Notat 14. november 2005 Referat fra EU finans- og økonomiministermøde    (ECOFIN) den 8. november 2005 Dagsordenspunkt: EU-budget –  Kommissionens køreplan hen imod en positiv revisionserklæring (DAS) Rådet vedtog konklusioner om Kommissionens køreplan for indførelsen af en in- tegreret struktur for intern kontrol med gennemførelsen af EU's budget, jf. vedlagte bilag.    Der   var   tilfredshed   med   de   fremskridt   Kommissionen   og   medlemsstaterne allerede har gennemført i deres kontrolsystemer, men nogle ministre bemærkede, at der var brug for på nationalt niveau at tage større ansvar for opgaverne.   Dagsordenspunkt: Bedre regulering –  metode til måling af administrative byrder i EU Kommissionen   og   formanden   for   den   Økonomisk-Politiske   Komité   (EPC) redegjorde for det hidtidige arbejde vedrørende måling af administrative byrder, herunder resultatet af de gennemførte pilotprojekter.   Rådet  vedtog  konklusioner,  der  understreger  vigtigheden  af  bedre  regulering  i relation til Lissabon-målsætningerne om at styrke vækst og beskæftigelse i EU, og opfordrer  Kommissionen  til  at  begynde  anvendelsen  af  en  fælles  metode  til måling af administrative byrder i EU fra januar 2006, Kommissionen fremsatte en erklæring, der understreger, at medlemslandene må medvirke ved at levere de nødvendige data, og at målemetoden også bør anvendes på  de  ændringer,  Rådet  foretager  i  retsakterne,  efter  at  de  er  fremlagt  af Kommissionen.   Sagen forventes at blive drøftet igen på ECOFIN i december 2005.    Dagsordenspunkt: EU-statistik –  opfølgning på ECOFIN konklusioner af 7. juni 2005 Der  blev  opnået  politisk  enighed  om  forslag  til  forordning  til  ændring  af forordning   3605/93   –   herunder   tre   annekser   –   og   vedtaget   konklusioner vedrørende kvaliteten af statistiske data, prioritering af statistiske behov, Udvalget for   Penge-   Kreditmarkeds-   og   Betalingsbalancestatistik   (CMFB),   Eurostats uafhængighed  og  Statusrapport  om  Informationskravene  i  ØMU’en,  jf.  vedlagte bilag.
2 Ministrene  nåede  i  den  forbindelse  også  til  enighed  om  et  mandat  for  en  ny rådgivende    ”høj-niveau”    gruppe    med    henblik    på    at    fremme    Eurostats uafhængighed, integritet og pålidelighed.   Dagsordenspunkt: Stabilitets- og Vækstpagten    –  rådsbeslutning til Ungarn under artikel 104.8 Kommissionen  og  formanden  for  den  Økonomisk-Finansielle  Komité  (EFC) redegjorde for den økonomiske situation i Ungarn.   Rådet vedtog på den baggrund en beslutning under artikel 104.8 i proceduren for uforholdsmæssigt   store   underskud   vedrørende   Ungarn.   Rådet   konstaterede dermed, at Ungarn ikke har iværksat virkningsfulde foranstaltninger i opfølgning på   rådshenstillingen   under   artikel   104.7   af   8.   marts   2005   om   at   bringe underskuddet under 3 pct. af BNP i 2008. Rådet traf i januar 2005 en tilsvarende beslutning som opfølgning på en rådshenstilling fra juli 2004.   Der blev endvidere vedtaget konklusioner, der udtrykker bekymring vedrørende udviklingen i de offentlige finanser og de makroøkonomiske ubalancer i Ungarn. Dagsordenspunkt: Fremskridtsrapport vedr. ”One Stop Shop” mv.   Formandskabet præsenterede sin fremskridtsrapport vedrørende en direktivpakke om forenklinger af momsregler, som Rådet noterede sig.   Dagsordenspunkt: Direktiv om nedsat moms   Rådet drøftede endnu engang en ændring af EU-reglerne om nedsat moms med udgangspunkt i et kompromis foreslået af formandskabet.   Flere medlemslande gav udtryk for uændrede holdninger, herunder i forhold til de arbejdskraftintensive ydelser og kravet om ligebehandling.   Sagen forventes drøftet på ny på rådsmødet (ECOFIN) i december 2005. Indtil da vil  der  blive  arbejdet  videre  med  sagen  i  De  Faste  Repræsentanters  Komité (COREPER).   Dagsordenspunkt: Finansielle  tjenesteydelser  –   grænseoverskridende fusioner og virksomhedsopkøb Kommissionen  orienterede  om  det  arbejde,  som  indtil  videre  er  udført  med hensyn    til    at    afdække    hindringer    for    grænseoverskridende    fusioner    og virksomhedsopkøb i den finansielle sektor.   Formandskabet   drog   på   den   baggrund   konklusioner   vedrørende   det   videre arbejde, jf. vedlagte bilag.
3 Dagsordenspunkt: Budgetmæssige aspekter af sukkerreformen Der var i Rådet en drøftelse af de finansielle konsekvenser af reformen af EU’s fælles organisering af sukkermarkedet.    Formandskabet   vil   informere   formændene   for   hhv.   Rådet   for   Generelle Anliggender og Eksterne Relationer (GAERC) og Rådet for Landbrug og Fiskeri om de synspunkter, som landene gav udtryk for.   A-punkter Rådet vedtog uden drøftelse konklusioner om Revisionsrettens særberetning om forvaltningen  af  Det  Europæiske  Kontor  for  Bekæmpelse  af  Svig  (OLAF),  jf. vedlagte bilag. Diverse Rådet  havde  under  frokosten  en  drøftelse  med  finansministrene  fra  EFTA- landene vedrørende de økonomiske udfordringer for europæisk økonomi i lyset af globaliseringen.
4 Bilag Rådskonklusioner om  Kommissionens køreplan hen imod en positiv revisionserklæring (DAS) EU BUDGET CONTROL FRAMEWORK “Introduction 1. Since its introduction for the discharge of the 1994 budget, the European Court of Auditors has given a qualified Statement of Assurance (DAS1) for most transactions underlying the European Union’s accounts. Nonetheless, the  Council  welcomes  the  substantial  progress  made  by  the  Commission and  the  Member  States  to  strengthen  control  systems  and  now  notes  the publication  of  the  Commission’s  Communication  on  “a  Roadmap  to  an integrated internal control framework”. A panel of experts met on 21 and 22 September 2005 to discuss the issues raised by the communication. 2. Numerous  measures  have  already  been  implemented  to  improve  sound financial  management.  It  is  in  the  EU’s  interests  to  continue  to  improve financial  management  so  that  reasonable  and  verifiable  assurance  can  be had   that   controls   are   in   place   which   work   correctly   and   effectively. Achieving a positive DAS is an ambitious mid-term objective. 3. The   Council   recalls   that,   under   the   EC   Treaty,   the   Commission   is responsible for the implementation of the European Union’s budget. It also considers that the controls and assurance required should be improved by building on existing control structures with a view to improving the cost- benefit ratio and promoting simplification. Participants in the management of EU funds should ensure that controls are operating effectively. 4. The Council believes that the achievement of an effective integrated internal control framework in line with the principles set out in the Court’s opinion No. 2/2004 should provide reasonable assurance regarding the management of the risk of error in the underlying transactions. Simplification 5. It  is  of  fundamental  importance  to  pursue  the  harmonisation  of  the principles   of   controls   and   also   the   simplification   of   legislation.   The regulations  to  be  adopted  for  the  programming  period  2007-13  should include   simplification   of   the   control   requirements   while   providing reasonable assurance. These regulations should be simple, easy to apply and predictable throughout the programming period. The Council requests that the  Commission  assess  the  cost  of  controls   by  area  of  expenditure. 1Déclaration d’assurance (DAS)  
5 Simplification  should  not  lead  to  any  increase  of  the  current  level  of administrative and control costs and should ensure elimination of multiple internal controls by different bodies and entities. Control Systems   6. The  Member  States  and  the  Commission  should  seek  to  optimise  the effectiveness,  economy  and  efficiency  of  current  control  systems.  While recognising   the   different   national   administrative   arrangements   of   the Member States, the Council believes that there is scope for general common principles and elements regarding internal controls, whether existing or to be   adopted   for   the   programming   period   2007-13.   For   multi-annual programmes, the control systems to manage the risk of error should also be assessed  over  the  period  as  the  whole.  It  requests  that  the  Commission provide clarification in a number of areas identified in its communication2, inter alia: – Simplification of legislation and harmonisation; – Single Audit in the context of internal control; – Assessment of the relevance of the various internal controls standards; – Assessment of the risk of error and the consequential financial impact of those errors; – Balancing costs and benefits of controls, taking a risk based approach; and – Roles of the various actors. Action by the European Commission 7. An initial analysis has been made with the publication of the Commission services’  “gap  assessment  between  the  internal  control  framework  in  the Commission  Services  and  the  control  principles  set  out  in  the  Court  of Auditors’  proposal  for  a  Community  internal  control  framework  opinion No. 2/2004”. The Council will consider the Commission's Action Plan to improve the quality of systems of administration and control. 8. The    Council    notes    the    Commission’s    actions,    identified    in    its communication3, to improve the Commission’s internal control framework for  budgetary  management  and  centrally  managed  funds,  and  to  improve the    framework    for    decentralised    management.    As    regards    shared management, the Commission is invited to assess the implementation of the current  regulations  concerning  inter  alia  sample  checks  on  operations, paying authorities and winding up bodies' activities. 9. The  Commission,  working  with  the  Member  States,  should  provide  an assessment of the present controls at sector and regional level and the value of existing statements and declarations. 210326/05 COM (2005) 252 final 310326/05 COM (2005) 252 final  
6 The Role for Member States 10.     The Council recalls that the Commission implements the budget on its own responsibility,   and   that   Member   States,   in   the   framework   of   their cooperation  with  the  Commission  under  Article  274  of  the  EC  Treaty should  continue  to  undertake  and  improve  controls  over  funds  under shared management arrangements. 11.     Contract of Confidence arrangements proposed under the Structural Funds programmes  could  help  increase  assurance  under  the  present  regulations, and  the  Council  invites  the  Commission  and  Member  States  which  have indicated their wish to proceed to complete the process of their adoption of these arrangements. Declarations and Decentralised management of EU funds 12.     Taking into account the need not to put into question the existing balance between  the  Commission  and  the  Member  States  or  to  compromise responsibility   and   accountability   at   the   operational   level,   the   Council believes  existing  operational-level  declarations  can  provide  an  important means  of  assurance  for  the  Commission  and  ultimately  the  Court  of Auditors and should be useful and cost effective and be taken into account by the Commission and ultimately the Court of Auditors to attain a positive DAS. Audit Issues 13.     The  Council  emphasises  the  need  for  a  strict  distinction  between  internal control  and  external  audit.  External  bodies  are  not  part  of  the  internal control framework. 14.     The  Council  stresses  that  any  form  of  cooperation  between  Independent Supreme Audit Institutions and the Court of Auditors can only be based on Article 248 of the EC Treaty. It notes the possibility that some Independent Supreme  Audit  Institutions  are  willing  to  discuss  further  how  they  might strengthen their contribution to an integrated control framework governing EU funds. 15.     The  Commission  and  Member  States  should  ensure  that  their  approach concerning the integrated internal control framework is based on common control   standards   and   should   consider   together,   in   the   appropriate formation,  how  these  standards  can  be  most  effectively  applied.  The Council invites the European Court of Auditors to examine and report on how  the  integrated  internal  control  framework  would  affect  its  audit approach taking account of current International Auditing Standards. 16.     The Council encourages the Court to:
7 – continue to improve the clarity of for the DAS; – identify each year the factors which have prevented the supervisory and control systems from functioning effectively so as to manage adequately the risk to the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions; – address the issue of multi-annual programmes and their relationship with the DAS; – take into account existing declarations from Member States; and – present  the  DAS  supplemented  by  a  specific  assessment  of  each  major areas  of  Community  activity,  in  accordance  with  Article  248  of  the  EC Treaty. The  Council  encourages  Member  States,  within  the  framework  of  the  existing procedure,  to  discuss  bilaterally  with  the Court  the  findings  of  the  latter's DAS audits,   and   to   resolve   any   systemic   problems   which   are   identified.   The Commission is encouraged to develop solutions to problems common to several Member States and to report to the Council. 17.     The Council believes, in line with the Court's opinion 2/2004, that it should reach an understanding with the European Parliament regarding the risks to be tolerated in the underlying transactions, having regard to the costs and benefits  of  controls  for  the  different  policy  areas  and  the  value  of  the expenditure concerned. Next Steps 18.     On the occasion of the 2004 discharge process, the Council should examine the  Commission's  Action  Plan  to  fill  the  gaps  in  the  present  control framework. 19.     The  Council  will  examine  progress  in  respect  of  the  present  conclusions during 2006 to further improve internal control.”
8 Rådskonklusioner om Bedre re gulering REDUCING THE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN ON BUSINESS “The Council underlines the importance of better regulation to the Lisbon agenda and  welcomes  the  commitment  made  by  the  Commission  to  place  regulatory reform among the top priorities in its strategy for promoting jobs and growth. In this context, it notes with concern the burden imposed on European businesses by  the  administrative  costs  of  national  and  EU  regulation  and  calls  for  urgent action at the EU and national levels to control and reduce these burdens, while respecting the wider objectives and benefits of legislation and regulation. The Council (ECOFIN) recalls its October 2004 conclusions4 and the conclusions of the November 2004 European Council which supported the development of a common methodology for measuring the administrative burden of EU legislation, and   invited   the   Commission   to   implement   the   methodology   in   impact assessments and in simplification of existing EU legislation as soon as possible in 2005,  after  completion  of  a  pilot  phase.  The  Council  further  recalls  the  March 2005  European  Council  conclusions5  which  called  on  the  Commission  and  the Council, in the context of the re-launched Lisbon strategy, to develop a common methodology for measuring administrative burdens with the aim of  reaching an agreement by the end of 2005. The Council (ECOFIN) welcomes the successful conclusion of the Commission’s pilot phase and the Commission’s commitment to begin implementation with a view to securing improvements in the regulatory environment and promoting jobs and growth. Looking forward, the Council (ECOFIN): – invites  the  Commission  to  start  measuring  administrative  burdens,  as validated  by  the  pilot  phase,  on  a  consistent  basis  and  in  line  with transparent criteria, as part of integrated impact assessments of new EU regulatory proposals from January 2006; – reiterates  its  October  2004  commitment  to  assist  the  Commission  in implementing   the   methodology.   In   this   context   Ministers   agree:   to provide,  on  request  and  in  a  proportionate  manner,  the  information needed to carry out assessments of EU administrative burdens and; that the methodology proposed by the Commission provides a common basis for the collection and exchange of data; – notes  that  the  measurement  of  administrative  burdens  at  the  EU  level complements  and  reinforces  the  domestic  initiatives  of  a  number  of Member States, which remain voluntary in nature; 4103017/04 Presse 284 571619/05
9 – invites the Commission to explore how best to integrate the measurement of administrative burdens into its simplification work programme and to provide information to the Council on how this is being achieved during the first half of 2006; – reiterates its October 2004 invitation to the Commission and the member States to consider developing quantitative objectives for the reduction of the  administrative  burden  on  business  in  selected  areas.  In  this  context, the  Council  (ECOFIN)  invites  the  Commission  to  explore  options  for establishing  measurable  targets  for  the  reduction  of  the  administrative burden   of   EU   regulation   in   specific   sectors   and   to   bring   forward proposals on this issue by spring 2006; – calls  for  continued  and  enhanced  cooperation  between  the  Commission and the member States to review use of the methodology and invites the Commission to report on the progress made and lessons learned after an initial,  twelve  month,  implementation  phase,  with  a  view  to  adapting,  if necessary,  the  methodology,  in  order  to  maximise  the  contribution  of administrative    burden    measurement    to    improving    the    regulatory environment in the EU; and   – notes that administrative procedures and complex regulatory requirements often impose the greatest burdens on SMEs and welcomes the intention of  the  Commission  to  address  these  burdens  through  its  simplification and wider work programme while respecting the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. In this context, the Council invites the Commission, building  on  its  administrative  burdens  work,  to  present  proposals  for ensuring that SMEs are protected from disproportionate burdens imposed by new EU regulatory proposals.”
10 Rådskonklusioner om EU -statistik EU STATISTICAL GOVERNANCE “The Council welcomes the EFC Status Report on Information Requirements in EMU. Due to the commitments of, and close-cooperation between, Eurostat and national statistical institutes (NSIs), major progress has been achieved in several fields of the Principal European Economic Indicators (PEEIs) over recent years. Furthermore,  important  new  legislation  was  enacted  paving  the  way  for  further progress in those areas. Overall, nine out of a total nineteen PEEIs currently fulfil or  are  close  to  the  PEEI  timeliness  and  coverage  targets,  thus  improving considerably the information base for economic analysis and monetary policy. This   progress   notwithstanding,   the   Council   acknowledges   that   important challenges  remain.  The  availability  of  timely  and  high-coverage  indicators  for services and labour markets, in particular employment data, should be improved as  a  matter  of  priority.  Generally,  despite  some  important  improvements  to timeliness, most PEEIs still lag far behind the US indicators and major efforts are still required to catch up with US timeliness. In order to meet these challenges, stronger  commitments  are  needed  in  the  longer  term  from  NSIs  and  Eurostat, with the support of the ECB; in the short and medium-term the efforts should be concentrated    on    fully    implementing    all    PEEIs    and    consolidating    the improvements  achieved  rather  than  setting  new  ambitious  goals.  The  “First  for Europe”  principle  for  PEEIs  should  be  reinforced,  with  regard  to  a  closer coordination   of   release,   revision   and   dissemination   practices,   seasonal   and working  day  adjustment  for  European  aggregates;  and  the  use  of  European sampling  schemes.  For  that  purpose,  Eurostat  and  the  ECB  should  produce  a further progress report on these objectives and on the implementation plan for the PEEIs. The Council invites the European statistical system (ESS) to study the best practices in the EU for each indicator and to provide a report to the EFC on the way to apply these more widely. These two elements should be integrated into the 2006 status report prepared jointly by Eurostat and the ECB before the end of 2006.   Benchmarking exercises against other countries worldwide should be carried out from  time  to  time  so  that  European  statistics  match  the  best  international standards.  The  full  and  prompt  implementation  by  Member  States  of  the legislative  framework  that  has  been  adopted  under  the  EMU  Action  Plan  is strongly supported so as  to improve the critical areas identified. To free up the necessary  resources  at  the  national  and  European  level  the  Council  asks  the Commission to continue and reinforce the efforts on prioritisation. With respect to the compliance of Member States with the Code of Best Practice on the compilation and reporting of data of the Excessive Deficit Procedure, the Council  welcomes  that  the  September  2005  EDP  notifications  can  generally  be considered of a good quality. However, there are still some open issues, including the fact that a number of Member States have not yet updated their inventories.
11 With a view to the next Convergence Reports in spring 2006, the Council urges the  Member  States  concerned  to  fill  the  remaining  gaps  in  their  statistical  data underlying these Convergence Reports as soon as possible. The Council welcomes the  Progress  Report  on  the  Action  Plan  on Economic,  Monetary  and  Financial Statistics  for  the  acceding  and  candidate  countries.  The  Council  considers  that these issues should be discussed in the context of the next dialogue meeting in spring 2006.   EU Statistical Governance Independence, integrity and accountability of Eurostat and of the European Statistical System (ESS)   In  the  context  of  improving  the  governance  of  the  European  statistical  system (ESS), the Ecofin Council emphasised in its report on the Stability and Growth Pact,  which  was  endorsed  by  the  European  Council  on  23  March  2005,  the importance    of    developing    the    operational    capacity,    monitoring    power, independence  and  accountability  of  Eurostat.  The  Council  therefore  welcomes the  Commission’s  assurance  that  the  principles  of  the  Code  of  Practice  will  be respected   by   Eurostat   through   the   implementation   of   the   Commission “Recommendation  on  the  independence,  integrity  and  accountability  of  the national  and  Community  statistical  authorities”.  The  Council  had  reiterated  at several occasions that the professional independence and credibility of Eurostat stems much from its competence in statistics and its operational capacity to fulfil its ermanent professional tasks. Appropriate and expert staff resources are key in this context. The Council notes the Commission’s intention to propose a major reform of the European  Advisory  Committee  on  statistical  information  in  the  economic  and social  spheres  (CEIES)  so  as  to  have  a  smaller  and  more  efficient  body.  A reformed CEIES would contribute to the improvement of the governance of the ESS and to the enhancement of the quality of community statistics. The  Council  confirms  its  view  that  the  core  issue  remains  to  ensure  adequate practices, resources, capabilities to produce high quality statistics at the national and  European  level  with  a  view  to  ensuring  the  independence,  integrity  and accountability of both national statistical offices and Eurostat. The Council is of the view that a new high-level advisory body would enhance the independence, integrity  and  accountability  of  Eurostat  and,  in  the  context  of  the  peer  review assessment of implementing the European Statistics Code of Practice, of the ESS. The new body should be a small group of persons appointed on the basis of the independence  and  competence  of  these  persons.  It  should  be  chaired  by  an influential  and  well  regarded  person  selected  by  the  Council.  The  new  body should draw up an annual report for the Council and the European Parliament on the  implementation  of  the  European  Statistics  Code  of  Practice  as  it  relates  to Eurostat. This report will complement the implementation report on the ESS by the Commission. The Council further notes that the Commission intends to set up a reporting system to monitor adherence to the Code of Practice in the ESS in
12 line with the proportionality principle. The reformed CEIES should be given the task to voice the interests of non-government users and respondents of European Statistics.  With  regard  to  its  composition  it  must  be  in  a  position  to  give representation to all stakeholders of European Statistics. Amendment of Regulation 3605/93 In  the  conclusions  on  EU  statistical  governance  adopted  on  7  June  2005,  the Ecofin Council expressed the view that further details concerning the conduct of possible   methodological   visits   were   expected   in   an   upcoming   Commission document  on  these  visits,  and  that  the  practical  modalities  would  have  to  be discussed  with  the  relevant  fora,  in  particular  the  EFC.  Finally,  the  Council concluded   that   these   modalities   would   be   made   public   when   the  Council regulation is adopted. The  Council  welcomes  the  letter  by  the  Commission  to  the  Council  President providing   clarification   on   the   principles   and   details   guiding   Eurostat’s methodological  visits,  and  assurance  that  Eurostat  will  discuss  any  possible revision  with  Member  States  and  duly  take  into  account  their  comments  if  the need for revisions arises.   In  the  view  of  the  Council,  legal  obligations  of  Member  States  have  to  be specified. The Council advises that these legal obligations have a legal nature as well as Eurostat new capacity of investigation, so they should be integrated in the draft  regulation  as  an  annex.  In  particular,  Member  States  have  to  provide specified   data   limited   to   the   information   strictly   necessary   to   check   the compliance with ESA rules. The Council also suggests for transparency purposes that  Member  States  be  consulted  on  the  questionnaires'  format,  for  instance through  the  CMFB.  Furthermore,  along  with  the  Legal  Service,  the  Council advises that it must be defined who are the statistical authorities concerned by the methodological visits: they are the authorities responsible for the EDP reporting. Furthermore, the Council is of the opinion that national experts taking part in the methodological  visits  to  Member  States  must  be  nominated  by  the  national authorities responsible for the EDP reporting in the experts’ home country. As  the  annex  has  been  agreed,  the  Council  endorses  the  draft  Regulation amending Regulation 3605/93 and foresees a timely adoption of the Regulation with a view to its application in the next EDP notification. CMFB The 7 June 2005 Ecofin conclusions state that the role, areas of competence and functioning  of  the  CMFB  as  well  as  its  interaction  with  Eurostat  including  the communication  policy  of  the  eventual  Eurostat  decisions  in  relation  to  EDP statistics should be evaluated. Against this background, the Council examined the situation.   The   current   system   based   on   CMFB   consultations   has   worked satisfactorily for many years, with the CMFB delivering opinions regularly.  
13 There was a broad majority in favour of keeping the CMFB and not to change the current  set-up  of  the  CMFB  as  an  advisory  body.  This  view  is  based  on  the following  key  arguments.  Contrary  to  other  areas  of  statistics,  the  fundamental objective of the EDP procedure is to identify, as quickly as possible, a situation of excessive deficit or debt and to put an end to it, so that Member States can avoid excessive  public  deficits.  The  CMFB  provides  invaluable  expertise  advice  from Member States’ NSIs and National Central Banks in a timely manner which allows Eurostat to react swiftly in contentious cases. The procedures and transparency as well as the provision of information to the EFC have been constantly developed and streamlined over time. Being an advisory body that uses the expertise of the most  experienced  European  statisticians  has  the  merit  that  CMFB  opinions  are seen as purely technical and not the result of a political agreement. This reinforces the image of independence of European statistics and the credibility of EDP data. The Council invites the CMFB to review its procedures and to examine possible areas  and  ways  of  improvements.  The  Council  welcomes  in  this  context  the intentions  of  the  Commission  to  review  its  communication  policy  of  Eurostat decisions. Review of Priorities Already in June 2004, the Ecofin Council identified the importance of reviewing statistical priorities and reducing statistical requirements for areas which are now considered  to  be  of  less  importance.  The  Council  has  returned  to  the  issue  of prioritisation at several occasions since then, most recently on 7 June 2005 when it asked for an acceleration of the work on prioritisation. The  Council  welcomes  the  initiatives  taken  and  the  progress  achieved  over  the past  year.  In  particular,  it  takes  note  of  and  endorses  the  work  of  the  Eurostat Task  Force,  which  builds  upon  the  three  guiding  principles  for  priority  setting endorsed  by  the  Ecofin Council.  It  should  be  underlined  that  reprioritisation  is not  primarily  about  cost  cutting,  but  about  reallocating  resources  to  their  most effective  use.  Furthermore,  new  EU  statistical  requirements  should  be  accepted only when they are needed for the implementation of EU policies. The Council believes that it is time now to focus on putting reprioritisation into practice, and that there are a number of complementary ways in which this can be achieved. The  Council  acknowledges  the  importance  of  both  a  top-down  and  bottom-up approach to reprioritisation. It recommends incorporating the work of the Task Force, including the evaluation of costs, into the forthcoming proposal from the Commission on the multi-annual statistical programme for 2008-12 and, as a pilot exercise,   into   the   2007   annual   work   programme.   It   further   recommends developing    and    incorporating    other    instruments    and    mechanisms    of reprioritisation.   Several  areas  that  are  not  part  and  parcel  of  the  EMU  Action  plan  have  been identified  as  negative  priorities  by  national  statistical  institutes.  These  include agricultural  statistics,  INTRASTAT,  Prodcom,  structural  business  statistics  and transport statistics. Eurostat in accordance with the Task Force on priority setting
14 is invited to consider these areas for pilot  studies  and to report on progress by December 2005 with a view to reach concrete results by July 2006. The Council also notes the Communication to the European Parliament and the Council on "Implementing the Community Lisbon Programme: A strategy for the simplification of the regulatory environment", as adopted by the Commission on 25  October  2005.  In  this  context,  it  is  acknowledged  that  the  reduction  of statistics   and   data   collection   deserves   particular   attention,   taking   particular account  of  the  special  needs  and  limited  resources  of  small  and  medium  sized businesses. Furthermore, the Council notes that structural business statistics and INTRASTAT  statistics  will  be  covered  by  the  simplification  programme  of  EU legislation for 2005-2008 proposed by the Commission and is looking forward to examining the specific proposals. This work should be aligned so as to contribute to the above mentioned discussions by July 2006. Improved coordination of all initiatives   at   the   European   level   and   a   better   information   policy   for   all stakeholders is vital for the success of reprioritisation. Treatment of complex methodological cases with relevance for EDP Moreover, as a separate element from the above package, the Council discussed the handling of complex methodological cases with relevance for EDP statistics. There  are  established  procedures  to  ensure  the  correct  treatment  of  individual cases such as the classification of government transactions and liabilities. In this context, the Council is of the view that a distinction should be made concerning Eurostat’s and the CMFB’s views and Eurostat’s decisions on past transactions on one hand and views concerning transactions that will take place in the future on the other, notably when the planned transactions will have potentially significant impact on Council decisions on EDP matters. As to the former, Article 11 of the envisaged amendment to Regulation 3605/93 stipulates the procedures to clarify complex  cases  and  in  that  way  provides  maximum  certainty.  As  to  the  latter, timely views and guidance provided under mutual trust are essential to facilitate effective fiscal planning and forecasting. The Council invites the Commission to reflect  further  on  this  issue  and  will  revert  to  the  matter  in  a  later  meeting,  in particular  with  a  view  to  establishing  procedural  guidelines,  including  CMFB consultation,   for   the   delivery   of   such   advice.   The   objective   of   this   new governance structure should be to maximise the certainty of the guidance offered to   the   Member   States.   This   should   also   address   possible   controversial classification issues for actual data.”
15 Rådskonklusioner om rådsbeslutning til Ungarn under artikel 104.8 EXCESSIVE DEFICIT PROCEDURE - HUNGARY “The    Council    reviewed    measures    taken    by    Hungary    following    the Recommendation  it  issued  on  8  March  2005  under  the  EU’s  excessive  deficit procedure.  In  this  Recommendation,  the  Council  had  invited  the  Hungarian authorities  to  put  an  end  to  the  present  excessive  deficit  situation  as  rapidly  as possible  and  to  take  action  in  a  medium-term  framework  as  foreseen  in  the Hungarian Convergence programme update of December 2004. It had also set a deadline  of  8  July  2005  for  Hungary  to  take  effective  action  regarding  the measures  envisaged  to  achieve  the  revised  2005  deficit  target  of  3.6%  of  GDP (including  the  pension  fund  contributions)  contained  in  the  December  2004 Convergence Programme update. While  a  number  of  additional  measures  were  taken  in  March  and  June,  the Council regrets that the 2005 target referred to in the Council recommendation of March  2005  will  be  missed  by  a  sizeable  margin  and  that  contrary  to  previous commitments the government decided not to take corrective action. Furthermore, the  Council  notes  that  the  2006  deficit  target  also  referred  to  in  the  Council recommendation  has  been  abandoned  and  even  the  new  much  looser  target  is unlikely  to  be  met.  The  Council  reiterates  its  recommendation  to  Hungary  of March 2005 to make the timing and implementation of tax cuts conditional upon the achievement of the deficit targets. The Council is concerned about the situation and outlook for public finances in Hungary. Without urgent and determined action by the Government, the growing fiscal imbalances do not only put at risk the credibility of the planned adjustment path  aiming  at  correcting  the  excessive  deficit  by  2008  but  also  jeopardise  the needed  improvement  in  macro-economic  imbalances  therefore  increasing  the vulnerability of the economy.”
16 Formandskabskonklusioner vedr. grænseoverskridende fusioner og virksomhedsopkøb i den finansielle sektor CROSS-BORDER CONSOLIDATION IN FINANCIAL SERVICES “The PRESIDENCY, and all Members of the Council except one: – NOTE   the   Commission   study   into   the   obstacles   to   cross-border consolidation in the financial services sector and ENCOURAGES further discussion on these issues in 2006. – SUPPORT the Commission’s on-going review of the existing supervisory rules in Article 16 of the Codified Banking Directive (2000/12/EC) and in the corresponding articles of the insurance Directives. – UNDERLINE   the   importance   of   fair,   transparent   and   consistent supervisory rules for mergers and acquisitions across EU financial markets and institutions to enhance the EU’s attractiveness for foreign investment and to ensure an efficient allocation of capital in the EU. In that respect, convergence  of  practices  and  increased  co-operation  among  supervisors should be promoted. – ENCOURAGE the Commission to: i. provide prudential criteria to improve transparency and result in a more  consistent  approach  to  shareholder  control  evaluation  by supervisory authorities in different Member States; ii. working with the relevant “level 3” supervisory Committees, base the   consistent   approach   on   a   clear   procedure   for   financial institutions  and  supervisory  authorities  to  follow  when  assessing qualifying shareholdings including obligations on transparency and market disclosure; iii. ensure sufficient supervisory co-operation in assessing a proposed acquisition   in   an   EU   cross-border   context,   reflecting   the respective responsibilities of the competent authorities concerned; iv. clarify the procedure that should be followed when the proposed acquirer is from outside the EU. – EMPHASISE the need for consistency across financial services sectors in the prudential rules that apply to mergers and acquisitions. – REQUEST that, in line with better regulation principles, the Commission undertakes    a    comprehensive    consultation    exercise    with    market participants and a full impact assessment of this review in advance of any formal proposals to the Council and the European Parliament.”
17 Råds konklusioner om Revisionsrettens sær   beretning om forvaltningen af Det Europæiske Kontor for Bekæmpelse af Svig (OLAF) EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS SPECIAL REPORT “The Council: 1. WELCOMES  the  European  Court  of  Auditors'  (ECA)  special  report concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office, which is part  of  the  Council  request  for  conducting  an  external  audit  of  OLAF, dated December 2003. 2. RECALLS that OLAF operates within a complex institutional framework, where numerous actors and authorities are directly or indirectly engaged in protecting  the  financial  interests  of  the  European  Union;  attaches  great importance to OLAF's independent investigative function in tackling fraud. 3. SHARES  ECA's  view  that  OLAF's  hybrid  status  has  brought  advantages and has not affected the independence of its investigative function and that there is no need to consider amending the Office's status at this stage. 4. URGES  OLAF  to  ensure  an  appropriate  balance  between  internal  and external 5. investigations; stresses the importance of mobilising its personnel in a more effective   way,   particularly   as   regards   the   introduction   of   targeted investigations  in  areas  where  the  risk  of  fraud  is  considered  to  be  the highest. 6. AGREES that resources should be refocused on OLAF’s investigative role. It  urges  the  Office  to  clarify  more  precisely  the  objectives  set  for  the investigators in every case and establish a time-recording system to measure investigators’ workloads. It considers that the Office should also assist the Commission in legislative follow-up and in the strategy for the protection of EU  financial  interests  and  that  financial  follow-up  should  not  be  part  of OLAF's remit. 7. AGREES  with  the  ECA's  approach  to  better  defining  the  role  of  the Supervisory Committee while recognising the usefulness of its monitoring of   the   implementation   of   the   Office.   The   Committee   should   avoid interfering  with  the  conduct  of  investigations  in  progress,  and  avoid overlaps between its role and the European Ombudsman. 8. STRESSES the importance of clarifying the rules on opening, closing and extending  investigations  carried  out  by  OLAF;  recalls  the  usefulness  of making a clear distinction between investigation and assistance.
18 9. WELCOMES the fact that, after a transitional setting-up period, the Office undertook  substantial  reorganisation  measures  in  November  2003  and introduced a registry and a case management system (CMS). 10.     SHARES  the  recommendation  of  the  ECA  on  the  need  to  shorten  the length  of  inquiries  carried  out  by  OLAF;  recommends  the  Office  to establish  a  target  maximum  duration  for  inquiries  and  to  submit  a  list concerning follow-up to the result of investigations based on whether it is of   an   administrative,   disciplinary   or   criminal   nature   to   all   relevant Institutions and parties. 11.     UNDERLINES   the   need   to   guarantee   the   legality   of   investigative procedures and to enhance procedural rights of defence for persons under investigation;   emphasises   the   need   to   remedy   discrepancies   in   the protection   of   persons   under   investigation   in   internal   and   external investigations; welcomes the publication by OLAF of its rules of procedure. 12.     INVITES   OLAF   to   establish   a   system   for   assessing   its   results;   the development  and  enhancement  of  performance  indicators  should  make  it possible to evaluate these.   13.     URGES OLAF and Member States to strengthen their cooperation in order to enhance coordination of their activities in the field of protection of EU financial  interests  and  fight  against  fraud;  considers  it  useful  to  improve procedures for information exchange to that end; shares ECA's view on the possibility  of  creating  a  special  structure  dedicated  to  coordination  and assistance operations. 14.     In  addition  to  the  views  expressed  by  the  Court,  CALLS  on  OLAF, EUROJUST and EUROPOL to improve their collaboration and notes with satisfaction  that  OLAF  and  EUROJUST  have  recently  started  to  work together  to  co-operate  within  their  respective  competences  regarding  the protection of the financial interests of the European Union. 15.     INVITES the Commission to regularly report back on the progress made following these conclusions. 16.     NOTES  finally  that  the  Commission  intends  to  present  an  amended proposal  concerning  Regulation  N.  1073/1999.  The  Council will  consider this proposal carefully, inter alia in the light of this special report.”