title: Comunicación del Consejo - Acuerdo veterinario CE/Estados Unidos

text: 1. 5. 98 ES Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas C 136/1 I (Comunicaciones) CONSEJO ACUERDO VETERINARIO CE/ESTADOS UNIDOS (98/C 136/01) (El presente texto anula y reemplaza el texto publicado en el DO C 122 de 21. 4. 1998) Al adoptar la Decisi(cid:246)n relativa a la celebraci(cid:246)n del Acuerdo entre Estados Unidos de Am~rica y la Comunidad Europea sobre medidas sanitarias para proteger la salud pœblica y la sanidad animal en el comercio de animales vivos y de productos de origen animal(cid:216)(˛), el Consejo aprob(cid:246) la siguiente declaraci(cid:246)n: (cid:133)El Consejo toma nota del Canje de Notas entre la Comisi(cid:246)n y el Departamento de Agri(cid:220) cultura de Estados Unidos de Am~rica, Notas que conviene en hacer constar en su acta. El Consejo pone de relieve que estas Notas constituyen un elemento clave en lo que res(cid:220) pecta a su decisi(cid:246)n sobre la aprobaci(cid:246)n del Acuerdo veterinario entre los Estados Unidos y la Comunidad Europea. El Consejo y la Comisi(cid:246)n consideran que los compromisos pol(cid:242)ticos consignados en dichas Notas son de la m‘xima importancia para garantizar una aplicaci(cid:246)n adecuada, equilibrada y plena del Acuerdo. La Comisi(cid:246)n se compromete, de conformidad con el procedimiento previsto en el art(cid:242)cu(cid:220) lo 4 de la Decisi(cid:246)n del Consejo, a hacer uso de las disposiciones contenidas en el art(cid:242)cu(cid:220) lo 14 del Acuerdo para hacer frente a los problemas que puedan surgir en materia de aplicaci(cid:246)n, teniendo presente, en particular, la importancia que el Consejo concede en su Decisi(cid:246)n a las Notas de Estados Unidos de Am~rica. La Comisi(cid:246)n se compromete asi(cid:220) mismo, en caso de que fuera imposible resolver los problemas de dicha (cid:242)ndole con arreglo al citado art(cid:242)culo, a adoptar las medidas de procedimiento necesarias para que el Consejo pueda actuar segœn se prev~ en el art(cid:242)culo 16 del Acuerdo, y utilizar‘ todos los medios de que dispone la Comunidad en virtud del art(cid:242)culo 2 del presente Acuerdo. En cualquier caso, queda claro que la Comisi(cid:246)n deber‘ tomar una serie de decisiones en el marco del Comit~ veterinario permanente con respecto a su aplicaci(cid:246)n. La Comisi(cid:246)n prev~ que la adaptaci(cid:246)n de la legislaci(cid:246)n nacional llevar‘ varios meses, de conformidad con el art(cid:242)culo 8 del Acuerdo, a partir del momento de su firma. Durante este per(cid:242)odo, la Comi(cid:220) si(cid:246)n seguir‘ atentamente la aplicaci(cid:246)n llevada a cabo por los Estados Unidos. El Consejo conviene en publicar la presente declaraci(cid:246)n y las citadas Notas en el Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas (serie C). (cid:176). (˛)(cid:217)DO L 118 de 21. 4. 1998, p. 1; versi(cid:246)n rectificada en el DO L 130 de 1. 5. 1998. C 136/2 ES Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas 1. 5. 98 ANEXO I March 10, 1998 Franz Fischler Agricultural Commissioner Commission of the European Union Rue de la Loi 200 B(cid:220)1049 Brussels Dear Franz, In our meeting in Oxford last January, we had a lengthy discussion of the actions we intended to take to recognize, under the terms of our draft Veterinary Equivalency Agreement (the Agreement), the animal health status of the European Community (EC). I explained to you that it would be impossible for us to publish a second proposed rule on animal health status before the EC Council voted to adopt the Agreement. However, I did promise to provide to you, before the date of the Council vote, an indication of the likely content of the proposal. This letter is in fulfillment of that commitment. Our regionalization obligation under the Agreement extends to the seventeen diseases listed in Annex III of the Agreement. To ensure complete clarity, I would like to describe the situation with respect to each of those seventeen diseases. For eleven of the diseases - namely, peste de petits ruminants, contagious caprine pleuropneumonia, sheep and goat pox, enterovirus encephalomyelitis, pseudorabies/aujeszky’s, vesicular stomatitis, contagious bovine pleuropneumonia, bluetongue, African horse sickness, fowl plague (avian influenza), and Vene(cid:220) zuelan equine encephalomyelitis - the United States already recognizes the EC’s animal health status as defined by the Community. There is, therefore, no need for further action. November 1997 Proposed Rule: In July 1997, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) received a request from the European Commission for the recognition of the animal health status of Member States and their regions for the remaining six diseases - swine vesicular disease (SVD), Newcastle disease (ND), rinderpest, foot(cid:220)and(cid:220)mouth disease (FMD), classical swine fever (CSF), and African swine fever (ASF). Based on the information which was provided, APHIS published a proposed rule in November 1997, under the terms of which the United States would recognize Belgium free of SVD; France free of SVD and ND; Greece free of rinderpest and ND; Luxembourg free of FMD, rinderpest, and ND; Portugal free of FMD, rinderpest, SVD, and ASF; and Spain free of ND. If that rule is finalized as written, and I expect that it will be shortly, the United States will have recognized the EC’s animal health status for two more diseases - ASF and rinderpest - as defined by the EC. With respect to the other four disease, we had not received by the time of the publication of the original proposed rule sufficient information from the EU to allow us to make determinations with respect to certain Member States and regions. Information received subsequently, however, has given us a more complete picture. Foot(cid:220)and(cid:220)Mouth disease: Based on the new information we have received on FMD, we are now prepared to begin the rulemaking process to recognize Greece as FMD(cid:220)free. Completion of that process and final(cid:220) ization of the November proposed rule would mean that the U. S. disease picture for FMD would correspond with that of the EC. Swine vesicular disease: With regard to SVD, we have nearly a complete picture. On the basis of the data provided, we are now prepared to propose the recognition of the EC disease map for all regions except for the central and southern regions of Italy for which we have not yet received sufficient surveillance data. Once we have received and evaluated such information, we would be able (if the data are satisfactory) to complete the EC picture with regard to SVD. Prompt receipt of the information could allow us to make a positive determination prior to formal publication of the proposal in the Federal Register. Classical swine fever and Newcastle disease: With regard to the remaining two diseases, I am frankly very concerned. The situation in Europe is far from stable, and our regulatory officials are anxious to ensure that implementation of the Agreement does not expose U. S. livestock and poultry flocks to unacceptable risks. I coming to conclusions on these two diseases, I have instructed APHIS to go as far as can be scientifically justified. However, I have also instructed them to demand full information and to make prudent judgements. 1. 5. 98 ES Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas C 136/3 On the basis of the information we have received with respect to CSF, we are prepared to begin the rulemaking process for recognizing the EC’s animal health status as defined by the EC. Moreover, we would intend to include in our proposed rule references to regionalization efforts in place in infected regions. This should facilitate the task of changing the status of those areas once the disease is eradicated. However, in light of the length, severity and repetitive nature of the outbreaks, we intend to propose two special conditions. First, in the case of future outbreaks, we would request the EC provide us with information on all shipments to the United States from the newly(cid:220)infected area for 40 days prior to the outbreak. Second, we would stipulate that, in the case of this disease, infected areas would not be determined disease(cid:220)free until they had completed the full six(cid:220)month waiting period prescribed by the Inter(cid:220) national Office of Epizootics (OIE). With respect to ND, we have received from the Commission little information on surveillance. In addition, we are concerned by the Community’s inability to identify the source of the recent outbreaks and the lack of harmonized regulations on the movement of pet birds. Therefore, we are not in a position at this time to extend the disease(cid:220)free recognition for ND beyond what we have already outline in our November 1997 proposed rule. However, additional data and information obtained from he Commission supporting disease free status would allow adjustments prior to the formal publication of the proposal in the Federal Register. I am confident that we are acting in conformity with our obligations under the draft Agreement and the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. We look forward to the adoption and implementation of the Agreement, and to working with you under the Agreement to resolve outstanding issues to the satisfaction of both parties. Sincerely, Dan Glickman Secretary C 136/4 ES Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas 1. 5. 98 ANEXO II February 24, 1998 Mr. Guy Legras Director General Directorate(cid:220)General VI Commission of the European Community Rue de la Loi 200 B(cid:220)1049 Brussels Dear Mr. Legras, I refer to the 29 January letter from David Roberts to Paul Drazek concerning the U. S. position on animal health and regionalization issues. That letter accurately identifies the main issues that arose during our recent meetings in Brussels. By way of response to that letter, I can confirm that the U. S. interpretation of the agreement is that the initial presumption in every case is that the regionalization decision taken by the other party will be accepted, allowing for exceptional cases in which, for good and justifiable reasons, the party feels that need to take recourse under the safeguard provision. Thus, in the ordinary case, we expect the agreement to operate as follows: -(cid:217)In the case where the EC takes a decision to restrict an area that has previously been recognized as disease(cid:220)free, the United States would accept the EU’s regionalization decision without having to take further actions; -(cid:217)When, subsequently, a disease incident had been appropriately dealt with and the EC lifts restrictions on that area, the United States would accept that decision without having to take further action. In order to obviate the need for rulemaking in every instance in which the EC might take such a decision to impose or lift restrictions in an area previously recognized disease(cid:220)free, USDA would include provisions in our new proposed rule on EC animal health status to the effect that animals or animal products whose free movement in the EC is restricted are similarly restricted from importation into the United States. -(cid:217)Where a region that has previously been infected with a disease is being recognized as disease(cid:220)free for the first time, USDA is required to proceed by rulemaking to change its recognition of disease status. This includes publishing a proposed rule based on full technical and scientific information, allowing public comment, and issuing a final rule. However, we fully anticipate that we will be able to comply with these domestic requirements to conduct rulemaking in a manner that will permit us to accept and recognize EC regionalization decisions in the ordinary case. Our policy would be to initiate rulemaking by publishing our proposed rule during the waiting period required by the OIE before a region may be declared disease(cid:220)free. Previously, APHIS policy was to require that a country be free of disease for the entire OIE time frame or longer before it initiated rulemaking. However, in light of our agreement, we consider that it would be appropriate to initiate rulemaking once we have received thorough and complete information that the last case of the disease has been eliminated from the region, including details of the regionalization measures in place. The proposed rule would contain reference to such measures. The publication of the final rule would be contingent on the fact that no additional cases of the disease are discovered in the region during the OIE period. Normally, the required rulemaking can be conducted within the OIE waiting period. Although this response attempts to clarify our interpretation and position with respect to the obligations incorporated in Article 6 of the Agreement, it is implicit that the proper functioning of the Agreement will depend, of course, on both parties exercising their responsibilities under all provisions of the Agreement. I would note, in this regard, that we consider that the provisions of Article 6 are closely tied to the provisions of Article 10 and 11 requiring the parties to keep each other fully informed of their actions and the bases for those actions. In addition, we recognize that there may be exceptional cases - e. g. , where there has been a disease outbreak which achieves significant geographical spread or which persists for a significant duration - in which the parties will not agree on what action is appropriately indicated by the circumstances, and in those cases, the obligations under Article 6 are clearly balanced by the rights and procedures contained in Article 12. Our policy in such exceptional circumstances would be to initiate rule(cid:220)making through the publication of an Interim Rule, with a public comment period. If the EC can demonstrate that the disease situation was brought under control during the comment period, the Interim Rule could simply be withdrawn and the normal regionalization provisions apply, i. e. , the United States would accept the EC regionalization decision without further action. 1. 5. 98 ES Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas C 136/5 I hope that this explanation clarifies our position. I want to reiterate that we understand our obligations under the draft agreement with respect to animal health and the recognition of regionalization decisions, and intend to honor those commitments in every respect. I believe that we have shown considerable understanding of, and respect for, the various legal requirements which the EC must follow in the implementation of its obligations under the draft agreement. We too have certain domestic requirements that must be respected, and we appreciate your consideration in helping us to accomodate those requirements as we implement our responsibilities. Sincerely, Terry Medley Administrator C 136/6 ES Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas 1. 5. 98 ANEXO III January 28, 1998 Mr. Paul Drazek USDA Washington D. C. Dear Paul, Subject: Forthcoming Veterinary Discussions: MEGAREGs and BSE Firstly, I would like to thank you and your team for the constructive discussions last Friday. It was most helpful to be able to run over the ground, and will enable us to be better prepared for next week’s discussions in Washington. You asked us to set out some ideas in advance, especially as regards MEGAREGs. On the MEGAREGs, there have been no substantive discussions between the EC and the U. S. Indeed although we had some discussion last year, as regards the SSOPs and E coli requirements, the provisions as regards salmonella and HACCP, which apply to large plants from January 1998, were not really discussed as we all expected that these discussions would take place under the provisions of Footnote 1 to Annex V. It is evident, and not suprising, that EG legislation does not contain exactly the same provisions as those the U. S. has already imposed, and will progressively impose through to the year 2000 for the production of red meat and poultrymeat under the MEGAREGs. We are therefore ready to consider providing a guarantee that provisions at least equivalent to those set down in the MEGAREGs are applied in EC establishments which are to be listed for export to the United States, or establishments that supply such establishments. We therefore propose the following: All red meat and poultrymeat establishments exporting to the United States must: 1. (cid:217)Be EC agreed (oval stamp) 2. (cid:217)(a)(cid:217)For large establishments (more than 500 employees): apply HACCP, with the HACCP plan including microbiological testing provisions at least equivalent to those set down in the MEGAREGs for E coli and salmonella. 2. (cid:217)(b) For other establishments: apply SSOPs, and microbiological testing provisions at least equivalent to those set down in the MEGAREGs for E coli. 3. (cid:217)The U. S. agrees not to modify the provisions as regards SSOPs, HACCP, E coli or salmonella testing, as they stand at 27 January 1998, without prior discussion with the EC. 4. (cid:217)A procedure be agreed to initiate discussions immediately to compare, on a case by case basis, the testing and sampling provisions which are in place in the EC or which are proposed with those set down in the MEGAREGs, with a view to reaching a determination of equivalence. This approach is intended to provide the U. S. with clear guarantees, and both sides with a process through which alternative testing and sampling methodologies may be assessed. Point 3 is simply intended to ensure that this work can move forward without sudden changes being applied without prior notice. It does not of course prevent the U. S. making changes, simply calls for advance discussion with the EC. Turning to BSE, we regret that we had no possibility of advance discussions of the U. S. concerns that led to the action on 12 December. The Commission has taken a considerable number of measures in respect of BSE, starting in 1989 with a ban on the movement from the UK to other Member States of animals born before 1 July 1988 (the date on which the UK banned the feeding of ruminant protein to ruminants) or animals which were the offspring of BSE cases. In total, 23 Commission Decisions have been taken on the subject. These include measures to make BSE a notifiable disease, to require certain standards of treatment for waste products, to ban the feeding of mammalian protein to ruminants, to ban the export to other 1. 5. 98 ES Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas C 136/7 Member States or third countries of bovine animals and certain bovine products from the UK, as well as to approve BSE control and eradication programmes in the UK, France, Ireland and Portugal. It should be noted that these Member States, and some others, have SRM bans in place. The Commission actions also include the Decision banning the use of specified risk materials and the subsequent Decision postponing its entry into force until 1 April 1998. Details of these Decisions are available on request. The Commission has, in December, set up an interservice group to make an evaluation of the current state of scientific knowledge on specified risk materials, and to recommend future action to the Commission. This action may include amending the current SRM Decision (97/534/EC), but at this stage it is not possible to predict the content of any such amendment. I must stress, as we explained during the meeting in Oxford, that the purpose of the SRM Decision is to address risks to human and animal health, not to cover "industrial’ products which do not present a health hazard. I realise that the wording of the Decision has given rise to concern that it would affect industrial products imported from third countries. However, the certification for imports is only required for products of animal origin intended for food or feed, and for medicinal, pharmaceutical and cosmetic products and their starting materials or intermediate products. It is the intention of the Commission to clarify the scope in any future amendment of the Decision to make it clear that "industrial’ products are excluded from the requirements. The Commission’s Scientific Steering Committee met last week to address the question of SRMs, and in particular on geographical risk factors and the risks associated with gelatin and tallow. The interservice group is reflecting on the outcome from the Scientific steering Committee. In addition, as you are aware, the OIE is also working on the question of TSEs at present, with meetings over the next two weeks and a possible decision in May. The outcome of this work will also have a bearing on the Community policy. On the question of the BSE status of the USA, your latest submission has been passed to DG XXIV with a request for it to be examined as soon as possible by the relevant scientific group. As far as your "temporary suspension’ of import licences for ruminants and ruminant products is concerned, we intend to comment in the coming weeks, on behalf of the Community, on the interim rule published in the Federal Register of 6 January. At this stage, I would not wish to prejudge the Community position, but I would query the restriction of the scope of the proposed rule to Europe. It seems to me that many countries outside Europe have the same risk factors which you cite to justify your current import prohibition and I would welcome an explanation of why these other countries are not subject to the same rule. We have confirmed our travel arrangements, and will be ready to start work on the morning of 3 February in Washington. We look forward to receiving a draft agenda, following our discussions in Brussels on 23 January, and details of the location of the discussions. Yours sincerely Lars Hoelgaard C 136/8 ES Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas 1. 5. 98 ANEXO IV March 3, 1998 Mr. Guy Legras Director General Directorate(cid:220)General VI Commission of the European Community Rue de la Loi 200 B(cid:220)1049 Brussels Dear Mr. Legras, In a meeting earlier this month in Washington, EC officials requested clarification of Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) procedures with respect to the implementation, vis(cid:220)a(cid:220)vis the EC, of the Pathogen Reduction Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point Systems (PR/HACCP) rule. This letter is in response to that request. First of all, I would like to confirm that we are in general agreement with the four(cid:220)point approach laid out in Lars Hoelgaard’s letter of 28 January to Paul Drazek. Further, I would like to confirm that -(cid:217)FSIS, in keeping with U. S. obligations under footnote 7 to Annex V of the draft agreement, will continue to recognize decisions by the veterinary services of the Member States to add and delete approved export establishments from their list of establishments exporting to the United States; -(cid:217)FSIS will accept HACCP plans developed by establishments, provided that these are equivalent to U. S. measures and are under official control and supervision; and -(cid:217)FSIS will accept Salmonella testing by private establishments, provided that equivalent regulatory testing for verification and equivalent regulatory enforcement is carried out by authorized government officials. As provided for in footnote 1 to Annex V of the draft agreement and Mr. Hoelgaard’s letter, FSIS is prepared to discuss with EC and Member State officials in the coming months the implementation of PR/HACCP provisions that were put in place in January 1998 - i. (cid:216)e. , HACCP and Salmonella performance standards and testing. We have received from Member States notification that HACCP and Salmonella standards, or equivalent alternative sanitary measures, are in place in those establishments that have 500 or more employees and are certified to export to the United States. We are reviewing those submissions in accordance with the principles of equivalence and will make every effort to reach a successful outcome. The situation is somewhat different regarding the requirements for Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures (SSOPs) and Eshcheria coli (E. coli) testing, which were implemented in January 1997. With respect to SSOPs, FSIS has already determined that all EC Member States have complied with the requirement, or have implemented equivalent sanitary measures, in establishments which are certified to export meat or poultry to the United States. With respect to E. coli, FSIS has approved the testing programs of most Member States. Discussions continue, however, with four Member States. Since more than a year has elapsed since domestic implemen(cid:220) tation, FSIS must now proceed in the coming weeks to bring the process to closure. If FSIS determines that the original and follow(cid:220)up documentation and information provided by any of the four countries does not demonstrate that a proposed alternative sanitary measure is equivalent to the United States’ E. coli testing requirement, FSIS will advise that country and the Commission of its determination. That country will then be allowed sufficient time to submit, if it chooses to do so, additional data or other information to make its case. Should FSIS still judge the country’s measures not to be equivalent in regards to E. coli testing, the Agency must proceed, through notice and comment rule making, to remove the country from the group of countries listed in the United States Code of Federal Regulations as eligible to export meat or poultry to the United States. Notwithstanding the above, we remain open to initiating general follow(cid:220)on discussions on E. coli testing under the auspices of the draft agreement and point 4 of Mr. Hoelgaard’s letter. We would welcome in that context any assistance the Commission could give us in resolving outstanding issues. 1. 5. 98 ES Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas C 136/9 I can confirm that FSIS will not take any action as regards the PR/HACCP requirements against any Member State before contacting the Commission and the Member States concerned, and providing an opportunity to resolve the matter. Let me assure you that we will do our utmost to ensure a smooth finalization of this process so that we can avoid any disruption of trade. Sincerely, Thomas J. Billy Administrator C 136/10 ES Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas 1. 5. 98 ANEXO V Mr. Thomas J. Billy Administrator USDA/FSIS Washington D. C. 20250 Dear Mr. Billy, Thank you for your letter of 3 March concerning the implementation of the Pathogen Reduction Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point Systems (PR/HACCP). The letter was discussed in detail by the Chief Veterinary Officers of the Member States meeting in the Council on 5 March. The Commission representative was asked to clarify a number of points in the letter, and did so on the basis of the conclusions reached in our meeting in Washington at the beginning of February. The CVOs concluded by asking the Commission to obtain written clarification on three aspects of the letter. 1. (cid:218)(cid:217)That the MEGAREG rules apply only to those EC establishments that export to the U. S. , and that Member States were not obliged to enact special new laws to put such arrangements in place. I would be grateful for your confirmation that this is correct. 2. (cid:218)(cid:217)The second bullet point of the second paragraph states that FSIS will accept HACCP plans provided that these are equivalent to US measures (emphasis added). In this context, does "measures’ refer to the US system of HACCP in general, or does it refer to more specific measures. As you know, EC legislation on fresh meat and poultry meat does not at present contain requirements for HACCP, although it is the intention of my services to make a proposal for this in the near future. The proposal will be based on the full CODEX HACCP system (as are our existing HACCP legislative provisions on fishery products and milk and dairy products). Until this is adopted in legislation, EC firms may use HACCP on a voluntary basis. This is what is happening in firms exporting to the US and we need to know if application of the HACCP system as described by CODEX would be considered "equivalent to US measures’. 3. (cid:218)(cid:217)The third point of clarification concerns the effect of the last four paragraphs of your letter on the question of the timing of actions under the MEGAREG as discussed in Washington. In the fourth from last paragraph you state that FSIS must, in the coming weeks, bring their approval process to closure and, if they judge that a country’s measures are not equivalent, they must delist that country. However, the next two paragraphs seem to indicate that the US would not delist without prior consultation. Furthermore, your final paragraph refers to avoiding any disruption of trade. Member States asked for a moratorium from the US so that no Member State or establishment was delisted until the discussions on equivalency have taken place. Can I ask you to confirm that this de facto will be the case since it is our intention that these equivalency discussions should proceed as quickly as possible and the penultimate paragraph of your letter states that no action will be taken before an oppor(cid:220) tunity has been provided to resolve the matter. Yours sincerely, G. Legras 1. 5. 98 ES Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas C 136/11 ANEXO VI March 12, 1998 Mr. Guy Legras Director(cid:220)General Directorate(cid:220)General VI, Agriculture European Commission Rue de la Loi 200 B(cid:220)1049 Brussels Dear Mr. Legras, Thank you for your letter of March 6, 1998, concerning the implementation of the Pathogen Reduction Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point Systems (PR/HACCP) rule. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify three points in our letter of March 3, 1998. 1. (cid:218)(cid:217)We concur that the PR/HACCP rule applies only to those European Community (EC) establishments that are certified to export to the United States, and that Member States are not obligated to enact special new laws to put such arrangements in place. A circular or other document sent from the Member State to the establishments that are certified to export to the United States would be an acceptable implementation instrument. 2. (cid:218)(cid:217)We concur that a HACCP system as described by Codex Alimentarius [see Codex Alimentarius, Food Hygiene Basic Texts, Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) System and Guidelines for Its Application, Annex to CAC/RCP 1(cid:220)1969, Rev. 3 (1997)(cid:129) would be an acceptable sanitary measure. We would, of course, expect that the HACCP plan address, among other things, certain regulatory requirements, such as adequate control of fecal contamination as evidenced by E. coli testing (or an equivalent sanitary measure), zero tolerance for visible fecal contamination, pathogen control as evidenced by the Salmonella standard (or an equivalent sanitary measure), etc. In accordance with CAC HACCP System and Guidelines for Its Application, we would expect that the establishments validate and verify their HACCP plans. We would also expect that the controlling authority enforce this requirement. 3. (cid:218)(cid:217)We concur that prior to the removal of a Member State from the list of countries eligible to export to the United States the Food Safety and Inspection Service will give the Member State an opportunity to resolve the matter. Before proceeding, through notice and comment rule making, to remove the country from the group of countries listed in the United States Code of Federal Regulations as eligible to export meat or poultry to the United States, the Member State and/or the Commission acting on behalf of the Member State, will be allowed sufficient time to submit; if it chooses to do so, additional data or other information to make its case. We believe this objective, transparent, and measured process offers the maximum opportunity to finalize the remaining equivalence judgements without any disruption of trade. However, we cannot agree to a moratorium, since we will be bringing our equivalence approval process to closure in the coming weeks with respect to the implementation of the Escherichia coli testing provisions of the PR/HACCP final rule. Sincerely, Thomas J. Billy Administrator


title: 98/309/CE: Décision du Conseil du 1er mai 1998 abrogeant la décision constatant l'existence d'un déficit excessif en Autriche

eurovoc_concepts:
Austria
budget deficit
gross domestic product
public debt

formats: html pdf print

text: 11. 5. 98 FR Journal officiel des Communaut(cid:130)s europ(cid:130)ennes L 139/13 D(cid:144)CISION DU CONSEIL du 1er mai 1998 abrogeant la d(cid:130)cision constatant l’existence d’un d(cid:130)ficit excessif en Autriche (98/309/CE) LE CONSEIL DE L’UNION EUROP(cid:144)ENNE, vu le trait(cid:130) instituant la Communaut(cid:130) europ(cid:130)enne, et notamment son article 104 C, paragraphe 12, vu la recommandation de la Commission, consid(cid:130)rant que la deuxi(cid:138)me phase de la r(cid:130)alisation de l’Union (cid:130)conomique et mon(cid:130)taire a commenc(cid:130) le 1er janvier 1994; que l’article 109 E, paragraphe 4, du trait(cid:130) pr(cid:130)voit que, au cours de la deuxi(cid:138)me phase, les (cid:144)tats membres s’efforcent d’(cid:130)viter des d(cid:130)ficits publics excessifs; consid(cid:130)rant qu’il a (cid:130)t(cid:130) institu(cid:130) une proc(cid:130)dure concernant les d(cid:130)ficits excessifs, qui pr(cid:130)voit l’adoption d’une d(cid:130)cision constatant l’existence d’un d(cid:130)ficit excessif et, lorsqu’il a (cid:130)t(cid:130) rem(cid:130)di(cid:130) (cid:133) ce d(cid:130)ficit, l’abrogation de ladite d(cid:130)cision; que, au cours de la deuxi(cid:138)me phase, la proc(cid:130)dure concer- nant les d(cid:130)ficits excessifs est r(cid:130)gie par l’article 104 C du trait(cid:130), (cid:133) l’exception des paragraphes 1, 9 et 11; que le protocole sur la proc(cid:130)dure concernant les d(cid:130)ficits exces- sifs, annex(cid:130) au trait(cid:130), contient des dispositions addition- nelles pour l’application de cette proc(cid:130)dure; que le r(cid:138)gle- ment (CE) no 3605/93 (1) (cid:130)tablit des r(cid:138)gles et des d(cid:130)fini- tions d(cid:130)taill(cid:130)es pour l’application dudit protocole; consid(cid:130)rant que, sur recommandation de la Commission, le Conseil, conform(cid:130)ment (cid:133) l’article 104 C, paragraphe 6, du trait(cid:130), a d(cid:130)cid(cid:130), le 10 juillet 1995, qu’il existait un d(cid:130)ficit public excessif en Autriche; que, conform(cid:130)ment (cid:133) l’article 104 C, paragraphe 7, du trait(cid:130), le Conseil a adress(cid:130) des recommandations (cid:133) l’Autriche afin que celle-ci mette un terme (cid:133) cette situation (2); consid(cid:130)rant que, conform(cid:130)ment (cid:133) l’article 104 C, para- graphe 12, du trait(cid:130), il convient d’abroger la d(cid:130)cision du Conseil constatant l’existence d’un d(cid:130)ficit excessif, dans la mesure o(cid:151), de l’avis du Conseil, le d(cid:130)ficit excessif dans l’(cid:144)tat membre concern(cid:130) a (cid:130)t(cid:130) corrig(cid:130); lorsqu’il abroge ladite d(cid:130)cision, le consid(cid:130)rant que, Conseil statue sur recommandation de la Commission; que les donn(cid:130)es fournies par la Commission, (cid:133) partir du rapport que l’Autriche lui a communiqu(cid:130) avant le 1er mars 1998, conform(cid:130)ment au r(cid:138)glement (CE) no 3605/93 du Conseil, justifient les conclusions suivantes: Le d(cid:130)ficit public autrichien diminue depuis 1995 et s’est situ(cid:130) en 1997 (cid:133) 2,5 % du produit int(cid:130)rieur brut (PIB), c’est-(cid:133)-dire au-dessous de la valeur de r(cid:130)f(cid:130)rence du trait(cid:130); une nouvelle r(cid:130)duction, (cid:133) 2,3 % du PIB, est anticip(cid:130)e pour 1998. Selon la version actualis(cid:130)e du programme de convergence, pr(cid:130)sent(cid:130)e par l’Autriche en 1997, le d(cid:130)ficit devrait diminuer encore pour se chiffrer (cid:133) 1,9 % du PIB en l’an 2000. Le ratio de la dette publique a culmin(cid:130) en 1996 (cid:133) 69,5 % du PIB, avant de retomber (cid:133) 66,1 % en 1997. Le programme de convergence actualis(cid:130) de l’Autriche pr(cid:130)voit pour 1998 une nouvelle baisse, qui devrait se poursuivre au cours des ann(cid:130)es suivantes. Le d(cid:130)ficit a (cid:130)t(cid:130) inf(cid:130)rieur (cid:133) la valeur de r(cid:130)f(cid:130)rence du trait(cid:130) en 1997; il devrait le rester en 1998 et baisser encore (cid:133) moyen terme; le ratio de la dette diminue actuellement et son recul devrait se poursuivre au cours des ann(cid:130)es (cid:133) venir, A ARR(cid:219)T(cid:144) LA PR(cid:144)SENTE D(cid:144)CISION: Article premier Il ressort d’une (cid:130)valuation globale que le d(cid:130)ficit public excessif de l’Autriche a (cid:130)t(cid:130) corrig(cid:130). Article 2 La d(cid:130)cision du Conseil du 10 juillet 1995 constatant l’existence d’un d(cid:130)ficit excessif en Autriche est abrog(cid:130)e. Article 3 La R(cid:130)publique d’Autriche est destinataire de la pr(cid:130)sente d(cid:130)cision. Fait (cid:133) Bruxelles, le 1er mai 1998. Par le Conseil Le pr(cid:130)sident G. BROWN (1) JO L 332 du 31. 12. 1993, p. 7. (2) Recommandations du Conseil des septembre 1996 et 15 septembre 1997. 24 juillet 1995, 16


title: Ανακοίνωση του Συμβουλίου - Σύναψη συμφωνίας στον κτηνιατρικό τομέα μεταξύ ΕΚ/Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών

eurovoc_concepts:
United States
agreement (EU)
animal health
health legislation
public health
veterinary legislation

text: 1. 5. 98 EL Ep(cid:242)shmh Efhmer(cid:242)da tvn Eyrvpaık(cid:215)n Koinot(cid:254)tvn C (cid:216)136/1 I (Anakoin(cid:215)seiw) SYMBOYLIO SYNACH SYMFVNIAS STON KTHNIATRIKO TOMEA METAJY EK/HNVMENVN POLITEIVN (98/C 136/01) (To par(cid:246)n ke(cid:242)meno akyr(cid:215)nei kai antikaqist‘ to ke(cid:242)meno poy dhmosie(cid:255)qhke sthn EE C (cid:216)122 thw 21hw(cid:217)April(cid:242)oy 1998) Kat‘ thn ~kdosh th apof‘sevw gia th s(cid:255)nach symfvn(cid:242)aw metaj(cid:255) thw Eyrvpaık(cid:254)w Koin(cid:246)thtaw kai tvn Hnvm~nvn Politei(cid:215)n thw Amerik(cid:254)w, sxetik‘ me ta ygeionomik‘ m~tra prostas(cid:242)aw thw dhm(cid:246)siaw yge(cid:242)aw kai thw yge(cid:242)aw tvn z(cid:215)vn, poy efarm(cid:246)zontai sto emp(cid:246)rio z(cid:215)ntvn z(cid:215)vn kai tvn proı(cid:246)ntvn zvık(cid:254)w proele(cid:255)sevw(cid:216)(˛), to Symbo(cid:255)lio en~krine thn ak(cid:246)loyqh d(cid:254)lvsh: (cid:133)To Symbo(cid:255)lio shmei(cid:215)nei thn antallag(cid:254) epistol(cid:215)n metaj(cid:255) thw Epitrop(cid:254)w kai toy Ypoyrge(cid:242)oy Gevrg(cid:242)aw tvn Hnvm~nvn Politei(cid:215)n kai symfvne(cid:242) na kataxvr(cid:254)sei ayt~w tiw epistol~w sta praktik‘ toy. To Symbo(cid:255)lio ypogramm(cid:242)zei (cid:246)ti ayt~w oi epistol~w synisto(cid:255)n oysi(cid:215)dew stoixe(cid:242)o thw apof‘se(cid:215)w toy sxetik‘ me thn ~gkrish thw symfvn(cid:242)aw metaj(cid:255) thw Eyrvpaık(cid:254)w Koin(cid:246)thtaw kai tvn Hnv(cid:220) m~nvn Politei(cid:215)n, ston kthniatrik(cid:246) tom~a. To Symbo(cid:255)lio kai h Epitrop(cid:254) kr(cid:242)noyn (cid:246)ti oi periex(cid:246)menew stiw epistol~w politik~w desme(cid:255)seiw e(cid:242)nai oysi(cid:215)deiw gia thn orq(cid:254), is(cid:246)rroph kai pl(cid:254)rh efarmog(cid:254) thw symfvn(cid:242)aw. H Epitrop(cid:254) desme(cid:255)etai na prosf(cid:255)gei, s(cid:255)mfvna me th diadikas(cid:242)a poy probl~petai sto ‘rqro 4 thw apof‘sevw toy Symboyl(cid:242)oy, stiw diat‘jeiw toy ‘rqroy 14 thw symfvn(cid:242)aw gia na ryqm(cid:242)sei opoiod(cid:254)pote pr(cid:246)blhma poy endexom~nvw qa prok(cid:255)cei (cid:246)son afor‘ thn efarmog(cid:254), lambano(cid:220) m~nhw kyr(cid:242)vw yp(cid:246)ch thw shmas(cid:242)aw poy apod(cid:242)dei to Symbo(cid:255)lio me thn ap(cid:246)fas(cid:254) toy, stiw epi(cid:220) stol~w tvn Hnvm~nvn Politei(cid:215)n. Sthn per(cid:242)ptvsh de poy qa anak(cid:255)cei k‘poio pr(cid:246)blhma, (cid:246)pvw to proanaferq~n, to opo(cid:242)o qa apodeikn(cid:255)ontan mh epil(cid:255)simo, h Epitrop(cid:254) desme(cid:255)etai ep(cid:242)shw, na l‘bei (cid:246)la ta anagka(cid:242)a diadikastik‘ m~tra, poy qa epitr~coyn sto Symbo(cid:255)lio na anal‘bei thn dr‘sh poy probl~petai sto ‘rqro 16 thw symfvn(cid:242)aw, en(cid:215) qa xrhsimopoi(cid:254)sei ta m~sa, ta opo(cid:242)a h Koin(cid:246)thta d(cid:255)natai na epikalesqe(cid:242) dyn‘mei toy ‘rqroy 2 thw paro(cid:255)saw symfvn(cid:242)aw. Opvsd(cid:254)pote e(cid:242)nai profan~w (cid:246)ti h Epitrop(cid:254) pr~pei na l‘bei, sta pla(cid:242)sia thw diarko(cid:255)w kthnia(cid:220) trik(cid:254)w epitrop(cid:254)w, orism~new ektelestik~w apof‘seiw. H Epitrop(cid:254) probl~pei (cid:246)ti h metatrop(cid:254) se eqnik(cid:246) d(cid:242)kaio qa apait(cid:254)sei orism~noyw m(cid:254)new ap(cid:246) thw ypograf(cid:254)w, s(cid:255)mfvna me to ‘rqro 8 thw symfvn(cid:242)aw. Kat‘ th di‘rkeia ayt(cid:254)w thw peri(cid:246)doy, h Epitrop(cid:254) qa parakoloyq(cid:254)sei ek toy s(cid:255)neggyw thn ek m~royw tvn Hnvm~nvn Politei(cid:215)n efarmog(cid:254). To Symbo(cid:255)lio symfvne(cid:242) na dhmosie(cid:255)sei thn paro(cid:255)sa d(cid:254)lvsh kai tiw proanaferqe(cid:242)sew epi(cid:220) stol~w sthn Ep(cid:242)shmh Efhmer(cid:242)da tvn Eyrvpaık(cid:215)n Koinot(cid:254)tvn (seir‘ C)(cid:176). (˛) EE L (cid:216)118 thw 21. 4. 1998, s. 1 kai diorqvtik(cid:246) sthn EE L (cid:216)130 thw 1. 5. 1998. C (cid:216)136/2 EL Ep(cid:242)shmh Efhmer(cid:242)da tvn Eyrvpaık(cid:215)n Koinot(cid:254)tvn 1. 5. 98 PARARTHMA I March 10, 1998 Franz Fischler Agricultural Commissioner Commission of the European Union Rue de la Loi 200 B(cid:220)1049 Brussels Dear Franz, In our meeting in Oxford last January, we had a lengthy discussion of the actions we intended to take to recognize, under the terms of our draft Veterinary Equivalency Agreement (the Agreement), the animal health status of the European Community (EC). I explained to you that it would be impossible for us to publish a second proposed rule on animal health status before the EC Council voted to adopt the Agreement. However, I did promise to provide to you, before the date of the Council vote, an indication of the likely content of the proposal. This letter is in fulfillment of that commitment. Our regionalization obligation under the Agreement extends to the seventeen diseases listed in Annex III of the Agreement. To ensure complete clarity, I would like to describe the situation with respect to each of those seventeen diseases. For eleven of the diseases - namely, peste de petits ruminants, contagious caprine pleuropneumonia, sheep and goat pox, enterovirus encephalomyelitis, pseudorabies/aujeszky’s, vesicular stomatitis, contagious bovine pleuropneumonia, bluetongue, African horse sickness, fowl plague (avian influenza), and Vene(cid:220) zuelan equine encephalomyelitis - the United States already recognizes the EC’s animal health status as defined by the Community. There is, therefore, no need for further action. November 1997 Proposed Rule: In July 1997, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) received a request from the European Commission for the recognition of the animal health status of Member States and their regions for the remaining six diseases - swine vesicular disease (SVD), Newcastle disease (ND), rinderpest, foot(cid:220)and(cid:220)mouth disease (FMD), classical swine fever (CSF), and African swine fever (ASF). Based on the information which was provided, APHIS published a proposed rule in November 1997, under the terms of which the United States would recognize Belgium free of SVD; France free of SVD and ND; Greece free of rinderpest and ND; Luxembourg free of FMD, rinderpest, and ND; Portugal free of FMD, rinderpest, SVD, and ASF; and Spain free of ND. If that rule is finalized as written, and I expect that it will be shortly, the United States will have recognized the EC’s animal health status for two more diseases - ASF and rinderpest - as defined by the EC. With respect to the other four disease, we had not received by the time of the publication of the original proposed rule sufficient information from the EU to allow us to make determinations with respect to certain Member States and regions. Information received subsequently, however, has given us a more complete picture. Foot(cid:220)and(cid:220)Mouth disease: Based on the new information we have received on FMD, we are now prepared to begin the rulemaking process to recognize Greece as FMD(cid:220)free. Completion of that process and final(cid:220) ization of the November proposed rule would mean that the U. S. disease picture for FMD would correspond with that of the EC. Swine vesicular disease: With regard to SVD, we have nearly a complete picture. On the basis of the data provided, we are now prepared to propose the recognition of the EC disease map for all regions except for the central and southern regions of Italy for which we have not yet received sufficient surveillance data. Once we have received and evaluated such information, we would be able (if the data are satisfactory) to complete the EC picture with regard to SVD. Prompt receipt of the information could allow us to make a positive determination prior to formal publication of the proposal in the Federal Register. Classical swine fever and Newcastle disease: With regard to the remaining two diseases, I am frankly very concerned. The situation in Europe is far from stable, and our regulatory officials are anxious to ensure that implementation of the Agreement does not expose U. S. livestock and poultry flocks to unacceptable risks. I coming to conclusions on these two diseases, I have instructed APHIS to go as far as can be scientifically justified. However, I have also instructed them to demand full information and to make prudent judgements. 1. 5. 98 EL Ep(cid:242)shmh Efhmer(cid:242)da tvn Eyrvpaık(cid:215)n Koinot(cid:254)tvn C (cid:216)136/3 On the basis of the information we have received with respect to CSF, we are prepared to begin the rulemaking process for recognizing the EC’s animal health status as defined by the EC. Moreover, we would intend to include in our proposed rule references to regionalization efforts in place in infected regions. This should facilitate the task of changing the status of those areas once the disease is eradicated. However, in light of the length, severity and repetitive nature of the outbreaks, we intend to propose two special conditions. First, in the case of future outbreaks, we would request the EC provide us with information on all shipments to the United States from the newly(cid:220)infected area for 40 days prior to the outbreak. Second, we would stipulate that, in the case of this disease, infected areas would not be determined disease(cid:220)free until they had completed the full six(cid:220)month waiting period prescribed by the Inter(cid:220) national Office of Epizootics (OIE). With respect to ND, we have received from the Commission little information on surveillance. In addition, we are concerned by the Community’s inability to identify the source of the recent outbreaks and the lack of harmonized regulations on the movement of pet birds. Therefore, we are not in a position at this time to extend the disease(cid:220)free recognition for ND beyond what we have already outline in our November 1997 proposed rule. However, additional data and information obtained from he Commission supporting disease free status would allow adjustments prior to the formal publication of the proposal in the Federal Register. I am confident that we are acting in conformity with our obligations under the draft Agreement and the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. We look forward to the adoption and implementation of the Agreement, and to working with you under the Agreement to resolve outstanding issues to the satisfaction of both parties. Sincerely, Dan Glickman Secretary C (cid:216)136/4 EL Ep(cid:242)shmh Efhmer(cid:242)da tvn Eyrvpaık(cid:215)n Koinot(cid:254)tvn 1. 5. 98 PARARTHMA II February 24, 1998 Mr. Guy Legras Director General Directorate(cid:220)General VI Commission of the European Community Rue de la Loi 200 B(cid:220)1049 Brussels Dear Mr. Legras, I refer to the 29 January letter from David Roberts to Paul Drazek concerning the U. S. position on animal health and regionalization issues. That letter accurately identifies the main issues that arose during our recent meetings in Brussels. By way of response to that letter, I can confirm that the U. S. interpretation of the agreement is that the initial presumption in every case is that the regionalization decision taken by the other party will be accepted, allowing for exceptional cases in which, for good and justifiable reasons, the party feels that need to take recourse under the safeguard provision. Thus, in the ordinary case, we expect the agreement to operate as follows: -(cid:217)In the case where the EC takes a decision to restrict an area that has previously been recognized as disease(cid:220)free, the United States would accept the EU’s regionalization decision without having to take further actions; -(cid:217)When, subsequently, a disease incident had been appropriately dealt with and the EC lifts restrictions on that area, the United States would accept that decision without having to take further action. In order to obviate the need for rulemaking in every instance in which the EC might take such a decision to impose or lift restrictions in an area previously recognized disease(cid:220)free, USDA would include provisions in our new proposed rule on EC animal health status to the effect that animals or animal products whose free movement in the EC is restricted are similarly restricted from importation into the United States. -(cid:217)Where a region that has previously been infected with a disease is being recognized as disease(cid:220)free for the first time, USDA is required to proceed by rulemaking to change its recognition of disease status. This includes publishing a proposed rule based on full technical and scientific information, allowing public comment, and issuing a final rule. However, we fully anticipate that we will be able to comply with these domestic requirements to conduct rulemaking in a manner that will permit us to accept and recognize EC regionalization decisions in the ordinary case. Our policy would be to initiate rulemaking by publishing our proposed rule during the waiting period required by the OIE before a region may be declared disease(cid:220)free. Previously, APHIS policy was to require that a country be free of disease for the entire OIE time frame or longer before it initiated rulemaking. However, in light of our agreement, we consider that it would be appropriate to initiate rulemaking once we have received thorough and complete information that the last case of the disease has been eliminated from the region, including details of the regionalization measures in place. The proposed rule would contain reference to such measures. The publication of the final rule would be contingent on the fact that no additional cases of the disease are discovered in the region during the OIE period. Normally, the required rulemaking can be conducted within the OIE waiting period. Although this response attempts to clarify our interpretation and position with respect to the obligations incorporated in Article 6 of the Agreement, it is implicit that the proper functioning of the Agreement will depend, of course, on both parties exercising their responsibilities under all provisions of the Agreement. I would note, in this regard, that we consider that the provisions of Article 6 are closely tied to the provisions of Article 10 and 11 requiring the parties to keep each other fully informed of their actions and the bases for those actions. In addition, we recognize that there may be exceptional cases - e. g. , where there has been a disease outbreak which achieves significant geographical spread or which persists for a significant duration - in which the parties will not agree on what action is appropriately indicated by the circumstances, and in those cases, the obligations under Article 6 are clearly balanced by the rights and procedures contained in Article 12. Our policy in such exceptional circumstances would be to initiate rule(cid:220)making through the publication of an Interim Rule, with a public comment period. If the EC can demonstrate that the disease situation was brought under control during the comment period, the Interim Rule could simply be withdrawn and the normal regionalization provisions apply, i. e. , the United States would accept the EC regionalization decision without further action. 1. 5. 98 EL Ep(cid:242)shmh Efhmer(cid:242)da tvn Eyrvpaık(cid:215)n Koinot(cid:254)tvn C (cid:216)136/5 I hope that this explanation clarifies our position. I want to reiterate that we understand our obligations under the draft agreement with respect to animal health and the recognition of regionalization decisions, and intend to honor those commitments in every respect. I believe that we have shown considerable understanding of, and respect for, the various legal requirements which the EC must follow in the implementation of its obligations under the draft agreement. We too have certain domestic requirements that must be respected, and we appreciate your consideration in helping us to accomodate those requirements as we implement our responsibilities. Sincerely, Terry Medley Administrator C (cid:216)136/6 EL Ep(cid:242)shmh Efhmer(cid:242)da tvn Eyrvpaık(cid:215)n Koinot(cid:254)tvn 1. 5. 98 PARARTHMA III January 28, 1998 Mr. Paul Drazek USDA Washington D. C. Dear Paul, Subject: Forthcoming Veterinary Discussions: MEGAREGs and BSE Firstly, I would like to thank you and your team for the constructive discussions last Friday. It was most helpful to be able to run over the ground, and will enable us to be better prepared for next week’s discussions in Washington. You asked us to set out some ideas in advance, especially as regards MEGAREGs. On the MEGAREGs, there have been no substantive discussions between the EC and the U. S. Indeed although we had some discussion last year, as regards the SSOPs and E coli requirements, the provisions as regards salmonella and HACCP, which apply to large plants from January 1998, were not really discussed as we all expected that these discussions would take place under the provisions of Footnote 1 to Annex V. It is evident, and not suprising, that EG legislation does not contain exactly the same provisions as those the U. S. has already imposed, and will progressively impose through to the year 2000 for the production of red meat and poultrymeat under the MEGAREGs. We are therefore ready to consider providing a guarantee that provisions at least equivalent to those set down in the MEGAREGs are applied in EC establishments which are to be listed for export to the United States, or establishments that supply such establishments. We therefore propose the following: All red meat and poultrymeat establishments exporting to the United States must: 1. (cid:217)Be EC agreed (oval stamp) 2. (cid:217)(a)(cid:217)For large establishments (more than 500 employees): apply HACCP, with the HACCP plan including microbiological testing provisions at least equivalent to those set down in the MEGAREGs for E coli and salmonella. 2. (cid:217)(b) For other establishments: apply SSOPs, and microbiological testing provisions at least equivalent to those set down in the MEGAREGs for E coli. 3. (cid:217)The U. S. agrees not to modify the provisions as regards SSOPs, HACCP, E coli or salmonella testing, as they stand at 27 January 1998, without prior discussion with the EC. 4. (cid:217)A procedure be agreed to initiate discussions immediately to compare, on a case by case basis, the testing and sampling provisions which are in place in the EC or which are proposed with those set down in the MEGAREGs, with a view to reaching a determination of equivalence. This approach is intended to provide the U. S. with clear guarantees, and both sides with a process through which alternative testing and sampling methodologies may be assessed. Point 3 is simply intended to ensure that this work can move forward without sudden changes being applied without prior notice. It does not of course prevent the U. S. making changes, simply calls for advance discussion with the EC. Turning to BSE, we regret that we had no possibility of advance discussions of the U. S. concerns that led to the action on 12 December. The Commission has taken a considerable number of measures in respect of BSE, starting in 1989 with a ban on the movement from the UK to other Member States of animals born before 1 July 1988 (the date on which the UK banned the feeding of ruminant protein to ruminants) or animals which were the offspring of BSE cases. In total, 23 Commission Decisions have been taken on the subject. These include measures to make BSE a notifiable disease, to require certain standards of treatment for waste products, to ban the feeding of mammalian protein to ruminants, to ban the export to other 1. 5. 98 EL Ep(cid:242)shmh Efhmer(cid:242)da tvn Eyrvpaık(cid:215)n Koinot(cid:254)tvn C (cid:216)136/7 Member States or third countries of bovine animals and certain bovine products from the UK, as well as to approve BSE control and eradication programmes in the UK, France, Ireland and Portugal. It should be noted that these Member States, and some others, have SRM bans in place. The Commission actions also include the Decision banning the use of specified risk materials and the subsequent Decision postponing its entry into force until 1 April 1998. Details of these Decisions are available on request. The Commission has, in December, set up an interservice group to make an evaluation of the current state of scientific knowledge on specified risk materials, and to recommend future action to the Commission. This action may include amending the current SRM Decision (97/534/EC), but at this stage it is not possible to predict the content of any such amendment. I must stress, as we explained during the meeting in Oxford, that the purpose of the SRM Decision is to address risks to human and animal health, not to cover "industrial’ products which do not present a health hazard. I realise that the wording of the Decision has given rise to concern that it would affect industrial products imported from third countries. However, the certification for imports is only required for products of animal origin intended for food or feed, and for medicinal, pharmaceutical and cosmetic products and their starting materials or intermediate products. It is the intention of the Commission to clarify the scope in any future amendment of the Decision to make it clear that "industrial’ products are excluded from the requirements. The Commission’s Scientific Steering Committee met last week to address the question of SRMs, and in particular on geographical risk factors and the risks associated with gelatin and tallow. The interservice group is reflecting on the outcome from the Scientific steering Committee. In addition, as you are aware, the OIE is also working on the question of TSEs at present, with meetings over the next two weeks and a possible decision in May. The outcome of this work will also have a bearing on the Community policy. On the question of the BSE status of the USA, your latest submission has been passed to DG XXIV with a request for it to be examined as soon as possible by the relevant scientific group. As far as your "temporary suspension’ of import licences for ruminants and ruminant products is concerned, we intend to comment in the coming weeks, on behalf of the Community, on the interim rule published in the Federal Register of 6 January. At this stage, I would not wish to prejudge the Community position, but I would query the restriction of the scope of the proposed rule to Europe. It seems to me that many countries outside Europe have the same risk factors which you cite to justify your current import prohibition and I would welcome an explanation of why these other countries are not subject to the same rule. We have confirmed our travel arrangements, and will be ready to start work on the morning of 3 February in Washington. We look forward to receiving a draft agenda, following our discussions in Brussels on 23 January, and details of the location of the discussions. Yours sincerely Lars Hoelgaard C (cid:216)136/8 EL Ep(cid:242)shmh Efhmer(cid:242)da tvn Eyrvpaık(cid:215)n Koinot(cid:254)tvn 1. 5. 98 PARARTHMA IV March 3, 1998 Mr. Guy Legras Director General Directorate(cid:220)General VI Commission of the European Community Rue de la Loi 200 B(cid:220)1049 Brussels Dear Mr. Legras, In a meeting earlier this month in Washington, EC officials requested clarification of Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) procedures with respect to the implementation, vis(cid:220)a(cid:220)vis the EC, of the Pathogen Reduction Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point Systems (PR/HACCP) rule. This letter is in response to that request. First of all, I would like to confirm that we are in general agreement with the four(cid:220)point approach laid out in Lars Hoelgaard’s letter of 28 January to Paul Drazek. Further, I would like to confirm that -(cid:217)FSIS, in keeping with U. S. obligations under footnote 7 to Annex V of the draft agreement, will continue to recognize decisions by the veterinary services of the Member States to add and delete approved export establishments from their list of establishments exporting to the United States; -(cid:217)FSIS will accept HACCP plans developed by establishments, provided that these are equivalent to U. S. measures and are under official control and supervision; and -(cid:217)FSIS will accept Salmonella testing by private establishments, provided that equivalent regulatory testing for verification and equivalent regulatory enforcement is carried out by authorized government officials. As provided for in footnote 1 to Annex V of the draft agreement and Mr. Hoelgaard’s letter, FSIS is prepared to discuss with EC and Member State officials in the coming months the implementation of PR/HACCP provisions that were put in place in January 1998 - i. (cid:216)e. , HACCP and Salmonella performance standards and testing. We have received from Member States notification that HACCP and Salmonella standards, or equivalent alternative sanitary measures, are in place in those establishments that have 500 or more employees and are certified to export to the United States. We are reviewing those submissions in accordance with the principles of equivalence and will make every effort to reach a successful outcome. The situation is somewhat different regarding the requirements for Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures (SSOPs) and Eshcheria coli (E. coli) testing, which were implemented in January 1997. With respect to SSOPs, FSIS has already determined that all EC Member States have complied with the requirement, or have implemented equivalent sanitary measures, in establishments which are certified to export meat or poultry to the United States. With respect to E. coli, FSIS has approved the testing programs of most Member States. Discussions continue, however, with four Member States. Since more than a year has elapsed since domestic implemen(cid:220) tation, FSIS must now proceed in the coming weeks to bring the process to closure. If FSIS determines that the original and follow(cid:220)up documentation and information provided by any of the four countries does not demonstrate that a proposed alternative sanitary measure is equivalent to the United States’ E. coli testing requirement, FSIS will advise that country and the Commission of its determination. That country will then be allowed sufficient time to submit, if it chooses to do so, additional data or other information to make its case. Should FSIS still judge the country’s measures not to be equivalent in regards to E. coli testing, the Agency must proceed, through notice and comment rule making, to remove the country from the group of countries listed in the United States Code of Federal Regulations as eligible to export meat or poultry to the United States. Notwithstanding the above, we remain open to initiating general follow(cid:220)on discussions on E. coli testing under the auspices of the draft agreement and point 4 of Mr. Hoelgaard’s letter. We would welcome in that context any assistance the Commission could give us in resolving outstanding issues. 1. 5. 98 EL Ep(cid:242)shmh Efhmer(cid:242)da tvn Eyrvpaık(cid:215)n Koinot(cid:254)tvn C (cid:216)136/9 I can confirm that FSIS will not take any action as regards the PR/HACCP requirements against any Member State before contacting the Commission and the Member States concerned, and providing an opportunity to resolve the matter. Let me assure you that we will do our utmost to ensure a smooth finalization of this process so that we can avoid any disruption of trade. Sincerely, Thomas J. Billy Administrator C (cid:216)136/10 EL Ep(cid:242)shmh Efhmer(cid:242)da tvn Eyrvpaık(cid:215)n Koinot(cid:254)tvn 1. 5. 98 PARARTHMA V Mr. Thomas J. Billy Administrator USDA/FSIS Washington D. C. 20250 Dear Mr. Billy, Thank you for your letter of 3 March concerning the implementation of the Pathogen Reduction Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point Systems (PR/HACCP). The letter was discussed in detail by the Chief Veterinary Officers of the Member States meeting in the Council on 5 March. The Commission representative was asked to clarify a number of points in the letter, and did so on the basis of the conclusions reached in our meeting in Washington at the beginning of February. The CVOs concluded by asking the Commission to obtain written clarification on three aspects of the letter. 1. (cid:218)(cid:217)That the MEGAREG rules apply only to those EC establishments that export to the U. S. , and that Member States were not obliged to enact special new laws to put such arrangements in place. I would be grateful for your confirmation that this is correct. 2. (cid:218)(cid:217)The second bullet point of the second paragraph states that FSIS will accept HACCP plans provided that these are equivalent to US measures (emphasis added). In this context, does "measures’ refer to the US system of HACCP in general, or does it refer to more specific measures. As you know, EC legislation on fresh meat and poultry meat does not at present contain requirements for HACCP, although it is the intention of my services to make a proposal for this in the near future. The proposal will be based on the full CODEX HACCP system (as are our existing HACCP legislative provisions on fishery products and milk and dairy products). Until this is adopted in legislation, EC firms may use HACCP on a voluntary basis. This is what is happening in firms exporting to the US and we need to know if application of the HACCP system as described by CODEX would be considered "equivalent to US measures’. 3. (cid:218)(cid:217)The third point of clarification concerns the effect of the last four paragraphs of your letter on the question of the timing of actions under the MEGAREG as discussed in Washington. In the fourth from last paragraph you state that FSIS must, in the coming weeks, bring their approval process to closure and, if they judge that a country’s measures are not equivalent, they must delist that country. However, the next two paragraphs seem to indicate that the US would not delist without prior consultation. Furthermore, your final paragraph refers to avoiding any disruption of trade. Member States asked for a moratorium from the US so that no Member State or establishment was delisted until the discussions on equivalency have taken place. Can I ask you to confirm that this de facto will be the case since it is our intention that these equivalency discussions should proceed as quickly as possible and the penultimate paragraph of your letter states that no action will be taken before an oppor(cid:220) tunity has been provided to resolve the matter. Yours sincerely, G. Legras 1. 5. 98 EL Ep(cid:242)shmh Efhmer(cid:242)da tvn Eyrvpaık(cid:215)n Koinot(cid:254)tvn C (cid:216)136/11 PARARTHMA VI March 12, 1998 Mr. Guy Legras Director(cid:220)General Directorate(cid:220)General VI, Agriculture European Commission Rue de la Loi 200 B(cid:220)1049 Brussels Dear Mr. Legras, Thank you for your letter of March 6, 1998, concerning the implementation of the Pathogen Reduction Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point Systems (PR/HACCP) rule. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify three points in our letter of March 3, 1998. 1. (cid:218)(cid:217)We concur that the PR/HACCP rule applies only to those European Community (EC) establishments that are certified to export to the United States, and that Member States are not obligated to enact special new laws to put such arrangements in place. A circular or other document sent from the Member State to the establishments that are certified to export to the United States would be an acceptable implementation instrument. 2. (cid:218)(cid:217)We concur that a HACCP system as described by Codex Alimentarius [see Codex Alimentarius, Food Hygiene Basic Texts, Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) System and Guidelines for Its Application, Annex to CAC/RCP 1(cid:220)1969, Rev. 3 (1997)(cid:129) would be an acceptable sanitary measure. We would, of course, expect that the HACCP plan address, among other things, certain regulatory requirements, such as adequate control of fecal contamination as evidenced by E. coli testing (or an equivalent sanitary measure), zero tolerance for visible fecal contamination, pathogen control as evidenced by the Salmonella standard (or an equivalent sanitary measure), etc. In accordance with CAC HACCP System and Guidelines for Its Application, we would expect that the establishments validate and verify their HACCP plans. We would also expect that the controlling authority enforce this requirement. 3. (cid:218)(cid:217)We concur that prior to the removal of a Member State from the list of countries eligible to export to the United States the Food Safety and Inspection Service will give the Member State an opportunity to resolve the matter. Before proceeding, through notice and comment rule making, to remove the country from the group of countries listed in the United States Code of Federal Regulations as eligible to export meat or poultry to the United States, the Member State and/or the Commission acting on behalf of the Member State, will be allowed sufficient time to submit; if it chooses to do so, additional data or other information to make its case. We believe this objective, transparent, and measured process offers the maximum opportunity to finalize the remaining equivalence judgements without any disruption of trade. However, we cannot agree to a moratorium, since we will be bringing our equivalence approval process to closure in the coming weeks with respect to the implementation of the Escherichia coli testing provisions of the PR/HACCP final rule. Sincerely, Thomas J. Billy Administrator


title: 98/314/EC: Council Decision of 1 May 1998 abrogating the Decision on the existence of an excessive deficit for Sweden

eurovoc_concepts:
Sweden
budget deficit
gross domestic product
public debt

text: 11. 5. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 139/19 COUNCIL DECISION of 1 May 1998 abrogating the Decision on the existence of an excessive deficit for Sweden (98/314/EC) THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 104c(12) thereof, Having regard to the recommendation from the Commis- sion, Whereas the second stage for achieving economic and monetary union started on 1 January 1994; whereas Article 109e(4) of the Treaty lays down that, in the second stage, Member States shall endeavour to avoid excessive government deficits; Whereas there is an excessive deficit procedure which provides for a decision on the existence of an excessive deficit and, after the excessive deficit has been corrected, for the abrogation of that decision; whereas, during the second stage, the excessive deficit procedure is deter- mined by Article 104c of the Treaty, excluding para- graphs 1, 9 and 11; whereas the Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaty sets out further provisions relating to the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure; whereas Regulation (EC) No 3605/93 (1) lays down detailed rules and definitions for the applica- tion of the said Protocol; Whereas, following a recommendation from the Commis- sion in accordance with Article 104c(6) of the Treaty, the Council decided on 10 July 1995 that an excessive deficit existed in Sweden; whereas, in accordance with Article 104c(7), the Council made recommendations to Sweden with a view to bringing the excessive deficit situation to an end (2); Whereas a Council Decision on the existence of an exces- sive deficit is to be abrogated, in accordance with the provisions of Article 104c(12) of the Treaty, to the extent that the excessive deficit in the Member State concerned has, in the view of the Council, been corrected; Whereas, when abrogating the Decision, the Council is to act on a recommendation from the Commission; whereas, based on the data provided by the Commission after reporting by Sweden before 1 March 1998 in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 3605/93, the following conclu- sions are warranted: The government deficit in Sweden has been reduced very sharply since 1993 and reached 0,8 % of GDP in 1997, which is well below the Treaty reference value. A surplus of 0,5 % of GDP is forecast for 1998. According to the April 1998 review of the convergence programme for Sweden, the government accounts are projected to show a surplus of 3,5 % of GDP in 2001. The government debt ratio peaked in 1994 at 79,0 % of GDP and since then has declined every year to reach 76,6 % in 1997; the debt ratio is expected to decline further in 1998 and projected to continue declining in the following years in the April 1998 review of the Swedish convergence programme and reach 62,9 % of GDP in 2001. The deficit was well below the Treaty reference value in 1997 and the budget is expected to be in surplus in 1998 and to show an increasing surplus in the medium term; the debt ratio has been diminishing in the last three years and is expected to continue declining in coming years, HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: Article 1 From an overall assessment it follows that the excessive deficit situation in Sweden has been corrected. Article 2 The Council Decision of 10 July 1995 on the existence of an excessive deficit in Sweden is hereby abrogated. Article 3 This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Sweden. Done at Brussels, 1 May 1998. For the Council The President G. BROWN (1) OJ L 332, 31. 12. 1993, p. 7. (2) Council 1996 and 15 September 1997. recommendations of 24 July 1995, 16 September


title: 98/308/EG: Beschikking van de Raad van 1 mei 1998 tot intrekking van de beschikking betreffende het bestaan van een buitensporig tekort in Duitsland

eurovoc_concepts:
Germany
budget deficit
gross domestic product
public debt

text: 11. 5. 98 NL Publicatieblad van de Europese Gemeenschappen L 139/11 BESCHIKKING VAN DE RAAD van 1 mei 1998 tot intrekking van de beschikking betreffende het bestaan van een buitensporig tekort in Duitsland (98/308/EG) DE RAAD VAN DE EUROPESE UNIE, Gelet op het Verdrag tot oprichting van de Europese Gemeenschap, inzonderheid op artikel 104 C, lid 12, Gezien de aanbeveling van de Commissie, Overwegende dat de tweede fase van de verwezenlijking van de Economische en Monetaire Unie op 1 januari 1994 is ingegaan; dat in artikel 109 E, lid 4, van het Verdrag is bepaald dat de lidstaten in de tweede fase ernaar streven buitensporige overheidstekorten te voor- komen; Overwegende dat er een procedure bij buitensporige tekorten bestaat, die inhoudt dat een beschikking over het bestaan van een buitensporig tekort wordt vastgesteld en dat, nadat het buitensporige tekort is gecorrigeerd, bedoelde beschikking wordt ingetrokken; dat voor de tweede fase de procedure bij buitensporige tekorten is bepaald in artikel 104 C van het Verdrag, met uitzonde- ring van de leden 1, 9 en 11; dat het protocol betreffende de procedure bij buitensporige tekorten, dat aan het Verdrag is gehecht, nadere bepalingen behelst betreffende de toepassing van de procedure bij buitensporige tekorten; in Verordening (EG) nr. 3605/93 (1) gedetailleerde dat regels en definities voor de toepassing van genoemd protocol zijn vervat; Overwegende dat de Raad op 27 juni 1996, op grond van een aanbeveling van de Commissie overeenkomstig artikel 104 C, lid 6, van het Verdrag heeft besloten dat in Duitsland een buitensporig tekort bestond (2); dat over- eenkomstig artikel 104 C, lid 7, de Raad aanbevelingen tot Duitsland heeft gericht om dit buitensporige tekort te corrigeren (3); Overwegende dat overeenkomstig de bepalingen van artikel 104 C, lid 12, van het Verdrag een beschikking van de Raad betreffende het bestaan van een buitensporig tekort wordt ingetrokken, indien de Raad van oordeel is dat het buitensporige tekort in de betrokken lidstaat is gecorrigeerd; Overwegende dat de Raad zijn beschikking tot intrekking van bedoelde beschikking vaststelt op grond van een aanbeveling van de Commissie; dat uit de gegevens die de Commissie heeft verstrekt, nadat Duitsland v(cid:155)(cid:155)r 1 maart 1998 overeenkomstig Verordening (EG) nr. 3605/93 gege- vens heeft overgelegd, de volgende conclusies kunnen worden getrokken; Het Duitse overheidstekort is in 1995 en 1996 opgelopen en bereikte in laatstgenoemd jaar een niveau van 3,4 % van het BBP. In 1997 werd het tekort teruggedrongen tot 2,7 % van het BBP, hetgeen lager is dan de referentie- waarde van het Verdrag, en naar verwachting zal het in 1998 verder worden teruggebracht tot 2,5 % van het BBP. Volgens het convergentieprogramma van 1997 voor Duitsland zal het overheidstekort wellicht verder dalen tot 1,5 % van het BBP in 2000. De schuldquote van de overheid vertoonde een opwaartse tendens tot 1997, toen zij 61,3 % van het BBP bedroeg; de schuldquote kwam in 1996 juist boven de referentie- waarde van 60 % van het BBP uit, na in 1995 sterk te zijn gestegen. Voor 1998 wordt een daling van de schuldquote verwacht, die volgens de prognoses in het Duitse conver- gentieprogramma de komende jaren zou aanhouden. De uitzonderlijke omstandigheden van de Duitse eenwor- ding blijven een zware last betekenen voor de Duitse begroting. Bovendien omvat de Duitse overheidsschuld met de eenwording verband houdende verplichtingen die overeenstemmen met ongeveer 10 % van het BBP. Het tekort lag in 1997 onder de referentiewaarde van het Verdrag. Verwacht wordt dat dit ook in 1998 het geval zal zijn en dat het tekort op middellange termijn verder zal teruglopen. De schuldquote bevond zich in 1997 iets boven de referentiewaarde van het Verdrag, maar wordt verwacht in 1998 te beginnen dalen en spoedig weer tot onder de referentiewaarde van het Verdrag te zakken, HEEFT DE VOLGENDE BESCHIKKING VASTGESTELD: Artikel 1 Uit een algehele evaluatie volgt dat het buitensporige tekort in Duitsland is gecorrigeerd. Artikel 2 (1) PB L 332 van 31. 12. 1993, blz. 7. (2) PB L 172 van 11. 7. 1996, blz. 26. (3) Aanbevelingen van de Raad van 16 september 1996 en 15 september 1997. De beschikking van de Raad van 27 juni 1996 betreffende het bestaan van een buitensporig tekort in Duitsland wordt hierbij ingetrokken. L 139/12 NL Publicatieblad van de Europese Gemeenschappen 11. 5. 98 Deze beschikking is gericht tot de Bondsrepubliek Duitsland. Artikel 3 Gedaan te Brussel, 1 mei 1998. Voor de Raad De Voorzitter G. BROWN


title: 98/311/CE: Decisione del Consiglio del 1o maggio 1998 che abroga la decisione relativa all'esistenza di un disavanzo eccessivo in Italia

eurovoc_concepts:
Italy
budget deficit
gross domestic product
public debt

text: 11. 5. 98 IT Gazzetta ufficiale delle Comunit(cid:133) europee L 139/15 DECISIONE DEL CONSIGLIO del 1o maggio 1998 che abroga la decisione relativa all’esistenza di un disavanzo eccessivo in Italia (98/311/CE) IL CONSIGLIO DELL’UNIONE EUROPEA, visto il trattato che istituisce la Comunit(cid:133) europea, in particolare l’articolo 104 C, paragrafo 12, vista la raccomandazione della Commissione, considerando che la seconda fase per la realizzazione dell’Unione economica e monetaria (cid:138) iniziata il 1o gennaio 1994; che l’articolo 109 E, paragrafo 4 del trattato stabilisce che nella seconda fase gli Stati membri cercano di evitare disavanzi pubblici eccessivi; considerando che esiste una procedura per i disavanzi eccessivi, la quale prevede una decisione relativa all’esi- tale disavanzo e, dopo che il disavanzo in stenza di questione sia stato corretto, l’abrogazione della decisione stessa; che nella seconda fase la procedura per i disavanzi eccessivi (cid:138) determinata dall’articolo 104 C del trattato, esclusi i paragrafi 1, 9 e 11; che le modalit(cid:133) della proce- dura in questione sono ulteriormente precisate nel proto- collo sulla procedura per i disavanzi eccessivi allegato al trattato; che il regolamento (CE) n. 3605/93 (1) stabilisce le definizioni e le modalit(cid:133) d’applicazione relative al proto- collo suddetto; considerando che, a seguito di una raccomandazione della Commissione conforme all’articolo 104 C, paragrafo 6 del trattato, il 26 settembre 1994 il Consiglio ha deciso che in Italia esisteva un disavanzo eccessivo; che, a norma dell’ar- ticolo 104 C, paragrafo 7, il Consiglio ha formulato racco- mandazioni all’Italia al fine di far cessare la situazione di disavanzo eccessivo (2); considerando che una decisione del Consiglio relativa all’esistenza di un disavanzo eccessivo dev’essere abrogata, ai sensi delle disposizioni dell’articolo 104 C, paragrafo 12, del trattato, nella misura in cui il Consiglio ritiene che il disavanzo eccessivo sia stato corretto; considerando che il Consiglio abroga tale decisione su raccomandazione della Commissione; che, sulla base dei dati forniti dalla Commissione e notificati dall’Italia entro il 1o marzo 1998, ai sensi del regolamento (CE) n. 3605/ 93, sono giustificate le seguenti conclusioni: A partire dal 1993 il disavanzo pubblico (cid:138) stato notevol- mente ridotto e portato al 2,7 % del PIL nel 1997, al di sotto cio(cid:138) del valore di riferimento fissato dal trattato; un’ulteriore riduzione al 2,5 % del PIL (cid:138) prevista per il 1998. Il nuovo programma economico a medio termine 1998-2001, recentemente presentato in Parlamento dal governo italiano, prevede un ulteriore riduzione del disa- vanzo generale pubblico all’1,5 % del PIL nel 2000 e all’1 % del PIL nel 2001. Il rapporto debito/PIL ha registrato una punta massima del 124,9 % nel 1994 e da allora si (cid:138) ridotto ogni anno per arrivare al 121,6 % nel 1997. Il nuovo programma economico a medio termine prevede una riduzione del rapporto debito/PIL al 118,2 % nel 1998 ed un’ulteriore riduzione negli anni successivi. Nel 2001 (cid:138) previsto che il rapporto debito/PIL raggiunga il 107 %. A tale riduzione contribuiranno i proventi delle privatizzazioni, nella misura dello 0,5-0,75 % del PIL all’anno fino al 2001. Il governo italiano ha annunziato altres(cid:141) il suo impegno a ridurre il rapporto debito/PIL al di sotto del 100 % a partire dal 2003. La riduzione del disavanzo e, in particolare, la crescita costante dell’avanzo primario, che nel 1997 ha superato il 6 % del PIL, hanno contribuito ad imprimere al rapporto debito/PIL un andamento discendente. Il governo italiano ha recentemente ribadito il suo impegno a mantenere l’avanzo primario ad un livello che contribuisca in misura sostanziale alla riduzione del rapporto debito/PIL. Questo avanzo primario (cid:138) indispensabile affinch(cid:130) il rapporto debito/PIL mantenga un andamento discendente sosteni- bile. Il disavanzo di bilancio nel 1997 risultava inferiore al valore di riferimento fissato dal trattato ed (cid:138) previsto che rimanga tale nel 1998 per ridursi ulteriormente nel medio periodo; il rapporto debito/PIL (cid:138) diminuito nel corso degli ultimi tre anni e si prevede che continui a scendere ancora e pi(cid:151) rapidamente nei prossimi anni, HA ADOTTATO LA PRESENTE DECISIONE: Articolo 1 (1) GU L 332 del 31. 12. 1993, pag. 7. (2) Raccomandazioni del Consiglio del 7 novembre 1994, del 24 luglio 1995, del 16 settembre 1996 e del 15 settembre 1997. Da una valutazione complessiva risulta che la situazione di disavanzo eccessivo in Italia (cid:138) stata corretta. L 139/16 IT Gazzetta ufficiale delle Comunit(cid:133) europee 11. 5. 98 La decisione del Consiglio del 26 settembre 1994, relativa all’esistenza di un disavanzo eccessivo in Italia, (cid:138) abrogata. Articolo 2 La Repubblica italiana (cid:138) destinataria della presente decisione. Articolo 3 Fatto a Bruxelles, add(cid:141) 1o maggio 1998. Per il Consiglio Il presidente G. BROWN


title: 98/315/EG: Beschikking van de Raad van 1 mei 1998 tot intrekking van de beschikking betreffende het bestaan van een buitensporig tekort in het Verenigd Koninkrijk

eurovoc_concepts:
United Kingdom
budget deficit
gross domestic product
public debt

text: L 139/20 NL Publicatieblad van de Europese Gemeenschappen 11. 5. 98 BESCHIKKING VAN DE RAAD van 1 mei 1998 tot intrekking van de beschikking betreffende het bestaan van een buitensporig tekort in het Verenigd Koninkr¶k (98/315/EG) DE RAAD VAN DE EUROPESE UNIE, Gelet op het Verdrag tot oprichting van de Europese Gemeenschap, inzonderheid op artikel 104 C, lid 12, Gezien de aanbeveling van de Commissie, Overwegende dat de tweede fase van de verwezenl¶king van de Economische en Monetaire Unie op 1 januari 1994 is ingegaan; dat in artikel 109 E, lid 4, van het Verdrag is bepaald dat de lidstaten in de tweede fase ernaar streven buitensporige overheidstekorten te voor- komen; Overwegende dat er een procedure b¶ buitensporige tekorten bestaat, die inhoudt dat een beschikking over het bestaan van een buitensporig tekort wordt vastgesteld en dat, nadat het buitensporige tekort is gecorrigeerd, bedoelde beschikking wordt ingetrokken; dat voor de tweede fase de procedure b¶ buitensporige tekorten is bepaald in artikel 104 C van het Verdrag, met uitzonde- ring van de leden 1, 9 en 11; dat het protocol betreffende de procedure b¶ buitensporige tekorten, dat aan het Verdrag is gehecht, nadere bepalingen behelst betreffende de toepassing van de procedure b¶ buitensporige tekorten; in Verordening (EG) nr. 3605/93 (1) gedetailleerde dat regels en definities voor de toepassing van genoemd protocol z¶n vervat; Overwegende dat de Raad op 26 september 1994 op grond van een aanbeveling van de Commissie overeen- komstig artikel 104 C, lid 6, van het Verdrag heeft besloten dat in het Verenigd Koninkr¶k een buitensporig tekort bestond; dat overeenkomstig artikel 104 C, lid 7, de Raad aanbevelingen tot het Verenigd Koninkr¶k heeft gericht om dit buitensporige tekort te corrigeren (2); Overwegende dat overeenkomstig de bepalingen van artikel 104 C, lid 12, van het Verdrag een beschikking van de Raad betreffende het bestaan van een buitensporig tekort wordt ingetrokken, indien de Raad van oordeel is dat het buitensporige tekort in de betrokken lidstaat is gecorrigeerd; Overwegende dat de Raad z¶n beschikking tot intrekking van bedoelde beschikking vaststelt op grond van een aanbeveling van de Commissie; dat uit de gegevens die de Commissie heeft verstrekt, nadat het Verenigd Koninkr¶k v(cid:155)(cid:155)r 1 maart 1998 overeenkomstig Verordening (EG) nr. (1) PB L 332 van 31. 12. 1993, blz. 7. (2) Aanbevelingen van de Raad van 7 november 1994, 24 juli 1995, 16 september 1996 en 15 september 1997. 3605/93 gegevens heeft overgelegd, de volgende conclu- sies kunnen worden getrokken: Sinds 1993 is het overheidstekort in het Verenigd Koninkr¶k sterk teruggelopen en in 1997 bereikte het 1,9 % van het BBP, hetgeen aanmerkel¶k lager is dan de referentiewaarde van het Verdrag. Naar verwachting zal het in 1998 verder afnemen tot 0,6 % van het BBP. Volgens de prognoses van het convergentieprogramma van 1997 voor het Verenigd Koninkr¶k zullen de over- heidsrekeningen tegen het einde van het decennium wellicht een overschot te zien geven. De schuldquote van de overheid heeft de in het Verdrag vastgestelde referentiewaarde van 60 % van het BBP nooit overschreden; na verscheidene jaren te z¶n gestegen, is de schuldquote in 1997 gedaald tot 53,4 % van het BBP. Het tekort lag in 1997 ver onder de referentiewaarde van het Verdrag. Verwacht wordt dat dit ook in 1998 het geval zal z¶n en dat het tekort op middellange term¶n zal omslaan in een overschot. De schuldquote van de over- heid bl¶ft onder de referentiewaarde van het Verdrag, HEEFT DE VOLGENDE BESCHIKKING VASTGESTELD: Artikel 1 Uit een algehele evaluatie volgt dat het buitensporige tekort in het Verenigd Koninkr¶k is gecorrigeerd. Artikel 2 De beschikking van de Raad van 26 september 1994 betreffende het bestaan van een buitensporig tekort in het Verenigd Koninkr¶k wordt hierb¶ ingetrokken. Artikel 3 Deze beschikking is gericht tot het Verenigd Koninkr¶k van Groot-Brittanni(cid:137) en Noord-Ierland. Gedaan te Brussel, 1 mei 1998. Voor de Raad De Voorzitter G. BROWN


title: Dichiarazione del Consiglio (Ecofin) e dei ministri riuniti in sede di Consiglio resa il 1 maggio 1998

eurovoc_concepts:
Economic and Monetary Union
budget policy
coordination of EMU policies
economic convergence
euro
public finance

text: L 139/28 ‹ IT ‹ Gazzetta ufficiale delle Comunit(cid:133) europee 11. 5. 98 DICHIARAZIONE DEL CONSIGLIO (ECOFIN) E DEI MINISTRI RIUNITI IN SEDE DI CONSIGLIO resa il 1o maggio 1998 1. Il 1o gennaio 1999 l’euro sar(cid:133) una realt(cid:133) che segner(cid:133) la conclusione di un processo che culmina con l’adempi- mento delle condizioni economiche necessarie per il suo felice varo. Il Consiglio (Ecofin) ed i Ministri in sede di Consiglio plaudono ai progressi riuniti significativi compiuti in tutti gli Stati membri per conseguire la stabilit(cid:133) dei prezzi e finanze pubbliche pi(cid:151) sane. Il processo di convergenza ha contribuito a creare un elevato livello di stabilit(cid:133) dei cambi e tassi d’interesse storicamente bassi e, di conseguenza, a migliorare le condizioni delle nostre economie. 2. Il passaggio alla moneta unica favorisce ulteriormente le condizioni per una crescita vigorosa, sostenuta e non inflazionistica, promotrice di occupazione e di migliori livelli di vita. Esso elimina i rischi di cambio tra gli Stati membri partecipanti, riduce i costi delle transa- zioni, crea un mercato finanziario pi(cid:151) vasto ed effi- ciente e accresce la trasparenza dei prezzi e la concor- renza. Costituisce pertanto il passo decisivo verso un autentico mercato unico. 3. Noi Ministri siamo fermamente impegnati a compiere le azioni necessarie per realizzare appieno i vantaggi dell’Unione economica e monetaria e del mercato unico nell’interese di tutti i nostri cittadini. In queste azioni rientra un pi(cid:151) stretto coordinamento delle poli- tiche economiche. Siamo fiduciosi che la piena appli- cazione delle conclusioni dei Consigli europei di Dublino, Amsterdam e Lussemburgo costituisce una solida base che ci permetter(cid:133) di raggiungere un elevato livello permanente di stabilit(cid:133) finanziaria nonch(cid:130) il corretto funzionamento dell’UEM. 4. Nei prossimi anni, una crescita vigorosa, sostenuta e non inflazionistica continuer(cid:133) ad essere basata in tutti gli Stati membri sulla convergenza economica. Inoltre finanze pubbliche sane e sostenibili costituiscono la premessa per la crescita e per un pi(cid:151) elevato livello di occupazione. Il Patto di stabilit(cid:133) e crescita fornisce i mezzi per conseguire questo obiettivo e per mettere i bilanci nazionali maggiormente in grado di affrontare le sfide del futuro. — Siamo impegnati a far s(cid:141) che gli obiettivi dei bilanci nazionali fissati per il 1998 siano piena- mente raggiunti, se del caso, adottando tempestiva- mente le opportune misure correttive. — Il Consiglio conviene di esaminare rapidamente le in materia di intenzioni degli Stati membri bilancio per il 1999, tenendo presenti il contesto e gli obiettivi del Patto di stabilit(cid:133) e crescita. Su questi primi due punti i Ministri degli Stati partecipanti all’area dell’euro hanno deciso di riunirsi in modo informale nel corso dei prossimi mesi per avviare la loro attivit(cid:133) di controllo in conformit(cid:133) delle risoluzioni del Consiglio europeo di Lussemburgo. — Se le condizioni economiche si sviluppano meglio di quanto previsto, gli Stati membri ne approfitte- ranno per rafforzare il risanamento del bilancio in modo da raggiungere l’obiettivo a medio termine di una posizione della finanza pubblica prossima al pareggio o positiva, come previsto dagli impegni sottoscritti nel Patto di stabilit(cid:133) e crescita. — Quanto pi(cid:151) elevati rapporti tra debito sono i pubblico e PIL degli Stati membri partecipanti tanto maggiori dovranno essere i loro sforzi per ridurli rapidamente. A tal fine oltre al manteni- mento dell’avanzo primario a adeguati, conformemente agli impegni e obiettivi previsti dal Patto di stabilit(cid:133) e di crescita dovrebbero essere varate altre misure per ridurre l’indebitamento lordo. Strategie di gestione dell’indebitamento dovrebbero inoltre ridurre la vulnerabilit(cid:133) dei bilanci. livelli — Ciascun Ministro si impegna a presentare, al pi(cid:151) tardi per la fine del 1998, i programmi nazionali di stabilit(cid:133) o convergenza che rifletteranno questi importanti elementi. 5. Conformemente a tale Patto inizieremo ad applicare il regolamento «per il rafforzamento della sorveglianza delle posizioni di bilancio nonch(cid:130) della sorveglianza e del coordinamento delle politiche economiche» (1) il 1o luglio 1998, secondo i seguenti principi: (1) Regolamento (CE) n. 1466/97 del Consiglio, del 7 luglio 1997 (GU L 209 del 2. 8. 1997, pag. 1). 6. Il Consiglio ribadisce che la responsabilit(cid:133) del risana- mento del bilancio (cid:138) e continua ad essere degli Stati membri e che ai sensi dell’articolo 104 B, paragrafo 1 del TCE, la Comunit(cid:133), in particolare, non risponde n(cid:130) si fa carico degli impegni assunti dagli Stati membri. Fatti salvi gli obiettivi e le disposizioni del trattato, resta inteso che l’Unione economica e monetaria in quanto tale non pu(cid:149) essere chiamata in causa per giustificare trasferimenti finanziari specifici. 11. 5. 98 ‹ IT ‹ Gazzetta ufficiale delle Comunit(cid:133) europee L 139/29 7. Il nostro lavoro di risanamento dei bilanci sar(cid:133) completato da ulteriori sforzi per aumentare l’efficacia delle nostre economie in modo da migliorare le condi- zioni favorevoli alla crescita, alla maggiore occupazione e alla coesione sociale. In questo contesto terremo tra breve una riunione con le parti sociali, che sar(cid:133) incen- trata sull’Unione economica e monetaria. Assieme alle parti sociali e a tutte le altre parti interessate, prende- remo tutte le iniziative atte a creare le condizioni per con particolare lottare riguardo ai giovani, ai disoccupati di lunga durata e alle persone scarsamente qualificate. Nel dar seguito alle conclusioni del Consiglio europeo di Lussemburgo ci impegniamo a fare la nostra parte nell’applicare rapi- damente i piani d’azione nazionali per l’occupazione elaborati alla luce degli orientamenti politici sull’occu- pazione. Il Consiglio (Ecofin) esaminer(cid:133) questi piani, contribuendo alla preparazione del Consiglio europeo di Cardiff e dei Consigli europei successivi. contro la disoccupazione, — far s(cid:141) che i sistemi nazionali di formazione mercato del lavoro, siano efficaci e istruzione e di corrispondono al — favorire l’imprenditorialit(cid:133), soprattutto combat- tendo gli ostacoli amministrativi che essa deve affrontare, — consentire un pi(cid:151) facile accesso ai mercati dei capi- tali e ai capitali di rischio, in particolare per quanto riguarda le piccole e medie imprese, — aumentare l’efficienza del sistema fiscale ed evitare una dannosa concorrenza fiscale, — tener conto di tutti gli aspetti dei sistemi di sicu- rezza sociale connessi all’invecchiamento della popolazione. 8. Attribuiremo particolare importanza ad un’azione volta a rendere la crescita maggiormente generatrice di occupazione. Porremo pertanto l’accento, tra l’altro, su riforme strutturali volte a: — rendere pi(cid:151) efficaci lavoro e dei capitali, i mercati dei prodotti, del — migliorare la capacit(cid:133) di adattamento del mercato del lavoro onde meglio riflettere gli sviluppi sala- riali e della produttivit(cid:133), i progressi della 9. Il Consiglio intende definire una procedura snella che rispetti pienamente il principio di sussidiariet(cid:133) per economica. controllare Dall’anno prossimo, indirizzi di massima per le politiche economiche si fonder(cid:133) su brevi valutazioni dei progressi e dei piani degli Stati membri e della Commissione in materia di mercati dei prodotti e dei capitali nonch(cid:130) sui piani d’azione per l’occupazione. riforma l’elaborazione degli