and other financial services end-users would be reflected in new Union law, to ensure that the wider public would be better informed about issues at stake in financial regulation, thereby enhancing financial literacy, and to ensure that the active participation of consumers and other financial services end-users would be enhanced in Union policy-making in the area of financial services, resulting in well-balanced Union law.
As a result, between 2012 and 2015, and following an open call for proposals, the Commission awarded operating grants to two non-profit entities: Finance Watch and Better Finance.
Those grants were awarded in 2012 and 2013 under a pilot project lasting two years, and since 2014 in the form of a preparatory action.
Furthermore, in 2016, it was decided to provide action grants instead of operating grants, as action grants ensure better control of Union budget spending.
Given that a preparatory action can only be used for up to three consecutive years under Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council [3], a legislative act is necessary to provide a legal basis for the funding of such actions as of 2017.
Finance Watch was set up with Union grants in 2011 as an international non-profit association under Belgian law.
Its mission is to defend the interests of civil society in the financial sector.
As a result of Union grants, Finance Watch managed in a short period of time to set up a team of qualified experts, who were able to conduct studies, policy analysis and communication activities in the area of financial services.
Better Finance is the product of successive re-organisations and rebranding of pre-existing European federations of investors and shareholders since 2009.
Thanks to Union grants, the organisation formed a centre of financial expertise, focusing primarily on the interests of consumers, individual investors, individual shareholders, savers and other end-users of financial services, coherent with its membership base and its resources.
The evaluation carried out in 2015 of the pilot project and the subsequent preparatory action concluded that the policy objectives have generally been achieved.
Finance Watch and Better Finance have worked on complementary policy areas and have targeted different audiences.
Together their activities have covered most of the Union financial political agenda since 2012 and, as far as their resources have allowed, Finance Watch and Better Finance have made efforts to expand their activities in order to have wide geographical coverage within the Union.
Both organisations have provided added value to the activities of their national members and to Union consumers.
National organisations that deal with a wide range of consumers' issues often lack technical expertise in policy areas related specifically to financial services and to the related Union policy-making processes.
In addition, no similar organisations have so far been identified at Union level.
Although the evaluation of the pilot project showed that no other applicant has responded to the successive yearly calls for proposal that have taken place since 2012, the programme provided for in this Regulation should be open to other potential beneficiaries after the end of the 2017-2020 period if they meet its requirements.
Despite regular efforts, Finance Watch and Better Finance have not managed to attract stable and significant funding from other donors, who are independent from the financial industry, and, therefore, remain heavily dependent on Union funding in order to be financially sustainable.
Co-funding from the Union is therefore currently necessary to ensure that they receive the resources needed to achieve the desired policy objectives in the coming years, and to provide financial stability to those organisations and to their experts and administrative staff, which have so far managed to launch their relevant activities in a short period of time.
It is thus necessary to establish a Union programme for the 2017-2020 period to support the activities of Finance Watch and Better Finance (the ‘Programme’), which will supplement similar policies pursued by Member States at national level.
Financial stability is of key importance in preserving expertise, as well as for project planning for both organisations.
The organisations that receive support under the Programme should nonetheless aim to increase the proportion of funding from other sources.
Continuing to fund Finance Watch and Better Finance for the 2017-2020 period along the same lines as under the preparatory action, would ensure that the positive impacts of the activities of those organisations assessed so far are maintained.
The purpose of this Regulation is to enable the recommitment of the remaining amounts committed to support the implementation of Council Decisions (EU) 2015/1523 and (EU) 2015/1601 provided for under Regulation (EU) No 516/2014 of the European Parliament and the Council or the allocation of those amounts to other actions under the national programmes in line with Union priorities and Member States' needs in specific areas of asylum and migration.
It is also to ensure that such recommitment or allocation occurs in a transparent manner.
The Commission committed funding to Member States' national programmes under the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund to support the implementation of Decisions (EU) 2015/1523 and (EU) 2015/1601.
Decision (EU) 2015/1601 was amended by Council Decision (EU) 2016/1754.
Those Decisions have now ceased to apply.
Part of the funding allocated under Decisions (EU) 2015/1523 and (EU) 2015/1601 in 2016 and in some cases 2017 remains available in the Member States' national programmes.
It should be possible for Member States to use the remaining amounts to continue to implement relocation by recommitting them to the same action under the national programmes.
Member States should recommit or transfer at least 20 % of those amounts to actions in national programmes, for the transfer of applicants for international protection or of beneficiaries of international protection, for resettlement or other ad hoc humanitarian admissions, as well as for preparatory measures for the transfer of applicants for international protection following their arrival in the Union, including by sea, or for the transfer of beneficiaries of international protection.
Such measures should comprise only those measures referred to in points (a), (b), (e) and (f) of the second subparagraph of Article 5(1) of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014.
Where duly justified in the revision of Member States' national programmes, it should be possible for Member States to use up to 80 % of those amounts to address other challenges in the areas of asylum and migration, in line with Regulation (EU) No 516/2014.
Member States' needs in those areas remain significant.
Recommitments of the remaining amounts to the same action, or their transfer to other actions under the national programme should be possible only once and with the approval of the Commission.
Member States should ensure that the allocation of funds takes place in a manner that fully respects the principles set out in Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in particular the principles of efficiency and transparency.
The target group eligible for transfer, as well as the number of Member States from which transfers take place, should be expanded to give more flexibility to Member States in carrying out transfers, taking into account the specific needs of unaccompanied minors, or other vulnerable applicants, and the specific situation of family members of beneficiaries of international protection.
The specific provisions concerning lump sums for resettlement and transfer of beneficiaries of international protection from one Member State to another should reflect that expansion.
Member States and the Commission should have sufficient time to revise the national programmes to accommodate the relevant changes provided for by this Regulation.
Therefore, a derogation from Article 50(1) of Regulation (EU) No 514/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council should be applied to the remaining amounts committed to support the implementation of Decisions (EU) 2015/1523 and (EU) 2015/1601, extending the deadline for decommitment by six months with a view to completing the procedure for the revision of the national programmes, as referred to in Article 14 of Regulation (EU) No 514/2014.
Member States should also have sufficient time to use the amounts recommitted to the same action or transferred to other actions prior to the decommitment of those amounts.
Therefore, when such recommitments or transfers of amounts under the national programme are approved by the Commission, the amounts concerned should be considered to have been committed in the year of the revision of the national programme that approves the recommitment or the transfer concerned.
The Commission should report annually to the European Parliament and to the Council as regards the implementation of resources for the transfer of applicants for international protection and of beneficiaries of international protection, in particular as regards transfers of amounts to other actions under the national programme as provided for in this Regulation.
This Regulation does not affect the funding available under Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014.
The objectives of this Regulation are pursued without prejudice to the ongoing negotiations on the reform of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
In accordance with Article 3 and Article 4a(1) of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, Ireland has notified, by letter of 7 December 2018, its wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Regulation.
In view of the need to avoid decommitment of the remaining amounts committed to support the implementation of Decisions (EU) 2015/1523 and (EU) 2015/1601, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
If Regulation (EU) No 516/2014 is not amended before the end of 2018, the relevant funding will no longer be available for Member States' use under the national programmes supported by the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund.
In view of the urgency of amending Regulation (EU) No 516/2014, it was considered to be appropriate to provide for an exception to the eight-week period referred to in Article 4 of Protocol No 1 on the role of national Parliaments in the European Union, annexed to the TEU, to the TFEU and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community.
Where the Centre, the Commission or a majority of the Member States considers that information shared on a new psychoactive substance collected pursuant to Article 5a in one or more Member States gives rise to concerns that the new psychoactive substance may pose health or social risks at Union level, the Centre shall draw up an initial report on the new psychoactive substance.
For the purpose of this paragraph, Member States shall inform the Commission and other Member States of their wish that an initial report be drawn up.
Where the majority of Member States is reached, the Commission shall instruct the Centre accordingly and shall inform the Member States thereof.
The initial report shall contain a first indication of:
the nature, number and scale of incidents showing health and social problems in which the new psychoactive substance may potentially be involved, and the patterns of use of the new psychoactive substance;
the chemical and physical description of the new psychoactive substance and the methods and precursors used for its manufacture or extraction;
the pharmacological and toxicological description of the new psychoactive substance;
the involvement of criminal groups in the manufacture or distribution of the new psychoactive substance.
The initial report shall also contain:
information on the human and veterinary medical use of the new psychoactive substance, including as an active substance in a medicinal product for human use or in a veterinary medicinal product;
information on the commercial and industrial use of the new psychoactive substance, the extent of such use, as well as its use for scientific research and development purposes;
information on whether the new psychoactive substance is subject to any restrictive measures in the Member States;
information on whether the new psychoactive substance is currently or has been under assessment within the system established by the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, as amended by the 1972 Protocol, and the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances (‘United Nations system’);
other relevant information, where available.
For the purpose of the initial report, the Centre shall use information which is at its disposal.
Where the Centre considers it necessary, it shall request the national focal points referred to in Article 5 to provide additional information on the new psychoactive substance.
The national focal points shall provide that information within two weeks of receipt of the request.
The Centre shall, without undue delay, request the European Medicines Agency to provide information on whether, at Union or national level, the new psychoactive substance is an active substance in:
a medicinal product for human use or in a veterinary medicinal product that has obtained a marketing authorisation in accordance with Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council or Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
a medicinal product for human use or in a veterinary medicinal product that is the subject of an application for a marketing authorisation;
a medicinal product for human use or in a veterinary medicinal product whose marketing authorisation has been suspended by the competent authority;
an unauthorised medicinal product for human use in accordance with Article 5 of Directive 2001/83/EC or in a veterinary medicinal product prepared extemporaneously by a person authorised to do so under national law in accordance with point (c) of Article 10(1) of Directive 2001/82/EC;
an investigational medicinal product as defined in point (d) of Article 2 of Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Where the information relates to marketing authorisations granted by Member States, the Member States concerned shall provide the European Medicines Agency with such information upon its request.
The Centre shall, without undue delay, request Europol to provide information on the involvement of criminal groups in the manufacture, distribution and distribution methods, and trafficking of the new psychoactive substance, and in any use of the new psychoactive substance.
The Centre shall, without undue delay, request the European Chemicals Agency, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and the European Food Safety Authority to provide the information and data at their disposal on the new psychoactive substance.
The details of the cooperation between the Centre and the bodies and agencies referred to in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of this Article shall be governed by working arrangements.
Such working arrangements shall be concluded in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 20.
The Centre shall respect the conditions on use of the information, which are communicated to the Centre, including conditions on access to documents, information and data security and protection of confidential data, including sensitive data and confidential business information.
The Centre shall submit the initial report to the Commission and the Member States within five weeks of making the requests for information referred to in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7.
Where the Centre collects information on several new psychoactive substances that it considers to be of similar chemical structure, it shall submit to the Commission and to the Member States individual initial reports, or combined initial reports dealing with several new psychoactive substances, provided that the characteristics of each new psychoactive substance are clearly identified, within six weeks of making the requests for information referred to in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7.
The European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) was established by Council Regulation (EC) No 2062/94 to contribute to the improvement of the working environment, as regards the protection of the safety and health of workers, through action designed to increase and disseminate knowledge in that area.
Since it was established in 1994, EU-OSHA has played an important role in supporting the improvement of safety and health at work throughout the Union.
At the same time, there have been developments in the area of occupational safety and health and technological developments.
The terminology used to describe the objectives and tasks of EU-OSHA should therefore be adapted to reflect those developments.
Regulation (EC) No 2062/94 has been amended several times.
The rules governing EU-OSHA should, to the extent possible and taking into account its tripartite nature, be established in accordance with the principles of the Joint Statement of the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on decentralised agencies of 19 July 2012.
As the three tripartite agencies, namely EU-OSHA, the European Foundation for the improvement of living and working conditions (Eurofound) and the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) address issues related to the labour market, the working environment, vocational education and training, and skills, close coordination among them is required.
In its work, EU-OSHA should therefore complement the work of Eurofound and Cedefop where they have similar fields of interest, while favouring tools that function well, such as memoranda of understanding.
EU-OSHA should exploit ways to enhance efficiency and synergies and, in its activities, avoid duplication with those of Eurofound and Cedefop and of the Commission.
In addition, where relevant, EU-OSHA should seek to cooperate efficiently with the in-house research capacities of the Union institutions and of external specialised bodies.
The Commission should consult the main stakeholders including members of the Management Board and members of the European Parliament during the evaluation of EU-OSHA.
The tripartite nature of EU-OSHA, Eurofound and Cedefop is a highly valuable expression of a comprehensive approach based on the social dialogue between the social partners and Union and national authorities, which is extremely important for the purpose of finding joint and sustainable social and economic solutions.
When referring to safety and health at work in this Regulation, it is understood that it refers to both physical and mental health.
In order to streamline the decision-making process of EU-OSHA and to contribute to enhancing efficiency and effectiveness, a two-level governance structure should be introduced.
To that end, the Member States, the national employers' and employees' organisations and the Commission should be represented on a Management Board vested with the necessary powers, including the power to adopt the budget and approve the programming document.
In the programming document, containing EU-OSHA's multiannual work programme and its annual work programme, the Management Board should lay down the strategic priorities of EU-OSHA's activities.
Moreover, the rules adopted by the Management Board for the prevention and management of conflicts of interests should include measures for detecting potential risks at an early stage.
In order for EU-OSHA to function properly, the Member States, the European employers' and employees' organisations and the Commission should ensure that persons to be appointed to the Management Board have appropriate knowledge in the field of safety and health at work with a view to making strategic decisions, and to overseeing EU-OSHA's activities.
The Executive Board should be set up with the task of preparing the meetings of the Management Board in an appropriate manner and supporting its decision-making and monitoring processes.
In assisting the Management Board, it should be possible for the Executive Board, where necessary, for reasons of urgency, to take certain provisional decisions on behalf of the Management Board.
The Management Board should adopt the rules of procedure of the Executive Board.
The Executive Director should be responsible for the overall management of EU-OSHA in accordance with the strategic direction set by the Management Board, including day-to-day administration as well as financial and human resources management.
The Executive Director should exercise the powers entrusted to him or her.
It should be possible to suspend those powers in exceptional circumstances, such as conflicts of interests or a serious failure to comply with obligations under the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘Staff Regulations’).
The principle of equality is a fundamental principle of Union law.
It requires that equality between women and men must be ensured in all areas, including employment, work and pay.
All parties should aim to achieve a balanced representation between women and men on the Management Board and the Executive Board.
That aim should also be pursued by the Management Board with regard to its Chairperson and Deputy Chairpersons taken together, as well as by the groups representing the governments and the employers' and employees' organisations on the Management Board with regard to the designation of alternates to attend the meetings of the Executive Board.
EU-OSHA operates a liaison office in Brussels.
The possibility of operating that office should be maintained.
There are already organisations in the Union and in the Member States which provide the same type of information and services as provided by EU-OSHA.
Despite the high level of risk posed by virtual currencies, as evidenced in the Commission’s report of 26 June 2017 on the assessment of the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing affecting the internal market and relating to cross-border activities, customs authorities do not have competence to monitor them.
Bearer-negotiable instruments enable the physical holder to claim a payment of a financial amount without being registered or mentioned by name.
They can be easily used to transfer considerable amounts of value and present salient similarities with currency in terms of liquidity, anonymity and risks for abuse.
Commodities used as highly-liquid stores of value present a high ratio between their value and their volume, for which an easily accessible international trading market exists, allowing them to be converted into currency while incurring only modest transaction costs.
Such commodities are mostly presented in a standardised way that allows for quick verification of their value.
Prepaid cards are non-nominal cards that store or provide access to a monetary value or funds which can be used for payment transactions, for acquiring goods or services or for redemption of currency.
They are not linked to a bank account.
Prepaid cards encompass anonymous prepaid cards as referred to in the Directive (EU) 2015/849.
They are widely used for a variety of legitimate purposes and some of those instruments also present a clear social interest.
Such prepaid cards are easily transferrable and can be used to transfer considerable value across the external borders.
It is therefore necessary to include prepaid cards in the definition of cash, in particular if they can be bought without customer due diligence procedures.
This will allow for the possibility to extend the controls to certain types of prepaid cards, taking into account the available technology, if justified by the evidence, provided that such controls are extended with due regard to proportionality and practical enforceability.
For the prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing, an obligation to declare cash should be imposed on natural persons entering or leaving the Union.
In order not to restrict free movement unduly or overburden citizens and authorities with administrative formalities, the obligation should be subject to a threshold of EUR 10000.
It should apply to carriers carrying such amounts on their person, in their luggage or in the means of transport in which they cross the external borders.
They should be required to make the cash available to the competent authorities for control and, if necessary, to present it to those authorities.
The definition of ‘carrier’ should be understood as excluding those carriers who undertake the professional conveyance of goods or people.
As regards movements of unaccompanied cash, for example cash entering or leaving the Union in postal packages, courier shipments, unaccompanied luggage or containerised cargo, the competent authorities should have the power to require the sender or the recipient, or a representative thereof, to make a disclosure declaration, systematically or on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with national procedures.
Such disclosure should cover a number of elements, which are not covered by the usual documentation submitted to customs, such as shipping documents and customs declarations.
Such elements are the origin, destination, economic provenance and intended use of the cash.
The obligation to disclose unaccompanied cash should be subject to a threshold identical to that for cash carried by carriers.
A number of standardised data elements regarding the movement of cash such as the personal details of the declarant, the owner or the recipient, the economic provenance and the intended use of the cash, should be recorded in order to achieve the objectives of this Regulation.
In particular, it is necessary that the declarant, the owner or the recipient provide their personal details as contained in their identification documents, in order to reduce to a minimum the risk of errors regarding their identities and the delays due to the possible subsequent need for verification.
As regards the obligation to declare accompanied cash and the obligation to disclose unaccompanied cash, competent authorities should be empowered to carry out all requisite controls on persons, their luggage, the means of transport used to cross the external borders and any unaccompanied consignment or receptacle crossing that border which may contain cash, or a means of transport carrying them.
In the event of failure to comply with those obligations, the competent authorities should compose an ex officio declaration for subsequent transmission of the relevant information to other authorities.
In order to ensure their uniform application by competent authorities, controls should be based primarily on a risk analysis, with the purpose of identifying and evaluating the risks and developing the necessary countermeasures.
The establishment of a common risk management framework should not prevent competent authorities from performing random checks or spontaneous controls whenever they deem necessary.
Where they detect amounts of cash below the threshold but there are indications that the cash might be linked to criminal activity as covered by this Regulation, the competent authorities should be able to record, in the case of accompanied cash, information about the carrier, the owner and, where available, the intended recipient of the cash, including full name, contact details, details concerning the nature and the amount or value of the cash, its economic provenance and intended use.
In the case of unaccompanied cash, competent authorities should be able to record information on the declarant, the owner, the sender, and the recipient or intended recipient of the cash, including full name, contact details, details concerning the nature and the amount or value of the cash, its economic provenance and intended use.
That information should be passed on to the FIU of the Member State in question, which should ensure that the FIU transmit any relevant information spontaneously or upon request to the FIUs of the other Member States.
Those units are designated as the hub elements in the fight against money-laundering and terrorist financing who receive and process information from various sources such as financial institutions and analyse that information in order to determine if there are grounds for further investigation that may not be apparent to the competent authorities who collect the declarations and perform controls under this Regulation.
To guarantee the effective flow of information, FIUs should all be connected to the Customs Information System (the ‘CIS’) established by Council Regulation (EC) No 515/97 and the data produced or exchanged by competent authorities and FIUs should be compatible and comparable.
Recognising the importance for the successful follow-up of this Regulation of having an effective exchange of information between the relevant authorities, including FIUs within the legal framework covering those entities, and the need to strengthen the cooperation between FIUs within the Union, the Commission should assess by 1 June 2019 the possibility of establishing a common mechanism to fight money laundering and terrorist financing.
The detection of sub-threshold amounts of cash in situations where there are indications of criminal activity is highly relevant in this context.
Consequently, it should also be possible to share information relating to sub-threshold amounts with the competent authorities in other Member States if there are indications of criminal activity.
Money laundering and the related financing of terrorism and organised crime remain significant problems at Union level, thus damaging the integrity, stability and reputation of the financial sector and threatening the internal market and the internal security of the Union.
In order to tackle those problems and to complement and reinforce the application of Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council, this Directive aims to combat money laundering by means of criminal law, enabling more efficient and swifter cross-border cooperation between competent authorities.
Measures adopted solely at national or even at Union level, without taking into account international coordination and cooperation, would have very limited effect.
The measures adopted by the Union to combat money laundering should therefore be compatible with, and at least as stringent as, other actions undertaken in international fora.
Union action should continue to take particular account of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Recommendations and instruments of other international organisations and bodies active in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing.
The relevant Union legal acts should, where appropriate, be further aligned with the International Standards on Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism and Proliferation adopted by the FATF in February 2012 (the ‘revised FATF Recommendations’).
As a signatory to the Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism, the Union should transpose the requirements of that Convention into its legal order.
Council Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA lays down requirements with regard to the criminalisation of money laundering.
However, that Framework Decision is not comprehensive enough and the current criminalisation of money laundering is not sufficiently coherent to effectively combat money laundering across the Union and results in enforcement gaps and in obstacles to cooperation between the competent authorities in different Member States.
The definition of criminal activities which constitute predicate offences for money laundering should be sufficiently uniform in all Member States.
Member States should ensure that all offences that are punishable by a term of imprisonment as set out in this Directive are considered predicate offences for money laundering.
Moreover, to the extent that the application of those penalty thresholds does not already do so, Member States should include a range of offences within each of the categories of offences listed in this Directive.
In that case, Member States should be able to decide how to delimit the range of offences within each category.
Where a category of offences, such as terrorism or environmental offences, includes offences set out in legal acts of the Union, this Directive should refer to those legal acts.
Member States should, however, consider any offence set out in those legal acts as constituting a predicate offence for money laundering.
Any kind of punishable involvement in the commission of a predicate offence as criminalised in accordance with national law should also be considered as a criminal activity for the purposes of this Directive.
In cases where Union law allows Member States to provide for sanctions other than criminal sanctions, this Directive should not require Member States to classify the offences in those cases as predicate offences for the purposes of this Directive.
The use of virtual currencies presents new risks and challenges from the perspective of combating money laundering.
Member States should ensure that those risks are addressed appropriately.
Due to the impact of money laundering offences committed by public office holders on the public sphere and on the integrity of public institutions, Member States should be able to consider including more severe penalties for public office holders in their national frameworks in accordance with their legal traditions.
Tax crimes relating to direct and indirect taxes should be covered by the definition of criminal activity, in line with the revised FATF Recommendations.
Given that different tax crimes in each Member State can constitute a criminal activity punishable by the sanctions referred to in this Directive, the definitions of tax crimes might diverge in national law.
The aim of this Directive, however, is not to harmonise the definitions of tax crimes in national law.
In criminal proceedings regarding money laundering, Member States should assist each other in the widest possible way and ensure that information is exchanged in an effective and timely manner in accordance with national law and the existing Union legal framework.
Differences between the definitions of predicate offences in national law should not hinder international cooperation in criminal proceedings regarding money laundering.
Cooperation with third countries should be intensified, in particular by encouraging and supporting the establishment of effective measures and mechanisms to combat money laundering and by ensuring better international cooperation in this field.
This Directive does not apply to money laundering involving property derived from criminal offences affecting the Union’s financial interests, which is subject to specific rules as laid down in Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
This is without prejudice to the possibility for Member States to transpose this Directive and Directive (EU) 2017/1371 by means of a single comprehensive framework at national level.
In accordance with Article 325(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the Member States are to take the same measures to counter fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union as they take to counter fraud affecting their own financial interests.
Member States should ensure that certain types of money laundering activities are also punishable when committed by the perpetrator of the criminal activity that generated the property (‘self-laundering’).
In such cases, where, the money laundering activity does not simply amount to the mere possession or use of property, but also involves the transfer, conversion, concealment or disguise of property and results in further damage than that already caused by the criminal activity, for instance by putting the property derived from criminal activity into circulation and, by doing so, concealing its unlawful origin, that money laundering activity should be punishable.
In order for criminal law measures to be effective against money laundering, a conviction should be possible without it being necessary to establish precisely which criminal activity generated the property, or for there to be a prior or simultaneous conviction for that criminal activity, while taking into account all relevant circumstances and evidence.
It should be possible for Member States, in line with their national legal systems, to ensure this by means other than legislation.
Prosecutions for money laundering should also not be impeded by the fact that the criminal activity was committed in another Member State or in a third country, subject to the conditions set out in this Directive.
This Directive aims to criminalise money laundering when it is committed intentionally and with the knowledge that the property was derived from criminal activity.
In that context, this Directive should not distinguish between situations where property has been derived directly from criminal activity and situations where it has been derived indirectly from criminal activity, in line with the broad definition of ‘proceeds’ as laid down in Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council.
In each case, when considering whether the property is derived from criminal activity and whether the person knew that, the specific circumstances of the case should be taken into account, such as the fact that the value of the property is disproportionate to the lawful income of the accused person and that the criminal activity and acquisition of property occurred within the same time frame.
Intention and knowledge can be inferred from objective, factual circumstances.
Waste management in the Union should be improved, with a view to protecting, preserving and improving the quality of the environment, protecting human health, ensuring prudent, efficient and rational utilisation of natural resources, promoting the principles of the circular economy, increasing energy efficiency and reducing the dependence of the Union on imported resources.
The targets laid down in Council Directive 1999/31/EC setting landfill restrictions should be strengthened to make them better reflect the Union’s ambition to move to a circular economy and make progress in the implementation of the Commission Communication of 4 November 2008 on ‘The raw materials initiative: meeting our critical needs for growth and jobs in Europe’ by gradually reducing to a minimum landfilling of waste destined for landfills for non-hazardous waste.
The Commission and Member States should ensure that such reduction fits into an integrated policy which ensures a sound application of the waste hierarchy, enhances a shift towards prevention including re-use, preparing for re-use and recycling, and prevents a shift from landfilling towards incineration.
In order to ensure greater coherence in Union waste law, the definitions set out in Directive 1999/31/EC should be aligned, where relevant, with those in Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.
The existing definition of ‘isolated settlement’ needs to be adapted as regards outermost regions, in order to take account of the specificities of such settlements, which raise materially different concerns from an environmental perspective as compared to other regions.
The scope of Directive 1999/31/EC should be aligned with that of Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and should continue to cover the deposit of waste from the extractive industries that are not covered by Directive 2006/21/EC.
Clear environmental, economic and social benefits would be derived from further restricting landfilling, starting with waste streams that are subject to separate collection, such as plastics, metals, glass, paper and bio-waste.
Technical, environmental or economical feasibility of recycling or other recovery of residual waste resulting from separately collected waste should be taken into account in the implementation of those landfill restrictions.
Biodegradable municipal waste accounts for a large proportion of municipal waste.
Landfilling of untreated biodegradable waste poses significant negative environmental effects in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and pollution of surface water, groundwater, soil and air.
Although Directive 1999/31/EC already sets landfill diversion targets for biodegradable waste, it is appropriate to put in place further restrictions on the landfilling of biodegradable waste by prohibiting the landfilling of biodegradable waste that has been separately collected for recycling in accordance with Directive 2008/98/EC.
In order to ensure proper application of the waste hierarchy, appropriate measures should be taken to apply, as of 2030, restrictions on landfilling to all waste that is suitable for recycling or other material or energy recovery.
Those restrictions should not apply where it can be demonstrated that waste is not suitable for recycling or other recovery and that landfilling would result in the best overall environmental outcome in accordance with the waste hierarchy laid down in Directive 2008/98/EC.
Many Member States have not yet completely developed the necessary waste management infrastructure.
The setting of landfill reduction targets will require major changes in waste management in many Member States and will facilitate further progress and investment in separate collection, sorting and recycling of waste and avoid locking recyclable materials at the lower level of the waste hierarchy.
A progressive reduction of landfilling is necessary to prevent detrimental impacts on human health and the environment and to ensure that economically valuable waste materials are gradually and effectively recovered through proper waste management and in line with the waste hierarchy as laid down in Directive 2008/98/EC.
That reduction should avoid the development of excessive capacity for the treatment of residual waste facilities, such as through energy recovery or low grade mechanical biological treatment of untreated municipal waste, as this could result in undermining the attainment of the Union’s long-term preparing for re-use and recycling targets for municipal waste as laid down in Directive 2008/98/EC.
Similarly, while to prevent detrimental impacts on human health and the environment Member States should take all necessary measures to ensure that only waste that has been subject to treatment is landfilled, compliance with that obligation should not lead to the creation of overcapacities for the treatment of residual municipal waste.
In addition, in order to ensure consistency between the targets laid down in Directive 2008/98/EC and the landfill reduction target set out in Directive 1999/31/EC, as amended by this Directive, and to ensure a coordinated planning of the infrastructures and investments needed to meet those targets, Member States which, according to data reported under the Joint Questionnaire of the OECD and Eurostat, landfilled more than 60 % of their municipal waste in 2013 should be allowed to decide to extend the time for complying with the landfill target established for 2035.
In order to ensure the reliability of data, it is important to lay down more precisely the rules according to which Member States should report municipal waste that has been landfilled.
Reporting should be based on the amount of municipal waste landfilled after treatment operations to prepare such waste for subsequent landfilling, such as the stabilisation of biodegradable municipal waste, and on the input into disposal incineration operations.
As for municipal waste that enters treatment operations prior to recycling and recovery of waste, such as sorting and mechanical treatment, the waste resulting from such operations that is ultimately landfilled should also be considered for the purposes of calculating the landfill target.
When implementing the obligation laid down in Directive 1999/31/EC to ensure treatment of waste before its landfilling, Member States should apply the most appropriate treatment, including the stabilisation of the organic fraction of waste, in order to reduce as far as possible the adverse effects of landfilling such waste on the environment and human health.
When assessing the appropriateness of a treatment, Member States should take into account measures already implemented to reduce those adverse effects, notably the separation of bio-waste and the separate collection of paper and cardboard.
In order to ensure better, more timely, and more uniform implementation of this Directive and anticipate any implementation weaknesses, a system of early warning reports should be established to detect shortcomings and allow taking action ahead of the deadlines for meeting the targets.
In order to help achieve the objectives of Directive 1999/31/EC, and to boost the transition to a circular economy, the Commission should promote the coordination and exchange of information and best practices among Member States and different sectors of the economy.
Reliable reporting of data concerning waste management is paramount to efficient implementation, to sound planning of waste treatment infrastructure, and to ensuring comparability of data among Member States.
In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of Directive 1999/31/EC, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission in respect of Articles 5a(4) and 15(5) and Articles 15b and 15c thereof as amended by this Directive.
Directive 1999/31/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.
With regard to this Directive, the legislator considers the transmission of such documents to be justified,
HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
Mercury is a very toxic substance which represents a global and major threat to human health, including in the form of methylmercury in fish and seafood resources, ecosystems and wildlife.
Due to the transboundary nature of mercury pollution, between 40 % and 80 % of total mercury deposition in the Union originates from outside the Union.
Action is therefore warranted at local, regional, national and international levels.
Most mercury emissions and associated exposure risks result from anthropogenic activities such as primary mercury mining and processing, the use of mercury in products and industrial processes, artisanal and small-scale gold mining and processing, coal combustion and the management of mercury waste.
The Seventh Environment Action Programme adopted by Decision No 1386/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council [3] establishes the long-term objective of a non-toxic environment and, for that purpose, stipulates that action is needed to ensure the minimisation of significant adverse effects of chemicals on human health and the environment by 2020.
The Communication of 28 January 2005 from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council entitled ‘Community Strategy Concerning Mercury’, as reviewed on 7 December 2010 (‘the Strategy’), aims at minimising and, where feasible, ultimately eliminating global anthropogenic mercury releases to air, water and land.
In the past 10 years, significant progress has been achieved in the Union in the field of mercury management following the adoption of the Strategy and of a wide range of measures concerning mercury emissions, supply, demand and use, and the management of mercury surplus and stocks.
The Strategy recommends that the negotiation and conclusion of an international legally-binding instrument on mercury should be a priority as Union action alone cannot guarantee effective protection of the citizens of the Union against the negative health effects of mercury.
The Union and 26 Member States have signed the Minamata Convention on Mercury of 2013 (‘the Convention’).
The two Member States that did not sign the Convention, Estonia and Portugal, have expressed their commitment to ratify it.
The Union and all its Member States are therefore committed to its conclusion, transposition and implementation.
Swift approval of the Convention by the Union and its ratification by Member States will encourage the major global mercury users and emitters, which are signatories of the Convention, to ratify and implement it.
This Regulation should complement the Union acquis and lay down the provisions that are needed to ensure the complete alignment of the Union acquis with the Convention so that the Union and its Member States are able to respectively approve or ratify and implement the Convention.
Further action undertaken by the Union, going beyond the Convention requirements, would lead the way, as was the case with Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council [4], for mercury-free products and processes.
In accordance with Article 193 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), this Regulation does not prevent Member States from maintaining or introducing more stringent protective measures, provided that such measures are compatible with the Treaties and the Commission has been notified thereof.
The mercury export ban laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008 should be complemented by restrictions on the import of mercury which vary depending on the source, the intended use and the place of origin of the mercury.
Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council [5] should continue to apply as regards imports of mercury waste, particularly as regards the powers of the competent authorities under that Regulation.
The provisions of this Regulation on the import of mercury and of mixtures of mercury are aimed at ensuring the fulfilment by the Union and the Member States of the obligations of the Convention concerning trade of mercury.
The export, import and manufacturing of a range of mercury-added products accounting for a significant share of the use within the Union and globally of mercury and mercury compounds should be prohibited.
This Regulation should apply without prejudice to the provisions of the applicable Union acquis that set stricter requirements for mercury-added products, including as regards maximum mercury content.
The use of mercury and mercury compounds in manufacturing processes should be phased out and, to that end, incentives should be provided for research into alternative substances with characteristics that are innocuous, or, in any event, less dangerous for the environment and for human health.
Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council [6] prohibits, as from 10 October 2017, the manufacture, placing on the market and use of the five phenylmercury compounds known to be used, especially as catalysts, in the production of polyurethane.
The use of other mercury-containing catalysts in polyurethane production should also be prohibited as from 1 January 2018.
The production of alcoholates involving the use of mercury as an electrode should be phased out and such manufacturing processes should be replaced by feasible mercury-free manufacturing processes as soon as possible.
In the absence of relevant available mercury-free manufacturing processes, operating conditions for the production of sodium or potassium methylate or ethylate involving the use of mercury should be laid down.
Measures should be taken to reduce the use of mercury so as to phase out its use in such production as soon as possible and in any event before 1 January 2028.
The manufacturing and placing on the market of new mercury-added products and the use of new manufacturing processes involving the use of mercury or mercury compounds would increase the use of mercury and of mercury compounds, and mercury emissions within the Union.
Such new activities should therefore be prohibited unless an assessment demonstrates that the new mercury-added product or new manufacturing process would provide significant environmental or health benefits and pose no significant risks either to the environment or to human health, and that no technically practicable mercury-free alternatives providing such benefits are available.
The use of mercury and mercury compounds in artisanal and small-scale gold mining and processing accounts for a significant share of mercury use and emissions worldwide with negative effects both for local communities and at a global level.
Such use of mercury and mercury compounds should therefore be prohibited under this Regulation and regulated at international level.
Without prejudice to the prohibition of such use and in addition to the implementation of effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties by Member States in respect of infringements of this Regulation, it is also appropriate to provide for a national plan in the event of there being more than isolated cases of non-compliance with that prohibition, in order to tackle the problem of artisanal and small-scale gold mining and processing in which mercury amalgamation is used to extract gold from ore.
The use of mercury in dental amalgam is the largest use of mercury in the Union and a significant source of pollution.
The use of dental amalgam should therefore be phased down in accordance with the Convention and with national plans based, in particular, upon the measures listed in Part II of Annex A to the Convention.
The Commission should assess and report on the feasibility of a phase out of the use of dental amalgam in the long term, and preferably by 2030, taking into account the national plans required by this Regulation and whilst fully respecting Member States' competence for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care.
Furthermore, particular preventive health protection measures should be taken for vulnerable members of the population, such as children and pregnant or breastfeeding women.
Only pre-dosed encapsulated dental amalgam should be allowed for use, and the use of amalgam separators in dental facilities in which dental amalgam is used or dental amalgam fillings or teeth containing such fillings are removed should be made mandatory, in order to protect dental practitioners and patients from mercury exposure and to ensure that the resulting waste is collected and disposed of in accordance with sound waste management and under no circumstances released into the environment.
In this respect, the use of mercury in bulk form by dental practitioners should be prohibited.
Amalgam capsules such as those described in European standards EN ISO 13897:2004 and EN ISO 24234:2015 are considered to be suitable for use by dental practitioners.
Furthermore, a minimum level of retention efficiency for amalgam separators should be set.
Compliance of amalgam separators should be based on relevant standards, such as European standard EN ISO 11143:2008.
Given the size of economic operators in the dentistry sector affected by the introduction of those requirements, it is appropriate to provide sufficient time to adapt to the new requirements.
The training of dentistry students and dental practitioners on the use of mercury-free alternatives, in particular for vulnerable members of the population such as children and pregnant or breastfeeding women, as well as the carrying out of oral health research and innovation in order to improve knowledge of existing materials and restoration techniques, and to develop new materials, can help in reducing the use of mercury.
Council Directive 91/477/EEC [3] established an accompanying measure for the internal market.
It created a balance between, on the one hand, the commitment to ensure a certain freedom of movement for some firearms and their essential components within the Union, and, on the other hand, the need to control that freedom using security guarantees suited to those products.
Certain aspects of Directive 91/477/EEC need to be further improved in a proportionate way, in order to address the misuse of firearms for criminal purposes, and considering recent terrorist acts.
In this context, the Commission called in its communication of 28 April 2015 on the European Agenda on Security, for the revision of that Directive and for a common approach on the deactivation of firearms to prevent their reactivation and use by criminals.
Once firearms are lawfully acquired and possessed in accordance with Directive 91/477/EEC, national provisions concerning the carrying of weapons, hunting or target shooting should apply.
For the purposes of Directive 91/477/EEC, the definition of a broker should cover any natural or legal person, including partnerships, and the term ‘supply’ should be deemed to include lending and leasing.
Since brokers provide services similar to those supplied by dealers, they should also be covered by Directive 91/477/EEC in respect of those obligations of dealers that are relevant to brokers' activities, to the extent that they are in a position to fulfil those obligations and in so far as these are not fulfilled by a dealer as regards the same underlying transaction.
The activities of a dealer include not only the manufacturing but also the modification or conversion of firearms, essential components and ammunition, such as the shortening of a complete firearm, leading to a change in their category or subcategory.
Purely private, non-commercial activities, such as hand-loading and reloading of ammunition from ammunition components for own use or modifications of firearms or essential components owned by the person concerned, such as changes to the stock or sight or maintenance to address wear and tear of essential components, should not be considered to be activities that only a dealer would be permitted to undertake.
In order to increase the traceability of all firearms and essential components and to facilitate their free movement, all firearms or their essential components should be marked with a clear, permanent and unique marking and registered in the data-filing systems of the Member States.
The records held in the data-filing systems should contain all information allowing a firearm to be linked to its owner and should record the name of the manufacturer or brand, the country or place of manufacture, the type, make, model, calibre and serial number of the firearm or any unique marking applied to the frame or receiver of the firearm.
Essential components other than the frame or receiver should be recorded in the data-filing systems under the record relating to the firearm to which they are to be fitted.
To prevent markings from being easily erased and to clarify which essential components the marking should be affixed to, common Union rules on marking should be introduced.
Those rules should apply only to firearms or essential components that are manufactured or imported into the Union on or after 14 September 2018, when they are placed on the market, while firearms and parts manufactured or imported into the Union before that date should remain covered by the marking and registration requirements under Directive 91/477/EEC that are applicable until that date.
In view of the dangerous nature and durability of firearms and essential components, in order to ensure that competent authorities are able to trace firearms and essential components for the purpose of administrative and criminal proceedings and taking into account national procedural law, it is necessary that records in the data-filing systems be retained for a period of 30 years after the destruction of the firearms or essential components concerned.
Access to those records and all related personal data should be restricted to competent authorities and should be permitted only up until 10 years after the destruction of the firearm or essential components concerned for the purpose of granting or withdrawing authorisations or for customs proceedings, including the possible imposition of administrative penalties, and up until 30 years after the destruction of the firearm or essential components concerned where that access is necessary for the enforcement of criminal law.
The efficient sharing of information between dealers and brokers, on the one hand, and national competent authorities, on the other, is important for the effective operation of the data-filing systems.
Dealers and brokers should therefore provide information without undue delay to the national competent authorities.
To facilitate that, national competent authorities should establish a means of electronic connection accessible to dealers and brokers, which can include submission of the information by email or directly through a database or other registry.
As regards Member States' obligation to have a monitoring system in place in order to ensure that the conditions for a firearms authorisation are met throughout its duration, Member States should decide whether or not the assessment is to involve a prior medical or psychological test.
Without prejudice to national laws addressing professional liability, the assessment of relevant medical or psychological information should not be presumed to assign any liability to the medical professional or other persons providing such information where firearms possessed in accordance with Directive 91/477/EEC are misused.
Firearms and ammunition should be stored in a secure manner when not immediately supervised.
If stored otherwise than in a safe, firearms and ammunition should be stored separately from each other.
When the firearm and ammunition are to be handed over to a carrier for transport, that carrier should be responsible for proper supervision and storage.
Criteria for proper storage and for safe transportation should be defined by national law, taking into account the number and category of the firearms and ammunition concerned.
Directive 91/477/EEC should not affect Member States' rules which allow lawful transactions involving firearms, essential components and ammunition to be arranged by means of mail order, the internet or distance contracts as defined in Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council [4], for example by way of online auction catalogues or classified advertisements, telephone or email.
However, it is essential that the identities of parties to such transactions and their lawful ability to enter into such transactions be capable of being checked and actually checked.
As regards purchasers, it is therefore appropriate to ensure that their identity and, where relevant, the fact of their authorisation to acquire a firearm, essential components or ammunition be checked by a licensed or authorised dealer or broker, or by a public authority or a representative of such authority, prior to, or at the latest upon, delivery.
For the most dangerous firearms, stricter rules should be introduced in Directive 91/477/EEC in order to ensure that those firearms are, with some limited and duly reasoned exceptions, not allowed to be acquired, possessed or traded.
Where those rules are not respected, Member States should take all appropriate measures, which might include the impounding of those firearms.
Member States should, however, have the possibility to authorise the acquisition and possession of firearms, essential components and ammunition classified in category A when necessary for educational, cultural, including film and theatre, research or historical purposes.
Authorised persons could include, inter alia, armourers, proof houses, manufacturers, certified experts, forensic scientists and, in certain cases, those involved in film or television recordings.
Member States should also be allowed to authorise individuals to acquire and possess firearms, essential components and ammunition classified in category A for national defence, such as in the context of voluntary military training provided under national law.
Member States should be able to choose to grant authorisations to recognised museums and collectors for the acquisition and possession of firearms, essential components and ammunition classified in category A when necessary for historical, cultural, scientific, technical, educational or heritage purposes, provided that such museums and collectors demonstrate, prior to being granted such an authorisation, that they have taken the necessary measures to address any risks to public security or public order, including by way of proper storage.
Any such authorisation should take into account and reflect the specific situation, including the nature of the collection and its purposes, and Member States should ensure that a system is in place for monitoring collectors and collections.
Dealers and brokers should not be prevented from handling firearms, essential components and ammunition classified in category A in cases where the acquisition and possession of such firearms, essential components and ammunition is exceptionally allowed, where their handling is necessary for the purposes of deactivation or conversion, or whenever otherwise permitted under Directive 91/477/EEC, as amended by this Directive.
Nor should dealers and brokers be prevented from handling such firearms, essential components and ammunition in cases not covered by Directive 91/477/EEC, as amended by this Directive, such as firearms, essential components and ammunition to be exported outside the Union or weapons to be acquired by the armed forces, the police or the public authorities.
Dealers and brokers should be able to refuse to complete any suspicious transaction for the acquisition of complete rounds of ammunition or live primer components of ammunition.
A transaction may be considered suspicious if, for example, it involves quantities uncommon for the envisaged private use, if the purchaser appears unfamiliar with the use of the ammunition or if the purchaser insists on paying in cash while being unwilling to provide proof of his or her identity.
Dealers and brokers should also be able to report such suspicious transactions to the competent authorities.
The risk of acoustic weapons and other types of blank-firing weapons being converted into real firearms is high.
It is therefore essential to address the problem of such converted firearms being used in the commission of criminal offences, in particular by including them within the scope of Directive 91/477/EEC.
Furthermore, to avoid the risk of alarm and signal weapons being manufactured in such a way that they are capable of being converted to expel a shot, bullet or projectile by the action of a combustible propellant, the Commission should adopt technical specifications in order to ensure that they cannot be so converted.
Taking into consideration the high risk of reactivating improperly deactivated firearms and in order to enhance security across the Union, such firearms should be covered by Directive 91/477/EEC.
A definition of deactivated firearms should be given that reflects the general principles of deactivation of firearms as provided for by the Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking of Firearms, their Parts and Components and Ammunition, attached to Council Decision 2014/164/EU [5], which transposes that Protocol into the Union legal framework.
Solidarity among Union citizens and among Member States is one of the universal values on which the Union is built.
This common value guides the Union's actions and provides it with the necessary unity for coping with current and future societal challenges, which young Europeans are willing to help address by expressing their solidarity in practice.
Solidarity also stimulates young people's interest in the common European project.
The principle of solidarity is enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and in the preamble of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
During the State of the Union address of 14 September 2016, it was emphasised that there is a need to invest in young people and it was announced that a European Solidarity Corps was to be established with a view to creating opportunities for young people across the Union to make a meaningful contribution to society, show solidarity and develop their skills, competences and knowledge, thus gaining an invaluable human experience, which is also key for the emergence of an active and engaged Union citizenship.
In its Communication of 7 December 2016 entitled ‘A European Solidarity Corps’, the Commission emphasised the need to strengthen the foundations for solidarity work across Europe, to provide young people with more and better opportunities for high-quality solidarity activities covering a broad range of areas, and to support national, regional and local actors, in their efforts to cope with different challenges and crises.
That Communication launched a first phase of the European Solidarity Corps whereby different Union programmes were mobilised to offer volunteering, traineeship or job opportunities to young people across the Union.
These activities, whether implemented before or after the entry into force of this Regulation, should continue to apply the rules and conditions set by the respective Union programmes that have financed them under the first phase of the European Solidarity Corps.
Within the context of this Regulation, solidarity may be understood as a sense of responsibility on the part of everyone with regard to everyone to commit oneself to the common good, which is expressed through concrete actions without consideration of return service.
Young people should be provided with easily accessible opportunities to engage in high-quality solidarity activities with a strong European dimension as a means to contribute to strengthening cohesion, solidarity, social inclusion and democracy in participating countries to the benefit of local communities, while improving their competences for their personal development, thus boosting their self-esteem, autonomy and motivation to learn, stimulating their educational, social, artistic, linguistic, cultural, civic and professional development, as well as facilitating their active citizenship, employability and transition into the labour market.
Those solidarity activities would also support the mobility of participants.
This Regulation establishes a programme for Union action called the European Solidarity Corps as a basis for effecting positive societal change by providing support to communities of individuals and entities committed to enhancing solidarity across Europe.
It thus provides for a spending instrument of Union action established with a view to applying from the date of entry into force of this Regulation on a continuous basis and also lays down the basis for the European Solidarity Corps as a community and as a source of inspiration for a stronger spirit of solidarity in Europe through the wider impact of activities carried out within the framework of the European Solidarity Corps.
The solidarity activities offered to young people should be of high quality, in the sense that they should contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the European Solidarity Corps and help overcome societal challenges, while addressing the needs of local communities.
Solidarity activities should offer young people the opportunity to acquire valuable competences for personal, social, civic and professional development, include a solid learning and training dimension, be accessible to all young people, be implemented in safe and healthy conditions and be properly validated.
Solidarity activities should not have a negative impact on existing jobs or traineeships and should contribute to reinforcing the corporate social responsibility commitments of companies, while not replacing them.
Any entity willing to participate in the European Solidarity Corps, whether funded from the European Solidarity Corps budget, by another Union programme or by a different funding source, should receive a quality label, provided that the specific requirements are fulfilled.
The requirement to receive a quality label should not apply to natural persons seeking financial support on behalf of an informal group of participants for their solidarity projects.
The quality label attributed to participating organisations should certify the ability of those organisations to ensure the quality of the solidarity activities offered by them.
The process for attributing a quality label should be carried out by the implementing bodies of the European Solidarity Corps in an accessible and transparent manner.
The attributed quality label should be reassessed periodically and it should be possible to revoke the quality label where, in the context of the reassessment, it is found that the conditions that led to its attribution are no longer fulfilled.
The European Solidarity Corps would provide a single entry point for solidarity activities throughout the Union.
Consistency and complementarity of the European Solidarity Corps should be ensured with other relevant Union policies, programmes and instruments.
The European Solidarity Corps should build on the strengths and synergies of existing and previous programmes, in particular the Erasmus+ and Youth in Action programmes.
It should also complement the efforts made by Member States to support young people and ease their school-to-work transition under schemes such as the Youth Guarantee established in line with the Council Recommendation of 22 April 2013 on establishing a Youth Guarantee by providing them with additional opportunities to take part in solidarity activities in the form of traineeships or jobs within their respective Member State or across borders.
Complementarity should also be ensured with existing Union-level networks pertinent to the activities under the European Solidarity Corps, such as the European Network of Public Employment Services, EURES and the Eurodesk network.
Furthermore, complementarity and loyal cooperation between the existing related schemes and the European Solidarity Corps should be fostered, in particular with solidarity, volunteering, civic service and mobility schemes for young people, operating at national, regional or local level, as well as with priorities related to solidarity and youth in the participating countries, as appropriate, to mutually enhance and enrich the impact and qualities of such schemes and build upon good practices.
The European Solidarity Corps should not substitute similar national solidarity, volunteering, civic service and mobility schemes.
Equal access for all young people to national solidarity activities should be ensured.
Partnerships with European networks which are specialised in certain urgent social problems should be encouraged.
In order to maximise the impact of the European Solidarity Corps, other Union programmes should be able to contribute to the objectives of the European Solidarity Corps by supporting activities within its scope.
This contribution should be financed in accordance with the respective legal acts of the programmes concerned with a view to securing greater involvement of young people, civil society and existing volunteering schemes in Member States.
Once they have obtained a valid quality label, the participating organisations should be given access to the European Solidarity Corps portal and receive the quality and support measures provided according to the type of solidarity activity offered.
The European Solidarity Corps should open up new opportunities for young people to undertake volunteering, traineeships or jobs as well as to devise and develop, on their own initiative, solidarity projects which present a clear European value.
Those opportunities should help address unmet societal needs and contribute to strengthening communities and enhancing the personal, educational, social, civic and professional development of young people.
The European Solidarity Corps should also support networking activities for participants and participating organisations as well as measures to ensure the quality of the supported activities and to enhance the validation of their learning outcomes.
It should also contribute to supporting and strengthening existing organisations that implement solidarity actions.
Volunteering constitutes a rich experience in a formal and non-formal learning context which enhances young people's personal, socio-educational and professional development, employability and active citizenship.
Volunteering should not substitute traineeships or jobs and should be based on a written volunteering agreement.
The Commission and the Member States will cooperate regarding volunteering policies in the youth field via the open method of coordination.
Traineeships and jobs should be clearly separate from volunteering, both from a financial and organisational point of view.
Traineeships should never lead to job substitution.
Paid traineeships and jobs, however, can represent an incentive for disadvantaged young people and young people with fewer opportunities to participate in solidarity-related activities that they might not otherwise be able to access.
Traineeships can ease the transition of young people from education to employment and can help foster the employability of young people, which is key to achieving their sustainable integration into the labour market.
Traineeships and jobs offered under the European Solidarity Corps should always be paid by the participating organisation hosting or employing the participant.
Traineeships should be based on a written traineeship agreement in accordance with the applicable regulatory framework of the country where the traineeship takes place, as appropriate, and should follow the principles outlined in the Council Recommendation of 10 March 2014 on a Quality Framework for Traineeships.
The European Foundation for the improvement of living and working conditions (Eurofound) was established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1365/75 to contribute to the planning and establishment of better living and working conditions through activities designed to increase and disseminate knowledge.
Eurofound should also take account of the medium- and long-term perspectives in that context.
Since it was established in 1975, Eurofound has played an important role in supporting the improvement of living and working conditions throughout the Union.
At the same time the concepts and significance of living and working conditions have evolved under the influence of societal developments and fundamental changes in the labour markets.
Eurofound provides Union institutions and bodies, Member States and the social partners with information that is specialised and that provides added value within Eurofound's area of expertise.
Eurofound should continue its production of surveys in order to secure the continuity of comparative analyses of trends in living and working conditions and of labour market developments in the Union.
It is also important that Eurofound works closely with related bodies at international, Union and national level.
Eurofound operates a liaison office in Brussels.
The financial provisions and provisions for programming and reporting relating to Eurofound should be updated.
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1271/2013 provides that Eurofound is to carry out ex-ante and ex-post evaluations of those programmes and activities that entail significant spending.
Those evaluations should be taken into account by Eurofound in its multiannual and annual programming.
In order to ensure its full autonomy and independence and to enable it properly to carry out its objectives and tasks in accordance with this Regulation, Eurofound should be granted an adequate and autonomous budget with revenue stemming mainly from a contribution from the general budget of the Union.
The Union budgetary procedure should be applicable to Eurofound as far as the Union contribution and any other subsidies chargeable to the general budget of the Union are concerned.
Eurofound's accounts should be audited by the Court of Auditors.
The translation services required for Eurofound's functioning should be provided by the Translation Centre of the Bodies of the European Union (Translation Centre).
Eurofound should work together with the Translation Centre to establish indicators for quality, timeliness and confidentiality, to identify clearly Eurofound's needs and priorities, and create transparent and objective procedures for the translation process.
Provisions concerning Eurofound's staff should be in line with the Staff Regulations and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the Union (Conditions of Employment of Other Servants), laid down by Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68.
Eurofound should take the necessary measures to ensure the safe handling and processing of confidential information.
Where required, Eurofound should adopt security rules equivalent to those set out in Commission Decisions (EU, Euratom) 2015/443 and (EU, Euratom) 2015/444.
It is necessary to lay down transitional budgetary provisions and transitional provisions with regard to the Management Board, Executive Director and staff to ensure the continuation of Eurofound's activities pending the implementation of this Regulation,
The mandatory exception provided for in this Directive should limit the right of reproduction so as to allow for any act that is necessary in order to make changes to or convert or adapt a work or other subject matter in such a way as to produce an accessible format copy that makes it possible for beneficiary persons to access that work or other subject matter.
This includes providing the necessary means to navigate information in an accessible format copy.
It also includes changes that might be required in cases in which the format of a work or of other subject matter is already accessible to certain beneficiary persons while it might not be accessible to other beneficiary persons, due to different impairments or disabilities, or the different degree of such impairments or disabilities.
The permitted uses laid down in this Directive should include the making of accessible format copies by either beneficiary persons or authorised entities serving their needs, whether those authorised entities be public or private organisations, in particular libraries, educational establishments and other non-profit organisations, that serve persons with a print disability as one of their primary activities, institutional obligations or as part of their public interest missions.
The uses laid down in this Directive should also include the making of accessible format copies, for the exclusive use of beneficiary persons, by a natural person who does so on behalf of a beneficiary person or who assists the beneficiary person making such copies.
Accessible format copies should only be made of works or other subject matter to which beneficiary persons or authorised entities have lawful access.
Member States should ensure that any contractual provision which seeks to prevent or limit the application of the exception in any way is void of legal effect.
The exception provided for in this Directive should allow authorised entities to make and disseminate, online and offline within the Union, accessible format copies of works or other subject matter covered by this Directive.
This Directive should not impose an obligation on authorised entities to make and disseminate such copies.
It should be possible for accessible format copies made in one Member State to be available in all Member States, in order to ensure their greater availability across the internal market.
This would reduce the demand for duplication of work in producing accessible format copies of one and the same work or other subject matter across the Union, thus generating savings and efficiency gains.
This Directive should therefore ensure that accessible format copies made by authorised entities in any Member State can be circulated and accessed by beneficiary persons and authorised entities throughout the Union.
In order to foster such cross-border exchange and to facilitate authorised entities' mutual identification and cooperation, the voluntary sharing of information regarding the names and contact details of authorised entities established in the Union, including websites if available, should be encouraged.
Member States should therefore provide the information received from authorised entities to the Commission.
This should not imply an obligation for Member States to check the completeness and accuracy of such information or its compliance with their national law transposing this Directive.
Such information should be made available online by the Commission on a central information access point at Union level.
This would also assist authorised entities, as well as beneficiary persons and rightholders in contacting authorised entities to receive further information, in line with the provisions set out in this Directive and in Regulation (EU) 2017/1563 of the European Parliament and of the Council [10].
The aforementioned central information access point should be complementary to the information access point to be established by the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), as provided for in the Marrakesh Treaty, aiming to facilitate the identification of, and cooperation among, authorised entities at international level.
Authorisation or recognition requirements that Member States may apply to authorised entities, such as those relating to the provision of services of a general nature to beneficiary persons, should not have the effect of preventing entities that are covered by the definition of authorised entity under this Directive from undertaking the uses allowed under this Directive.
In view of the specific nature of the exception provided for under this Directive, its specific scope and the need for legal certainty for its beneficiaries, Member States should not be allowed to impose additional requirements for the application of the exception, such as the prior verification of the commercial availability of works in accessible formats, other than those laid down in this Directive.
Member States should only be allowed to provide for compensation schemes regarding the permitted uses of works or other subject matter by authorised entities.
In order to avoid burdens for beneficiary persons, prevent barriers to the cross-border dissemination of accessible format copies and excessive requirements on authorised entities, it is important that the possibility for Member States to provide for such compensation schemes be limited.
Consequently, compensation schemes should not require payments by beneficiary persons.
They should only apply to uses by authorised entities established in the territory of the Member State providing for such a scheme, and they should not require payments by authorised entities established in other Member States or third countries that are parties to the Marrakesh Treaty.
Member States should ensure that there are not more burdensome requirements for the cross-border exchange of accessible format copies under such compensation schemes than for non-cross border situations, including with regard to the form and possible level of compensation.
When determining the level of compensation, due account should be taken of the non-profit nature of the activities of authorised entities, of the public interest objectives pursued by this Directive, of the interests of beneficiaries of the exception, of the possible harm to rightholders and of the need to ensure cross-border dissemination of accessible format copies.
Account should also be taken of the particular circumstances of each case, resulting from the making of a particular accessible format copy.
Where the harm to a rightholder is minimal, no obligation for payment of compensation should arise.
The UNCRPD, to which the Union is a party, guarantees persons with disabilities the right of access to information and education and the right to participate in cultural, economic and social life, on an equal basis with others.
With the adoption of this Directive, the Union aims to ensure that beneficiary persons have access to books and other printed material in accessible formats across the internal market.
Accordingly, this Directive is an essential first step in improving access to works for persons with disabilities.
The Commission should assess the situation regarding the availability in accessible formats of works and other subject matter other than those covered by this Directive, as well as the availability of works and other subject matter in accessible formats for persons with other disabilities.
It is important that the Commission review the situation in that regard closely.
Changes to the scope of this Directive could be considered, if necessary, on the basis of a report presented by the Commission.
Member States should be allowed to continue to provide for an exception or limitation for the benefit of persons with a disability in cases which are not covered by this Directive, in particular as regards works and other subject matter and disabilities other than those covered by this Directive, pursuant to point (b) of Article 5(3) of Directive 2001/29/EC.
This Directive does not prevent Member States from providing for exceptions or limitations to rights that are not harmonised in the copyright framework of the Union.
This Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter and the UNCRPD.
This Directive should be interpreted and applied in accordance with those rights and principles.
The Marrakesh Treaty imposes certain obligations regarding the exchange of accessible format copies between the Union and third countries that are parties to that Treaty.
The measures taken by the Union to fulfil those obligations are contained in Regulation (EU) 2017/1563 which should be read in conjunction with this Directive.
Since the objective of this Directive, namely to improve access in the Union to works and other subject matter protected by copyright and related rights for persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print-disabled, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather, by reason of its scale and effects, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union.
points (e) and (f) are deleted;
paragraph 4 is amended as follows:
in point (a), the third indent is replaced by the following:
they fully comply with the requirements of the Code of Safety for Dynamically Supported Craft (DSC Code) in IMO Resolution A.373(10), in its up-to-date version;’;
point (c) is replaced by the following:
the construction and maintenance of high-speed passenger craft and their equipment shall comply with the rules for the classification of high-speed craft of a recognised organisation, or equivalent rules used by an Administration in accordance with Article 11(2) of Directive 2009/15/EC.’;
With regard to new and existing ships repairs, alterations and modifications of a major character and outfitting related thereto shall comply with the requirements for new ships set out in point (a) of paragraph 2; alterations made to a ship which are intended solely to achieve a higher survivability standard shall not be regarded as modifications of a major character.
Ships built in an equivalent material before 20 December 2017 shall comply with requirements of this Directive by 22 December 2025.
By way of derogation from this Directive, a Member State with more than 60 passenger ships built in aluminium alloy flying its flag on 20 December 2017 may exempt from the provisions of this Directive the following passenger ships for the following periods:
Class B, C and D passenger ships built in aluminium alloy after 20 December 2017, for a period of 10 years after that date; and
provided that those ships operate exclusively between ports of that Member State.
Any Member State wishing to avail itself of this derogation shall notify the Commission of its intention to do so by 21 December 2019 as well as inform the Commission of the content.
They shall also communicate to the Commission any subsequent change.
The Commission shall inform the other Member States in accordance with Article 9(4).’;
Ro-ro passenger ships of Class C, the keels of which were laid or which were at a similar stage of construction on or after 1 October 2004, and all ro-ro passenger ships of Classes A and B shall comply with Articles 6, 8 and 9 of Directive 2003/25/EC.’;
paragraph 2 is deleted;
in paragraph 3, the second subparagraph is deleted;
A Member State may, subject to the procedure laid down in paragraph 4, adopt measures allowing equivalents for certain specific requirements of this Directive, provided that such equivalents are at least as effective as such requirements.’;
A Member State which avails itself of the rights accorded by paragraph 1, 2 or 3 shall proceed in accordance with the second to seventh subparagraphs of this paragraph.
The Member State shall notify the Commission of the measures which it intends to adopt, and shall include, with such notification, sufficient particulars to confirm that the level of safety is adequately maintained.
If, within a period of six months from the notification, the Commission adopts implementing acts containing its decision that the proposed measures are not justified, the said Member State shall be required to amend or not to adopt the proposed measures.
The adopted measures shall be specified in the relevant national legislation and communicated to the Commission and to the other Member States.
Any such measures shall be applied to all passenger ships of the same Class or to craft when operating under the same specified conditions, without discriminating with regard to their flag or to the nationality or place of establishment of their operator.
The measures referred to in paragraph 3 shall apply only for as long as the ship or craft operates under the specified conditions.
Member States shall notify the measures referred to in the second and fourth subparagraph to the Commission by means of a database which the Commission shall establish and maintain for such purpose, and to which the Commission and Member States shall have access.
The Commission shall make the adopted measures available on a publicly accessible website.’;
in paragraph 5, point (c) is replaced by the following:
the Commission shall adopt implementing acts containing its decision whether or not the decision of the Member State to suspend the operation of such ship or craft or to impose the additional measures is justified for reasons of serious danger to safety of life or property, or to the environment, and, if the suspension or the imposition of the additional measures is not justified, containing its decision requiring the Member State concerned to withdraw the suspension or the measures.
the specific references to the “International Conventions” and IMO resolutions referred to in points (g), (m), (q), and (zb) of Article 2, point (a) of Article 3(2), point (b) of Article 6(1) and point (b) of Article 6(2).’;
in paragraph 2,
adjust the technical specifications found in the amendments made to International Conventions for ships of classes B, C and D and craft, in the light of experience;’;
simplify and clarify technical elements, in the light of experience gained from their implementation;
update the references to other Union instruments applicable to domestic passenger ships.’;
paragraphs 3 and 4 are replaced by the following:
The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 10a in order to adopt the amendments to this Directive referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article.
In exceptional circumstances, where duly justified by an appropriate analysis by the Commission and in order to avoid a serious and unacceptable threat to maritime safety, to health, to shipboard living or working conditions or to the marine environment, or to avoid incompatibility with Union maritime legislation, the Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 10a, amending this Directive in order not to apply, for the purpose of this Directive, an amendment to the international instruments referred to in Article 2.
Those delegated acts shall be adopted at least three months before the expiration of the period established internationally for the tacit acceptance of the amendment concerned or the envisaged date for the entry into force of said amendment.
In the period preceding the entry into force of such delegated act, Member States shall refrain from any initiative intended to integrate the amendment in national legislation or to apply the amendment to the international instrument concerned.’;
Since the Europass CV was first established in 2004, more than 100 million Europass CVs have been created online.
Two qualification supplement templates, namely the Europass Diploma Supplement and the Europass Certificate Supplement, offer information on the content and learning outcomes associated with a qualification and on the education system of the country issuing the qualification.
The Europass Language Passport is used to describe language skills.
The Europass Mobility template describes the skills acquired abroad on mobility experiences for learning or work.
The Council Recommendation of 22 May 2017 provides a common reference framework to help individuals and organisations compare different qualification systems and the levels of qualifications from those systems.
The Council Recommendation of 20 December 2012 invited Member States to have in place, by 2018, in accordance with national circumstances and specificities, and as they deem appropriate, arrangements for the validation of non-formal and informal learning, which enable individuals to have their knowledge, skills and competences, which have been acquired through non-formal and informal learning, validated, and to obtain a full qualification, or, where applicable, partial qualification.
The Council Resolution of 28 May 2004 on strengthening policies, systems and practices in the field of guidance throughout life sets out the key objectives of a lifelong guidance policy for all citizens of the Union.
The Council Resolution of 21 November 2008 highlights the importance of guidance for lifelong learning.
The Learning Opportunities and Qualifications in Europe portal gives access to information on learning opportunities and qualifications offered in different education systems in Europe and on the comparison of national qualifications frameworks using the EQF.
The EU Skills Panorama provides information on skills for different occupations and specific industries, including demand and supply at national level.
The analysis of job vacancies and of other labour market trends is an established way of developing skills intelligence to understand the issues of skills gaps and shortages as well as qualification mismatches.
The multilingual European Skills, Competences, Qualifications and Occupations classification (‘ESCO’), developed and continuously updated by the Commission, in close cooperation with Member States and stakeholders, aims to promote the transparency of skills and qualifications for education and training, as well as for work-related purposes.
Following appropriate testing, and having due regard for the position of Member States, ESCO could be used by the Commission within the Europass framework; the use of ESCO by Member States is on a voluntary basis, following testing with, and evaluation by, the Member States.
The European network of employment services (‘EURES’), established by Regulation (EU) 2016/589 of the European Parliament and of the Council, is a cooperative network for exchanging information and facilitating interaction between jobseekers and employers.
It provides free assistance to jobseekers who wish to move to another country and assists employers who wish to recruit workers from other countries.
Synergies and cooperation between the Europass and EURES portals could reinforce the impact of both services.
Labour market processes such as the publication of job vacancies, job applications, skills assessments and recruitment are increasingly managed online through tools that use social media, big data and other technologies.
Candidate selection is managed through tools and processes that seek information on skills and qualifications acquired in formal, non-formal and informal settings.
Formal, non-formal and informal learning currently also takes place in new forms and settings, and is offered by a variety of providers, particularly through the use of digital technologies and platforms, distance learning, e-learning, peer-to-peer learning, massive open online courses and open educational resources.
Furthermore, skills, experiences and learning achievements are acknowledged in different forms, for example digital open badges.
Digital technologies are also used for skills obtained through non-formal learning such as youth work and volunteering.
For the purposes of this Decision, skills are understood in a broad sense covering what a person knows, understands and can do.
Skills refer to different types of learning outcomes, including knowledge and competences as well as ability to apply knowledge and to use knowhow in order to complete tasks and solve problems.
In addition to the acknowledged importance of professional skills, there is an acknowledgement that transversal or soft skills, such as critical thinking, team work, problem solving and creativity, digital or language skills, are increasingly important and are essential prerequisites for personal and professional fulfilment and can be applied in different fields.
Individuals could benefit from tools and guidance on assessing and describing those and other skills.
Traditionally, individuals have presented information on their acquired skills and qualifications in a CV and in supporting documents such as certificates or diplomas.
Now, new tools are available which can facilitate the presentation of skills and qualifications by using varied online and digital formats.
The new tools can also support self-assessment by individuals of skills acquired in different settings.
The Europass framework should respond to current and future needs.
Users need tools to document their skills and qualifications.
In addition, tools for assessment of skills and self-assessment of skills, as well as access to relevant information, including information on validation opportunities and guidance, can be beneficial for making decisions on employment and learning opportunities.
Union tools for skills and qualifications should adapt to changing practices and advances in technology in order to ensure they remain relevant and beneficial to users.
This should be achieved by, among other things, creating innovative features, such as interactive tools, editing and design of documents, by seeking to ensure more comprehensive, effective and efficient tools and simplification, as well as increased technical interoperability and synergies between related tools, including those developed by third parties, and by taking into account the specific needs of people with disabilities.
In addition, authentication measures could be used to support the verification of digital documents on skills and qualifications.
The Europass framework established by Decision No 2241/2004/EC should therefore be replaced by a new framework to address evolving needs.
The new Europass framework should meet the needs and expectations of all individual end-users, such as learners, job seekers, including unemployed persons and workers, as well as of other relevant stakeholders, such as employers (in particular small and medium-sized enterprises), chambers of commerce, civil society organisations, volunteers, guidance practitioners, public employment services, social partners, education and training providers, youth organisations, youth work providers, responsible national authorities and policy makers.
It should also consider the needs of third country nationals arriving or residing in the Union to support their integration.
The Europass framework should evolve in order to allow for the description of different types of learning and skills and, in particular, those acquired through non-formal and informal learning.
The Europass framework should be developed through a user-centric approach based on feedback, and through requirements gathering, including through surveys and testing, with attention paid to the particular current and future needs of Europass target groups.
Europass' features should in particular reflect the Member States' and the Union's commitment to ensure that persons with disabilities have equal access to the labour market and to information and communication technologies and systems.
Europass tools should be perceivable, operable, understandable and robust, thereby enabling them to be more accessible to users, in particular to persons with disabilities.
Updates and changes to the Europass framework should be made in cooperation with relevant stakeholders, such as employment services, guidance practitioners, education and training providers, the social partners such as trade unions and employers' associations, and in full respect of ongoing political cooperation, such as the Bologna Process in the European Higher Education Area.
Constructive collaboration between the Commission, Member States and stakeholders is of paramount importance to the successful development and implementation of the Europass framework.
Relevant Union law on personal data protection and national implementing measures should apply to the processing of personal data that are stored and processed pursuant to this Decision.
Users should have the possibility to restrict access to their personal data.
Participation in the framework should be open to members of the European Economic Area which are not Member States of the Union, acceding States, candidate States and potential candidate States for accession to the Union, given their long-standing interest and cooperation with the Union in this field.
Participation should be in accordance with the relevant provisions of the instruments governing relations between the Union and those countries.
Information on skills and qualifications provided through the Europass framework should come from a wider range of countries and education systems than those of participating countries and reflect migration movements from and to other parts of the world.
The Commission should ensure the coherent implementation and monitoring of this Decision through a Europass advisory group composed of representatives of the Member States and relevant stakeholders.
The advisory group should, in particular, develop a strategic approach to the implementation and future development of Europass, and advise on the development of web-based tools, including through testing, and on information provided through the Europass online platform, in cooperation with other groups, where relevant.
Co-funding for the implementation of this Decision is provided, inter alia, by the Union programme Erasmus+, as established by Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
The committee created under that Regulation is involved in strategic discussions on the progress of Europass implementation, and on future developments.
Since the objective of this Decision, namely the establishment of a comprehensive and interoperable framework of tools and information, in particular for transnational employment and learning mobility purposes, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather, by reason of the effects of the action, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union.
As a general principle, the obligations and administrative and financial burdens on the Member States should be balanced with regard to costs and benefits.
The activities carried out in the context of this Decision should be supported by the expertise of the Union agencies, in particular by the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training, within their domains of competence.
Decision No 2241/2004/EC should therefore be repealed, without prejudice to the validity or status of previously issued Europass documents.
All established Europass document templates should be maintained within the new framework until such time as necessary changes or updates are made in accordance with this Decision.
In order to ensure a smooth transition to the Europass online platform, the Europass internet-based information system established by Decision No 2241/2004/EC should continue to operate until the Europass online platform is set up and becomes operational,
HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION: