Avis juridique important

|

31985D0613

85/613/EEC: Council Decision of 20 December 1985 concerning the adoption, on behalf of the Community, of programmes and measures relating to mercury and cadmium discharges under the convention for the prevention of marine pollution from land-based sources

Official Journal L 375 , 31/12/1985 P. 0020 - 0044 Finnish special edition: Chapter 15 Volume 7 P. 0088  Spanish special edition: Chapter 15 Volume 6 P. 0135  Swedish special edition: Chapter 15 Volume 7 P. 0088  Portuguese special edition Chapter 15 Volume 6 P. 0135

COUNCIL  DECISION of 20 December 1985 concerning the adoption, on behalf of the Community, of programmes and  measures relating to mercury and cadmium discharges under the convention for the prevention of  marine pollution from land-based sources (85/613/EEC)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article  235 thereof, Having regard to the recommendation from the Commission(1), Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament(2), Whereas on 3 March 1975 the Community approved the Convention for the prevention of marine  pollution from land-based sources(3); Whereas the Community has also become a Contracting Party to that Convention; Whereas the Paris Commission, which administers the Convention, has negotiated programmes and  measures concerning mercury and cadmium discharges and the Community has been requested to approve  them in writing by 31 December 1985; Whereas the provisions of these programmes and measures are in line with those of the Community  Directives on the subject, namely Directives 76/464/EEC(4), 83/513/ EEC(5), and 84/156/EEC(6); Whereas it is therefore desirable that the Community approve the said programmes and measures; Whereas the Treaty has not provided the necessary powers to this end, other than those of Article  235, HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS: Sole Article 1.  The Council hereby approves on behalf of the Community the programmes and measures relating to  mercury and cadmium discharges within the framework of the Convention for the prevention of marine  pollution from land-based sources. The texts of the said programmes and measures are attached to this Decision. 2.  The President of the Council is hereby authorized to appoint the person or persons empowered to  notify this approval to the Paris Commission before 31 December 1985. Done at Brussels, 20 December 1985. For the CouncilThe PresidentR. KRIEPS (1)OJ N° C 286, 9. 11. 1985, p. 4.  (2)OJ N° C 352, 31. 12. 1985.  (3)OJ N° L 194, 25. 7. 1975, p. 5.  (4)OJ N° L 129, 18. 5. 1976, p. 23.  (5)OJ N° L 291, 24. 10. 1983, p. 1.  (6)OJ N° L 74, 17. 3. 1984, p. 49.   ANNEXE DÉCISION PARCOM 85/1 PROGRAMMES ET MESURES du 5 juin 1985 concernant les valeurs  limites et les objectifs de qualité pour les rejets de mercure des secteurs autres que celui de  l'électrolyse des chlorures alcalins LA COMMISSION CRÉÉE PAR LA CONVENTION POUR LA  PRÉVENTION DE LA POLLUTION MARINE D'ORIGINE TELLURIQUE, SIGNÉE À PARIS LE 4 JUIN 1974, eu égard aux dispositions de la convention, et notamment son article 18 paragraphe 3, A ARRÊTÉ LES PROGRAMMES ET MESURES CI-APRÈS : Article premier 1.  Tout rejet de mercure de secteurs industriels autres que celui de  l'électrolyse des chlorures alcalins, dans la zone maritime définie à l'article 3a de la convention  ou dans des cours d'eau qui affectent la zone maritime, fait l'objet d'une autorisation préalable  délivrée par l'autorité compétente de la partie contractante concernée. De telles autorisations  spécifient des normes d'émission pour le rejet et sont revues périodiquement. 2.  Les normes d'émission ne doivent pas dépasser les valeurs limites décrites au paragraphe 3  ci-après, sauf dans les cas où une partie contractante applique des objectifs de qualité  conformément aux annexes II et IV. 3.  Les valeurs limites, les délais fixés pour le respect de ces valeurs et la procédure de  surveillance et de contrôle à appliquer aux rejets figurent à l'annexe I. Les valeurs limites  s'appliquent normalement au point où les eaux usées contenant du mercure sortent de l'établissement  industriel. Si les eaux usées contenant du mercure sont traitées hors de l'établissement industriel dans une  installation de traitement destinée à éliminer le mercure, la partie contractante concernée peut  permettre que les valeurs limites soient appliquées au point où les eaux usées sortent de  l'installation de traitement. 4.  Sans préjudice de leurs obligations résultant des paragraphes 1, 2 et 3 ainsi que des  dispositions de la convention, les parties contractantes ne peuvent accorder d'autorisations pour  les établissements nouveaux que si ces établissements appliquent les normes correspondant aux  meilleurs moyens techniques disponibles lorsque cela est nécessaire afin de prévenir et d'éliminer  la pollution. Quelle que soit la méthode qu'elle adopte, la partie contractante, dans le cas où, pour des raisons  techniques, les mesures envisagées ne correspondent pas aux meilleurs moyens techniques  disponibles, informe la commission préalablement à toute autorisation des justifications de ces raisons. Lors de sa réunion suivante, la commission examine l'information présentée. 5.  Aux fins des présents programmes et mesures, on entend par « établissement nouveau » : -tout établissement industriel mis en service après la date d'adoption des présents programmes et  mesures, -tout établissement industriel existant dont la capacité de traitement du mercure a été augmentée  considérablement après la date d'adoption des présents programmes et mesures. 6.  La méthode d'analyse de référence à utiliser pour déterminer la présence de mercure figure à  l'annexe III point 1. D'autres méthodes peuvent être utilisées à condition que les limites de  détection, la précision et l'exactitude de ces méthodes soient au moins aussi valables que celles  qui figurent à l'annexe III point 1. L'exactitude requise pour la mesure du débit des effluents  figure à l'annexe III point 2. Article 2 1.  Les parties contractantes établissent des programmes spécifiques pour les rejets de  mercure effectués par des sources multiples qui ne sont pas des établissements industriels et pour  lesquelles les normes d'émission mentionnées à l'article 1er ne peuvent pas être appliquées dans la  pratique. 2.  L'objectif de ces programmes spécifiques est d'éviter ou d'éliminer la pollution. Ils  comportent notamment les mesures et les techniques les plus appropriées en vue d'assurer la  substitution, la rétention et le recyclage du mercure. 3.  Les programmes spécifiques sont d'application aussitôt que possible, et en tout cas au plus  tard le 1er juillet 1989, et sont communiqués à la commission. Article 3 Les parties contractantes concernées assurent la sur- veillance, dans la zone couverte par la convention, du milieu aquatique affecté par les rejets.  Dans le cas de rejets affectant les eaux de plusieurs parties contractantes, les parties  contractantes concernées collaborent en vue d'harmoniser les procédures de surveillance. Article 4 1.  À des intervalles de quatre ans, la commission procède à une évaluation comparative  de l'application des présents programmes et mesures par les parties contractantes sur la base des  informations que celles-ci présentent à la com- mission conformément à l'article 17 de la convention, en particulier en ce qui concerne : -les détails relatifs aux autorisations fixant les normes d'émission pour les rejets de mercure, -les résultats de l'information rassemblée ou des inventaires établis, relatifs aux rejets de  mercure effectués dans la zone maritime et dans les cours d'eau qui affectent la zone maritime,  visés à l'article 1er para- graphe 1, -l'information figurant à l'annexe IV point 2 pour les parties contractantes qui appliquent des  objectifs de qualité, -les résultats du contrôle et de la surveillance continus du milieu aquatique conformément à  l'article 3. Où cela s'applique, ces résultats devraient être soumis dans le cadre du programme conjoint de contrôle et de sur- veillance continus. 2.  En cas de modification des connaissances scientifiques relatives principalement à la toxicité,  à la persistance et à l'accumulation du mercure dans les organismes vivants et dans les sédiments,  ou en cas d'amélioration des meilleurs moyens techniques disponibles, des propositions appropriées  sont examinées par la commission visant à renforcer, si nécessaire, les valeurs limites et les  objectifs de qualité, ou à adopter des valeurs limites supplémentaires et des objectifs de qualité  supplémentaires. Article 5 1.  Les parties contractantes mettent en oeuvre les présents programmes et mesures à  compter du 1er janvier 1986. 2.  Les parties contractantes informent la commission des dispositions de droit interne prises en  application des présents programmes et mesures.  No L 375/ 30. 12. 85 00ANNEXE I Valeurs limites, délais fixés pour le respect de ces valeurs et procédure de  surveillance et de contrôle à appliquer aux rejets 1.Pour les secteurs industriels  concernés, les valeurs limites et les délais d'application sont regroupés dans le tableau ci-après  : >TABLE>002.Les valeurs limites exprimées en termes de concentration  qui, en principe, ne doivent pas être dépassées figurent dans le tableau ci-avant pour les secteurs  industriels 1 à 4. Dans aucun cas, les valeurs limites exprimées en concentrations maximales ne  peuvent être supérieures à celles exprimées en quantités maximales divisées par les besoins en eau  par kilogramme de mercure traité ou par tonne de capacité de production de chlorure de vinyle  installée. Toutefois, étant donné que la concentration de mercure dans les effluents dépend du volume d'eau  impliqué, qui diffère selon les différents procédés et établissements, les valeurs limites,  exprimées en termes de quantité de mercure rejeté par rapport à la quantité de mercure traité ou à  la capacité de production de chlorure de vinyle installée, figurant dans le tableau ci-avant,  doivent être respectées dans tous les cas. 3.Les valeurs limites des moyennes journalières sont égales au double des valeurs  limites des moyennes mensuelles correspondantes figurant au tableau. 4.Pour vérifier si les rejets satisfont aux normes d'émission fixées conformément  aux valeurs limites définies dans la présente annexe, une procédure de contrôle doit être  instituée. Cette procédure doit prévoir le prélèvement et l'analyse d'échantillons, la mesure du débit des  rejets et, le cas échéant, de la quantité du mercure traité. Si la quantité de mercure traité est impossible à déterminer, la procédure de contrôle peut se  fonder sur la quantité de mercure qui peut être utilisée en fonction de la capacité de production  sur laquelle se fonde l'autorisation. 5.Un échantillon représentatif du rejet pendant une période de vingt-quatre  heures est prélevé. La quantité de mercure rejeté au cours d'un mois est calculée sur la base des  quantités quotidiennes de mercure rejeté. Toutefois, une procédure de contrôle simplifiée peut être instaurée pour les établissements  industriels qui ne rejettent pas plus de 7,5 kg de mercure par an. N°tes Les valeurs limites indiquées dans le tableau correspondent à une concentration moyenne mensuelle  ou à une charge mensuelle maximale. Les quantités de mercure rejetées sont exprimées en quantité de mercure traitée par l'établissement  industriel pendant la même période ou en fonction de la capacité de production de chlorure de  vinyle installée.  ANNEXE II Objectifs de qualité Pour celles des parties contractantes qui appliquent la  stratégie des objectifs de qualité, les normes d'émission sont fixées de manière à ce que le (ou  les) objectif(s) de qualité approprié(s) parmi ceux énumérés ci-après soi(ent) respecté(s) dans la  région affectée par les rejets de mercure. L'autorité compétente désigne la région affectée dans  chaque cas et sélectionne, parmi les objectifs de qualité figurant au point 1 ci-après, celui ou  ceux qu'elle juge appropriés, eu égard à la destination de la région affectée, en tenant compte du  fait que l'objectif des présents programmes et mesures est de prévenir et d'éliminer toute  pollution. 1.Dans le but de prévenir et d'éliminer la pollution telle que définie dans l'article 1er  de la convention et en application de l'article 4 de ladite convention, les objectifs de qualité  ci-après sont fixés. 1.1.La concentration de mercure dans un échantillon représentatif de la chair de  poisson choisie comme indicateur ne doit pas excéder 0,3 mg/kg de chair humide. 1.2.La concentration de mercure en solution dans les eaux des estuaires, jusqu'à  la limite des eaux douces, affectées par les rejets ne doit pas excéder 0,5 ìg/l en tant que  moyenne arithmétique des résultats obtenus au cours d'une année. 1.3.La concentration de mercure en solution dans les eaux suivantes(1) ne doit  pas excéder 0,3 ìg/l en tant que moyenne arithmétique des résultats obtenus au cours d'une année : i)eaux de mer territoriales ; ii)les eaux, non estuariennes, en deçà de la ligne de base servant à mesurer la largeur de la mer  territoriale et s'étendant dans le cas des cours d'eau jusqu'à la limite des eaux douces. 2.La concentration de mercure dans les sédiments ou mollusques et crustacés ne  doit pas augmenter de manière significative avec le temps. 3.Lorsque plusieurs objectifs de qualité sont appliqués aux eaux d'une région, la  qualité des eaux doit être suffisante pour respecter chacun de ces objectifs. 4.À titre d'exception, dans la mesure ou cela s'avère nécessaire pour des raisons  techniques et après notification préalable à la commission, les valeurs numériques des objectifs de  qualité figurant aux points 1.2 et 1.3 peuvent être multipliées par 1,5 jusqu'au 1er juillet 1989.  ANNEXE III Méthodes de mesure de référence 1.La méthode d'analyse de référence  utilisée pour déterminer la teneur en mercure des eaux, de la chair de poisson, des sédiments et  des mollusques et crustacés est la mesure de l'absorption atomique sans flamme par  spectrophotométrie, après avoir soumis l'échantillon à un traitement préalable adéquat tenant  compte notamment de la préoxydation du mercure et de la réduction successive des ions mercuriques  Hg (II). Les limites de détection doivent être telles que la concentration en mercure puisse être mesurée  avec une exactitude de ± 30 % et une précision de ± 30 % pour les concentrations suivantes : -dans le cas de rejets, un dixième de la concentration maximale autorisée en mercure spécifiée dans  l'autorisation, -dans le cas d'eaux superficielles, un dixième de la concentration en mercure spécifiée par  l'objectif de qualité, -dans le cas de la chair de poisson ainsi que dans le cas de mollusques et de crustacés, un dixième  de la concentration en mercure spécifiée par l'objectif de qualité, -dans le cas de sédiments, un dixième de la concentration du mercure de l'échantillon ou 0,05 mg/kg  poids sec, la valeur la plus élevée étant d'application. 2.La mesure du débit doit être effectuée avec une exactitude de ± 20 %.  ANNEXE IV Procédure de contrôle pour les objectifs de qualité 1.Pour toute  autorisation accordée en application des présents programmes et mesures, l'autorité compétente  précise les restrictions, les modalités de surveillance et les délais limites pour assurer le  respect du ou des objectifs de qualité en cause. 2.Pour chaque objectif de qualité choisi et appliqué, les parties contractantes  doivent faire rapport à la commission sur : -les points de rejet et le dispositif de dispersion, -la zone dans laquelle est appliqué l'objectif de qualité, -la localisation des points de prélèvement, -la fréquence d'échantillonnage, -les méthodes d'échantillonnage et de mesure, -les résultats obtenus. 3.Les échantillons doivent être suffisamment représentatifs de la qualité du  milieu aquatique dans la région affectée par les rejets et la fréquence d'échantillonnage doit être  suffisante pour mettre en évidence les modifications éventuelles du milieu aquatique, compte tenu  notamment des variations naturelles du régime hydrologique. L'analyse des poissons d'eau de mer  doit porter sur un nombre suffisamment représentatif d'échantillons et d'espèces. 4.En ce qui concerne l'objectif de qualité visé au point II de l'annexe 11,  l'autorité compétente choisit les espèces de poissons à retenir comme indicateurs à analyser. Pour  les eaux salines, les espèces localement capturées et choisies parmi celles habitant les eaux  côtières peuvent inclure le cabillaud (Gadus morhua), le merlan (Merlangius merlangus), la plie  (Pleuronectes platessa), le maquereau (Scomber scombrus), l'églefin (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) et  le flet (Platichthys flesus).  DÉCISION PARCOM 85/2 PROGRAMMES ET MESURES du 5 juin 1985 concernant les valeurs limites  et les objectifs de qualité pour les rejets de cadmium LA COMMISSION CRÉÉE PAR LA  CONVENTION POUR LA PRÉVENTION DE LA POLLUTION MARINE D'ORIGINE TELLURIQUE, SIGNÉE À PARIS LE 4 JUIN  1974, eu égard aux dispositions de la convention, et notamment son article 18 paragraphe 3, A ARRÊTÉ LES PROGRAMMES ET MESURES CI-APRÈS : Article premier 1.  Tout rejet de cadmium dans la zone maritime définie à l'article 3a de la  convention ou dans un cours d'eau affectant la zone maritime fait l'objet d'une autorisation  préalable délivrée par l'autorité compétente de la partie contractante concernée. De telles  autorisations spécifient des normes d'émission pour le rejet et sont revues périodiquement. 2.  Les normes d'émission ne doivent pas dépasser les valeurs limites spécifiées au paragraphe 3  ci-après, sauf dans les cas où une partie contractante applique des objectifs de qualité  conformément aux annexes II et IV. 3.  Les valeurs limites, les délais fixés pour le respect de ces valeurs et la procédure de  surveillance et de contrôle à appliquer aux rejets figurant à l'annexe I. Les valeurs limites  s'appliquent normalement au point où les eaux usées contenant du cadmium sortent de l'établissement  industriel. Si les eaux usées contenant du cadmium sont traitées hors de l'établissement industriel dans une  installation de traitement destinée à éliminer le cadmium, la partie contractante peut permettre  que les valeurs limites soient appliquées au point où les eaux usées sortent de l'installation de traitement. 4.  Sans préjudice de leurs obligations résultant des paragraphes 1, 2 et 3 ainsi que des  dispositions de la convention, les parties contractantes ne peuvent accorder d'autorisation pour  les établissements nouveaux que si ces établissements appliquent les normes correspondant aux  meilleurs moyens techniques disponibles, lorsque cela est nécessaire afin de prévenir et d'éliminer  la pollution. Quelle que soit la méthode qu'elle adopte, la partie contractante, dans le cas où, pour des raisons  techniques, les mesures envisagées ne correspondent pas aux meilleurs moyens techniques  disponibles, doit informer la commission préalablement à toute autorisation des justifications de  ces raisons. Lors de sa réunion suivante, la commission doit examiner l'information présentée. 5.  Aux fins des présents programmes et mesures, on entend par « établissement nouveau » : -l'établissement industriel mis en service après la date d'adoption des présents programmes et  mesures. -l'établissement industriel existant dont la capacité de traitement du cadmium a été augmentée  considérablement après la date d'adoption des présents programmes et mesures. 6.  La méthode d'analyse de référence à utiliser pour déterminer la présence de cadmium figure à  l'annexe III point 1. D'autres méthodes peuvent être utilisées à condition que les limites de  détection, la précision et l'exactitude de ces méthodes soient au moins aussi valables que celles  qui figurent à l'annexe III point 2. Article 2 Les parties contractantes concernées assurent la sur- veillance, dans la zone couverte par la convention, du milieu aquatique affecté par les rejets.  Dans le cas de rejets affectant les eaux de plusieurs parties contractantes, les parties  contractantes concernées collaborent en vue d'harmoniser les procédures de surveillance. Article 3 1.  À des intervalles de cinq ans, la commission procède à une évaluation comparative  de l'application des présents programmes et mesures par les parties contractantes, sur la base des  informations que les parties contractantes présentent à la commission, conformément à l'article 17  de la convention, en particulier en ce qui concerne : -les détails relatifs aux autorisations fixant les normes d'émission pour les rejets de cadmium, -les résultats de l'information rassemblée ou des inventaires établis, relatifs aux rejets de  cadmium effectuées dans la zone maritime ou dans les cours d'eau qui affectent la zone maritime visés à l'article 1er paragraphe 1, -l'information figurant à l'annexe IV point 2 pour les parties contractantes qui appliquent des  objectifs de qualité, -les résultats du contrôle et de la surveillance continus du milieu aquatique conformément à  l'article 2. Où cela s'applique, ces résultats devraient être soumis dans le cadre du programme  conjoint de contrôle et de surveillance continus. 2.  En cas de modification des connaissances scientifiques relatives principalement à la toxicité,  à la persistance et à l'accumulation du cadmium dans les organismes vivants dans les sédiments, ou  en cas d'amélioration des meilleurs moyens techniques disponibles, des propositions appropriées  sont examinées par la commission visant à renforcer, si nécessaire, les valeurs limites et les  objectifs de qualité, ou à fixer des valeurs limites supplémentaires et des objectifs de qualité  supplémentaires. Article 4 1.  Les parties contractantes mettent en oeuvre les présents programmes et mesures à  compter du 1er janvier 1986. 2.  Les parties contractantes informent la commission des dispositions de droit interne prises en  application des présents programmes et mesures.  No L 375/ 30. 12. 85 00ANNEXE I Valeurs limites, délais fixés pour le respect de ces valeurs et procédures de  surveillance et de contrôle à appliquer aux rejets 1.Pour les secteurs industriels  concernés, les valeurs limites et les délais d'application sont regroupés dans le tableau ci-après  : >TABLE>002.Les valeurs limites exprimées en termes de concentration  qui, en principe, ne doivent pas être dépassées figurent dans le tableau ci-avant pour les secteurs  industriels des rubriques 2, 3, 4, 5 et 6. Dans tous les cas, les valeurs limites exprimées en  concentrations maximales ne peuvent être supérieures à celles exprimées en quantités maximales  divisées par les besoins en eau par kilogramme de cadmium traité. Toutefois, étant donné que la  concentration de cadmium dans les effluents dépend du volume d'eau impliqué, qui diffère selon les  différents procédés et établissements, les valeurs limites, exprimées en termes de quantité de  cadmium rejeté par rapport à la quantité de cadmium traité, figurant dans le tableau ci-avant,  doivent être respectées dans tous les cas. 3.Les valeurs limites des moyennes journalières sont égales au double des valeurs  limites des moyennes mensuelles correspondantes figurant dans le tableau ci-avant. 4.Pour vérifier si les rejets satisfont aux normes d'émission fixées conformément  aux valeurs limites définies à la présente annexe, une procédure de contrôle doit être instituée. Cette procédure doit prévoir le prélèvement et l'analyse d'échantillons, la mesure du débit des  rejets et de la quantité de cadmium traité. Si la quantité de cadmium traité est impossible à déterminer, la procédure de contrôle peut se  fonder sur la quantité de cadmium qui peut être utilisée en fonction de la capacité de production  sur laquelle se fonde l'autorisation. 5.Un échantillon représentatif du rejet pendant une période de vingt-quatre  heures est prélevé. La quantité de cadmium rejetée au cours d'un mois doit être calculée sur la  base des quantités quotidiennes de cadmium rejetées. Toutefois, une procédure de contrôle simplifiée peut être instaurée pour les établissements  industriels qui ne rejettent pas plus de 10 kg de cadmium par an. En ce qui concerne les  établissements industriels d'électrodéposition, une procédure de contrôle simplifiée ne peut être  instaurée que si l'ensemble des cuves d'électrodéposition représente un volume inférieur à 1,5 m3.  ANNEXE II Objectifs de qualité Pour celles des parties contractantes qui appliquent la  stratégie des objectifs de qualité, les normes d'émission sont fixées de manière que le (ou les)  objectif(s) de qualité approprié(s), parmi ceux énumérés ci-après, soi(en)t respecté(s) dans la  région affectée par des rejets de cadmium. L'autorité compétente désigne la région affectée dans  chaque cas et sélectionne, parmi les objectifs de qualité figurant au paragraphe 1, celui ou ceux  qu'elle juge appropriés, eu égard à la destination de la région affectée, en tenant compte du fait  que l'objectif des présents programmes et mesures est de prévenir et d'éliminer toute pollution. 1.Dans le but de prévenir et d'éliminer la pollution au sens des articles 1er et 4 de la  convention de Paris, les objectifs de qualité ci-après, qui sont mesurés suffisamment proche du  point de rejet, sont fixés(1) : 1.1.la concentration de cadmium en solution dans les eaux des estuaires jusqu'à  la limite des eaux douces affectées par les rejets ne doit pas excéder 5 ìg/l ; 1.2.la concentration de cadmium en solution dans les eaux suivantes affectées par  les rejets(2) ne doit pas excéder 2,5 ìg/l :  i)eaux de mer territoriales ; ii)les eaux, non estuariennes, en deçà de la ligne de base servant à mesurer la largeur de la mer  territoriale et s'étendant dans le cas des cours d'eau jusqu'à la limite des eaux douces. 2.Outre les exigences ci-avant, les résultats du contrôle et de la surveillance  continus effectués conformément à l'article 2 doivent être comparés aux concentrations suivantes(1)  : 2.1.dans le cas des eaux estuariennes jusqu'à la limite des eaux douces, une  concentration de cadmium en solution de 1 ìg/l ; 2.2.une concentration de cadmium en solution de 0,5 ìg/l dans les eaux suivantes  :  i)eau de mer territoriales ; ii)les eaux, non estuariennes, en deçà de la ligne de base servant à mesurer la largeur de la mer  territoriale et s'étendant dans le cas des cours d'eau jusqu'à la limite des eaux douces. 2.3.Si ces concentrations ne sont pas respectées, ne fût-ce qu'en un seul point  du réseau national de contrôle et de surveillance, les raisons doivent en être avisées à la  commission. 3.La concentration de cadmium dans les sédiments et/ou mollusques et crustacés,  si possible de l'espèce Mytilus edulis, ne doit pas augmenter de manière significative avec le  temps. 4.Lorsque plusieurs objectifs de qualité sont appliqués aux eaux d'une région, la  qualité des eaux doit être suffisante pour respecter chacun de ces objectifs. ANNEXE III Méthodes de mesure de référence 1.La méthode d'analyse de référence  utilisée pour déterminer la teneur en cadmium des eaux, des sédiments et des mollusques et  crustacés est la mesure de l'absorption atomique par spectrophotométrie, après conservation et  traitement appropriés de l'échantillon. Les limites de détection doivent être telles que la concentration en cadmium puisse être mesurée  avec une exactitude de ± 30 % et une précision de ± 30 % pour les concentrations suivantes : -dans le cas de rejets, un dixième de la concentration maximale autorisée en cadmium, spécifiée  dans l'autorisation, -dans le cas des eaux superficielles, 0,1 ìg/l ou un dixième de la concentration en cadmium,  spécifiée par l'objectif de qualité, la valeur la plus élevée étant à retenir, -dans le cas de mollusques et crustacés, 0,1 mg/kg, poids humide, -dans le cas de sédiments, un dixième de la concentration du cadmium de l'échantillon ou 0,1 mg/kg,  poids sec, séchage effectué entre 105 et 110 oC à poids constant, la valeur la plus élevée étant à  retenir. 2.La mesure du débit des effluents doit être effectuée avec une exactitude de ±  20 %. ANNEXE IV Procédure de contrôle pour les objectifs de qualité 1.L'autorité  compétente précise les prescriptions, les modalités de surveillance et les délais pour assurer le  respect du ou des objectifs de qualité en cause. 2.Pour chaque objectif de qualité choisi et appliqué, les parties contractantes  doivent faire rapport à la commission sur : -les points de rejet et le dispositif de dispersion, -la zone dans laquelle est appliqué l'objectif de qualité, -la localisation des points de prélèvement, -la fréquence d'échantillonnage, -les méthodes d'échantillonnage et de mesure, -les résultats obtenus. 3.Les échantillons doivent être suffisamment représentatifs de la qualité du  milieu aquatique dans la région affectée par les rejets et la fréquence d'échantillonnage doit être  suffisante pour mettre en évidence les modifications éventuelles du milieu aquatique, compte tenu  notamment des variations naturelles du régime hydrologique.  (1)Il n'a pas été fixé de normes de qualité pour la haute mer, vu que  l'objectif de qualité pour les eaux territoriales et autres eaux protégeront la haute mer contre la  pollution.  (1)Toutes les concentrations se rapportent à la moyenne arithmétique des résultats obtenus pendant  une année.  (2)Il n'a pas été fixé de normes de qualité pour la haute mer, vu que les normes de qualité pour  les mers territoriales et autres eaux protégeront la haute mer contre la pollution.   ANNEX PARCOM DECISION 85/1 PROGRAMMES AND MEASURES of 5 June 1985 on limit values and  quality objectives for mercury discharges by sectors other than the chlor-alkali electrolysis  industry THE COMMISSION ESTABLISHED BY THE CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF MARINE  POLLUTION FROM LAND-BASED SOURCES, SIGNED AT PARIS ON 4 JUNE 1974, having regard to the provisions of the Convention, and in particular to Article 18 (3) thereof, HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING PROGRAMMES AND MEASURES: Article 1 1.  Every discharge of mercury by industrial sectors other than the chlor-alkali  electrolysis industry into the maritime area as defined in Article 3a of the Convention, or into  watercourses that affect the maritime area, shall require prior authorization by the competent  authority of the Contracting Party concerned. Such authorizations shall lay down emission standards  for the discharge and shall be reviewed periodically. 2.  The emission standards must not exceed the limit values as set out in paragraph 3 below, except  where a Contracting Party applies quality objectives in conformity with Annexes II and IV. 3.  The limit values, the time limits by which they must be complied with and the monitoring  procedure for discharges are laid down in Annex I. The limit values shall normally apply at the  point where waste waters containing mercury leave the industrial plant.When waste waters containing mercury are treated outside the industrial plant at a treatment plant  intended for the removal of mercury, the Contracting Party concerned may permit the limit values to  be applied at the point where the waste waters leave the treatment plant. 4.  Without prejudice to their obligations arising from paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 and to the provisions  of the Convention, the Contracting Parties may grant authorizations for new plants only if those  plants apply the standards corresponding to the best technical means available when that is  necessary for the prevention and elimination of pollution. Whatever method it adopts, where for technical reasons the intended measures do not correspond to  the best technical means available, the Contracting Party shall provide the Commission with  evidence in support of these reasons before any authorization. The Commission shall, at its next  meeting, examine the information provided. 5.  For the purposes of these programmes and measures, 'new plant' means: -an industrial plant which has become operational after the date of adoption of these programmes  and measures, -an existing industrial plant whose mercury-handling capacity has been substantially increased  since the date of adoption of these programmes and measures. 6.  The reference method of analysis to be used in determining the presence of mercury is given in  Annex III, paragraph 1. Other methods may be used provided that the limits of detection, precision  and accuracy of such methods are at least as good as those laid down in Annex III, paragraph 1. The  accuracy required in the measurement of effluent flow is given in Annex III, paragraph 2. Article 2 1.  The Contracting Parties shall draw up specific programmes for mercury discharges by  multiple sources which are not industrial plants and for which the emission standards referred to  in Article 1 cannot be applied in practice. 2.  The purposes of these specific programmes shall be to avoid or eliminate pollution. They shall  include the most appropriate measures and techniques for the replacement, retention and recycling  of mercury. 3.  The specific programmes shall be in operation as soon as possible and in any case not later  than 1 July 1989 and shall be communicated to the Commission. Article 3 The Contracting Parties concerned shall monitor, within the area covered by the  Convention, the aquatic environment affected by discharges. In the case of discharges affecting the  waters of more than one Contracting Party, the Contracting Parties concerned shall cooperate with a  view to harmonizing monitoring procedures. Article 4 1.  The Commission shall at four-yearly intervals make a comparative assessment of the  implementation of these programmes and measures by Contracting Parties on the basis of information  supplied to it by them pursuant to Article 17 of the Convention. The information concerned shall,  in particular, comprise: -details of authorizations laying down emission standards for discharges of mercury, -the results of information collected or inventories drawn up concerning mercury discharged into  the maritime area, and into watercourses that affect the maritime area, referred to in Article 1,  paragraph 1, -information laid down in Annex IV, paragraph 2 for those Contracting Parties applying the quality  objectives, -the results of the monitoring of the aquatic environment carried out in accordance with Article 3.  Where appropriate, these should be submitted within the framework of the Joint Monitoring  Programme. 2.  In the event of a change in scientific knowledge relating principally to the toxicity,  persistence and accumulation of mercury in living organisms and sediments, or in the event of an  improvement in the best technical means available, the Commission shall consider appropriate  proposals with the aim of reinforcing, if necessary, the limit values and the quality objectives,  or of establishing additional limit values and additional quality objectives. Article 5 1.  The Contracting Parties shall implement these programmes and measures by 1 January  1986. 2.  Contracting Parties shall communicate to the Commission the text of the provisions of internal  law which they adopt in the field governed by these programmes and measures.  N° L 375/ 30. 12. 85 00ANNEX I Limit values, time limits by which they must be complied with, and the  procedure for monitoring discharges 1.The limit values and the time limits for the  industrial sectors concerned are set out together in the table below: >TABLE>002.Limit values expressed as concentrations which in principle  must not be exceeded are given in the above table for the industrial sectors 1 to 4. In no instance  may limit values expressed as maximum concentrations be greater than those expressed as maximum  quantities divided by water requirements per kilogram of mercury handled or per tonne of installed  vinyl chloride production capacity. However, because the concentration of mercury in effluents depends on the volume of water involved,  which differs for different processes and plants, the limit values, expressed in terms of the  quantity of mercury discharged in relation to the quantity of mercury handled or to the installed  vinyl chloride production capacity, given in the above table, must be complied with in all cases. 3.The daily average limit values are twice the corresponding monthly average  limit values given in the table. 4.A monitoring procedure must be instituted to check whether the discharges  comply with the emission standards which have been fixed in accordance with the limit values laid  down in this Annex. This procedure must provide for the taking and analysis of samples and for measurement of the flow  of the discharge and, where appropriate, the quantity of mercury handled. Should the quantity of mercury handled be impossible to determine, the monitoring procedure may be  based on the quantity of mercury that may be used in the light of the production capacity on which  the authorization was based. 5.A sample representative of the discharge over a period of 24 hours shall be  taken. The quantity of mercury discharged over a month must be calculated on the basis of the daily  quantities of mercury discharged. However, a simplified monitoring procedure may be instituted in the case of industrial plants which  do not discharge more than 7,5 kilograms of mercury per annum. N°tes The limit values given in the table correspond to a monthly average concentration or to a maximum  monthly load. The amounts of mercury discharged are expressed as a function of the amount of mercury used or  handled by the industrial plant over the same period or as a function of the installed vinyl  chloride production capacity.  ANNEX II Quality objectives For those Contracting Parties applying quality objectives,  emission standards shall be fixed so that the appropriate quality objective or objectives from  among those listed below is or are complied with in the area affected by discharges of mercury. The  competent authority shall determine the area affected in each case and shall select from among the  quality objectives listed in paragraph 1 below the objective or objectives that it deems  appropriate, having regard to the intended use of the area affected, taking account of the fact  that the purpose of these programmes and measures is to prevent and eliminate all pollution. 1.In order to prevent and eliminate pollution as defined in Article 1 of the Convention and  pursuant to Article 4 of the said Convention, the following quality objectives are set: 1.1The concentration of mercury in a representative sample of fish flesh chosen  as an indicator must not exceed 0,3 mg/kg wet fish. 1.2The concentration of mercury in solution in estuary waters up to the  freshwater limit affected by discharges must not exceed 0,5 ìg/l as the arithmetic mean of the  results obtained over a year. 1.3The concentration of mercury in solution in the following waters(1) must not  exceed 0,3 ìg/l as the arithmetic mean of the results obtained over a year: (i)territorial waters; (ii)waters, other than estuary waters, on the landward side of the base line from which the breadth  of the territorial sea is measured and extending in the case of watercourses up to the freshwater  limit. 2.The concentration of mercury in sediments or in shellfish (mollusca and  crustacea) must not increase significantly with time. 3.Where several quality objectives are applied to waters in an area, the quality  of the waters must be sufficient to meet each of them. 4.The numerical values of the quality objectives specified in paragraphs (2) and  1 (3) may, as an exception and where this is necessary for technical reasons, be multiplied by 1,5  until 1 July 1989.  ANNEX III Reference method of measurement 1.The reference method of analysis  used for determining the mercury content of waters, the flesh of fish, sediments and shellfish  (mollusca and crustacea) is flameless atomic absorption spectrophotometry after suitbable  pre-treatment of the sample which takes account in particular of pre-oxidation of the mercury and  of successive reduction of the mercury ions Hg(II). The limits of detection must be such that the mercury concentration can be measured to an accuracy  of +/  30 % and a precision of +/  30 % at the following concentrations: -in the case of discharges, one-tenth of the maximum permitted concentration of mercury specified  in the authorization, -in the case of surface water, one-tenth of the mercury concentration specified in the quality  objective, -in the case of the flesh of fish and shellfish (mollusca and crustacea), one-tenth of the mercury  concentration specified in the quality objective, -in the case of sediments, one tenth of the mercury concentration in the sample or 0,05 mg/kg dry  weight whichever value is the greater. 2.  Flow measurement must be carried out to an accuracy of +/  20 %.  ANNEX IV Monitoring procedure for quality objectives 1.For each authorization,  the competent authority shall specify the restrictions, monitoring procedure and time limits for  ensuring compliance with the quality objective or objectives concerned. 2.  The Contracting Parties shall, for each quality objective chosen, and  applied, report to the Commission on: -the points of discharge and the means of dispersal, -the area in which the quality objective is applied, -the location of sampling points, -the frequency of sampling, -the methods of sampling and of measurement, -the results obtained. 3.Samples must be properly representative of the quality of the aquatic  environment in the area affected by the discharges, and the frequency of sampling must be  sufficient to show any changes in the aquatic environment, taking into account, in particular,  natural variations in the hydrological regime. The salt-water fish analysis must be carried out on  a sufficiently representative number of samples and species. 4.With regard to the quality objective in paragraph 1.1 of Annex II, the  competent authority shall choose the species of fish to be adopted as indicators for analysis. For  salt waters the species chosen from among those inhabiting coastal waters and caught locally may  include cod (Gadus morhua), whiting (Merlangius merlangus), plaice (Pleuronectes platessa),  mackerel (Scomber scombrus), haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) and flounder (Platichthys flesus).  PARCOM DECISION 85/2 PROGRAMMES AND MEASURES of 5 June 1985 on limit values and quality  objectives for cadmium discharges THE COMMISSION ESTABLISHED BY THE CONVENTION FOR THE  PREVENTION OF MARINE POLLUTION FROM LAND-BASED SOURCES, SIGNED AT PARIS ON 4 JUNE 1974, Having regard to the provisions of the Convention, and in particular to Article 18 (3) thereof, HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING PROGRAMMES AND MEASURES: Article 1 1.  Every discharge of cadmium into the maritime area as defined in Article 3a of the  Convention, or into watercourses that affect the maritime area, shall require prior authorization  by the competent authority of the Contracting Party concerned. Such authorizations shall lay down  emission standards for the discharge and shall be reviewed periodically. 2.  The emission standards must not exceed the limit values as set out in paragraph 3 below, except  where a Contracting Party applies quality objectives in conformity with Annexes II and IV. 3.  The limit values, the time limits by which they must be complied with and the monitoring  procedure for discharges are laid down in Annex I. The limit values shall normally apply at the  point where waste waters containing cadmium leave the industrial plant. When waste waters containing cadmium are treated outside the industrial plant at a treatment plant  intended for the removal of cadmium, the Contracting Party concerned may permit the limit values to  be applied at the point where the waste waters leave the treatment plant. 4.  Without prejudice to their obligations arising from paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 and to the provisions  of the Convention, the Contracting Parties may grant authorizations for new plants only if those  plants apply the standards corresponding to the best technical means available when that is  necessary for the prevention and elimination of pollution. Whatever method it adopts, where for technical reasons the intended measures do not correspond to  the best technical means available, the Contracting Party shall provide the Commission with  evidence in support of these reasons before any authorization. The Commission shall, at its next  meeting, examine the information provided. 5.  'New plant' means: -an industrial plant which has become operational after the date of adoption of these programmes  and measures, -an existing industrial plant whose cadmium-processing capacity has been substantially increased  after the date of adoption of these programmes and measures. 6.  The reference method of analysis to be used in determining the presence of cadmium is given in  Annex III, paragraph 1. Other methods may be used provided that the limits of detection, precision  and accuracy of such methods are at least as good as those laid down in Annex III, paragraph 1. The  accuracy required in the measurement of effluent flow is given in Annex III, paragraph 2. Article 2 The Contracting Parties concerned shall monitor, within the area covered by the  Convention, the aquatic environment affected by discharges. In the case of discharges affecting the  waters of more than one Contracting Party, the Contracting Parties concerned shall cooperate with a  view to harmonizing monitoring procedures. Article 3 1.  The Commission shall, at five-yearly intervals, make a comparative assessment of  the implementation of these programmes and measures by Contracting Parties on the basis of  information supplied to it by them pursuant to Article 17 of the Convention. The information  concerned shall, in particular, comprise: -details of authorizations laying down emission standards for discharges of cadmium, -the results of information collected or inventories drawn up concerning cadmium discharged into  the maritime area, and into watercourses that affect the maritime area, referred to in Article 1  paragraph 1, -information laid down in Annex IV, paragraph 2 for those Contracting Parties applying the quality  objectives, -the results of the monitoring of the aquatic environment carried out in accordance with Article 2.  Where appropriate, these should be submitted within the framework of the Joint Monitoring  Programme. 2.  In the event of a change in scientific knowledge relating principally to the toxicity,  persistence and accumulation of cadmium in living organisms and sediments, or in the event of an  improvement in the best technical means available, the Commission shall consider appropriate  proposals with the aim of reinforcing, if necessary, the limit values and the quality objectives,  or of establishing additional limit values and additional quality objectives. Article 4 1.  The Contracting Parties shall implement these programmes and measures by 1 January  1986. 2.  Contracting Parties shall communicate to the Commission the text of the provisions of internal  law which they adopt in the field governed by these programmes and measures.  N° L 375/ 30. 12. 85 00ANNEX I Limit values, time limits by which they must be complied with, and the  procedure for monitoring discharges 1.The limit values and the time limits for the  industrial sectors concerned are set out together in the table below: >TABLE>002.Limit values expressed as concentrations which in principle  must not be exceeded are given in the above table for the industrial sectors 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. In  no instance may limit values expressed as maximum concentrations be greater than those expressed as  maximum quantities divided by water requirements per kilogram of cadmium handled. However, because  the concentration of cadmium in effluents depends on the volume of water involved, which differs  for different processes and plants, the limit values, expressed in terms of the quantity of cadmium  discharged in relation to the quantity of mercury handled, given in the above table, must be  complied with in all cases. 3.The daily average limit values are twice the corresponding monthly average  limit values given in the above table. 4.A monitoring procedure must be instituted to check whether the discharges  comply with the emission standards which have been fixed in accordance with the limit values laid  down in this Annex. This procedure must provide for the taking and analysis of samples and for measurement of the flow  of the discharge and the quantity of cadmium handled. Should the quantity of cadmium handled be impossible to determine, the monitoring procedure may be  based on the quantity of cadmium that may be used in the light of the production capacity on which  the authorization was based. 5.A sample representative of the discharge over a period of 24 hours shall be  taken. The quantity of cadmium discharged over a month must be calculated on the basis of the daily  quantities of cadmium discharged. However, a simplified monitoring procedure may be instituted in the case of industrial plants which  do not discharge more than 10 kilograms of cadmium per annum. In the case of industrial  electroplating plants, a simpliefid monitoring procedure may only be instituted if the total volume  of the electroplating tanks is less than 1,5 m3.  ANNEX II Quality objectives For those Contracting Parties applying quality objectives,  emission standards shall be fixed so that the appropriate quality objective or objectives from  among those listed below is or are complied with in the area affected by discharges of cadmium. The  competent authority shall determine the area affected in each case and shall select from among the  quality objectives listed in paragraph I below the objective or objectives that it deems  appropriate, having regard to the intended use of the area affected, while taking account of the  fact that the purpose of these programmes and measures is to prevent and eliminate all pollution. 1.The following quality objectives, which will be measured sufficiently close to the point  discharge, are fixed(1), with the object of preventing and eliminating pollution within the meaning  of Articles 1 and 4 of the Convention. 1.1The concentration of cadmium in solution in estuary waters up to the  freshwater limit affected by discharges must not exceed 5 ìg/litre. 1.2The concentration of cadmium in solution must not exceed 2,5 ìg/litre in  waters affected by discharges(2) as follows : (i)territorial waters; (ii)waters, other than estuary waters, on the landward side of the base line from which the breadth  of the territorial sea is measured and extending in the case of watercourses up to the freshwater  limit. 2.In addition to the above requirements, the results of the monitoring carried  out in accordance with Article 2 must be compared with the following concentrations(1): 2.1In the case of estuary waters up to the freshwater limit, a concentration of  cadmium in solution of 1 ìg/litre. 2.2A concentration of cadmium in solution of 0,5 ìg/litre in the case of water as  follows: (i)territorial waters; (ii)waters, other than estuary waters, on the landward side of the base lines from which the  breadth of the territorial sea is measured and extending in the case of watercourses up to the  freshwater limit. 2.3If these concentrations are not complied with at any one of the points on the  national network, the reasons must be reported to the Commission. 3.The concentration of cadmium in sediments and/or shellfish (mollusca and  crustacea), if possible of the species Mytilus edulis, must not increase significantly with time. 4.Where several quality objectives are applied to waters in an area, the quality  of the waters must be sufficient to comply with each of those objectives. ANNEX III Reference method of measurement 1.The reference method of analysis  used for determining the cadmium content of waters, sediments and shellfish (mollusca and  crustacea) is atomic absorption spectrophotometry after preservation and suitable treatment of the  sample. The limits of detection must be such that the cadmium concentration can be measured to an accuracy  of ± 30 % and a precision of ± 30 % at the following concentrations: -in the case of discharges, one-tenth of the maximum permitted concentration of cadmium specified  in the authorization, -in the case of surface water, 0,1 ìg/litre or one-tenth of the cadmium concentration specified in  the quality objective, whichever is the greater, -in the case of shellfish (mollusca and crustacea), 0,1 mg/kg wet weight, -in the case of sediments, one-tenth of the cadmium concentration in the sample or 0,1 mg/kg dry  weight, with drying being carried out between 105 and 110 °C at constant weight, whichever value is  the greater. 2.Flow measurement must be carried out to an accuracy of ± 20 %.  ANNEX IV Monitoring procedure for quality objectives 1.For each authorization  the competent authority shall specify the restrictions, monitoring procedure and time limits for  ensuring compliance with the quality objective(s) concerned. 2.The Contracting Parties shall, for each quality objective chosen and applied,  report to the Commission: on: -the points of discharge and the means of dispersal, -the area in which the quality objective is applied, -the location of sampling points, -the frequency of sampling, -the methods of sampling and measurement, -the results obtained. 3.Samples must be sufficiently representative of the quality of the aquatic  environment in the area affected by the discharges, and the frequency of sampling must be  sufficient to show any changes in the aquatic environment, taking into account, in particular,  natural variations in the hydrological regime.  (1)A quality objective for the high seas is not fixed, on the understanding  that the quality objective for territorial waters and other waters will protect the high seas from  pollution.  (1)All concentrations relate to the arithmetic mean of the results obtained over one year.  (2)A quality objective for the high seas is not fixed on the understanding that the quality  objective for territorial waters and other waters will protect the high seas from pollution.


Avis juridique important

|

32001D0469

2001/469/: Council Decision of 14 May 2001 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community of the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the European Community on the coordination of energy-efficient labelling programs for office equipment

Official Journal L 172 , 26/06/2001 P. 0001 - 0002

Council Decisionof 14 May 2001concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community of the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the European Community on the coordination of energy-efficient labelling programs for office equipment(2001/469/EC)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 175(1), in conjunction with Article 300(2), first sentence of the first subparagraph and (3), first subparagraph, and Article 300(4) thereof,Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament,Whereas:(1) The Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the European Community on the coordination of energy-efficient labelling programs for office equipment, signed in Washington on 19 December 2000, should be approved.(2) The review of the implementation has been attributed to the technical Commission established by the Agreement.(3) Each party has designated a Management Entity. The Community has designated the Commission as its Management entity. Parties may amend the Agreement and the Annexes and add new Annexes by mutual agreement.(4) The appropriate internal Community procedures should be established to ensure the proper functioning of the Agreement. It is necessary to empower the Commission, assisted by the special committee designated by the Council, to make certain technical amendments to the Agreement and to take certain decisions for its implementation. In all other cases the decision is to be taken in accordance with the normal procedures,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 1The Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the European Community on the coordination of energy-efficient labelling programs for office equipment, including its Annexes, is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.The text of the Agreement and the Annexes thereto is attached to this Decision.Article 2The President of the Council shall, on behalf of the Community, transmit the notification in writing provided for in Article XII(1) of the Agreement(1).Article 31. The Commission shall represent the Community in the Technical Commission provided for in Article VI of the Agreement, assisted by the special committee designated by the Council. The Commission shall proceed, after consultation with this special committee, to the communications, cooperation, review of the implementation and notifications referred to in Articles V(5), VI(1) and (2), and VIII(4), of the Agreement.2. With a view to preparing the Community position as regards amendments to the specifications and list of office equipment in Annex C of the Agreement, the Commission shall take into account any opinion given by the European Community Energy Star Board (ECESB) referred to in Articles 8 and 11 of the proposed Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Community energy-efficiency labelling programme for office equipment.3. The position of the Community with regard to decisions to be taken by the Management Entities shall be determined, with regard to amendments of technical specifications of office equipment listed in Annex C to the Agreement, by the Commission, following consultation of the special committee, referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article.4. In all other cases, the position of the Community with regard to decisions to be taken by the Management Entities or the Parties shall be determined by the Council, acting on a proposal from the Commission in accordance with Article 300 of the Treaty.Done at Brussels, 14 May 2001.For the CouncilThe PresidentL. Rekke(1) The date of entry into force of the Agreement will be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.


title: 2009/217/EC: Decision of the European Parliament of 22 April 2008 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2006

text:
               31.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 88/175

         DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
   of 22 April 2008
   on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2006
   (2009/217/EC)
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,
   having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2006 (1),
   having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the final annual accounts of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2006, together with the Agency's replies (2),
   having regard to the Council's recommendation of 12 February 2008 (5843/2008 — C6-0084/2008),
   having regard to the EC Treaty, and in particular Article 276 thereof,
   having regard to the Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (3), and in particular Article 185 thereof,
   having regard to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (4), and in particular Article 68 thereof,
   having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (5), and in particular Article 94 thereof,
   having regard to Rule 71 of and Annex V to its Rules of Procedure,
   having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A6-0125/2008),

               1.

               Grants the Executive Director of the European Medicines Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency's budget for the financial year 2006;

               2.

               Sets out its observations in the Resolution below;

               3.

               Instructs its President to forward this Decision and the Resolution that forms an integral part of it to the Executive Director of the European Medicines Agency, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

            The President

         Hans-Gert PÖTTERING

            The Secretary-General

         Harald RØMER

      (1)  OJ C 261, 31.10.2007, p. 10.

      (2)  OJ C 309, 19.12.2007, p. 34.

      (3)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ L 136, 30.4.2004, p. 1.

      (5)  OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 72.
    ---documentbreak---

               31.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 88/176

         RESOLUTION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
   of 22 April 2008
   with observations forming an integral part of the decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2006
   THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,
   having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2006 (1),
   having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the final annual accounts of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2006, together with the Agency's replies (2),
   having regard to the Council's recommendation of 12 February 2008 (5843/2008 — C6-0084/2008),
   having regard to the EC Treaty, and in particular Article 276 thereof,
   having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (3), and in particular Article 185 thereof,
   having regard to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (4), and in particular Article 68 thereof,
   having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (5), and in particular Article 94 thereof,
   having regard to Rule 71 of and Annex V to its Rules of Procedure,
   having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A6-0125/2008),

               A.

               whereas the Court of Auditors stated that it has obtained reasonable assurance that the annual accounts for the financial year 2006 are reliable, and the underlying transactions are legal and regular,

               B.

               whereas on 24 April 2007 Parliament granted the Executive Director of the European Medicines Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the Agency's budget for the financial year 2005 (6), and in its resolution accompanying the discharge decision, inter alia:

                           —

                           noted that more than 40 % of commitments made were carried over to the following financial year,

                           —

                           observed that the Agency's budget had grown considerably owing to enlargement,

                           —

                           invited the Agency to integrate into its accounts funds collected from other agencies and bodies to finance a common support service for the development of their financial management information systems,

                           —

                           requested that, before 1 January 2010 and every five years thereafter, the Agency commission an independent external evaluation of its achievements on the basis of its founding Regulation and of the work programmes decided on by the Management Board;

         General points which relate to horizontal issues affecting the EU agencies and which therefore also have a bearing on the discharge procedure for each individual agency

               1.

               Notes that the budgets of the 24 agencies and other satellite bodies audited by the Court of Auditors totalled EUR 1 080,5 million in 2006 (the biggest being that of the European Agency for Reconstruction at EUR 271 million and the smallest being that of the European Police College (CEPOL) at EUR 5 million);

               2.

               Points out that the range of external EU bodies subject to audit and discharge now includes not only traditional regulatory agencies but also executive agencies set up to implement specific programmes, and will in the near future also extend to joint undertakings set up as public-private partnerships (joint technology initiatives);

               3.

               Observes as regards the Parliament that the number of agencies subject to the discharge procedure has evolved as follows: financial year 2000: 8; 2001: 10; 2002: 11; 2003: 14; 2004: 14; 2005: 16; 2006: 20 regulatory agencies and two executive agencies (not including two agencies which are audited by the Court of Auditors but subject to an internal discharge process);

               4.

               Concludes therefore that the auditing/discharge process has become cumbersome and disproportionate compared to the relative size of the agencies'/satellite bodies' budgets; instructs its competent committee to undertake a wide-ranging review of the discharge process as regards agencies and satellite bodies with a view to devising a simpler and more rational approach, bearing in mind the ever-growing number of bodies each requiring a separate discharge report in future years;

         Fundamental considerations

               5.

               Requests that the Commission provide clear explanations regarding the following elements before the creation of a new agency or reform of an existing agency: agency type, objectives of the agency, internal governance structure, products, services, key procedures, target group, clients and stakeholders of the agency, formal relationship with external actors, budget responsibility, financial planning, and personnel and staffing policy;

               6.

               Requests that each agency be governed by a yearly performance agreement which is formulated by the agency and the responsible DG and which should contain the main objectives for the coming year, a financial framework and clear indicators to measure performance;

               7.

               Requests that the performance of the agencies be regularly (and on an ad-hoc basis) audited by the Court of Auditors or another independent auditor; considers that this should not be limited to traditional elements of financial management and the proper use of public money, but should also cover administrative efficiency and effectiveness and should include a rating of the financial management of each agency;

               8.

               Takes the view that in the case of agencies which are continually overestimating their respective budget needs, technical abatement should be made on the basis of vacant posts; is of the opinion that this will lead in the long run to less assigned revenue for the agencies and therefore also to lower administrative costs;

               9.

               Notes that it is a serious problem that a number of agencies is criticised for not following rules on public procurement, the Financial Regulation, the Staff Regulations, etc.; considers that the principal reason for this is that most regulations and the Financial Regulation are designed for bigger institutions and that most of the small agencies do not have the critical mass to be able to cope with these regulatory requirements; therefore asks the Commission to look for a rapid solution in order to enhance the effectiveness by grouping the administrative functions of various agencies together, in order to achieve this critical mass (taking into consideration the necessary changes in the basic regulations governing the agencies and their budgetary independence), or urgently to draft specific rules for the agencies (in particular implementing rules for the agencies) which allow them to be in full compliance;

               10.

               Insists that the Commission, when drafting the Preliminary Draft Budget, take into consideration the results of budget implementation by the individual agencies in former years, in particular in year n-1, and revise the budget requested by the particular agency accordingly; invites its competent committee to respect this revision and, if not undertaken by the Commission, to revise itself the budget in question to a realistic level matching the absorption and implementation capacity of the agency in question;

               11.

               Recalls its decision on discharge in respect of the financial year 2005, in which it invited the Commission to present every five years a study on the added value of every existing agency; invites all relevant institutions in the case of a negative evaluation of the added value of an agency to take the necessary steps by reformulating the mandate of that agency or by closing it; notes that there has not been one single evaluation undertaken by the Commission in 2007; insists that the Commission should present at least five such evaluations before the decision on discharge in respect of the financial year 2007, starting with the oldest agencies;

               12.

               Is of the opinion that recommendations of the Court of Auditors should be promptly implemented and the level of subsidies paid to the agencies should be aligned with their real cash requirements; considers further that the amendments to the general Financial Regulation should be incorporated into the agencies' framework financial regulation and into their various specific financial regulations;

               13.

               Is concerned that a significant number of staff is employed on a temporary basis in a way that could undermine the quality of their work; therefore asks the Commission to improve its monitoring of the implementation of the Staff Regulations by the agencies;

         Presentation of reporting data

               14.

               Notes that there is no standard approach among the agencies with regard to the presentation of their activities during the financial year in question and of their accounts and reports on budgetary and financial management, nor to the question as to whether a declaration of assurance should be drawn up by the agency's director; observes that not all agencies clearly distinguish between (a) presenting the agency's work to the public; and (b) technical reporting on budgetary and financial management;

               15.

               Notes that while the Commission's standing instructions for the preparation of activity reports do not expressly require the agency to draw up a declaration of assurance, many directors have none the less done so for 2006, in one case including an important reservation;

               16.

               Recalls paragraph 28 of its resolution of 12 April 2005 (7), inviting the Directors of the Agencies from now on to accompany their annual activity report, which is presented together with financial and management information, with a declaration of assurance concerning the legality and regularity of operations, similar to the declarations signed by the Directors-General of the Commission;

               17.

               Asks the Commission to amend its standing instructions to the agencies accordingly;

               18.

               Suggests in addition that the Commission should work with the agencies towards producing a harmonised model applicable to all agencies and satellite bodies clearly distinguishing between:

                           —

                           an annual report intended for a general readership on the body's operations, work and achievements,

                           —

                           financial statements and a report on implementation of the budget,

                           —

                           an activity report along the lines of the activity reports of the Directors-General of the Commission,

                           —

                           a declaration of assurance signed by the body's director, together with any reservations or observations which he considers it appropriate to draw to the attention of the discharge authority;

         General findings by the Court of Auditors

               19.

               Notes the Court's finding (Annual Report, paragraph 10.29 (8)) that the disbursement of subsidies paid by the Commission from the Community budget is not based on sufficiently justified estimates of the agencies' cash requirements and that this, combined with the size of carry-overs, leads them to hold sizeable cash balances; notes further the Court's recommendation that the level of subsidies paid to the agencies should be in line with their real cash requirements;

               20.

               Notes that at the end of 2006 14 agencies had still to implement the ABAC accounting system (Annual Report, footnote to paragraph 10.31);

               21.

               Notes the Court's remark (Annual Report, paragraph 1.25) concerning accrued charges for untaken leave which are accounted for by some agencies; points out that the Court of Auditors has qualified its statement of assurance in the case of three agencies (European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop), CEPOL and the European Railway Agency) for the financial year 2006 (2005: Cedefop, European Food Safety Authority, European Agency for Reconstruction);

         Internal audit

               22.

               Recalls that in accordance with Article 185(3) of the Financial Regulation the Internal Auditor of the Commission is also the internal auditor of the regulatory agencies receiving grants charged to the EU budget; points out that the Internal Auditor reports to each agency's management board and director;

               23.

               Draws attention to the reservation entered in the Internal Auditor's Annual Activity Report for 2006 as follows:
               ‘The Internal Auditor of the Commission is not in a position to properly fulfil his obligation assigned by Article 185 of the Financial Regulation as internal auditor of the Community bodies due to a lack of staff resources.’;

               24.

               Notes, however, the Internal Auditor's remark in his activity report for 2006 that as from 2007, with the additional staff resources granted by the Commission to the Internal Audit Service (IAS), all regulatory agencies in operation will be subject to internal audit work on an annual basis;

               25.

               Notes the ever-growing number of regulatory and executive agencies and joint undertakings required to be audited by the IAS under Article 185 Financial Regulation; asks the Commission to inform its competent committee as to whether the staff resources at the IAS's disposal will be sufficient to conduct an annual audit of all such bodies in the coming years;

               26.

               Observes that Article 72(5) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 requires each agency to send each year to the discharge authority and the Commission a report drawn up by its director summarising the number and type of internal audits conducted by the internal auditor, the recommendations made and the action taken on these recommendations; asks the agencies to indicate whether this is done and, if so, how;

               27.

               Takes note, as regards internal audit capability, especially in relation to the smaller agencies, of a proposal made by the Internal Auditor before Parliament's competent committee on 14 September 2006 that smaller agencies should be authorised to buy in internal audit services from the private sector;

         Evaluation of agencies

               28.

               Recalls the joint statement by the Parliament, the Council and the Commission (9) negotiated at the conciliation before the Ecofin budget Council of 13 July 2007 calling for (i) a list of agencies which the Commission intends to assess; and (ii) a list of the agencies already assessed, together with a summary of the major findings;

         Disciplinary procedures

               29.

               Notes that, because of their size, individual agencies have difficulty in setting up ad-hoc disciplinary boards composed of staff at the appropriate career grade and that the Commission's IDOC (Investigation and Disciplinary Office) is not competent for agencies; calls on the agencies to consider an inter-agency disciplinary board;

         Draft Interinstitutional Agreement

               30.

               Recalls the draft Interinstitutional Agreement on the operating framework for the European regulatory agencies presented by the Commission (COM(2005) 59), which was intended to create a horizontal framework for the creation, structure, operation, evaluation and control of the European regulatory agencies; notes that the draft represents a useful initiative in the effort to rationalise the creation and running of agencies; notes the statement in the Commission's 2006 synthesis report (paragraph 3.1, COM(2007) 274) that although progress in negotiations stalled after publication of the draft, discussions on substance were relaunched in the Council at the end of 2006; regrets that it has not been possible to make further progress towards adoption;

               31.

               Welcomes therefore the Commission's commitment to bring forward a communication on the future of the regulatory agencies during the course of 2008;

         Self-financed agencies

               32.

               Recalls that for the two self-financing agencies, discharge is given to the director by the administrative board; notes that both have significant accumulated surpluses from fee income carried over from previous years figures:

                           —

                           Office for Harmonization of the Internal Market cash and cash equivalents: EUR 281 million (10),

                           —

                           Community Plant Variety Office cash and cash equivalents: EUR 18 million (11);

         Specific points

               33.

               Notes the statement by the Court of Auditors in its 2006 report that as regards administrative expenditure, the utilisation rate for commitment appropriations was less than 60 %;

               34.

               Underlines the responsibility of the Agency for the protection and promotion of public and animal health through the evaluation and supervision of medicines for human and veterinary use; welcomes the efforts of the Agency to provide more scientific advice at early stages of the development of new medicines, as well as the introduction of measures to accelerate the assessment of medicines that are of critical importance to public health;

               35.

               Notes that a considerable amount of budget appropriations for 2006 has been carried over to 2007 due to the nature of the projects dealt with by the Agency;

               36.

               Notes further the Agency's reply to the Court's observation concerning the charging of the Agency's fees and the calculation of costs that in December 2006 the Agency's Management Board decided to undertake a revision of the scale fees system in consultation with the competent national authorities;

               37.

               Recalls that the Agency's revenue consists of a contribution from the Community and fees paid by undertakings for obtaining and maintaining Community marketing authorisations and for other services provided by the Agency;

               38.

               Notes from the Agency's final accounts that in 2006 it received fees and other revenue of EUR 119 million and a Community subsidy of EUR 31 million; notes that the Agency's economic result for the year was EUR 16 million, which when added to the accumulated surplus of EUR 27 million gave total net assets of EUR 44 million;

               39.

               Takes note of the Agency's reply that the accumulated surplus is not a budgetary surplus but rather the economic outturn based on the application of accrual accounting principles and has been used to finance capital expenditure on fixed assets, mainly building fit-outs and IT development costs;

               40.

               Notes from the provisional accounts that during 2006 the Agency managed on behalf of 19 agencies the budget of the common support services, consisting of expenditure for consultants' fees to support the budgetary accounting tool and financial reporting system SI2;

               41.

               Notes further from the provisional accounts that revenue for evaluation fees increased by 31,5 % from 2005 to 2006;

               42.

               Notes that the executive director of the Agency has drawn up an annual activity report but not a declaration of assurance (on the grounds that no such declaration is required by the Commission's standing instructions);

               43.

               Points out however that in his annual activity report the executive director states that he has no reservations; acknowledges the Agency's statement that the executive director would be prepared to sign a declaration of assurance in future;

               44.

               Welcomes the management board's analysis and assessment of the executive director's annual activity report; notes in particular the board's concern that the agency is receiving new tasks that are not met with adequate financing from the EU budget or with new fees; points out that this analysis does not appear wholly consistent with the agency's financial situation as disclosed by the 2006 accounts;

               45.

               Welcomes the adoption by the Agency's management board in 2006 of a revised procedure for handling conflicts of interest, which was also extended to include members of the management board; applauds also the issuing of a guidance note on the procedure for reporting improprieties;

               46.

               Notes that the IAS conducted its first baseline audit of the Agency in 2005 and issued its final report in September 2006, with the conclusion that the internal control system in place provides reasonable assurance regarding the achievement of the business objectives set up for the processes audited, except for a number of very important findings in the areas of control environment, information and communication, and control activities;

               47.

               Stresses that the preparation of the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on medicinal products for paediatric use (12) had a considerable impact on the Agency's work in 2006; welcomes the adoption of the joint Commission/Agency document on priorities for implementation of that Regulation.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 31.10.2007, p. 10.

      (2)  OJ C 309, 19.12.2007, p. 34.

      (3)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ L 136, 30.4.2004, p. 1.

      (5)  OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 72.

      (6)  OJ L 187, 15.7.2008, p. 128.

      (7)  Resolution of the European Parliament containing the comments accompanying the decision on the discharge to the Executive Director of the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products in respect of the implementation of its budget for the financial year 2003 (OJ L 196, 27.7.2005, p. 94).

      (8)  OJ C 273, 15.11.2007, p. 1.

      (9)  Council document DS 605/1/07 Rev1.

      (10)  Source: report on the annual accounts of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market for the financial year 2006, together with the Office's replies (OJ C 309, 19.12.2007, p. 141).

      (11)  Source: report on the annual accounts of the Community Plant Variety Office for the financial year 2006, together with the Office's replies (OJ C 309, 19.12.2007, p. 135).

      (12)  OJ L 378, 27.12.2006, p. 1.


title: 2013/68/EU: Council Decision of 28 January 2013 appointing a Belgian member and a Belgian alternate member of the Committee of the Regions

text:
               1.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               L 32/16

         COUNCIL DECISION
   of 28 January 2013
   appointing a Belgian member and a Belgian alternate member of the Committee of the Regions
   (2013/68/EU)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,
   Having regard to the proposal of the Belgian Government,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.

               (2)

               A member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Jos CHABERT.

               (3)

               An alternate member’s seat will become vacant following the appointment of Mr Jean-Luc VANRAES as member of the Committee of the Regions,

         HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
   Article 1
   The following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:

               (a)

               as member:

                           —

                           Mr Jean-Luc VANRAES, Brussels Volksvertegenwoordiger in het Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Parlement

                     and

               (b)

               as alternate member:

                           —

                           Ms Brigitte GROUWELS, Minister van het Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest.

         Article 2
   This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

      Done at Brussels, 28 January 2013.

            For the Council

            The President

         S. COVENEY

      (1)  OJ L 348, 29.12.2009, p. 22.

      (2)  OJ L 12, 19.1.2010, p. 11.