Euro notes and coins 10 years on

Reference: MEMO/11/945. Date: 22/12/2011. 1 January 2012 marks the 10th anniversary of the introduction of euro banknotes and coins. Although the euro was introduced on 1 January 1999, it was not until 1 January 2002 that the single currency became tangible in the form of euro banknotes and coins. Today, the euro is the common currency of 17 of the EU Member States with a total population of 332 million. Moreover, Monaco, San Marino and the Vatican State have officially adopted the euro as their national currency. Andorra has recently signed an agreement with the EU to this effect. There are 14.4 billion banknotes and 97 billion coins in circulation, with a total value of over €864 billion and almost €23 billion respectively¹.

Coins

The eight denominations of the euro coins have one country-specific side and one side that is identical in all euro area countries. The latter was designed by Luc Luycx of the Royal Belgian Mint and depicts the denomination of the coin and a map of the EU. The other side is country-specific and shows a prominent symbol of particular importance to that country. In addition to the regular coins, there are also commemorative and collectors' coins. Collectors' coins are not intended for circulation. They are only legal tender in the specific country that issues them.

However, commemorative 2-euro-coins are intended for circulation and can be issued either by one country or jointly by all euro area countries. In the latter case, all countries of the euro area simultaneously issue a coin bearing the same design on the country-specific side of the coin. For example, on 1 January 2012 around 90 million special 2-euro coins will be issued to mark the euro's 10th anniversary. It was designed by the winner of an online competition that attracted close to 35.000 contributions from the euro area. This is the third time the countries of the euro area jointly issue such a commemorative coin. They also did so in 2007 on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome and, in 2009, in order to mark the 10th anniversary of the introduction of the euro.

Banknotes

The seven denominations of euro banknotes share the same design in all euro area countries. The notes were conceptualized by Robert Kalina, from the Oesterreichische Nationalbank (Austrian Central Bank). The designs depict architectural styles from seven periods of Europe's cultural history: Classical, Romanesque, Gothic, Renaissance, Baroque and Rococo, the Iron Age and modern 20th century architecture. The windows and gateways on the front of the banknotes symbolise the European spirit of openness and co-operation. The bridges on the back stand for communication between the people of Europe and between Europe and the rest of the world.

Issuing euro notes and coins

The European Central Bank (ECB) has the exclusive right to authorise the issuing of euro banknotes by the national central banks of the euro area. The responsibility for producing them and putting them into circulation is shared among national central banks. Coins are issued by euro area Member States in volumes approved each year by the ECB and production is entrusted to the national mints.

In addition to the euro area Member states, Monaco, San Marino and the Vatican City are entitled to issue limited quantities of their own euro coins, following agreement with the EU. Andorra will also be allowed to do so as of 1 July 2013.

Kosovo² and Montenegro also use the euro as a de facto domestic currency, as they have no agreements with the EU; this is keeping with an older practice of using the German mark, which was previously the de facto currency in these areas.

“Global” Euro

The euro has established itself as a major international currency, second only to the US dollar. It is globally used as a reserve currency. In recent years, the euro's share in international reserves has roughly been a quarter of total foreign currency reserves (26.6% in the first quarter of 2011). Moreover, the euro is the second most actively traded currency in foreign exchange markets; in April 2010 it had a share of 19.5% in the daily foreign exchange market turnover.

History

The first stage of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) started on 1 July 1990. It was characterised by the abolition of restrictions on the movement of capital. On 1 November 1993, the Treaty on European Union, which was signed in Maastricht, The Netherlands, entered into force. It set out the respective competences of the European Central Bank, governments and central banks in the euro area on issuing euros and ensured the principle of full freedom of movement of capital.

The second stage started on 1 January 1994 and was marked by the establishment of the European Monetary Institute (EMI), the predecessor of the ECB. The name "euro" was then chosen by the European Council in Madrid in 1995.

On 1 January 1999, the EMU entered into its third stage. From this date, the ECU ceased to be a basket of currencies. It became a currency in its own right and was renamed as the euro. The conversion rates of the currencies of the 11 Member States initially participating (Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Spain, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal and Finland) were irrevocably fixed. Until 1 January 2002, the euro was not a tangible currency, but a virtual currency for cashless transactions and accounting purposes, while the old currencies continued to be used for cash payments and were considered as 'sub-units' of the euro.


Greece joined the EMU in 2001, Slovenia in 2007, Cyprus and Malta in 2008, Slovakia in 2009 and Estonia in 2011.

The way forward

The single currency is a logical complement to the Single Market, as it increases the efficiency of the latter. The euro offers many advantages and benefits compared to previously, when each Member State used its own currency.

Before the introduction of the euro, the need to exchange currencies resulted in extra costs for consumers and businesses and a lack of transparency in cross-border transactions. However, the euro is not just a technical monetary arrangement, but also a symbol for the determination to work together for closer European integration.

The new rules for economic and fiscal surveillance are major steps in that direction. This so-called "Six-Pack" set of rules entered into force on 13 December 2011. It represents the most comprehensive reinforcement of economic governance in the EU and the euro area since the launch of the EMU. “The Six-Pack” allows for a more rigorous enforcement of the fiscal rules and lays the path for a correction of macro-economic imbalances at an early stage. Building on that, the European Commission has tabled a proposal for a tighter monitoring of national budgets on 23 November 2011 (IP/11/1381). Moreover, EU leaders took important decisions at the European Council of 9 December which will lead to a further strengthening of fiscal discipline and economic governance in the EU and the Eurozone.

Of course there is no single "silver bullet" that can get the euro area out of the current crisis, which was caused by unsustainable fiscal policies and macroeconomic imbalances in some Member States. Substantial efforts have been made, and will continue to be made, on various fronts in order to defend the EMU and the euro as well as take stock of the importance of monetary integration to restore confidence in world markets, and, closer to home, to benefit European citizens and businesses.

See also IP/11/1596

DG ECFIN website:

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/euro/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/euro/cash/commemorative/10years_of_the_euro_en.htm

¹ :

Provisional figures for October 2011, European Central Bank.

² :

The European Commission is status neutral in relation to Kosovo. (UN Security Council Resolution 1244/99).

x

How the EU institutions responded to the Ombudsman’s recommendations in 2010

The present study explains the purpose of critical remarks and further remarks and the different kinds of circumstance which give rise to them. It analyses the follow-up which the institutions, bodies, offices, and agencies concerned have given to critical remarks and further remarks made in 2010 and identifies seven star cases. It also looks at cases that are particularly significant for the Ombudsman's key objectives. Finally, conclusions are drawn as regards the main lessons of the study for the future.

The European Ombudsman serves the general public interest by helping to improve the quality of administration and of service rendered to citizens by the EU institutions[2]. At the same time, the Ombudsman provides the Union's citizens and residents with an alternative remedy to protect their interests. That remedy is complementary to protection by the EU Courts and does not necessarily have the same objective as judicial proceedings.

Only the Courts have power to give legally binding judgments and to provide authoritative interpretations of the law. The Ombudsman can make proposals and recommendations and, as a last resort, draw political attention to a case by making a special report to the European Parliament. The effectiveness of the Ombudsman thus depends on moral authority and, for this reason, it is essential that the Ombudsman’s work be demonstrably fair, impartial, and thorough.

Against this background, further remarks have a single purpose: to serve the public interest by helping the institution concerned to raise the quality of its administration in the future. A further remark is not premised on a finding of maladministration. It should, therefore, not be understood as implying criticism of the institution to which it is addressed but rather as providing advice on how to improve a particular practice in order to enhance the quality of service provided to citizens.

In contrast, a critical remark normally has more than one purpose. Like a further remark, a critical remark always has an educative dimension: it informs the institution of what it has done wrong, so that it can avoid similar maladministration in the future. To maximise its educative potential, a critical remark identifies the rule or principle that was breached and (unless it is obvious) explains what the institution should have done in the particular circumstances of the case. Thus constructed, a critical remark also explains and justifies the Ombudsman's finding of maladministration and thereby seeks to strengthen the confidence of citizens and institutions in the fairness and thoroughness of his work. Moreover, by showing that the Ombudsman is willing publicly to censure the institutions, when necessary, critical remarks enhance public trust in the Ombudsman's impartiality.

A critical remark does not, however, constitute redress for the complainant. Not all complainants claim redress and not all claims for redress are justified. When redress should have been provided, however, closing the case with a critical remark signals a triple failure. The complainant has failed to obtain satisfaction; the institution concerned has failed to put the maladministration right; and the Ombudsman has failed to persuade the institution concerned to alter its position

Where redress should be provided, it is best if the institution concerned takes the initiative, when it receives the complaint, to acknowledge the maladministration and offer suitable redress. In some cases, this could consist of a simple apology.

By taking such action, the institution demonstrates its commitment to improving relations with citizens. It also shows that it is aware of what it did wrong and can thus avoid similar maladministration in the future. In such circumstances, it is unnecessary for the Ombudsman to make a critical remark. If, however, there is a suspicion that the individual case may result from an underlying systemic problem, the Ombudsman may decide to open an own-initiative inquiry, even though the specific case has been resolved to the complainant's satisfaction.

How the EU institutions responded to the Ombudsman’s

x

Europe Union.Transport and Telecommucations.Background

Council Europe.Transport,Telecommunications and Energy Council.Brussels,7 December 2011. Establishment of a single European railway area The Council is expected to reach political agreement on a draft directive on a single European railway area (17324/11), confirming its general approach adopted in June this year, while slightly adapting the wording of a few provisions in order to take account of amendments adopted by the European Parliament. While this political agreement is being formalised in the form of a first-reading position, the Council will enter into negotiations with the European Parliament to seek agreement on a final text to be adopted jointly by both institutions at second reading, if possible.

The Council will try to reach a partial general approach on a proposal for a regulation on the tachograph to be used by professional drivers so that compliance with the rules on driving time and rest periods can be monitored, in order to ensure road safety, decent working conditions for drivers and fair competition between transport businesses. The aim of the proposal, which amends the 1985 tachograph regulation, is to make fraud more difficult and to reduce the administrative burden by making full use of new technologies and introducing a number of new regulatory measures.

The Council will take stock of progress made on new guidelines defining a long-term strategy for the trans-European transport network (TEN-T) with the aim of establishing a complete and integrated transport network covering all member states and regions and providing the basis for the balanced development of all transport modes.

The Council will seek a general approach on an update of a 2008 directive defining the minimum level of training for seafarers, with a view to aligning the EU legislation with recent amendments to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW). The 2008 directive is the transposition into EU law of this convention, which was adopted by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and to which all EU member states are parties.

The Council is due to agree a general approach on a recast of the 2002 regulation on the phasing-in of double-hull requirements for single-hull oil tankers (17025/11). The recast brings together the amendments made to the regulation in one text for clarity; the only change to the rules currently in force concerns the procedure for updating the references in the regulation to the relevant regulations and resolutions adopted by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO).

In a public session, the Council will adopt its position at first reading (16226/11 + ADD1) on the draft decision on the first radio spectrum policy programme. The text endorsed was negotiated in trialogue meetings between the Polish presidency, the European Parliament and the European Commission. The Council position will be transmitted to the European Parliament, which is expected to endorse it in the first quarter of 2012.

The Council will take note, in a public session, of a progress report (17900/11) on a draft roaming regulation and will have an exchange of views on the basis of the presidency questionnaire In a public session, the Council will take note of the progress report on a draft  regulation concerning the European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA). The Commission proposal aims to strengthen and modernise the ENISA and to establish a new mandate for a period of five years.

The Council is due to adopt conclusions on the open internet and net neutrality in Europe (17904/11). These conclusions were drawn up on the basis of the Commission communication on the subject published in April 2011 (9350/11). This communication seeks to fulfil the Commission commitment to preserve "the open and neutral character of the internet, taking full account of the will of the co-legislators now to enshrine net neutrality as a policy objective and regulatory principle to be promoted by national regulatory authorities". This commitment was made in its declaration on net neutrality when the 2009 telecoms package was concluded (OJ C 308,  18.12.2009, p.2).

Union Europe.Transport and Telecommucations.Background

n

Benefits of space for the security of European citizens

Council of The European Union.Brussels.6 December 2011. RECALLS that GMES as well as Galileo/EGNOS are European Union flagship programmes under the  responsibility and management of the European Commission, and that GMES is also built on a partnership with ESA and their Member States, with the involvement of other relevant European bodies; REAFFIRMS that it is a priority for the EU to ensure the development and exploitation of sustainable GMES services and infrastructures in the medium- and long-term. URGES the European Commission to take the necessary and timely actions to secure the continuity of the programme and to reassure GMES users and stakeholders of its commitment to the GMES programme.

RECOGNIZES that GMES has an important role in ensuring the independent access by Europe to key strategic information supporting many EU policies enshrined in the Treaty, like agriculture, environment, transport, energy, health, civil protection, humanitarian aid and security; and therefore STRESSES the need to ensure continuity and availability of infrastructure and services beyond 2013.

NOTES that climate change has serious implications for both society and economy, as well as for natural and managed ecosystems, RECOGNIZES that GMES is a major European contribution towards the global efforts for understanding climate change and for both monitoring and mitigating its impacts, and STRESSES that the implementation of a dedicated GMES Climate Change service should complement and interact with other existing services and activities to bring answers to this challenge.

WELCOMES the effective provision of satellite-based information within the framework of the GMES programme to support crisis operations during recent disasters occurring worldwide; CONSIDERS that GMES has an important role to play as the backbone for an improved European emergency response capacity, in synergy with existing mechanisms; and INVITES the European Commission to further improve access to relevant data and information supplied by national programmes during crisis situations.

WELCOMES the results achieved by the European Commission in the development of preoperational capabilities for GMES security services, and RECOMMENDS the European Commission in close collaboration with the European External Action Service (EEAS), Member States and relevant EU agencies, such as FRONTEX, EUSC and EMSA, to finalise the definition of, and accelerate the transition towards, fully operational GMES security services in support of EU external actions and border and maritime surveillance, based on user demand.

CALLS UPON the European Commission, in close consultation with all relevant stakeholders, to propose an organisational framework, including governance, and the setting up of the planned operational services; in particular URGES the European Commission in consultation with all relevant stakeholders to complete the definition of an appropriate data policy for GMES, based on full and open access to information produced by GMES services and data collected through GMES infrastructure, subject to relevant international agreement, security restrictions and licensing conditions, including registration and acceptance of users licenses and which maximizes the use of GMES and build on a well balanced approach between free-of-charge access to certain public data and services and the need to strengthen Earth observations markets in Europe and the growth of existing and emerging European data and data service providing businesses; as well as the governance of the security of GMES components and information.

3133rd COMPETITIVENESS (Internal Market, Industry, Research and Space) Council meeting

Benefits of space for the security of European citizens,

The Italian statute governing the civil liability of judges for causing damage to individuals by acting in breach of EU law is itself contrary to EU law

Court of Justice of the European Union.PRESS RELEASE No 127/11.Luxembourg, 24 November 2011.Judgment in Case C-379/10.Commission v Italy. Under EU law, a Member State must make good damage caused to individuals as a result of infringements of EU law which are attributable to it, whichever State body is responsible for the damage; that principle applies also where the infringement has been committed by the judiciary.

The need to ensure that citizens have effective judicial protection for rights conferred by EU law means that State liability may be incurred where an infringement of EU law comes about as a result of the way in which rules of law have been interpreted by a national court whose decision is not open to appeal.

In the present case, the Commission claims that the Italian statute on compensation for damage caused in the exercise of judicial functions and the civil liability of judges is incompatible with the case-law of the Court of Justice concerning the liability of Member States for an infringement of EU law by one of their courts adjudicating at last instance.

The Commission alleges that Italy has made it impossible for the State to be held liable for damage caused to individuals where the infringement of EU law comes about as a result of the way such a court has interpreted provisions of law or assessed the facts and evidence and that, in other cases, where the issue is not the interpretation of provisions of law or the assessment of facts and evidence, it has limited the cases where State liability can be incurred to those involving intentional fault or gross negligence.

Exclusion of State liability

The Court finds first of all that the Italian statute excludes, in a general manner, State liability in respect of the interpretation of law and the assessment of facts or evidence.

As the Court has already ruled, EU law precludes such general exclusion of State liability for damage caused to individuals as a result of an infringement of EU law attributable to a court adjudicating at last instance, where the infringement in question results from an interpretation of provisions of law, or an assessment of facts or evidence, carried out by that court.

Moreover and above all, the Court finds that Italy has not established that the Italian legislation is interpreted by the Italian courts as merely imposing a limit on State liability and not as ruling it out altogether.

Limitation of State liability

The Court points out that a Member State is required to make good damage caused to individuals as a result of an infringement of EU law by State bodies, where three conditions are met: (i) therule of EU law infringed must confer rights on the individuals; (ii) the infringement must be sufficiently serious; and (iii) there must be a direct causal link between the breach of the obligation on the State and the damage sustained by the individual.

The same conditions apply as regards State liability for damage which has been caused by a decision of a national court against which there is no possibility of appeal. Thus, a ‘sufficiently serious breach of a rule of EU law’ arises where the national court has manifestly infringed the applicable law2. National law may define the nature or the degree of a breach resulting in State liability but on no account may it impose stricter requirements.

As it is, the Court of Justice finds that it has been sufficiently demonstrated by the Commission that the condition, laid down in the Italian statute, requiring ‘gross negligence’, as interpreted by the Italian Court of Cassation, amounts to the imposition of requirements stricter than those entailed by the condition requiring a ‘manifest infringement of the applicable law’. Italy, on the other hand, has not succeeded in establishing that the interpretation of that statute by the Italian courts is consistent with the case-law of the Court.

In conclusion, the Court finds that, in so far as it rules out the possibility of the State incurring liability for an infringement of EU law by a court whose decision is not open to appeal, where the infringement comes about as a result of the way in which that court has interpreted provisions of law or assessed the facts or evidence, and in so far as it limits State liability in this connection to cases involving intentional fault or gross negligence, the Italian legislation is incompatible with the general principle of the liability of Member States for a breach of EU law.

The full text of the judgment is published

h

Council conclusions on strengthening the external dimension of the EU energy policy

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION.Brussels, 24 November 2011. 3127th TRANSPORT, TELECOMMUNICATIONS and ENERGY Council meeting. (Energy items).The Council adopted the following conclusions:

RECALLING the Conclusions of the European Council and of the Council of the European Union of February 2011 which stressed the need for increased efforts in order to ensure a strong and coherent EU position in international energy relations,

WELCOMING the Commission Communication on security of supply and international cooperation as well as the submission by the Commission of a proposal concerning information exchange regarding intergovernmental energy agreements as a means to enhance the transparency of cooperation between Member States as well as between Member States and the Commission,

EMPHASISES that meeting the current common energy challenges requires prompt actions from the European Union, in particular strengthening the external dimension of energy policy,

ACKNOWLEDGES that the EU external energy policy should be based on and put into practice the principles of solidarity, transparency, subsidiarity and cooperation as well as on reciprocity, a rulebased market approach, and coordination between the EU and the Member States.

STRESSES that the EU external energy policy should contribute to ensuring a safe, secure, sustainable and affordable energy, consistent with the overall objectives of EU energy policy of competitiveness, security of supply and sustainability as well as with the EU 2050 energy andlow carbon1 policy perspective;

a fully functioning, interconnected and integrated internal energy market is an essential element for a successful external energy policy;

Regulatory cooperation and convergence with our neighbours 2has a key role to play in order to build a wide energy market while ensuring a level playing field. Such regulatory cooperation should take into account the diversity of EU's neighbours and their own energy policy objectives;

these conclusions do not prejudge the negotiations of the next Multiannual Financial Framework;

the implementation of the external dimension of the EU energy policy, including the initiatives set out in these conclusions and the negotiations and conclusions of international agreements, is subject to the need to respect the respective competences of the EU and Member States as laid down in the Treaties. The adoption of the present conclusions does not affect the distribution of competences or the allocation of powers between the EU and its Member States or between the institutions under the Treaties. Moreover, it affects the decision-making procedures neither for the adoption of EU positions by the Council nor for the conclusions of agreements by the EU, as provided in the Treaties.

UNDERLINES the necessity to work together with strategic partners with a view to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions Council conclusions on strengthening the external dimension of the EU energy policy

Council conclusions on strengthening the external dimension of the EU energy policy

Developing a Maritime Strategy for the Atlantic Ocean Area

European Commission.Brussels, 21.11.2011. The Atlantic Ocean, which marks the western boundary of the EU, is the secondlargest of the world's oceans. This Communication responds to a request from the Council of the European Union (EU) and the European Parliament. It proposes a coherent and balanced approach that is consistent with the EU 2020 agenda and its flagship initiatives that promotes territorial cohesion and that takes into account the international dimension.

Whilst this proposed approach will largely focus on helping communities living and working on the Atlantic coast deal with new economic realities, it also recognises that the EU shares responsibility for stewardship of the world's oceans. Broadly speaking the strategy will cover the coasts, territorial and jurisdictional waters of the five EU Member States with an Atlantic coastline – France, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom as well as international waters reaching westward to the Americas, eastward to Africa and the Indian Ocean, southward to the Southern Ocean and northward to the Arctic Ocean. In addition to actions concerning the five EU Member States, both at a national and local level, engagement is also sought with other EU states that use this space and with international partners whose waters touch it. The implications of Iceland joining the EU need to be considered.

All the proposed actions are to be financed within existing programmes and will not create any additional impact on the EU budget

COM(2011) 782 final. COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Developing a Maritime Strategy for the Atlantic Ocean Area.

Developing a Maritime Strategy for the Atlantic Ocean Aread

European Union. An agenda for growth

Package of economic and budgetary recommendations sets priorities for 2012 and includes new measures to reinforce eurozone financial governance and stability. Governments need to put public finances in order and make structural reforms to boost growth and jobs, says the Commission in its 2012 growth survey .

The survey marks the start of the second “European semester”, an annual 6-month cycle during which governments benefit from the input of their EU peers as they formulate national budgetary and economic policies.

It calls on governments to focus on 5 priorities and related measures. These include:

• implementing growth-friendly budget policies – tailor public investment and tax approaches to each country’s needs

• restoring loan activity to pre-crisis levels – ease banks’ access to funding, support SME's access to finance and develop a new European venture capital regime

• promoting growth and competitiveness – focus on the digital economy, the common market for services and external trade, fast-track related EU proposals

• tackling unemployment and the social effects of the crisis – promote business creation and self employment, improve welfare systems to take care of the most vulnerable

• modernising public administrations – reduce red tape, promote e-government, and cut the start-up time for new businesses to 3 days

Stronger economic governance

This year’s package includes 2 new proposals that build on measures taken in the wake of the financial crisis to improve economic governance and help control public debt.

One proposal  would require eurozone countries to present their draft budgets at the same time each year. The Commission could then issue an opinion on them, if necessary, and ask governments to revise them in line with their eurozone obligations.

The second  would enhance surveillance for eurozone countries being supported by financial assistance or that are threatened by serious financial instability.

Reinforcing financial support

The Commission is also launching a public consultation (deadline 8 January 2012) on whether the eurozone should be able to collectively issue bonds to raise money for countries with debt problems. The revenue would bolster the eurozone’s bailout fund.

A discussion paper  presents options for launching such “stability bonds”. Any move toward jointly issued bonds would only be feasible if the eurozone also took measures to reinforce budgetary discipline, says the Commission.

More on the 2012 growth survey and related proposals

2012 Growth Survey

A renewed EU strategy 2011-14 for Corporate Social Responsibility

Brussels,25.10.2011.COM(2011) 681 final.COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS. The European Commission has previously defined Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) as “a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis”.

Corporate social responsibility concerns actions by companies over and above their legal obligations towards society and the environment. Certain regulatory measures create an environment more conducive to enterprises voluntarily meeting their social responsibility.

A strategic approach to CSR is increasingly important to the competitiveness of enterprises. It can bring benefits in terms of risk management, cost savings, access to capital, customer relationships, human resource management, and innovation capacity. Because CSR requires engagement with internal and external stakeholders, it enables enterprises to better anticipate and take advantage of fast changing societal expectations and operating conditions. It can therefore drive the development of new markets and create opportunities for growth.

By addressing their social responsibility enterprises can build long-term employee, consumer and citizen trust as a basis for sustainable business models. Higher levels of trust in turn help to create an environment in which enterprises can innovate and grow.

Through CSR, enterprises can significantly contribute to the European Union’s treaty objectives of sustainable development and a highly competitive social market economy. CSR underpins the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, including the 75% employment target.

Responsible business conduct is especially important when private sector operators provide public services. Helping to mitigate the social effects of the current economic crisis, including job losses, is part of the social responsibility of enterprises. CSR offers a set of values on which to build a more cohesive society and on which to base the transition to a sustainable economic system.

The Council and the European Parliament have both called on the Commission to further develop its CSR policy.4 In the Europe 2020 Strategy, the Commission made a commitment to renew the EU strategy to promote Corporate Social Responsibility. In its 2010 communication on industrial policy the Commission said it would put forward a new policy proposal on CSR.5 In the Single Market Act it stated that it would adopt a new communication on CSR by the end of 2011.

The economic crisis and its social consequences have to some extent damaged consumer confidence and levels of trust in business. They have focused public attention on the social and ethical performance of enterprises. By renewing efforts to promote CSR now, the Commission aims to create conditions favourable to sustainable growth, responsible business behaviour and durable employment generation in the medium and long term.

A renewed EU strategy 2011-14 for Corporate Social Responsibility

EU.Call to strengthen Internal Market Information System

European Data Protection Supervisor. Done in Brussels, 22 November 2011. The European Data Protection Supervisor supports establishing an electronic system which gives administrations the necessary flexibility, but insists that it be accompanied by legal certainty.

Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the Commission Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System ('IMI').

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 16 thereof,

Having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and in particular Articles 7 and 8 thereof,

Having regard to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data,

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data2, Having regard to the request for an opinion in accordance with Article 28(2) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001

EU.Call to strengthen Internal Market Information System

MEPs show support for single European rail area

Brussels, 15.11.2011. COM(2011) 749 final.COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS.Building an open and secure Europe: the home affairs budget for 2014-2020 {SEC(2011) 1358 final} {SEC(2011) 1359 final}. Parliament approves the Commission’s proposal to liberalise rail services and calls for a plan for managing rail infrastructure and services, and the opening of rail passenger markets to competition.

The creation of an area of freedom, security and justice is a cornerstone of the European project. Home affairs policies contribute to this project by shaping a Europe where persons can enter, move and live freely, confident that their rights are respected and their security assured. An integrated approach to migration and security can bring benefits to the EU and its non-EU partners. The growing importance of home affairs policies has been confirmed by the Stockholm Programme1 and its Action Plan2. This is also one of the areas which have seen important changes under the Lisbon Treaty3. In the field of internal security, the Commission's communication on the Internal Security Strategy in Action4 identifies clear strategic goals and provides a basis for concerted action to address common security challenges in the years to come. Through cooperation and solidarity at EU level and with non-EU countries, substantial progress has been made towards creating a more open and secure Europe.

In spite of this progress, Europe still faces many challenges. A comprehensive, coherent and effective response is needed to the challenge of migration. Citizens also expect the Union to contribute to providing security by combating organised crime, terrorism and other threats. The EU budget plays an essential role in turning the Union's home affairs objectives into tangible results. The creation of an area of freedom, security and justice is achieved by means of a range of 'tools' including spending programmes, networks, large-scale IT systems and EU agencies.

In its Communication of 29 June 2011 on the next Multiannual Financial Framework5, the Commission proposed a home affairs budget of €10.9 billion (current prices) for the period 2014-2020 which represents a continuation of the level of spending foreseen at the end of the 2007-2013 financial framework and remains below 1% of the overall EU budget. Building on evaluation results and stakeholder consultation, the design of the next Multiannual Financial Framework is an opportunity to better align spending at EU level with the Union's strategic policy objectives. Crucially, it is also a chance to improve and simplify the way funding is delivered. This Communication sets out how the Commission has grasped these opportunities in the home affairs area.

MEPs show support for single European rail area

Fisheries: European Commission proposes full ban on shark finning at sea

Brussels, 21 November 2011- The European Commission proposed today to forbid, with no exemptions, the practice of 'shark finning' aboard fishing vessels. Shark finning is the practice of cutting off the fins of sharks – often while they are still alive - and then throwing back into the sea the shark without its fins. The Commission proposes that from now on, all vessels fishing in EU waters and all EU vessels fishing anywhere in the world will have to land sharks with the fins still attached. To facilitate storage and handling onboard vessels, fishermen will be permitted to slice partly through each fin and fold it against the carcass of the shark. The aim of the new rules is to better protect vulnerable shark populations across the world's oceans.

Today's proposal strengthens the existing EU legislation banning shark finning¹ , which allows by exemption and under certain conditions, to remove fins aboard and to land fins and shark carcasses in different ports. The Commission proposes that this should no longer be possible. As a consequence, EU Member States will no longer be able to issue special fishing permits, so that vessels flying their flag can fin sharks on board.

Maria Damanaki, Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, said: "By closing the loophole in our legislation, we want to eradicate the horrendous practice of shark finning and protect sharks much better. Control will become easier and shark finning much more difficult to hide. I very much look forward to the Council and the European Parliament accepting our proposal, so that it becomes law as soon as possible"

Background

Sharks are generally very vulnerable to overexploitation: they grow slow, mature late, and have only a small number of young per birth. In recent years, some shark populations have become seriously threatened following a dramatic increase in demand for shark products, fins in particular.

The existing 2003 Regulation on banning shark finning generally bans finning, but allows by exemption and under certain conditions, to remove fins aboard and to land fins and shark carcasses in different ports, but the weight of the fins must not exceed 5 per cent of the live weight of the sharks caught.

However, this measure has proven not effective enough. As fins and bodies can be landed in different ports, inspectors must rely on logbook records to determine whether the ratio had been respected.

Moreover, fin-to-carcass weight varies according to species and fin-cutting practices. Consequently, shark finning is difficult to detect, let alone to prove in legal proceedings. Last but not least, collecting scientific data becomes difficult, which in turn hampers fisheries management and conservation. Hence the Commission's proposal to amend the Regulation. The proposal is the result of a public consultation on how best to strengthen the finning ban.

The Spanish and Portuguese freezer vessels are those most concerned by the new rules proposed, since those countries issue most permits for on-board processing. Allowing partially slicing the fins and folding them against the carcass, answers the fishing sector's valid concerns with regard to storage and handling.

The EU has made several international commitments to protect sharks, in line with the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization's (FAO) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, and in particular under the International Plan of Action on Sharks (IPOA-Sharks) adopted by the FAO in 1999. The FAO IPOA is the basis for the 2009 Commission Communication on the European Community Action Plan for the Conservation and Management of Sharks, whereby the EU committed itself to adopt all measures necessary for the conservation of sharks and to minimise waste and discards from shark catches (see IP/09/220).

Next steps

The proposal now goes to the European Parliament and the Council for final adoption, and will enter into force rapidly thereafter.

More information:

• European Commission webpages on sharks
• Results of the Consultation on the amendment of Council Regulation (EC) 1185/2003
• Communication on a European Community Action Plan for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (COM/2009/40 final)
• Council Regulation (EC) No 1185/2003 on the removal of fins of sharks on board vessels

Contacts :

Oliver Drewes (+32 2 299 24 21)

Lone Mikkelsen (+32 2 296 05 67)

€17 million additional EU support for the promotion of fresh fruit and vegetables following the E-coli crisis

Brussels, 18 November 2011. The European Commission has approved 14 programmes in 11 Member States to promote fresh fruit and vegetables both on the internal market and in third countries. The total budget for the programmes, running for a period of three years, is € 34.1 million of which the EU contributes € 17.0 million (50%). This was one of a set of measures proposed by the Commission this summer to address the difficult market situation faced by this sector as a consequence of the E-coli crisis (see IP/11/829).

In light of the E-coli crisis that hit the fruit and vegetables sector, Dacian Cioloş, Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development pledged support to the sector by accelerating the approval procedures for promotion programmes.

"This additional envelope comes in addition to the emergency measures put in

place during the summer to help the fruit and vegetables sector come to terms with the e-coli crisis. In this period, the Commission has shown its capacity to react quickly and proportionately to support those producers most hit by the crisis. In the medium term, we can also provide measures to help producers climb back up the slope to where they were before the crisis" he stated today.

A Regulation was adopted in July which cut by more than half the length of the usual adoption procedure associated with co-financed programmes of this sort.

Under this schedule, the Commission services received 17 programmes (worth a total budget of €40.1 million). 14 programmes were selected for co-financing out of which 11 target the internal market and 3 target third countries. Among Member States, Germany is the main target country, while third country programmes aim at the Chinese, Russian and Ukrainian markets.

The full list of programmes and budgets adopted today is available in the annex.

Background

In 2000 the Council decided that the EU could assist in financing measures that provide information on or promote agricultural products and food on the EU single market and in third countries. The total budget available for these promotion programmes is €55 million a year. The EU finances up to 50% of the cost  of these measures (up to 60% in programmes promoting the consumption of fruit and vegetables by children or concerning information on responsible drinking  and the dangers of excessive alcohol consumption). The remaining 50% are met by the professional/inter-branch organisations which proposed the measures and/or by the Member States concerned.

For promotion on the single market and in third countries, interested professional organisations can submit their proposals to the Member States twice a  year. The Member States then send the list of programmes they have selected to the Commission along with a copy of each programme. Subsequently the Commission evaluates the programmes and decides whether they are eligible.

In addition, a decision concerning promotion programmes in third countries is expected to follow by the end of November 2011.

€17 million additional EU support for the promotion of fresh fruit and vegetables following the E-coli crisis

 

New EU-US agreement on PNR improves data protection and fights crime and terrorism

Brussels, 17 November 2011 – The European Union and the United States have initialled a new agreement on the transfer of air passengers' data for flights from the EU to the US. If adopted by the European Parliament and EU Member States in the Council of Ministers, the new agreement on Passenger Name Records (PNR) will replace the current agreement from 2007, improving data protection whilst providing an efficient tool to fight serious transnational crime and terrorism.

The new PNR agreement brings more clarity and legal certainty to both citizens and air carriers. It ensures better information sharing by US authorities with law enforcement and judicial authorities from the EU, it sets clear limits on what purposes PNR data may be used for, and it contains a series of new and stronger data protection guarantees.

"Protection of personal data has been my priority since the beginning of the negotiations in December 2010, and I am satisfied with the result, since it represents a big improvement over the existing Agreement from 2007. The new agreement contains robust safeguards for European citizens' privacy, without undermining the effectiveness of the agreement in terms of EU and US security,'' said Cecilia Malmström, EU Commissioner for Home Affairs.

The agreement is a legally binding text with stronger rules on police and law enforcement cooperation. The US authorities (Department of Homeland Security, DHS) will be obliged to share PNR and analytical information obtained from this data with law enforcement and judicial authorities of the EU in order to prevent, detect, investigate, or prosecute serious transnational crime or terrorist offences. This will be of direct benefit for the EU.

The agreement also gives a detailed description of the purposes for which PNR data may be used by US authorities. These are notably: the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorism and of transnational crimes punishable by 3 years of imprisonment or more. Minor crimes are thus excluded. PNR will be used to tackle serious crimes, such as drug trafficking, trafficking in human beings and terrorism.

The agreement sets out privacy-friendly rules on how and for how long PNR data may be stored. Data will be de-personalised 6 months after it is received by the US authorities. After 5 years the de-personalised data will be moved to a 'dormant database' with stricter requirements for access by US officials. The total duration of data storage is limited to 10 years for serious transnational crimes. Only for terrorism will the data be accessible for 15 years.

The agreement establishes the rule that PNR data must be sent from air carriers' databases to the US authorities (through a 'push' system). The DHS will thus not collect data directly from air carrier's reservation systems (through 'pull') except in exceptional circumstances, such as where carriers are not able to send the data for technical reasons.

The agreement has comprehensive safeguards for passengers' right to data protection. Passengers can obtain access to correct and delete their PNR data at the DHS. Passengers also have the right to administrative and judicial redress as provided under US law. Further, the DHS and air carriers will have to provide full information to passengers on the use of PNR and the ways to exercise their rights.

In addition, the agreement prohibits adverse decisions from being taken by the US authorities only on the basis of automated processing of data, a human being must always be involved, to address concerns about PNR data being used for illegal profiling. It also lays down very strict conditions for the use of sensitive data which might reveal, for example, the religion or sexual orientation of passengers.

Finally, the agreement includes detailed provisions on data security to prevent loss of data or breaches of privacy. All processing of PNR data will be logged for the purposes of oversight and auditing and there will be oversight of the DHS by independent bodies, including the US Congress.

Background

In 2007, the European Union signed an agreement with the United States on the transfer and processing of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data, based on a set of commitments by the DHS. The 2007 agreement became provisionally applicable.

On 5 May 2010, the European Parliament adopted a resolution where it requested a renegotiation of the agreement. On 2 December 2010, the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate a new agreement with the US for the transfer of PNR data and discussions started immediately.

The purpose of the new agreement is to ensure the availability of PNR data to DHS, in order for it to be used in the fight against serious transnational crime and terrorism. PNR data of all flights between the EU and the US will be transferred by the air carriers to the US DHS. As in the 2007 agreement, the new agreement allows for 19 "data elements" to be transferred, such as passengers' names, travel itineraries and where they bought their tickets.

The new agreement takes into consideration and is consistent with the general criteria laid down in the Communication from the Commission on the Global Approach to the transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data to third countries and the negotiating directives given by the Council (IP/10/1150 and MEMO/10/431).

For more information
MEMO/11/797

Homepage of Cecilia Malmström, Commissioner for Home Affairshttp://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/malmstrom/welcome/default_en.htm

Homepage DG Home Affairs:http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/index_en.htm
Contacts :
Michele Cercone (+32 2 298 09 63)
Tove Ernst (+32 2 298 67 64)