title: Meddelelse fra Rådet - Veterinæraftale mellem USA og EF

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

text: 1. 5. 98 DA De Europ»iske F»llesskabers Tidende C 136/1 I (Meddelelser) R¯DET VETERIN`RAFTALE MELLEM USA OG EF (98/C 136/01) (Denne tekst annullerer og tr»der i stedet for teksten offentliggjort i EFT C 122 af 21. april 1998) R¿det godkendte nedenst¿ende erkl»ring samtidig med vedtagelsen af afg(cid:192)relsen om indg¿else af aftalen mellem Amerikas Forenede Stater og Det Europ»iske F»llesskab om sundhedsforan(cid:220) staltninger til beskyttelse af folke(cid:220) og dyresundheden i samhandelen med levende dyr og animalske produkter(cid:216)(˛): (cid:176)R¿det noterer sig brevvekslingen mellem Kommissionen og De Forenede Staters Land(cid:220) brugsministerium og beslutter at optage disse breve i m(cid:192)deprotokollen. R¿det understreger, at disse breve udg(cid:192)r et v»sentligt argument for dets beslutning om at godkende veterin»raftalen mellem EF og USA. R¿det og Kommissionen anser det politiske engagement, der gives tilsagn om i disse breve, for at v»re en v»sentlig foruds»tning for at sikre en korrekt, afbalanceret og fuldst»ndig iv»rks»ttelse af aftalen. Kommissionen bekr»fter, at den i overensstemmelse med artikel 4 i R¿dets afg(cid:192)relse vil anvende bestemmelserne i artikel 14 i aftalen ved behandlingen af ethvert problem, der opst¿r i forbindelse med iv»rks»ttelsen, under s»rligt hensyn til den betydning, som R¿det i sin afg(cid:192)relse till»gger brevene fra De Forenede Stater. Kommissionen bekr»fter endvidere, at den, s¿fremt problemer af ovenn»vnte art viser sig at v»re umulige at l(cid:192)se, vil tage de n(cid:192)dvendige retlige skridt til at s»tte R¿det i stand til at handle i medf(cid:192)r af artikel 16 i aftalen, og den vil anvende de midler, som F»llesskabet kan p¿ber¿be sig i medf(cid:192)r af artikel 2 i denne aftale. Det er under alle omst»ndigheder klart, at Kommissionen skal tr»ffe en r»kke gennemf(cid:192)(cid:220) relsesbestemmelser i Den St¿ende Veterin»rkomit~. Kommissionen forudser, at gennemf(cid:192)(cid:220) relsen i den nationale lovgivning vil tage nogle m¿neder fra undertegnelsen, jf. artikel 8 i aftalen. I denne periode vil Kommissionen n(cid:192)je f(cid:192)lge USA’s gennemf(cid:192)relse af aftalen. R¿det beslutter at offentligg(cid:192)re denne erkl»ring og ovenn»vnte breve i C(cid:220)udgaven af De Europ»iske F»llesskabers Tidende. (cid:133) (˛)(cid:217)EFT L 118 af 21. 4. 1998, s. 1, og berigtigelse i EFT L 130 af 1. 5. 1998. C 136/2 DA De Europ»iske F»llesskabers Tidende 1. 5. 98 BILAG 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 DA De Europ»iske F»llesskabers Tidende 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 DA De Europ»iske F»llesskabers Tidende 1. 5. 98 BILAG 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 DA De Europ»iske F»llesskabers Tidende 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 DA De Europ»iske F»llesskabers Tidende 1. 5. 98 BILAG 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 DA De Europ»iske F»llesskabers Tidende 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 DA De Europ»iske F»llesskabers Tidende 1. 5. 98 BILAG 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 DA De Europ»iske F»llesskabers Tidende 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 DA De Europ»iske F»llesskabers Tidende 1. 5. 98 BILAG 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 DA De Europ»iske F»llesskabers Tidende C 136/11 BILAG 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: 98/310/CE: Decisione del Consiglio del 1o maggio 1998 che abroga la decisione relativa all'esistenza di un disavanzo eccessivo in Francia

eurovoc_concepts:
France
budget deficit
gross domestic product
public debt

formats: html pdf print

text: L 139/14 IT Gazzetta ufficiale delle Comunit(cid:133) europee 11. 5. 98 DECISIONE DEL CONSIGLIO del 1o maggio 1998 che abroga la decisione relativa all’esistenza di un disavanzo eccessivo in Francia (98/310/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- stenza di tale disavanzo e, dopo che il disavanzo in 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 protocollo 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 Francia esisteva un disavanzo eccessivo; che, a norma dell’articolo 104 C, paragrafo 7, il Consiglio ha formulato raccomandazioni alla Francia al far cessare la situazione di disavanzo eccessivo (2); fine di 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 Consigio abroga tale decisione su raccomandazione della Commissione; che, sulla base dei dati forniti dalla Commissione e notificati dalla Francia entro il 1o marzo 1998, ai sensi del regolamento (CE) n. 3605/93, sono giustificate le seguenti conclusioni: A partire dal 1994 il disavanzo pubblico in Francia si (cid:138) ridotto sensibilmente e nel 1997 ha raggiunto il 3,0 % del PIL, che corrisponde al valore di riferimento fissato dal trattato; per il 1998 (cid:138) prevista un’ulteriore leggera ridu- zione che dovrebbe portare il disavanzo al 2,9 % del PIL e il governo prevede di ridurre ulteriormente il disavanzo al 2,3 % del PIL nel 1999. Il rapporto debito/PIL ha registrato un aumento che lo ha portato a raggiungere il 58,0 % nel 1997, ma non ha mai superato il 60 % fissato del trattato come valore di riferi- mento. Il disavanzo di bilancio nel 1997 risultava pari al valore di riferimento fissato dal trattato ed (cid:138) previsto che scenda al di sotto di tale valore nel 1998; il rapporto debito/PIL resta inferiore al valore di riferimento fissato dal trattato, HA ADOTTATO LA PRESENTE DECISIONE: Articolo 1 Da una valutazione complessiva risulta che la situazione di disavanzo eccessivo in Francia (cid:138) stata corretta. Articolo 2 La decisione del Consiglio del 26 settembre 1994, relativa all’esistenza di un disavanzo eccessivo in Francia, (cid:138) abro- gata. Articolo 3 La Repubblica francese (cid:138) destinataria della presente deci- sione. Fatto a Bruxelles, add(cid:141) 1o maggio 1998. Per il Consiglio Il presidente G. BROWN (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


title: Communication du Conseil - Accord vétérinaire CE/États- Unis d'Amérique

text: 1. 5. 98 FR Journal officiel des Communaut~s europ~ennes C 136/1 I (Communications) CONSEIL ACCORD V^T^RINAIRE CE/^TATS(cid:220)UNIS D’AM^RIQUE (98/C 136/01) (Ce texte annule et remplace le texte publi~ au JO C 122 du 21 avril 1998) En adoptant la d~cision relative { la conclusion de l’accord entre la Communaut~ europ~enne et les ^tats(cid:220)Unis d’Am~rique relatif aux mesures sanitaires de protection de la sant~ publique et animale applicables au commerce d’animaux vivants et de produits animaux(cid:216)(˛), le Conseil a approuv~ la d~claration suivante: (cid:133)Le Conseil prend acte de l’~change de lettres entre la Commission et le minist(cid:127)re de l’agriculture des ^tats(cid:220)Unis d’Am~rique et convient d’inclure ces lettres dans son proc(cid:127)s(cid:220) verbal. Le Conseil souligne que ces lettres sont un ~l~ment essentiel de sa d~cision concernant l’approbation de l’accord v~t~rinaire entre la Communaut~ europ~enne et les ^tats(cid:220)Unis d’Am~rique. Le Conseil et la Commission estiment que les engagements politiques contenus dans ces lettres sont essentiels pour assurer une mise en §uvre correcte, ~quilibr~e et totale de l’accord. La Commission s’engage, conform~ment { la proc~dure pr~vue { l’article 4 de la d~cision du Conseil, { faire usage des dispositions de l’article 14 de l’accord pour r~gler tout probl(cid:127)me de mise en §uvre qui pourrait se poser, compte tenu en particulier de l’impor(cid:220) tance attach~e par le Conseil dans sa d~cision aux lettres des ^tats(cid:220)Unis d’Am~rique. La Commission s’engage ~galement, au cas oß un probl(cid:127)me tel qu’indiqu~ ci(cid:220)dessus se r~v~le(cid:220) rait impossible { r~soudre, { prendre les mesures de proc~dure n~cessaires pour permettre au Conseil de prendre les dispositions pr~vues { l’article 16 de l’accord et elle utilisera les moyens dont la Communaut~ peut se pr~valoir en vertu de l’article 2 du pr~sent accord. En tout ~tat de cause, il est ~vident que la Commission doit prendre un certain nombre de d~cisions d’application dans le cadre du comit~ v~t~rinaire permanent. La Commission pr~voit que la transposition dans la l~gislation nationale prendra quelques mois, conform~(cid:220) ment { l’article 8 de l’accord, { partir du moment de sa signature. Pendant cette p~riode, la Commission suivra de pr(cid:127)s la mise en §uvre par les ^tats(cid:220)Unis d’Am~rique. Le Conseil convient de publier la pr~sente d~claration et les lettres susmentionn~es au Journal officiel des Communaut~s europ~ennes (s~rie C). (cid:176) (˛)(cid:217)JO L 118 du 21. 4. 1998, p. 1 et rectificatif dans le JO L 130 du 1. 5. 1998. C 136/2 FR Journal officiel des Communaut~s europ~ennes 1. 5. 98 ANNEXE 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 FR Journal officiel des Communaut~s europ~ennes 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 FR Journal officiel des Communaut~s europ~ennes 1. 5. 98 ANNEXE 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 FR Journal officiel des Communaut~s europ~ennes 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 FR Journal officiel des Communaut~s europ~ennes 1. 5. 98 ANNEXE 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 FR Journal officiel des Communaut~s europ~ennes 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 FR Journal officiel des Communaut~s europ~ennes 1. 5. 98 ANNEXE 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 FR Journal officiel des Communaut~s europ~ennes 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 FR Journal officiel des Communaut~s europ~ennes 1. 5. 98 ANNEXE 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 FR Journal officiel des Communaut~s europ~ennes C 136/11 ANNEXE 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: 98/308/EG: Rådets beslut av den 1 maj 1998 om att upphäva beslutet om att det föreligger ett alltför stort underskott i Tyskland

eurovoc_concepts:
Germany
budget deficit
gross domestic product
public debt

text: 11. 5. 98 SV Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning L 139/11 R(cid:143)DETS BESLUT av den 1 maj 1998 om att upph(cid:132)va beslutet om att det f(cid:148)religger ett alltf(cid:148)r stort underskott i Tyskland (98/308/EG) EUROPEISKA F(cid:153)LJANDE UNIONENS R(cid:143)D HAR BESLUTAT med beaktande av F(cid:148)rdraget om uppr(cid:132)ttandet av Euro- peiska gemenskapen, s(cid:132)rskilt artikel 104c. 12 i detta, med beaktande av kommissionens rekommendation, och med beaktande av f(cid:148)ljande: Den andra etappen i genomf(cid:148)randet av den ekonomiska och monet(cid:132)ra unionen inleddes den 1 januari 1994. I artikel 109e. 4 i f(cid:148)rdraget anges att medlemsstaterna under den andra etappen skall str(cid:132)va efter att undvika alltf(cid:148)r stora underskott i den offentliga sektorns finanser. Det finns ett f(cid:148)rfarande vid alltf(cid:148)r stora underskott enligt vilket ett beslut skall fattas om att ett alltf(cid:148)r stort under- skott skall f(cid:148)religger och enligt vilket detta beslut upph(cid:132)vas n(cid:132)r det alltf(cid:148)r stora underskottet har korrigerats. I fr(cid:134)ga om den andra etappen best(cid:132)ms f(cid:148)rfarandet vid alltf(cid:148)r stora underskott av artikel 104c i f(cid:148)rdraget, med undantag av punkterna 1, 9 och 11. I det protokoll om f(cid:148)rfarandet vid alltf(cid:148)r stora underskott som utg(cid:148)r en bilaga till f(cid:148)rdraget (cid:134)terfinns ytterligare best(cid:132)mmelser om genomf(cid:148)randet av f(cid:148)rfarandet vid alltf(cid:148)r stora underskott. f(cid:148)rordning (EG) nr 3605/93 (1) meddelas n(cid:132)rmare I best(cid:132)mmelser och definitioner till(cid:132)mpningen av protokollet. f(cid:148)r Efter en rekommendation av kommissionen i enlighet med artikel 104c. 6 i f(cid:148)rdraget beslutade r(cid:134)det den 27 juni 1996 att det f(cid:148)rel(cid:134)g ett alltf(cid:148)r stort underskott i Tysk- land (2). I enlighet med artikel 104c. 7 gav r(cid:134)det rekom- mendationer till Tyskland i syfte att f(cid:134) situationen med ett alltf(cid:148)r stort underskott att upph(cid:148)ra (3). Ett r(cid:134)dsbeslut om att ett alltf(cid:148)r stort underskott f(cid:148)religger i enlighet med best(cid:132)mmelserna i artikel 104c. 12 skall upph(cid:132)vas i den m(cid:134)n som det alltf(cid:148)r stora underskottet i den ber(cid:148)rda medlemsstaten enligt r(cid:134)dets uppfattning har korrigerats. N(cid:132)r r(cid:134)det upph(cid:132)ver beslutet skall detta ske p(cid:134) rekommen- dation av kommissionen. P(cid:134) grundval av de uppgifter som kommissionen l(cid:132)mnat efter det att Tyskland f(cid:148)re den (1) EGT L 332, 31. 12. 1993, s. 7. (2) EGT L 172, 11. 7. 1996, s. 26. (3) R(cid:134)dets rekommendationer av den 16 september 1996 och den 15 september 1997. 1 mars 1998 inkommit med uppgifter i enlighet med f(cid:148)rordning (EG) nr 3605/93, (cid:132)r f(cid:148)ljande slutsatser ber(cid:132)tti- gade: Underskottet i den offentliga sektorns finanser i Tyskland (cid:148)kade under (cid:134)ren 1995 och 1996 och det sistn(cid:132)mnda (cid:134)ret uppgick det till 3,4 % av BNP. Underskottet minskades (cid:134)r 1997 till 2,7 % av BNP, vilket (cid:132)r mindre (cid:132)n f(cid:148)rdragets referensv(cid:132)rde och en ytterligare minskning till 2,5 % av BNP f(cid:148)rutsp(cid:134)s f(cid:148)r (cid:134)r 1998. Enligt Tysklands konver- gensprogram av (cid:134)r 1997 f(cid:148)rv(cid:132)ntas underskottet i den offentliga sektorns finanser minska ytterligare till 1,5 % av BNP (cid:134)r 2000. Den offentliga skuldkvoten fortsatte att stiga fram till (cid:134)r 1997 d(cid:134) den n(cid:134)dde 61,3 % av BNP. (cid:143)r 1996 steg den till en niv(cid:134) strax (cid:148)ver referensv(cid:132)rdet p(cid:134) 60 % av BNP efter att ha (cid:148)kat kraftigt (cid:134)r 1995. Enligt det tyska konvergenspro- grammet f(cid:148)rv(cid:132)ntas skuldkvoten minska under (cid:134)r 1998 och forts(cid:132)tta att minska under de f(cid:148)ljande (cid:134)ren. De exceptionella omst(cid:132)ndigheterna i samband med den tyska (cid:134)terf(cid:148)reningen forts(cid:132)tter att vara en tung b(cid:148)rda f(cid:148)r de tyska offentliga finanserna. I den tyska offentliga skulden ing(cid:134)r dessutom skulder som har samband med (cid:134)terf(cid:148)reningen och som uppg(cid:134)r till ca 10 % av BNP. Underskottet l(cid:134)g (cid:134)r 1997 under f(cid:148)rdragets referensv(cid:132)rde och f(cid:148)rv(cid:132)ntas ligga kvar d(cid:132)r under (cid:134)r 1998. Det f(cid:148)rv(cid:132)ntas minska ytterligare p(cid:134) medell(cid:134)ng sikt. Skuldkvoten l(cid:134)g (cid:134)r referensv(cid:132)rde, men den 1997 n(cid:134)got (cid:148)ver f(cid:148)rv(cid:132)ntas b(cid:148)rja minska under (cid:134)r 1998 och snart (cid:134)ter ligga under f(cid:148)retagets referensv(cid:132)rde. f(cid:148)rdragets H(cid:142)RIGENOM F(cid:153)RESKRIVS F(cid:153)LJANDE. Artikel 1 Det framg(cid:134)r av en allsidig bed(cid:148)mning att det alltf(cid:148)r stora underskottet i Tyskland har korrigerats. Artikel 2 R(cid:134)dets beslut av den 27 juni 1996 om att det f(cid:148)religger ett alltf(cid:148)r stort underskott i Tyskland upph(cid:132)vs h(cid:132)rmed. L 139/12 SV Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning 11. 5. 98 Detta beslut riktar sig till F(cid:148)rbundsrepubliken Tyskland. Artikel 3 Utf(cid:132)rdat i Bryssel den 1 maj 1998. P(cid:134) r(cid:134)dets v(cid:132)gnar G. BROWN Ordf(cid:148)rande


title: 98/315/EG: Entscheidung des Rates vom 1. Mai 1998 zur Aufhebung der Entscheidung über das Bestehen eines übermäßigen Defizits im Vereinigten Königreich

eurovoc_concepts:
United Kingdom
budget deficit
gross domestic product
public debt

text: L 139/20 DE Amtsblatt der Europ(cid:132)ischen Gemeinschaften 11. 5. 98 ENTSCHEIDUNG DES RATES vom 1. Mai 1998 zur Aufhebung der Entscheidung (cid:129)ber das Bestehen eines (cid:129)berm(cid:132)ßigen Defizits im Vereinigten K(cid:148)nigreich (98/315/EG) DER RAT DER EUROP(cid:142)ISCHEN UNION (cid:190) gest(cid:129)tzt auf den Vertrag zur Gr(cid:129)ndung der Europ(cid:132)ischen Gemeinschaft, insbesondere auf Artikel 104c Absatz 12, auf Empfehlung der Kommission, in Erw(cid:132)gung nachstehender Gr(cid:129)nde: Die zweite Stufe der Wirtschafts- und W(cid:132)hrungsunion hat am 1. Januar 1994 begonnen. Nach Artikel 109e Absatz 4 des Vertrags sind die Mitgliedstaaten in der zweiten Stufe bem(cid:129)ht, (cid:129)berm(cid:132)ßige (cid:148)ffentliche Defizite zu vermeiden. Das Verfahren bei einem (cid:129)berm(cid:132)ßigen Defizit sieht vor, daß eine Entscheidung (cid:129)ber das Bestehen eines (cid:129)berm(cid:132)- ßigen Defizits ergeht und daß diese Entscheidung aufge- hoben wird, wenn das (cid:129)berm(cid:132)ßige Defizit korrigiert worden ist. In der zweiten Stufe richtet sich das Verfahren bei einem (cid:129)berm(cid:132)ßigen Defizit nach Artikel 104c des Vertrags, mit Ausnahme der Abs(cid:132)tze 1, 9 und 11. Das Protokoll (cid:129)ber das Verfahren bei einem (cid:129)berm(cid:132)ßigen Defizit im Anhang des Vertrags enth(cid:132)lt weitere Bestim- mungen (cid:129)ber die Durchf(cid:129)hrung dieses Verfahrens. In der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 3605/93 (1) sind detaillierte Regeln und Definitionen f(cid:129)r die Anwendung des genannten Protokolls festgelegt. Auf Empfehlung der Kommission gem(cid:132)ß Artikel 104c Absatz 6 des Vertrags entschied der Rat am 26. September 1994, daß im Vereinigten K(cid:148)nigreich ein (cid:129)berm(cid:132)ßiges Defizit bestand. Nach Artikel 104c Absatz 7 richtete der Rat Empfehlungen (2) an das Vereinigte K(cid:148)nigreich mit dem Ziel, das (cid:129)berm(cid:132)ßige Defizit zu beenden. Nach Artikel 104c Absatz 12 des Vertrags hebt der Rat eine Entscheidung (cid:129)ber das Bestehen eines (cid:129)berm(cid:132)ßigen Defizits so weit auf, wie das (cid:129)berm(cid:132)ßige Defizit in dem betreffenden Mitgliedstaat nach Ansicht des Rates korri- giert worden ist. Bei der Aufhebung der Entscheidung wird der Rat auf Empfehlung der Kommission t(cid:132)tig. Die von der Kommission (cid:129)bermittelten Daten, denen die gem(cid:132)ß der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 3605/93 vom Vereinigten K(cid:148)nig- reich vor dem 1. M(cid:132)rz 1998 gelieferten Informationen zugrunde liegen, lassen folgende Schlußfolgerungen zu: (1) ABl. L 332 vom 31. 12. 1993, S. 7. (2) Empfehlungen des Rates vom 7. November 1994, 24. Juli 1995, 16. September 1996 und 15. September 1997. Das (cid:148)ffentliche Defizit im Vereinigten K(cid:148)nigreich ist seit 1993 erheblich zur(cid:129)ckgegangen und erreichte 1997 1,9 % des BIP, womit es unter dem Referenzwert des Vertrags lag. Den Voraussch(cid:132)tzungen zufolge wird es 1998 weiter auf 0,6 % des BIP sinken. Nach dem Konvergenzpro- gramm des Vereinigten K(cid:148)nigreichs von 1997 sollen die Staatskonten bis zum Ende des Jahrzehnts einen (cid:154)ber- schuß aufweisen. Die (cid:148)ffentliche Schuldenquote hat den Referenzwert von 60 % des BIP nie (cid:129)berschritten. Nach einem mehrj(cid:132)h- rigen Anstieg sank die Schuldenquote 1997 auf 53,4 % des BIP. Das Defizit lag 1997 deutlich unter dem Referenzwert des Vertrags und d(cid:129)rfte 1998 unter dem Referenzwert bleiben und sich mittelfristig in einen (cid:154)berschuß verwandeln. Die (cid:148)ffentliche Schuldenquote verharrt unter dem Refe- renzwert des Vertrags (cid:190) HAT FOLGENDE ENTSCHEIDUNG ERLASSEN: Artikel 1 Nach Pr(cid:129)fung der Gesamtlage wird festgestellt, daß das (cid:129)berm(cid:132)ßige Defizit im Vereinigten K(cid:148)nigreich korrigiert worden ist. Artikel 2 Die Entscheidung des Rates vom 26. September 1994 (cid:129)ber das Bestehen eines (cid:129)berm(cid:132)ßigen Defizits im Verei- nigten K(cid:148)nigreich wird aufgehoben. Artikel 3 Diese Entscheidung ist an das Vereinigte K(cid:148)nigreich gerichtet. Geschehen zu Br(cid:129)ssel am 1. Mai 1998. Im Namen des Rates Der Pr(cid:132)sident G. BROWN


title: 98/308/EC: Council Decision of 1 May 1998 abrogating the Decision on the existence of an excessive deficit for Germany

text: 11. 5. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 139/11 COUNCIL DECISION of 1 May 1998 abrogating the Decision on the existence of an excessive deficit for Germany (98/308/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 27 June 1996 that an excessive deficit existed in Germany (2); whereas, in accordance with Article 104c(7), the Council made recommendations to Germany with a view to bringing the excessive deficit situation to an end (3); 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 (1) OJ L 332, 31. 12. 1993, p. 7. (2) OJ L 172, 11. 7. 1996, p. 26. (3) Council September 1997. recommendations of 16 September 1996 and 15 reporting by Germany before 1 March 1998 in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 3605/93, the following conclu- sions are warranted: The government deficit in Germany widened in 1995 and 1996, when it reached 3,4 % of GDP. The deficit was reduced in 1997 to 2,7 % of GDP, which is below the Treaty reference value, and a further reduction to 2,5 % of GDP is forecast for 1998. According to the 1997 conver- gence programme of Germany, the government deficit is projected to decline further to 1,5 % of GDP in 2000. The government debt ratio continued to rise until 1997 when it reached 61,3 % of GDP; the debt ratio rose to just above the 60 % of GDP reference value in 1996 after having increased sharply in 1995. The debt ratio is expected to decline in 1998 and projected to continue declining in the following years in the German conver- gence programme. The exceptional circumstances of German unification continue to put a heavy burden on the German budget. includes Furthermore, unification-related liabilities amounting to around 10 % of GDP. the German government debt The deficit was below the Treaty reference value in 1997 and is expected to remain so in 1998 and to decline further in the medium term. The debt ratio was slightly above the Treaty reference value in 1997 but is expected to start declining in 1998 and to return soon to below the Treaty reference value, HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: Article 1 From an overall assessment it follows that the excessive deficit situation in Germany has been corrected. Article 2 The Council Decision of 27 June 1996 on the existence of an excessive deficit in Germany is hereby abrogated. L 139/12 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 11. 5. 98 This Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany. Article 3 Done at Brussels, 1 May 1998. For the Council The President G. BROWN


title: 98/312/EF: Rådets beslutning af 1. maj 1998 om ophævelse af afgørelsen om et uforholdsmæssigt stort underskud i Spanien

eurovoc_concepts:
Spain
budget deficit
gross domestic product
public debt

text: 11. 5. 98 DA De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende L 139/17 R(cid:143)DETS BESLUTNING af 1. maj 1998 om ophævelse af afgørelsen om et uforholdsmæssigt stort underskud i Spanien (98/312/EF) R(cid:143)DET FOR DEN EUROPÆISKE UNION HAR (cid:190) under henvisning til Europæiske Fællesskab, særlig artikel 104 C, stk. 12, traktaten om oprettelse af Det under henvisning til henstilling fra Kommissionen, og ud fra følgende betragtninger: Anden fase i gennemførelsen af Den Økonomiske Mone- tære Union begyndte den 1. januar 1994; ifølge traktatens artikel 109 E, stk. 4, skal medlemsstaterne i denne anden fase bestræbe sig p(cid:134) at undg(cid:134) uforholdsmæssigt store offentlige underskud; der findes en procedure i forbindelse med uforholdsmæs- sigt store underskud, hvorefter der træffes en afgørelse om, at der foreligger et uforholdsmæssigt stort underskud, og hvorefter denne afgørelse ophæves, n(cid:134)r det uforholds- mæssigt store underskud er blevet korrigeret; i anden fase bestemmes proceduren i forbindelse med uforholdsmæs- sigt store underskud af traktatens artikel 104 C, undtagen stk. 1, 9 og 11; protokollen om proceduren i forbindelse med uforholdsmæssigt store underskud, der er knyttet som bilag til traktaten, indeholder de nærmere bestem- melser om gennemførelsen af proceduren i forbindelse med uforholdsmæssigt store underskud; forordning (EF) nr. 3605/93 (1) indeholder detaljerede regler og definiti- oner med henblik p(cid:134) anvendelsen af nævnte protokol; p(cid:134) grundlag af en henstilling fra Kommissionen fastslog R(cid:134)det den 26. september 1994 i overensstemmelse med traktatens artikel 104 C, stk. 6, at der forel(cid:134) et uforholds- mæssigt stort underskud i Spanien; i overensstemmelse med artikel 104 C, stk. 7, rettede R(cid:134)det en henstilling til Spanien med henblik p(cid:134) at bringe denne situation med et uforholdsmæssigt stort underskud til ophør (2); i henhold til traktatens artikel 104 C, stk. 12, ophæver R(cid:134)det sin afgørelse om et uforholdsmæssigt stort under- skud, i det omfang det uforholdsmæssigt store underskud i den p(cid:134)gældende medlemsstat efter R(cid:134)dets opfattelse er blevet korrigeret; n(cid:134)r R(cid:134)det ophæver afgørelsen, sker det p(cid:134) grundlag af en henstilling fra Kommissionen; p(cid:134) grundlag af de data, der er tilvejebragt af Kommissionen efter indberetning fra Spanien inden den 1. marts 1998 i overensstemmelse med forordning (EF) nr. 3605/93, kan der drages følgende konklusioner: Det offentlige underskud i Spanien er faldet væsentligt siden 1995, og i 1997 udgjorde det 2,6 % af BNP, hvilket er under traktatens referenceværdi. Det forventes at falde yderligere til 2,2 % af BNP i 1998. Ifølge Spaniens konvergensprogram fra 1997 skulle det offentlige under- skud falde yderligere til 1,6 % af BNP i 2000. Den offentlige gældskvote toppede i 1996, hvor den udgjorde 70,1 % af BNP, men den faldt derp(cid:134) til 68,8 % i 1997. I 1998 forventes der et yderligere fald, som ifølge Spaniens konvergensprogram skulle i de kommende (cid:134)r. fortsætte Underskuddet l(cid:134) under traktatens referenceværdi i 1997 og forventes at forblive under denne værdi i 1998 og at falde yderligere p(cid:134) mellemlang sigt; den offentlige gældskvote er faldende og forventes at fortsætte med at falde i de kommende (cid:134)r (cid:190) VEDTAGET FØLGENDE BESLUTNING: Artikel 1 Det følger af en samlet vurdering, at det uforholdsmæssigt store underskud i Spanien er blevet korrigeret. Artikel 2 R(cid:134)dets afgørelse af 26. september 1994 om et uforholds- mæssigt stort underskud i Spanien ophæves. Artikel 3 Denne beslutning er rettet til Kongeriget Spanien. Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den 1. maj 1998. P(cid:134) R(cid:134)dets vegne G. BROWN Formand (1) EFT L 332 af 31. 12. 1993, s. 7. (2) R(cid:134)dets henstillinger af 7. november 1994, 24. september 1996 og 15. september 1997. juli 1995, 16


title: 98/314/ΕΚ: Απόφαση του Συμβουλίου της 1ης Μαΐου 1998 για την κατάργηση της απόφασης σχετικά με την ύπαρξη υπερβολικού ελλείμματος στη Σουηδία

eurovoc_concepts:
Sweden
budget deficit
gross domestic product
public debt

text: 11. 5. 98 EL Ep(cid:148)sglg Evgleq(cid:148)da tym Euqypa(cid:152)j(cid:150)m Joimot(cid:147)tym L 139/19 APOVASG TOU SULBOUKIOU tgr 1gr La(cid:155)ou 1998 cia tgm jat(cid:145)qcgsg tgr ap(cid:149)vasgr swetij(cid:145) le tgm (cid:151)paqng upeqbokijo(cid:151) ekke(cid:148)llator stg Sougd(cid:148)a (98/314/EJ) TO SULBOUKIO TGS EUQYPA(cid:136)JGS EMYSGS, (cid:130)womtar up(cid:149)xg: tg sumh(cid:147)jg cia tgm (cid:148)dqusg tgr Euqypa(cid:152)j(cid:147)r Joim(cid:149)tgtar, jai id(cid:148)yr to (cid:145)qhqo 104 C paq(cid:145)cqavor 12, tg s(cid:151)stasg tgr Epitqop(cid:147)r, Ejtil(cid:150)mtar: (cid:149)ti, tgm 1g Iamouaq(cid:148)ou 1994, (cid:145)qwise to de(cid:151)teqo st(cid:145)dio cia tgm ukopo(cid:148)gsg tgr Oijomolij(cid:147)r jai Molislatij(cid:147)r (cid:130)mysgr· (cid:149)ti to (cid:145)qhqo 109 E paq(cid:145)cqavor 4 tgr sumh(cid:147)jgr oq(cid:148)fei (cid:149)ti, jat(cid:145) to de(cid:151)teqo st(cid:145)dio, ta jq(cid:145)tg l(cid:146)kg pqospaho(cid:151)m ma apov(cid:151)coum ta upeqbokij(cid:145) dglosiomolij(cid:145) ekke(cid:148)llata· (cid:149)ti up(cid:145)qwei diadijas(cid:148)a upeqbokijo(cid:151) ekke(cid:148)llator g opo(cid:148)a pqobk(cid:146)pei tgm (cid:146)jdosg ap(cid:149)vasgr cia tgm (cid:151)paqng upeqboki- jo(cid:151) ekke(cid:148)llator jai tgm jat(cid:145)qcgsg tgr ap(cid:149)vasgr aut(cid:147)r let(cid:145) tg di(cid:149)qhysg tou upeqbokijo(cid:151) ekke(cid:148)llator· (cid:149)ti, jat(cid:145) to de(cid:151)teqo st(cid:145)dio, g diadijas(cid:148)a upeqbokijo(cid:151) ekke(cid:148)llator jahoq(cid:148)fetai ap(cid:149) to (cid:145)qhqo 104 C tgr sumh(cid:147)jgr, ejt(cid:149)r ap(cid:149) tir paqacq(cid:145)vour 1, 9 jai 11· (cid:149)ti to pqyt(cid:149)jokko swetij(cid:145) le tg diadijas(cid:148)a tou upeqbokijo(cid:151) ekke(cid:148)llator, to opo(cid:148)o pqo- saqt(cid:145)tai stg sumh(cid:147)jg, peqikalb(cid:145)mei sulpkgqylatij(cid:146)r dia- t(cid:145)neir cia tgm evaqloc(cid:147) tgr diadijas(cid:148)ar upeqbokijo(cid:151) ekke(cid:148)llator· (cid:149)ti o jamomisl(cid:149)r (EJ) aqih. 3605/93 (1) jaho- q(cid:148)fei keptoleqe(cid:148)r jam(cid:149)mer jai oqislo(cid:151)r cia tgm evaqloc(cid:147) tou em k(cid:149)cy pqytoj(cid:149)kkou· (cid:149)ti, s(cid:151)lvyma le s(cid:151)stasg tgr Epitqop(cid:147)r b(cid:145)sei tou (cid:145)qhqou 104 C paq(cid:145)cqavor 6 tgr sumh(cid:147)jgr, to Sulbo(cid:151)kio apov(cid:145)- sise, stir 10 Iouk(cid:148)ou 1995, tgm (cid:151)paqng upeqbokijo(cid:151) ekke(cid:148)l- lator stg Sougd(cid:148)a· (cid:149)ti, s(cid:151)lvyma le to (cid:145)qhqo 104 C paq(cid:145)- cqavor 7, to Sulbo(cid:151)kio sum(cid:146)stgse stg Sougd(cid:148)a ma d(cid:150)sei t(cid:146)kor stgm jat(cid:145)stasg upeqbokijo(cid:151) ekke(cid:148)llator (2)· (cid:149)ti g ap(cid:149)vasg tou Sulbouk(cid:148)ou cia tgm (cid:151)paqng upeqboki- jo(cid:151) ekke(cid:148)llator jataqce(cid:148)tai, s(cid:151)lvyma le tir diat(cid:145)neir tou (cid:145)qhqou 104 C paq(cid:145)cqavor 12 tgr sumh(cid:147)jgr, ev(cid:149)som, jat(cid:145) tg cm(cid:150)lg tou Sulbouk(cid:148)ou, (cid:146)wei dioqhyhe(cid:148) to upeqbokij(cid:149) (cid:146)kkeilla sto oije(cid:148)o jq(cid:145)tor l(cid:146)kor· (cid:149)ti, cia tgm jat(cid:145)qcgsg tgr ap(cid:149)vasgr, to Sulbo(cid:151)kio emeq- ce(cid:148) let(cid:145) ap(cid:149) s(cid:151)stasg tgr Epitqop(cid:147)r· (cid:149)ti, ap(cid:149) ta stoiwe(cid:148)a pou paqe(cid:148)we g Epitqop(cid:147) let(cid:145) ap(cid:149) tgm (cid:146)jhesg pou up(cid:146)bake g Sougd(cid:148)a pqim ap(cid:149) tgm 1g Laqt(cid:148)ou 1998, s(cid:151)lvyma le tom jamomisl(cid:149) (EJ) aqih. 3605/93, pqoj(cid:151)ptoum ta aj(cid:149)kouha sulpeq(cid:145)slata: (1) EE L 332 tgr 31. 12. 1993, s. 7. (2) Sust(cid:145)seir tou Sulbouk(cid:148)ou tgr 24gr Iouk(cid:148)ou 1995, tgr 16gr Septelbq(cid:148)ou 1996 jai tgr 15gr Septelbq(cid:148)ou 1997. To dglosiomolij(cid:149) (cid:146)kkeilla stg Sougd(cid:148)a lei(cid:150)hgje pok(cid:151) aishgt(cid:145) ap(cid:149) to 1993 jai (cid:146)vtase sto 0,8 % tou AEP to 1997, posost(cid:149) pou e(cid:148)mai j(cid:145)ty ap(cid:149) tgm til(cid:147) amavoq(cid:145)r tgr sumh(cid:147)jgr. Cia to 1998, pqobk(cid:146)petai pke(cid:149)masla 0,5 % tou AEP. S(cid:151)lvyma le tgm amahe(cid:150)qgsg tou pqocq(cid:145)llator s(cid:151)- cjkisgr tgr Sougd(cid:148)ar tom Apq(cid:148)kio tou 1998, to 2001 pqo- bk(cid:146)petai pke(cid:149)masla tgr t(cid:145)ngr tou 3,5 % tou AEP stour dgl(cid:149)siour kocaqiaslo(cid:151)r. O de(cid:148)jtgr ajah(cid:145)qistou dgl(cid:149)siou wq(cid:146)our (cid:146)vtase stgm am(cid:150)- tatg til(cid:147) tou 79,0 % tou AEP to 1994 jai (cid:146)jtote lei(cid:150)metai j(cid:145)he (cid:146)tor yr to 76,6 % to 1997· o de(cid:148)jtgr wq(cid:146)our amal(cid:146)me- tai ma leiyhe(cid:148) peqait(cid:146)qy to 1998 jai upokoc(cid:148)fetai g ta ep(cid:149)lema (cid:146)tg stgm le(cid:148)ysg aut(cid:147) ma sumewiste(cid:148) amahe(cid:150)qgsg tou pqocq(cid:145)llator s(cid:151)cjkisgr tgr Sougd(cid:148)ar tom Apq(cid:148)kio tou 1998 jai ma vh(cid:145)sei to 62,9 % tou AEP to 2001. To (cid:146)kkeilla (cid:147)tam pok(cid:151) j(cid:145)ty ap(cid:149) tgm til(cid:147) amavoq(cid:145)r tgr sumh(cid:147)jgr to 1997 em(cid:150) amal(cid:146)metai ma up(cid:145)qnei pke(cid:149)masla stom pqo(cid:153)pokocisl(cid:149) to 1998 to opo(cid:148)o ha dieuqumhe(cid:148) leso- pq(cid:149)hesla· o de(cid:148)jtgr wq(cid:146)our lei(cid:150)metai ta tq(cid:148)a tekeuta(cid:148)a (cid:146)tg jai g le(cid:148)ysg amal(cid:146)metai ma sumewiste(cid:148) ta ep(cid:149)lema (cid:146)tg, ENEDYSE TGM PAQOUSA APOVASG: (cid:129)qhqo 1 Ap(cid:149) tgm sumokij(cid:147) ejt(cid:148)lgsg sum(cid:145)cetai (cid:149)ti to upeqbokij(cid:149) (cid:146)kkeilla stg Sougd(cid:148)a (cid:146)wei dioqhyhe(cid:148). (cid:129)qhqo 2 G ap(cid:149)vasg tou Sulbouk(cid:148)ou tgr 10gr Iouk(cid:148)ou 1995 cia tgm (cid:151)paqng upeqbokijo(cid:151) ekke(cid:148)llator stg Sougd(cid:148)a jataqce(cid:148)tai. (cid:129)qhqo 3 G paqo(cid:151)sa ap(cid:149)vasg apeuh(cid:151)metai sto Bas(cid:148)keio tgr Sougd(cid:148)ar. Bqun(cid:146)kker, 1 La(cid:155)ou 1998. Cia to Sulbo(cid:151)kio O Pq(cid:149)edqor G. BROWN